Tuesday 10th June 2025
Blog Page 2

Drinking the political compass

Stanley Smith
-
0
Drinking the political compass

Oxford’s political societies cultivated generations of MPs and PMs. In an era of rising populism, a tour of their drinking events finds a drifting elite with few ideas.

It’s a well-worn cliché that Oxford is the place where future politicians are made. The student party societies here are where Prime Ministers-to-be from Margaret Thatcher to Liz Truss first cut their teeth. But as the size of party memberships continue to fall and a populist surge increases the currency of being an ‘outsider’, what is the role of Oxford’s political societies in shaping British politics? Are these societies ready to grapple with modern politics or are they just another antiquated Oxford tradition? To find out, I spent four evenings this Trinity term drinking with the University’s wannabe politicians.

Beer and Bickering – Oxford Labour Club (OLC)

On a Saturday evening in early May I walked into St Anne’s JCR to a gathering of no more than 20 people. I’m starting with the party in power as I want to see how they react to the numerous announcements from the government over the Easter vacation. From the decision to slash Universal Benefit rates to Keir Starmer’s new conviction that trans women are not women – coinciding with recent interpretation of the Equalities Act by the Supreme Court – are student Labourites joining the government as it shifts to the right?

One quick notice is made before we get going. The welfare secretary stands up and implores us to avoid discussions of controversial ‘foreign affairs’ (translation: for the love of God don’t start talking about Israel-Palestine). One can understand why they are apprehensive, given Labour’s history of antisemitism controversies. But it also establishes that there will be strict parameters on tonight’s conversation.

“There’s clearly a lot of discontent with the Starmerite project, but OLC’s only response is apparently to gather once a week to collectively agree on uncontroversial principles.

There is a distinctly dour mood this evening and the cause becomes clear once the discussion of the first motion (‘this house would deprioritize economic growth’) gets going. Speaker after speaker gets up and expresses their despair with the economic policy of Starmer and Co. From the obsession with growth (“or whatever it is we’re doing,” as one man puts it), to the scrapping of the winter fuel payment (since reversed), Starmer’s decisions have distinctly dampened the excitement OLC members no doubt had this time last year.

As for what they would do differently? It’s less clear, but the need to rein in inequality and tax wealth are met with nods of approval. During the break I point out to one member that the arguments made sound a lot like the Greens’ positions, and ask why he doesn’t support them instead? “Ah well, I’m in too deep for that now,” he tells me.

During the discussion of the second motion, I’m less taken by the content of the arguments (the consensus is pretty clear that there shouldn’t be ‘a national religion’) than by who is doing the arguing. The speakers are almost all men; at one point I count eight in a row. I point this out to a member, and he grimaces, explaining that it’s long been an issue for OLC. Although the social secretary and both co-chairs this Trinity are women, he tells me that Beer and Bickering remains “a sausage-fest”. 

The rest of the evening passes uneventfully. The final motion (‘this house, as the Labour Party, would encourage strikes’) was again met with consensus: strikes are an essential tool but a last resort. As I walk home past drunken May Ball goers, I can’t help feeling that the lack of discord is somewhat by design. There’s clearly a lot of discontent with the Starmerite project, but OLC’s only response is apparently to gather once a week to collectively agree on uncontroversial principles. A lack of imagination, or more likely an eye on an internship in the party, seems to nip in the bud any interesting and (God forbid) controversial discussion of real policy alternatives.

Port and Policy – Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA)

A week later, I made an uncertain attempt at putting together a ‘lounge suit’ as per the Oxford University Conservative Association’s dress code. This feels like an unnecessary extravagance, given the venue: a dilapidated scout hut in New Marston.

I’m greeted by an American post-grad in an expensive looking three-piece suit who proudly explains that he will be ‘speaker of the house’ for tonight’s discussion and promptly returns to doing his ‘vocal warm ups’ (“BA – BA- BA!”). I shuffle over to the side of the room, picking up a flimsy plastic port glass as I go, and watch as the OUCA regulars trickle in. The men are all strikingly similar: under 6 foot tall, dressed in chinos, blazers and trainers and with precisely combed hair. More interesting, though, is the fact that they don’t dominate the makeup of attendees: the room is far more diverse in gender and ethnicity than OLC. It’s also substantially better attended, which is impressive for a party with the worst national polling in its history, and given how far out of the town centre we are.

I get to chatting with attendees. They quickly suss out that I’m new and I have bought membership (as I will for all the societies I visit) which lands me on the receiving end of some concerted networking efforts. Whereas with Beer and Bickering the conversation was pretty laid back, here I’m constantly asked for what my Instagram handle is and whether they’ve seen me before at the Oxford Union (they haven’t). It’s like everyone has just finished How to Win Friends and Influence People and is keen to put it into practice: “So tell me, Stanley, what EXACTLY is it that makes the food at Teddy Hall so great?” 

I’m relieved, then, when the ‘speaker’ bellows out that the first motion of the night will begin. I look around, waiting for the room to fall quiet, but the conversation continues as if nothing had happened. Instead, the participants in the debate begin screaming their arguments at the top of their lungs to a room which is evidently not listening. I move closer, trying to make out what they are saying, but I can’t for the noise of conversation. The three debaters resemble the street preachers on Cornmarket Street, shouting at distinctly uninterested passersby. 

“What I witnessed was a small elite jostling for an inheritance that’s long been spent.

Unable to glean anything from the participants, I begin asking questions of those around me. How do they feel about the recent local elections, in which the Conservatives lost 674 councillors? “I don’t think people here realise that Reform is an existential threat,” one member tells me once it’s just the two of us. It’s hard not to agree with his assessment. In all the conversations I have, the national party – or indeed politics – is hardly mentioned. When I ask people why they are here, they often appear a bit sheepish. They claim that they just fell into it, that it’s quite addictive, that it’s for the social side of things. Even at OUCA, being a Tory isn’t particularly cool. 

This is with the exception of one man, who points proudly to his tie displaying the emblem of the Heritage Foundation – the think tank central to Donald Trump’s election victories and behind the controversial Project 2025. I ask how he feels about the current ‘DOGE’ federal spending slashes, in particular on USAID. He has mixed feelings, there are some things he wishes they’d keep, “but others I’m happy to see go, like trying to get rid of HIV”. I wonder if I misheard him over all the shouting: “sorry, did you say you don’t want them to fund AIDs treatment?” He gives me a confused look: “Of course”.

Before I have time to ask further questions, the debate, occurring primarily between two blokes (one of whom is brandishing a large stick that makes him resemble a Tory Gandalf) finishes. The members gather for a rendition of ‘God Save the King’ (they all know the second verse), followed by an equally boisterous recital of ‘Jerusalem’, and leave to clamber into Ubers. 

I walk back to Cowley, lost as to what to make of the evening. I would comment on the motions chosen, the arguments made, but I couldn’t hear a word of it. If the voters went to the polls tomorrow, all evidence suggests that the Tories, already much reduced, would be decimated and it seems that the OUCA members wouldn’t bat an eye. Instead, the whole thing is just another fixture in the Oxford Union social scene: a rite of passage for ambitious Christ Church freshers and a place for forming useful connections. The state of the Conservative Party, currently barrelling towards irrelevancy, is merely an afterthought.

Rum and Revolution – The October Club

The following Friday I join my proletarian brothers (it’s all men) at a gathering of the communist October Club hosted in Magdalen, one of Oxford’s richest colleges. The stately Oscar Wilde Room is quite the contrast from the rundown scout hut where the Conservatives mustered. I’m handed a Guiness (I’m enjoying the communal spirit already) and we get cracking with the first motion: ‘do we have freedom of speech in modern Britain?’

The formula, in which we chat first in little ‘breakout groups’ before sharing our thoughts with everyone, works well. There’s none of the showmanship that comes with addressing a large crowd, so we’re actually able to have a normal conversation. We discuss incitement to violence, no-platforming on campuses, Kathleen Stock and the recent terror charges against a member of the Irish hip hop group Kneecap. 

Image Credit: Stanley Smith (for Cherwell)

Next up, ‘what would education look like under communism?’. At this point, it quickly becomes clear that there are very few actual communists in attendance. In our group is myself, an OLC committee member, and several Australian post-grads with distinctly liberal politics. The one actual October Club regular gets us started by voicing his objection to the “authoritarian power of the teacher” and advocating for a decentralised, communal approach to education: although he declines to flesh out what this would actually look like. The conversation is quickly steered to more ‘realistic’ aims, such as reducing the cost of higher education. During the whole group discussion, the faces of the committee members become increasingly downcast as they realise they are playing host to what is essentially left-leaning liberal chit chat, rather than real talk of revolution.

This divide comes to the forefront with the self referential motion ‘is Rum and Revolution counter-revolutionary?’ The Aussies, pretty inebriated at this point, are full of praise for the evening: “this is what we need, coming together to find common ground!” The communists are unimpressed, pointing out that sitting around talking placates us from taking real action. We might have affirmed our lefty values, but will we take part in any protests? Will we go down to the pro-Palestine encampment set up in the Angel and Greyhound Meadow? The fact that the room is entirely white and entirely male is raised, something that everyone agrees is a problem, but no one is quite sure how to address. The evening ends with this tension unresolved.

Out of all the parties I visit, the society most anxious to stop talking and start doing, through its lack of careerism and its well-structured format, is actually the best conduit for a good discourse. Unfortunately for the organisers, the conversation doesn’t always go in the direction they would like.

Liquor and Liberalism – Oxford Students Liberal Association

The following Wednesday, I stand outside of the venue in New College. I pause before entering, mentally preparing for another evening of endlessly introducing myself. When I walk in, however, I realise I won’t have to. Inside is every white man from Port and Policy, and one or two from Beer and Bickering as well. 

The setup is two long tables positioned so that, when we sit down, the sides are facing each other. This gives the room a distinctly House of Commons feel, a vibe that is bolstered by the conduct of the members. As the ‘speaker’ for the evening walks to the centre there are cheers, banging of tables, and shouts of ‘resign!’

The first motion? ‘This house believes that Britain was ‘“freest” between 1832 and 1918’. A man I recognise from OLC kicks off proceedings by pointing out the obvious: no, Britain wasn’t “freest” when women and working-class men couldn’t vote. “Point of information” interrupts the guy sitting next to him, with a big grin on his face. “Wouldn’t you say that everything was just so much better then?” Roars of laughter.

I realise now what I’m in for. Each speaker offers their own brand of edgy humour (Get the kids back in the mines! Rebuild the British Empire!) “It’s basically just a stand up comedy club,” the bloke I’m sitting next to takes it upon himself to explain. This isn’t eminently apparent to me as we endure a five minute speech given in all sincerity about how the decimation of the “British officer class” during World War I put Britain on a path of terminal decline. As for the ‘comedy’, many of the speakers don’t quite have the charisma to pull it off, nervously looking around the room and stumbling over their words as they quote a brain rot meme from TikTok.

“Across the board, these gatherings are not even pretending to have carefully-considered solutions to the very serious public policy issues facing the British people.

During the second motion (‘this house would cut the foreign aid budget’), there are a few more serious speakers. An ex-president gives an impassioned defence of foreign aid, while a committee member rails against it as an enormous waste before she is informed that we have, in fact, already slashed our spending. One member goes on a jingoistic tirade declaring that bombs, not nappies and bandages, are the way to assert Britain’s power on the world stage. I’m sitting next to her, so I can see the faces of the guys opposite as they light up with admiration.

The evening continues in this manner, three silly speeches for every serious one. I feel increasingly awkward being there in my capacity ‘as a journalist’. This doesn’t feel like a public political meeting of people brought together by shared values, certainly not by a commitment to the Liberal Democrats. Instead, I’m observing the goings on of a small friend group which just so happens to revolve around the Oxford political scene. In the same way I wouldn’t sit on the sofa with a group of friends I don’t know and stick everything they say in Cherwell, my presence feels like an unwanted intrusion.

Oxford politics: an increasing irrelevancy?

As with the national level, politics in Oxford seems more fixated with personality than party. Both Port and Policy and Liquor and Liberalism feel like another forum for aspiring BNOCs to mingle, rather than groupings with any sense of party identity. Beer and Bickering, on the other hand, seems to be suffering from the opposite problem. It’s so hamstrung by its commitment to the national party that it dares not voice alternatives to the policies of a government it’s clearly thoroughly disappointed in. Across the board, these gatherings are not even pretending to have carefully-considered solutions to the very serious public policy issues facing the British people. 

So what about the alternative parties? If you’re looking for a good discussion, I’m tempted to recommend the October Club, but they’re not always so welcoming to those less enlightened than themselves. There are also clear gaps in the political landscape. Both of the insurgent parties, Greens and Reform, have next to no presence, although many members of OUCA expressed their belief that it won’t be long before a ‘Stella and Stop the Boats’ is created.

Ultimately, the innovation which will shape tomorrow’s politics isn’t happening in Oxford anymore. British politics is no longer dominated by the friendships made by undergrads ready to take the reigns of powerful party machines. What I witnessed was a small elite jostling for an inheritance that’s long been spent. Far more important in the politics of today are social media algorithms, fury at living standards that haven’t improved since 2008, and a popular hatred of politicians. Wherever the politics of the future is, it’s surely very far from here.

The BNOC list 2025

Phoebe Davies, Laurence Cooke, and Satchel Walton
-
0
The BNOC list 2025

Whether you love them, hate them, or have no idea who they are, these are the names that people are talking about. If the past is any indication, some may go on to be the movers and shakers of our generation. Of course, a dictionary-definition BNOC usually operates in a few realms of student politics. But this list also has actors, DJs, writers, athletes, social media personalities, and even frogs. We hope that we have captured something of Oxford in all its strange, brilliant, sometimes chaotic variety. You can see more commentary from us below, but without further ado, here are Oxford’s most famous – and infamous – characters of 2025.

1. Shermar Pryce

3rd Year, Univ

In last year’s list, he told us “here for at least another year – watch this space”. That prediction turned out to be correct for the admin of some prominent Instagram accounts, SU President (or wait…?), and professional Malta-trip-hater. 

2. Anita Okunde


3rd Year, Magdalen

Union president this Trinity, Anita describes herself as “full-time wokerati” thanks to The Telegraph and additional reporting by a certain someone. She also enjoys photographing “Oxford’s coolest events”. 

3. Israr Khan

DPhil, Regent’s Park

Israr admits he’s probably a BNOC (because we weren’t sure) as he’s done “everything at Oxford” except his DPhil. That includes being Union President in Hilary.

4. Oxford Kermit

MSt, Wolfson

Also known as Josh Nguyen, Oxford Kermit runs an incredibly successful Instagram page. He shares relatable updates of his daily life around Oxford, seemingly never free of his situationship. 

5. George Abaraonye

2nd Year, Univ

Described by one voter as “the only genuine hack”, George is probably best known for ACS, HipHopsoc, and the Union. You might also recongnise him as ‘headphone guy’.

6. Catty Claire

2nd Year, Christ Church

Known for her many OUDS appearances, Catty has made it her mission to be in as many plays as possible until they kick her out of her degree. You may know her from Dangerous Liaisons, Closer, or just the show posters pinned up everywhere around Oxford. 

7. Moosa Harraj

MPhil, Balliol

Moosa was elected to be the next president of the Union, but with the current chaos at Frewin Court he might be there sooner than expected. We can only hope that he will be a #bridge to fiscal solvency. 

8. Anya Trofimova

2nd Year, St John’s

Current Union Librarian (vice president, vice president!) and a competitive debater who’s also been involved in student media, one nomination said that Anya “follows everyone, including on LinkedIn. Congrats on the training contract btw”. 

9. Samyul Ashik

1st Year, Balliol

Samyul claims to be well-known for running the freshers group chat, but our sources tell us that he is primarily known for spamming that chat asking people to nominate him for this list. Fair play, Samyul, BNOC behaviour indeed. 

10. NightSchool

2nd years, Worcester

Ethan Penny and Nahom Lemma have taken the Oxford music scene by storm, and can be found DJing bops, club nights, and events all over the city. In their own words: ‘We just put on great nights at Bully’

11. Harry Aldridge

1st Year, New

One nominator called him a “working class hero” for his work as the president of the 93% Club. You’ll probably know him for being everywhere, including on right-wing television. 

12. Selina Chen

2nd Year, Corpus Christi

A former Cherwell editor who knows too many OUCA people, Selina has been the driving force behind the paper’s recent success. We also felt obliged to put her on here as she did the illustration for this article. 

13. Reuben Meller

2nd Year, LMH

Most recently seen doing a backflip off a bridge (we’re not quite clear why), AI aficionado Reuben is the man behind the notoriously humble Presidents Summit. He also claims to own the film rights for Peter Mandelson’s Chancellor campaign. We know that ended well. 

14. Susie Weidmann

3rd Year, Brasenose

Susie is best known for her OUDS appearances and student journalism. Although, she told us that her biggest achievement was winning ‘Most BDE’ at Finalist Drinks. 

15. Brayden Lee

1st Year, Christ Church

First elected member of TSC in his first year, Brayden is surely a Union rising star. One source tells us that while he is a hack, he also “sends weirdly intimate voice notes instead of messages”. Hot. 

16. Benedict Masters

2nd Year, New

One nominator called him a “socially accaptable Boris Johnson” [sic]. We’re not quite sure on his views of Balkan geopolitics, but whatever they are, they are held with great conviction. We hope to see more from a classic Tory BNOC.

17. Chris Collins

4th Year, Corpus Christi

OUCA pres last term, Chris has also featured in Union presidential elections. A finalist, we just wonder where he finds the time, and wish him the best of luck with his Classics exams.

18. Darcey McAllister

1st Year, St Hilda’s

Darcey is best known as president of Oxford’s LGBTQ+ Society. “More importantly” (her words, not ours), she’ll be running the Hilda’s bar. She made us promise we’d mention that she will be found with a double pink gin in said bar, never in a lecture hall. 

19. Chloe Pomfret

2nd Year, St Catz

Chloe is perhaps best known for her TikTok, where she discusses her Oxford experience as a working class and care experienced student. She has also been involved in cheerleading, Class Act, and the 93% club.

20. Edmund Smith

2nd Year, Corpus Christi

Corpus organ scholar and OUCA guy, Edmund told us: “people have probably met me at P&P or the Union bar and then received a very nice message from me later in the term”. With the number of views on that Lord Dominic Johnston Instagram reel, he’s one of the most famous on the list. 

21. Olivia Cho

3rd Year, Keble

Olivia is a photographer, probably best known for hiding in the corner of balls, society events, and launches getting amazing pics. 

22. Connie Hilton

2nd Year, Keble

Connie is a Park End rep, meaning you probably will see her sporting their massive sunglasses, waving their infamous flag, or all over their Instagram page. 

23. Bee Barnett

2nd Year, St Hilda’s

Bee Barnett is known for their alternative fashion videos and Oxford content, amassing a massive 693.4k followers on TikTok (@bumblephii). Bee has also written for various student publications, and religiously attends Oxford’s goth and emo nights. 


24. Luca Burgess

3rd Year, LMH

Luca is best known for Martian Moves, the largest student-run electronic music night, Oxford’s very own ‘Intergalactic Boogie Service’. He has also launched a career in graphic design, photography, and DJing. 

25. Ella Bolland

3rd Year, Trinity

Ella is the ex-entz rep for Trinity, fondly known as ‘loud American’. You can always spot this short queen with her 6’8 boyfriend.

26. Roxana Rusu

2nd Year, St Anne’s

JCR president, keen rower, and RoSOC VP, Roxi sent in her submission late due to “rent negotiations” and “dj-ing latin party at Bridge”. Adhering to a self-described “intense” lifestyle, she told Cherwell: “in the words of Shakira, TRY EVERYTHING”. 

27. Michael Leslie

2nd Year, Corpus Christi

A self-described “washed OUCA and Union hack searching for a grade above a 2.2” and Corpus JCR pres, Michael is just trying to live a quiet life with his lover Edmund Smith (see 20). 

28. Matchbox Productions

4th Years, Exeter

Sonya Luchanskaya and Vasco Faria have set a new bar for OUDS productions. Staging 6 sell out shows, they continuously foreground fresh student writing and experimental techniques. Outside of theatre, Sonya spends her time DJing. Vasco also acts, and finds time to be a double rugby blue.

29. Cherwell Editors-in-Chief

2nd Years, Balliol and St John’s

Taking Cherwell by storm, Phoebe and Laurence have brought unprecedented success to the paper. In their own words, “Cherwell has never had it so good”. In the words of their underling, “Well, BNOChood is all about tooting your own horn, isn’t it?”

30. The Isis Editors-in-Chief

2nd Years, Balliol and New

Bound together unwillingly by our parent company, we present our awkward artsy cousin, The Isis. We’re sure with their obsession with being “cool and indie”, Joseph and Lina are outraged at being included. But, as we all know, there is nothing The Isis loves more than attention. 

Some humble conclusions

Behold, the highest fliers of our generation

Allen Ginsberg worried that the best minds of his generation were ruined by madness. If anything, Gen Z might have the opposite problem. Many of our most ambitious people cluster in a couple of societies, and then a couple of industries, that may not make as much of a difference to the world as we think. Of course, any ranking of BNOCs at Oxford that contains a kernel of truth will have lots of people from the most high-profile societies. I am pleased, though, that there is some diversity among this year’s BNOCs: writers and rowers; entz reps who aspire to better parties, and those who aspire to lead political parties.

As with all high-fliers, the line between their sincere commitments and their personal ambitions can be blurry. Their impenetrably complex Union fights and sometimes eye-roll-inducing Instagram stories might seem silly now, but the great and the good listed here will have real power as taste-setters and change-makers. In a recently published article, I reflect more on Gen Z’s top talent, and how the privilege of education conveys responsibility to use it for the public good. May all of us – BNOC or not – use our time and talents well.

– Satchel Walton, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Features

Actors, photographers, frogs

Before the responses started to flow in, I was ready to grit my teeth and include masses of Union hacks, who have undoubtedly been dreaming about BNOChood since the day their offer came in. It is true that, as ever, the hacks make up a large section of the list. In fairness, they are some of the most well-known people in Oxford. However, what’s exciting is how many names made the final list for reasons far beyond student politics. There are actors, DJs, writers, athletes, social media personalities, and even frogs. Yes, frogs. Sifting through nearly 2,500 nominations, I quickly realised how few people in Oxford I actually know (turns out spending all my time editing Cherwell hasn’t done wonders for my wider social life). Still, we hope that this list captures something of Oxford in all its strange, brilliant, sometimes chaotic variety.

– Phoebe Davies, Editor-in-Chief

Let’s talk logistics

Above all, the BNOC list is actually a tiring logistical operation. A huge amount of longlisting emails were sent, numbers were crunched, more ‘serious’ editorial responsibilities ignored, until we arrived here. Whether you agree or disagree with this year’s ordering, just know that we’ve basically been guided by two principles: i). democracy (the more nominations, the higher you placed) and ii). not making the list entirely Union people. With 23% of nominations coming in for people whose main claim to fame was the Union, and a further 28% from the ‘Other’ category (which seems to have been used for ‘Union + other things’), we’ve tried to reflect the profile of nominations as accurately as possible in our final list.

It isn’t easy, though, especially when you have to sift real nominations from spam. Spam entries were present in most of the top ten, so it’s safe to assume either they themselves were desperate to be on the list, or they have very enthusiastic friends. 

– Laurence Cooke, Editor-in-Chief

Oxford Union believes no one can be illegal on stolen land

Arina Makarina
-
0
Oxford Union believes no one can be illegal on stolen land

Last night the Oxford Union passed the motion “This House believes that no one can be illegal on stolen land”, with 98 members voting in favour and 82 members voting against.

It was preceded by the emergency debate on the motion “This House believes that nothing ever happens”. With a close split, the chamber decided that something sometimes does happen.

Opening for the proposition was the President of the Union, Anita Okunde. She argued that “every single border was drawn with nothing…but blood”, pointing to examples ranging from New Zealand and Palestine to the US and African countries. This, she contended, means that borders and citizenships are arbitrary. She also maintained that “the global war on migrants” is a continuation of the colonial legacy and entails a “war on indigenous people”. Speaking of the opposition speakers the President noted an interesting coincidence: all of them were white men.

The first opposition speaker was Victor Marroquin-Merino, a standing committee member. He was surprised to see the President arguing for the motion, considering she passed the motion banning the ex-president from the Union premises. Marroquin-Merino argued that the motion is a “slogan” and the propositions’ argument is unrealistic. He called the motion a luxury belief, “idea that signals virtue without any of the costs” and “crashes and burns” when faced with reality. He noted that by this logic no law on stolen land would hold, causing “the state of nature”. “The questions of legitimacy cannot depend on questions of origins”, he concluded.

Then, Yeji Kim, Director of Media and a scholar of forced migration, spoke arguing that historical justice demands “visas as reparations”. She argued that colonial powers bear responsibility for the consequences of them creating artificial borders, and without it they would commit “moral betrayal”. To exemplify this, she spoke of cases like those of Chagos Islands, Hong Kong, and Gaza, where colonial rule triggered displacement of the indigenous people, who then did not receive consideration for visas in the UK. “Justice is…a passport in a pocket”, Kim concluded.

Up next was Andrew Arthur, resident fellow in Law and Policy for the Centre for Immigration Studies. He argued that people hardly ever lived on land that was not stolen. He asserted that the current system is “generous”, but “you gotta [sic.] play by the rules”. He argued that unfiltered immigration would make the assimilation of migrants in society impossible and have a negative impact on social services and working conditions. He ended the speech by saying, “if you support immigration as I do…you must be against this motion.”

He was followed by Aviva Chomsky, an American professor specialising in Latin history and immigration. Her first claim was that the “term illegal is illegitimate when applied to human beings” and this “colonial term” is used to justify exclusion and legal inequality. Further, she argued that defining immigrant workers, whom Western economies depend on, as illegal justifies their exploitation and a refusal to grant them citizenship. She also maintained that many immigrants are indigenous people who have been forced to migrate, so colonial history must be reckoned with.

The next speaker, RJ Hauman, President of the National Immigration Centre for Enforcement (which eerily abbreviates to NICE), said the motion was personal to him considering years of “advising the White House”. He spoke of how abandoning tight immigration control causes the exploitation of social benefits, the destruction of patriotism, and many other detrimental effects. “The virus then consumes its host”, as he put it. Hauman then declared that “Western people are under siege” and face displacement by illegal immigrants that “wanna possess [sic]” the US. He then said that even if the land was taken in a “harsh way”, the dwellers of it should not bear the consequences. Hauman spoke out against Biden’s administration saying that under their rule “borders became suggestions”. “My duty is to preserve, not to apologise to oblivion”, he rounded up.

The final speaker for the proposition, Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the first Muslim woman in Australian Parliament, paid respect to the aboriginal land that is Australia and lamented its “grievous immigration regime”. She argued that instead of acknowledging the colonial legacy and injustices against the indigenous people, Australia “doubled down”. Senator Farqui contended that the system is still racist and colonial, and is used to maintain white nationalism, of which she remarked that “the speaker before me made the case better than I could have” (Hauman seemed to have a very intense internal monologue at these words). She concluded by calling for racial justice, which can only be achieved by the motion.

The debate was concluded by Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand David Seymour. He made a few concessions to the proposition, agreeing that every border is drawn in blood. However, he believes that drawing a line in history of where the “stealing” began would be arbitrary and would only “reinforce prejudices”. Seymour claimed that improving the state is only possible if the state is able to set their own laws. He concluded by saying that the opposition also wants to improve the well-being of citizens, but “[w]e just have a more critical, not idealistic way of doing it”.

Mini-crossword: TT25 Week 6

Zoë McGuire
-
0
Built with the crossword puzzle creator from Amuse Labs

Previous mini-crosswords this term:

Follow the Cherwell Instagram for updates on our online puzzles.

For even more crosswords and other puzzles, pick up a Cherwell print issue from your JCR or porters’ lodge!

‘Love in the face of hate’: A closer look at ‘Blood Wedding’

Emma Nihill Alcorta
-
0
‘Love in the face of hate’: A closer look at ‘Blood Wedding’

Emma Nihill Alcorta is the director of a new adaptation of the Spanish masterpiece Blood Wedding, running at the Oxford Playhouse.

With flamenco rhythms and Spanish soul, our passionate ensemble and live, onstage band are bringing a bold new adaptation of Federico García Lorca’s Spanish tragedy, Blood Wedding (Bodas de Sangre), to the Oxford Playhouse. 

We started with a fresh translation of the text. There are many beautiful translations of Blood Wedding, but I was determined to develop something tailor-made which celebrated the melding of twentieth-century Andalucía with twenty-first century Oxford, preserving sections of Lorca’s original Spanish poetry (accompanied by surtitles), whilst radically reimagining certain characters and sections of dialogue. I was also resolved to make the English text sing on its own terms with its own voice.

Alongside this translation, Elsa Vass-de-Zomba has created a transcendent, flamenco-inspired score. Combined with fiery choreography by Carlos Araujo and Lucy Williams, we’ve made a Blood Wedding that dives into the rich sound and movement of Lorca’s Andalucía. As much about joy as it is about tragedy, our production is a celebration of cultural exchange. Blending radically adapted, contemporary English dialogue with Spanish folklore, song, and flashes of Lorca’s verse, our band and 22-strong ensemble delve into the endlessly relevant themes of love in the face of hate, and courage in the face of violence; they speak as urgently to us as they did to Federico García Lorca.

As a half-Spanish, half-Australian actor, I’ve been thrilled by the amount of enthusiasm I’ve encountered for bilingual, cross-cultural theatre here in Oxford. When I hear English and Spanish intermingling in rehearsals and meetings, or listen to drafts of Elsa’s score, I’m overjoyed that this kind of storytelling is not only possible, but emphatically welcomed by so many people. Our ensemble and creative team represent an incredible blend of Hispanophone and Anglophone perspectives that have combined to make this production powerful and truly beautiful.

A 20th century Romeo and Juliet, Lorca’s masterpiece asks what it means to love dangerously and deeply, and what it takes to defy tradition. Presented with lyricism and love, this is a production for our times:

Andalucía. Summer. 1932. 

Under the burning Andalusian sun, a woman is set to marry a man she does not love. Tables are laid, vows are spoken, and the woman condemns herself to a traditional life walled inside a house of stone. But another man has been riding to her window in the dead of night, calling her name on the wind, and she begins to wonder if the burden of tradition might be too heavy to bear. If passion drove you mad, would you risk it all?

Written in the summer of 1932, Lorca’s acclaimed rural tragedy is a story of arid land and tough people, where societal expectations are rigidly defined and hidden yearnings simmer under the surface of convention. From the pen of an internationally revered Spanish playwright, Blood Wedding is a masterpiece of exquisite poetry and raw human longing.

Our brand-new company Full Moon Theatre is shaking things up with a razor-sharp adaptation of a Spanish masterpiece that demands to be staged again and again.

Come join the dance. We’ll see you at the Playhouse!

The final performances of Blood Wedding will be at 14:30 and 19:30 on Saturday 7th June at the Oxford Playhouse. 

Wake of the Locks: Baldness, and mourning my hair

Ben O'Brien
-
0
Wake of the Locks: Baldness, and mourning my hair

You don’t think it will happen to you until it does. In fact, you don’t think of it at all, because you aren’t one of the men who are losing their hair. Then, one day, suddenly, you are. It’s the summer vac and you’re sitting on the sofa with the sun shining in. Your girlfriend comes in and says something to you about lunch. As you reply, you notice her looking at you with a frown that turns into a grimace. She points to a small area near your left temple where the sun is reflecting off your head in a way she swears it’s never done before. You tell her she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But she comes closer and starts inspecting your head like if she was looking for lice. I think you’re losing your hair, she says. You’re going mad, you say. I’ve only just finished prelims – I’m in the prime of my life! Go and look in the mirror, she says.

From that day on, you can’t walk past a mirror without stopping and inspecting your head. You borrow your mum’s handheld mirror and hold it at different angles above your head whilst standing in front of the bathroom mirror, trying to get a direct look at that one little spot of thinning. Sometimes, during these mirror sessions, you convince yourself that it’s not true – your girlfriend made a mistake, it was just a trick of the light, or maybe it’s grown back. But in the end you always find that one angle that shows you it definitely is true. There’s no two ways about it: you are a man who is losing his hair. 

Eventually you take the plunge and start googling hair loss. Quickly you find out it has a name: male pattern baldness. Instead of reassuring you, this only makes you feel worse. Male. Pattern. Baldness. You officially have a condition. 

Google research leads you to a plethora of hair-loss clinics, which do transplants. You spend some time looking at these. Some of them have websites that look like they were designed by small children, with weird fonts and spelling mistakes. Others look shiny and professional, with pictures of smiling male doctors wearing lab coats and holding clipboards as they talk to hopeful-looking men without a hair on their head. You go to a part of the house where nobody can hear you, and dial the number. A woman with a kind voice picks up. You introduce yourself and blurt out, sounding way more upset than you intended, that you’re losing your hair. In her now-sympathetic voice the woman says she’s sorry to hear that, and asks if she can take some details before talking you through possible treatments. But there is something about the word treatments that makes you recoil. Hang on a minute, you say, treatments? But I’m not ill – in fact I hardly have a problem at all —  it was only a tiny spot on the side of my head, it’ll probably just grow back. You tell the woman about the boy at school who had large clumps of his hair fall out only for it all to grow back a few months later. I understand, the woman says, unable to mask her scepticism. Why don’t I just send you our brochure and you can have a think about it? You hang up.

Denial fully sets in. One evening, you go upstairs and scour the internet, looking for the perfect hairstyle that, you’ve decided, will mark a new beginning in your life. Eventually you come across a picture of Ryan Gosling. Here is Ryan, standing on the beach, his muscular torso exposed, his thick blonde-brown hair swept over in a stylish side-parting. This one is perfect, you say. You print the image, fold it up, and put it in your wallet, ready for your appointment at the hairdressers the next day.

The hairdresser welcomes you with her usual smiles and friendliness. She sits you in the chair and drapes the apron over you. You take out the photo of Ryan and give it to her. She looks at it, smiles oddly, looks back at you, then back at the photo. You see her face falling. That’s not going to be possible, she says. She shakes her head as if to say it’s not worth protesting. No point denying it anymore. 

When Michaelmas begins, you have a shaved head. Better to cut it off than to let it fall off, you tell yourself. You’re nervous about the comments, but, to your surprise, people are complimentary. A shaved head suits you, they say, you have the right head shape for it – maybe even you look better without hair than with. These all make you feel somewhat better. Still, you miss having hair.

And so the denial creeps back in. One day, you decide to start growing it back again. Maybe it wasn’t really that bad – after all, it was only a tiny spot that was pretty much invisible unless the sun was shining directly on your head. You let it grow. Three weeks later, you have what looks like patches of moss growing over your head. It’s not a good look. People start frowning. Why don’t you shave it all off again, someone says. Or why don’t you go to Turkey, somebody else says, I hear they do good hair transplants. Laughing it off, you tell them no, you’d rather accept your condition than fight it: there are only two types of men in this world, those who accept their hair loss and those who don’t. You shave your hair off again. Life goes on. But every couple of weeks or so, you look at flights to Turkey. 

Why Are UK Universities So Popular?

External Contributor
-
0
Why Are UK Universities So Popular?

UK universities continue to attract thousands of international students each year, thanks to their academic reputation and welcoming culture.

Despite global shifts in education trends, these institutions consistently offer strong value through practical teaching, global recognition, and diverse student experiences. The UK remains one of the most sought-after destinations for higher education.

Career Opportunities That Open Doors

Graduating from a UK university can significantly impact your professional path. Employers across industries value the training students receive, especially in areas such as communication, analysis, and teamwork. A UK degree often makes candidates more competitive in international markets and can support long-term growth in both traditional and emerging fields.

Tailored Learning and Academic Writing Support

For students who need help managing their assignments, support services are widely available. Whether you’re balancing part-time work or learning a new subject, lots of students ask if someone can write my essay for me. While that is a nice thought (and can sometimes be done!), more often than not – and unlike universities in other countries – it’s down to you to make sure that essay gets done. But academic writing support does exist, which can definitely be utilised.

Embracing Global Cultures in the Classroom

Students in the UK benefit from studying in an environment where different cultures and perspectives are part of everyday life. This exposure helps foster open-mindedness and prepares graduates for life in a connected world. Classrooms in the UK often encourage dialogue, collaboration, and respect for differing ideas, making the experience both educational and personal.

Flexible Programmes Across Disciplines

One reason behind the UK’s popularity is the variety of academic choices. Whether you are interested in engineering, law, psychology, or the creative industries, there’s a programme that matches your ambitions. Course structures often allow for electives and interdisciplinary learning, giving students the freedom to shape their education.

High Academic Expectations

Some of the world’s oldest and most respected universities are found in the UK. These institutions are known for research that influences industries worldwide. Academic staff frequently have strong industry connections, offering insights that go beyond textbooks. Learning in such an environment helps students build deep knowledge and real-world awareness.

Study Faster, Spend Less

Compared to other countries, UK degrees usually take less time. A bachelor’s degree is typically finished in three years, and master’s programmes often last just one. This condensed format allows students to graduate sooner, reducing costs and helping them enter the job market more quickly.

A Lifestyle Full of Possibilities

Life outside the classroom in the UK offers just as much learning as lectures do. With its historic cities, beautiful landscapes, and diverse cultural events, the country is an exciting place to study. Students can explore music, art, sports, and history in a setting that combines the modern with the traditional.

Access to Financial Aid

Scholarships are available for many students, both local and international. Some awards are based on academic results, while others focus on economic need or personal achievements. These financial options help students reduce the cost of studying and can make attending a UK university more attainable.

Gaining Work Experience

International students on full-time courses are allowed to work part-time during the term and full-time during holidays. This makes it easier to support yourself and gain valuable job experience. Working while studying also helps develop professional skills and can lead to job opportunities after graduation.

Maintaining High Academic Standards

To maintain teaching quality, UK universities are regularly reviewed. These evaluations help institutions stay aligned with international standards. As a result, students can trust they’re receiving a degree that carries weight, no matter where their future takes them.

Final Thoughts

The popularity of UK universities stems from a strong mix of academic rigor, cultural inclusivity, and practical benefits. With flexible learning paths, respected degrees, and vibrant student life, these institutions appeal to a wide range of learners. Whether your goal is professional success, personal growth, or global experience, studying in the UK offers a meaningful and rewarding path forward.

Why Are Gamers Choosing Smart Play Over Grinding This Year?

External Contributor
-
0
Why Are Gamers Choosing Smart Play Over Grinding This Year?

Do you ever feel like you are just going through the motions in a game? Earlier, I used to be all about these grind-heavy games. I used to spend hours collecting loot, repeating the same missions, and all that. But lately, I just can’t be bothered. If a game doesn’t grab me with a smart challenge or a solid story, I am out.

I have now noticed that I am leaning more towards games that actually make me think, once that reward my skill, and not just how many hours I have played. I feel like, why waste time on rinse and repeat gameplay when there are games out there that actually respect my time?

Now we can tell that the industries are catching on, too. Developers are shifting away from the endless grind and focusing more on clever mechanics and deeper experiences, and honestly, I am here for it. Playing smarter just feels better than playing longer for the sake of it, you know?

Smart Start: Skip The grind, Jump Into The Fun

Honestly, I don’t see skipping the early grind as cheating anymore. It’s just playing smart, especially in the open world games, where the real fun starts once you have got the right gear.

Like in GTA 5, for example, now you no longer need to spend hours grinding just to unlock a decent car because you can just use GTA 5 accounts with modded cars to unlock fully customised vehicles from the get-go. 

I have tried it and it completely changed my experience. You get to dive straight into the good stuff like exploring the map, taking on amazing missions, and just enjoying the excitement without wasting time on the same repetitive tasks. It is not about taking shortcuts now, and it is about getting to the fun part faster.

Goodbye Grind, Hello Smart Play

You know, earlier the grind used to be something we wore like a badge of honour because we spent hours in games and then saw some improvement in our level. I remember spending endless time in games like World of Warcraft or Borderlands 2, just doing the same quest repeatedly for loot or XP. Back then, it felt normal, but now? Man, it’s starting to feel more like a chore than a challenge.

A lot of us have just hit that point where we want our time to be respected. I want meaningful progress, not “do the same thing 300 times, and maybe you will level up” from my games because it’s exhausting. I don’t have the patience I used to, and honestly, I don’t think I should need it just to enjoy a game.

These days, I want to feel like I’m actually achieving something right from the start, not 20 hours in. Also, I am not alone. More and more players are expecting systems that give real rewards without all the busy work. Grinding for the sake of grinding? Yeah, that era’s fast-feeding.

What’s Fueling The Shift?

You know what I have realised from all the times I’ve played? Time is basically the new currency for gamers. Between work, school, and just life in general, I think nobody wants to waste hours on games that don’t give something back. If I’m sitting down to play, I want to feel like that, time actually mattered, you know?

That is why I’ve been loving games like Baldur’s Gate 3 and Hades. They don’t just reward how long you have played the game, but also how you play. Your decisions, your skill, even your creativity, all count, and the progression feels earned without falling into the trap of “grind this for six hours, just to move the needle.”

Plus, gamers today are way more aware and clued in. With social media, reviews and streams, developers cannot hide behind the old time-sink formulas anymore. People are speaking up and saying, “ hey, we want smart systems, not endless busy work” and practically speaking, I’m all for it.

How Game Design Is Adapting

It is actually cool to see how developers are starting to switch things up lately. Instead of just cramming in more and more content for the sake of it, they are actually focusing on quality now. Like you must have seen, now games don’t feel as bloated with grinding stuff anymore. It’s tighter, more focused, and the rewards actually feel meaningful.

AI and procedural generation are helping a lot with that too. In the games, the world feels more alive and varied without developers having to handcraft every little thing. It cuts down on the repetition, which is such a relief.

There are games like Deep Rock Galactic or Prince of Persia: The Lost Crown. These games are great examples of how you can still have satisfying progression without demanding players to sink endless hours. These games show that they respect your time and still keep things fun and engaging.

It really feels like game design now is more about giving players freedom and variety, and not just a checklist of things to grind through. Honestly, it’s a very refreshing change.

Conclusion

This whole grind-your-soul-out-for-basic-progress thing? It’s so last decade. These days gamers are not here for the “continue doing this, and maybe you will level up” crap. 

I mean we have got things to do, snacks to eat and other games to play. We are all about getting to the good stuff without the digital equivalent of peeling potatoes for 10 hours. I know that doesn’t mean we are cutting corners, it means we are playing smart. 

I mean, why suffer through a long when you can dive straight into the action with a few clever moves? So no, we are not skipping the journey. We are skipping the part where the journey feels like unpaid, Digital labour and honestly? That’s just common sense.

Duplicity, infidelity and loyalty in ‘Crocodile Tears’

Phoebe Davies
-
0
Duplicity, infidelity and loyalty in ‘Crocodile Tears’

“An Italian summer romance that goes wrong” – this is how Crocodile Tears was first pitched to me by its writer, Natascha Norton, when I sat down with her and director Rosie Morgan-Males. But it soon became clear that this simple description understates the latest offering from Labyrinth Productions. Crocodile Tears delves into a raw, emotionally charged relationship between two characters on the edge of romantic possibility, even if everything around them seems to be falling apart. While Natascha was careful not to give too much away, she hinted that the play deals with questions of infidelity, loyalty, and what makes betrayal feel justifiable. 

For Labyrinth Productions, coming off a run of boundary-pushing shows, Crocodile Tears might be their most ambitious project yet. The play knits together film, theatre, and music into a multimedia experience, treading a fine line between emotional realism and immersive abstraction. Expect projection sequences, animation, snippets of Italian, and much more.

Rosie explained: “It’s like running a short film, but not one that’ll be edited into a standalone short film – something interwoven with theatre.” This is certainly an ambitious blending of mediums. Theatre is immediate, whereas film is slow and meticulous. “That’s the challenge,” Rosie told me. “Theatre asks: how do we get emotion in the moment? Film says: let’s colour grade for four days.

“We want to pull those emotional beats of film into a live, theatrical space. I think our generation has lost that sense of film as a collective experience. Film is not really seen as a shared experience anymore, and I’d love to flip that on its head and bring people back together.”

That cinematic inspiration is everywhere in Crocodile Tears, from the lingering, dreamlike shots of Fellini’s 8½, to Joachim Trier’s existential tragicomedy The Worst Person in the World. “Think Luca Guadagnino,” they told me, pointing to his evocation of summer desire in Call Me by Your Name, sun-drenched and full of longing.

I wanted to hear more about the writing process. Natascha explained how the play grew out of her time living in Italy during her year abroad, a personal touch that brought emotional authenticity to the script. Of course, transforming something so personal into a collaborative project came with its challenges.

“We had some honest conversations,” Natascha says. “‘Take it in whatever direction feels right’, I told Rosie, because I totally trust her vision. I say this all the time, but seeing what she did with Closer, I’m in awe.”

Coming at it from a directorial position, Rosie added: “From my side, it’s hard transforming something personally motivated into theatre. When you’re in it emotionally, it makes great material, but turning it into something theatrical takes distance. The only reason it works is because of the professional and personal bond we have. We can access that emotion without needing five years of hindsight.”

Given the emotional terrain Crocodile Tears covers, I was curious how Rosie’s recent experience handling intimacy in Closer, at the Pilch earlier this term, fed into this project. 

“Closer was very much ‘you get what you see.’ It was about downplaying physical intimacy to highlight narrative,” Rosie explained. “This is about what happens outside of narrative. I was just rehearsing with our lead and talking about internal monologue. How do we project that outside the body and let everyone in on it? That’s what makes this piece unique – sitting with thoughts and panic that usually stay internal. Closer was about external events; this is about inner life.”

This is why they leaned into multimedia. While the stage helps with immersion, film is perfect for communicating those abstract emotions, dreams, or intrusive memories. Closer was intimate in a physical sense, yet Crocodile Tears aims to tap into a ‘collective intimacy’. 

I asked them both what they hoped audiences will take away from the show.

For Natascha, “it’s about finding comfort in discomfort – or making discomfort comforting. Yes, it’s an escape, but it deals with intense emotions. The most impactful art is when you relate to it on a personal level, even if it doesn’t reflect your reality. I want audiences to feel something, maybe not always pleasant, but cathartic. To recognize themselves in something they thought would make them feel isolated.”

Rosie agreed. “Yeah, it’s saying it’s okay to overthink. We all spiral, and just because you can’t always express it to your friend doesn’t make it any less real. The themes are tough, but we’re presenting them in a way that’s digestible. It lets you sit with them for a bit, not overwhelm you. It’s a different kind of art form.” 

Labyrinth Production’s staging of Crocodile Tears will be running at the Burton Taylor Studio, 10th-14th June. 

Review: The Great Gatsby – ‘Indulge the extravaganza’

Peter Chen
-
0
Review: The Great Gatsby – ‘Indulge the extravaganza’

Sophia Eiden’s production of Simon Levy’s script of The Great Gatsby is an undoubted triumph. I was, if only for a moment, transported back to the Roaring Twenties; to a bygone era of excess, extravagance, and endless exhilaration. The setting of Trinity College gardens only heightened this sense of temporal dislocation. One could easily imagine such scenes playing out there a century ago. The costume and set design team, led by Mikela Persson Caracciolo and Naomi Flexman, struck a delicate balance: faithful to the period yet refreshingly tasteful to the modern eye. Most impressive of all was the live band – a rarity in student theatre – which injected the performance with an energy and vibrancy that elevated the entire production.

Directors Izzy Moore and George Loynes have coaxed exuberant, nuanced performances from the cast. Isabel Clarke imbued Daisy with such quiet anguish that even the glint in her eyes seemed to ache, pulling the audience into her heartbreak. In her, I could feel – and I don’t know whether this was intentional – fragments of a certain Princess of Wales, who was equally trapped in a loveless marriage. Alexander McCallum brought a nervy, moral intensity to Nick Carraway, exposing the shallowness of the Jazz Age with each incredulous glance. I was left utterly terrified by Gillies MacDonald’s Tom Buchanan, whose handsome rage was both palpable and authentic, whose silence often spoke louder than his words.

Less convincing, however, was Dominic Murphy-O’Connor’s portrayal of the titular character, Gatsby. At pivotal moments, his performance faltered; not for lack of talent, but for a want of emotional depth. Some of his most charged scenes were undermined by audience laughter, and the lack of chemistry between him and Clarke made their supposed romance difficult to believe. I was, however, moved by the love affair – albeit brief – between Nick Carraway and Tessa Yates’s Jordan Baker. Yates’s performance was sharp, poised, and deliciously sly; her Jordan had McCallum’s Nick chasing his own tail.

As great as the rest of the production was, I must express some misgivings about the choreography. The problem isn’t that Elektra Voulgari Cleare and the directors failed to create convincing movements that utilised the extraordinary space they were provided. Quite the contrary, in fact. The overall flow of the play and complete immersion of the audience from all directions were huge strengths of the production. However, the cast – especially the leads – did not seem to be very committed to the few dance sequences, and it gave the impression that dancing was a box to tick rather than an extension of the performance.

The true standout performances of the show, however, were those of Jane Brenninkmeyer and Fynn Hyde. Brenninkmeyer’s short but powerful portrayal of Myrtle moments before her death sends shockwaves through your bones and brought me to the verge of tears. I could feel her (and George Eustance’s George B Wilson’s) desperation in their circumstances and the feeling that they’ve lost control over their own lives. At the same time, I was completely mesmerised by Hyde’s Chester McKee. Though the role was minor, Hyde brought compelling complexity and fantastic flair to a character who has long intrigued readers, myself included, and he offered a version of McKee that was richly idiosyncratic. In some ways, Hyde was exactly how I had imagined Mr McKee, and more.

Altogether, this production is a dazzling indulgence, a celebration of all that makes Fitzgerald’s work so enduring. Everyone involved should be deeply proud. For those lucky enough to catch it, this is a Gatsby worth getting lost in.

123...2,509Page 2 of 2,509

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley