Friday, May 23, 2025
Blog Page 227

Ten years of the Dark Knight trilogy

0

It’s been ten years since the trilogy that shaped my entire life came out. This morning, I rolled out of bed, put on my Batman t-shirt, and then flicked through my Batman encyclopaedia. I then put on my favourite scene from The Dark Knight (the ending), before casually glancing at my Batman poster put up on my wall. I realise, I am sick of Batman films.

The Dark Knight trilogy is lauded not just for the acting, dialogue, and score (which are best appreciated within the context of movies themselves), but also for its deeper exploration of themes, and character. But in the wake of arguably the greatest superhero trilogy, both the successes and the weaknesses of the trilogy lead only to the conclusion that it is time to put the Batman away.

Alongside Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy, Nolan proved that superhero films could be more than just action sequences strung together; the trilogy is an attempt at serious exploration of character and themes. Starting with character, we have a clear character arc across the trilogy as Batman/Bruce Wayne fuse together and are broken apart. Batman starts as the manifestation of Bruce Wayne’s fears as a child, returning to Gotham to continue his parents’ war on poverty in Gotham. At the end of the film, from the words of his love interest, Rachel, it becomes clear that “[Bruce], the man who vanished, he never came back at all”. His persona as Bruce Wayne was merely an act, supporting his life as Batman. 

In the second film, his choices as Bruce Wayne consumes his life as Batman, when it is his love for Rachel that causes him to choose to save her and not Harvey Dent, inadvertently creating the villain Two-Face. And at the end of the Dark Knight, when the Batman must disappear for the sake of Gotham, Bruce Wayne, too, vanishes. In his mind, the two are shown to be one. In the conclusion of the trilogy, we see the gradual process of separation between the two. He starts the film only living as Bruce Wayne to fulfil his function as Batman; but he sees the impact of what has happened through him neglecting his life as Bruce Wayne (such as the underfunding of the city’s orphanages). Similarly, his interactions with Alfred make him realise that Batman and Bruce Wayne do not need to be one and the same. So, at the close of the film, when Batman has given his life to the city, in the words of Jim Gordon, everyone knows that Batman has saved them, while Bruce Wayne is free to live his life peacefully with Selina Kyle. The trilogy explores the distance between the billionaire and the vigilante, giving a full and complete character arc to the hero that, in my opinion, has not been rivalled since.

Other more recent interpretations of Batman have struggled to come up with anything as compelling and innovative. Snyder’s version adopted the arc of recovery from despair for Batman. While this version has its own flaws (such as the hypocrisy involved with Batman’s killing of criminals, but not of his enemies), it borrows from the Dark Knight trilogy in its fusion of Batman and Bruce Wayne, but it does not do much more with it. The recovery of Batman’s mental state is also interesting, in the way that Superman inspires Batman. However, it is not nearly as effective as Nolan’s version because, for Snyder, Batman is a supporting character in Superman’s struggle to be a symbol of hope.

Reeves’s version of the character focusses on the also focusses on the separation of Batman and Bruce Wayne, and the establishment of Batman as a force for hope, and not just vengeance. The issue here is subtler. Admittedly, while it draws on the same motifs as the Dark Knight trilogy, particularly Batman understanding the depths of the problems in Gotham, and his realisation that he can be a source of hope, there is space for further development in future films. But the very fact that it has had to go back over the same ground of the Dark Knight trilogy is not promising for further iterations of the character. The best compliment for the deleted scene from Reeves’s movie, in which the Batman interrogates the Joker, is specifically that it gets the dynamic ‘“right’”, not that it is interesting or innovative. One of the most effective aspects of the Dark Knight was the relationship between Batman and the Joker (and Heath Ledger’s performance), but subsequent versions of this dynamic hadhave to start by treading along the same ground.

Treading along the same ground is not necessarily a negative thing. In doing so, there is opportunity to adapt and innovate, such as exploring the concept of Batman’s no-killing rule against the context of a broken, desperate Batman, or further exploration of Gotham as a city against the backdrop of Bruce Wayne’s inseparability from Batman, as in Matt Reeves’s version. Both of these new iterations build upon the groundwork laid by the Dark Knight trilogy.

The Dark Knight trilogy also proved that superhero films could also be serious, unlike the rather camp previous, rather camp interpretations of Batman, or even Spider-Man. So, Man of Steel was greenlit, and Zack Snyder was allowed to offer a gritty version of Superman. Arguably, Zack Snyder’s universe has been too ‘“dark’”, but Christopher Nolan proved that it could work.

However, the serious tone of the Nolan’s version raises political issues that Snyder and Reeves have failed to solve. Though the Dark Knight trilogy questions US intervention into its citizens’ lives, and the nature of retaliation against terrorism, or how Heath Ledger’s Joker represents anarchy and the breakdown of government, it does not deal with extra-judicial brutality by supposed upholders of justice. Batman v Superman glorifies the violence in its action sequences, and the deaths he causes, for instance like in the warehouse scene, where Batman brutally attacks a group of henchmen, seemingly abandoning his code of not killing. 

The Dark Knight trilogy’s depiction of the relationship between the police and Batman is equally problematic. While police corruption is an important aspect of the plot in the first two films, the problem is reduced to the actions of a few individuals, rather than the result of institutional corruption. Jim Gordon is depicted as the one good man who can help fix the system. He and Batman work together to take down other corrupt police officers and city officials. While his character is human and compelling, he is a product of a story written in 1987, when it was a more tenable position that one principled man would be enough of a salve to fix the police force. The Batman keeps the fundamental dynamic between Gordon and Batman from the Dark Knight trilogy, but it fails to address the reality of judicial corruption in 2022. Though the film extends discussions of institutional corruption and privilege, its focus on the ideals of heroic police characters and ‘good men’ fails to evolve the characters in a meaningful way for the current climate. 

Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale, and the rest of the cast, in proving that superhero films could be serious, reached the zenith of the depiction of the Batman. They provided a full character arc with a rich depth of themes. Yes, there may be further angles to take and stories to tell, as Matt Reeves and Zack Snyder have tried. But they could not they cannot solve the problems raised by Nolan, such as tackling corruption. And they have failed to reboot the character in a fundamentally new way.

So, 10 years on from the Dark Knight trilogy, I wonder, perhaps it is time to stop trying, and move onto someone else. Maybe Booster Gold?

Image credit: brian donovan / CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Convibrating bed

0

All further references can be found in Chapter 16, ‘The Raphael Transcriptions’, of Danis Rose’s ‘The Textual Diaries of James Joyce’.

James was particularly agitated today. Since the release of his little book – or, at least, that’s what she liked to call it, because, as she kept reminding him, it had first come out in The Little Review – he had been stuck short of a cliff edge that was giving him lip and making it awfully difficult to climb back to the height he had been at before. Without much rhyme or reason (much like the critics had been saying about the snippets of his work in progress he had floated to press), he huffed over library books, scribbling out snatches in his notebook before thrusting the works away from him as if they smelled of barge-water. Then, he would go to work squinting at those words he had planted there mere moments ago. While he had taken to wearing white suits to reflect light onto the paper, while he had published ‘the book of the century’, while the seeds of his legacy were already sprouting, while he was a genius, he was a genius that could not read his own handwriting.

Late in 1933, Madame France Raphael, a Parisienne, began work as James Joyce’s amanuensis. It was her task to prepare for him clean, readable transcriptions of the uncrossed and therefore unused entries in those primary, authorially inscribed notebooks given to her.

Raph had just stepped inside the door, holding onto the doorknob, threshold-bound, trying – and busting a lip in the process – not to laugh. He reminded her of Étienne, her little boy, when he was trying to spell; there was a dotty playfulness to James that made her wish to wipe his nose. He was having a tough day – a tough day, creatively. He would need cheering up. She was handing in her latest transcribed notebook.

She had grown to snatching them from him, and should he try and tell her what to do, giving him a piece of her mind. If she was in a rush – there were children to chaperone, meals to cook, husbands to feed (because apparently husbands could not feed themselves) – she would not wait at the door, a lingering lily, peace-bound, but push in, busy and darling, taking the notebook and plopping it into her grocery bag where it mixed with the tomatoes and bell-peppers. The first time she leaned over his shoulder to take it, the image that came to her was of a mother leaning over a small child to cut their meat.

They had been performing this contract for two years. Walking to pick the children up from school one day, she had heard an artist’s groan from a window above the street, some little god deciding which struts of furniture he would rearrange into thunder. The neighbours were only too proud to tell her that they were housing him.

‘James who?’ she asked, a poppy kind of kid. Despite her terrible habit of being very appeasing, she could still have fun.

Offering herself like meat, or a sacrifice to become meat – thinking about the price of meat these days – she slid a note under his door. The next day, a small envelope through her letter box, a humble offer to join the choo-choo train of posterity:

Dear Mrs Raphael,

Many thanks

for your kind offer

of assistance and I

hope it may

lead to a good result.

The note was underwhelming; she was expecting – from a genius – at least a pun. But he sent another note the following day that smelled like whining and made her speak more softly to the dog her children had asked for. And she had been there, a magnet-woman, without much on her mind other than the single-leafed paycheck.

In an ideal world, Madame Raphael would have accurately transcribed into her copy all of the unused material in the source notebooks. This did not happen, of course; errors of transmission and omission arose in all possible ways.

She was very dutiful at first. The position was a good one and she did not want to lose it. Étienne had recently had a tooth removed, and she calculated how much the dentist would cost as she wrote James’s words into the new notebooks in her loopy lolly handwriting that her eye-wandering schoolmasters had beaten into her. Sometimes: yes, she became distracted. But she would always correct the mistakes that were unintentional. Only later would she indulge herself with intentional mistakes, thinking how far the shade of her pen could stretch, how many years it could umbrella.

Raph was not a bitter woman, no more than pepper blots the eyes or lemon the ears. She had a husband and tired hands. She had three children with mouths like sirens. She had to labour merely to stay awake. These were her leisure hours at work, the only hours clocked into payment, escaping the scary unclocked-clockness of all other time. With James’s notebooks, she was neither mother, wife, nor woman, but a set of hands, a duct transporting words to paper and to thereafter’s ever eternity. Here she was an instrument – corrupt and ducky – but an instrument and nothing else, nonetheless.

There was a hiatus in the transcriptions from the spring of 1934 to early 1935, presumably because she had been injured in an automobile accident.

She had been like both the birds hit by a stone. A slam, then a dunk – first the metal bonnet and then the tarmac road. She rolled, and her backside went careening into a fruit stand, pelting her with oranges. No one would believe it, not even if you wrote it down. James had sent a wire to the Raphael apartment that morning with

Come quickly!

and she heltered across the city, considering the worst, knowing the reality – a rush for press, possibly.

In the hospital, Raph woke up not remembering how to wake up – slowly, with too much grog in her eyes. James was reluctant to give her leave. He said he would find someone else for now, but it was really most inconvenient. He meant well, but he was also mean. He was kind, but kind of rude too. She lied in bed, wondering what colour the ceiling was. Her eyes swam yellow. He did not send flowers. She remembered his words in her head – those odd jottings that seemed to live inside her like hundreds of embryos – and wondered if she would ever be remembered as the novel’s incubator.

Stood outside Étienne’s school, a walking stick keeping her upright, scars pulsing like radiators in her forehead, the creased note from James in her hand asking her,

If, Madame,

you could possibly start your transcriptions again,

she decided she did not like James very much. She would have her way with him.

‘Don’t go back,’ Monsieur Raphael said that evening.

‘It’s good money.’

‘If you dislike him that much, don’t go back. He doesn’t appreciate what you do for him, for his work… he didn’t even send you flowers.’

‘I don’t care about flowers.’

Monsieur shrugged. She would have said, I don’t care about flowers, because flowers wilt and die. I would have preferred seeds. But the conversation ended and he did not ask. Monsieur went to the living room to read the newspaper while she cooked dinner and Étienne cried about dead chickens and she conversed with the little girls about which hairbrush they wanted to marry.

Raph went back to work, not at all syphoned off fizz. She went back with alteration on her mind. The world had almost wiped her from the surface like a crumb. But she had stayed – and with a newfound hobby of thinking herself overly significant (near-death experiences will do that to a middle-aged woman) – to do one thing: redirect the flow of his genius.

She played dumb, as others play dead – squinting, tongue-stuck, over the pages. She had the upper hand, because she was the hand. The Wake was in her hands, and she, the disembodied hand, had a disembodied mind that thought of Étienne, of meat, of dentists, of notes and puns and prunes.

Those inventions, which Madame France Raphael, straining to read, plucked as it were out of the blue, thereby unknowingly contributing to James Joyce’s masterpiece.

James, straining to read, plucked, as it were, out of the blue, discombobulates of language to add to his masterpiece.

Meanwhile, Raph composed. Raph translated. Raph worked.

James played in the corner.

She deciphered his perfection into unruliness. She planted seeds among his words that she imagined might spring many years later. James was a real piece of work, and she worked his notes to pieces.

He would not tell her to stop.

He sought to restore the lost sense of manifestly defective elements.

‘I know you’re changing them,’ he would say.

‘Good.’

‘I won’t change them back.’

Any plan to subvert, to ruin, to defunct the Wake out of spite, had not gone unnoticed – and it had not worked. She saw these brags disseminated among his writing, lost forever; no one would know they were hers. James loved the inventive interventions, and these little Raphs – as he called them – gave him the inspiration to go on. They had an agreement now. Her legacy was his ability to write a single world. She was the dock that spat his boats into the world.

Some of Madame Raphael’s inventions are exotic creatures whose prototypes could not be guessed at by even the most inspired of reconstructionists.

Raph had spent the previous night staring down at James’s exotic disaster:

^c on vibrating bed

It was not difficult to read, because nonsense should make no sense at all. Something to do with one of his characters, a comment extracted from that book on sleep, the one with a garish turquoise cover the colour of fresh corpses.

She glanced at the bed of Madame and Monsieur Raphael. It was mid-evening, with pricky stars picking up the black sky. Her husband was using the study, and she was yet to clear the dinner table, which meant she was working at the little desk in the corner of their bedroom. James had requested the transcription for this particular notebook by tomorrow. Étienne screamed with his sisters in the other room. She looked at her hand, lying in her lap like a dead fish, before picking it up to write,

Convibrating bed

Neither here nor there, flitting out of existence and back into it, neither past nor future, true nor false, with her always and always fluttering away – a bed, convibrating. A flower-bed pulsating with sprout-gone seeds. She bedded herself convibratingly every night, jimmering with nerves about how to manage a family and feed it and cook for it without cooking it altogether. She jimmered until there was nothing left of her at all. She fed her worries about feeding into the word, pressing something onward. It meant nothing and it meant everything. It meant her word. The latest piece of her mind tumbled onto the paper. And it was beautiful, like chestnut-cherry jam.

He took Raphael’s innocent-looking but erroneous element at face value and transferred it uncorrected into his text.

Finally, tired of watching him squint – and just plain tired – Raph let go of the doorknob and chucked the newly transcribed notebook onto his desk. He flicked through eagerly, a boy with the latest comic, pausing on convibrating bed.

‘I like that one.’ He had been salved, calmed, eased. Her odd creature jostled him forward. Because of her, he would continue writing today.

‘Of course you do.’ She moved to the window, smoking with a limp wrist, as if trying to be a muse.

‘I think I’ll put that one here.’

‘Are you sure?’

‘Where do you think?’

She came and looked over his shoulder.

‘There.’

He nodded.

‘Good idea.’

Joyce looked at the transcribed unit, appreciated that it was botched beyond recall and gave up.

‘I  could include your name. In acknowledgements, or perhaps a dedication.’

‘Don’t make me laugh, James.’

‘I’ve never seen you laugh.’

‘I make others laugh. That’s my job.’

She looked out of the window. What would Monsieur say? Of their convibrating bed? What good of it but the suggestion of a scandal? James and Raph in a convibrating bed. The only thing remaining was to decide how history would have its way with her: obscurity or mistress. These were her choices, and both made her want to swallow ash, deep down into her guts.

‘Don’t be silly. You’d never want to pollute your genius with another’s influence.’

‘That’s true,’ he thought aloud. ‘I didn’t want to, not at all. Just thought I’d offer.’

‘I don’t know why. Posterity won’t know you offered.’

He turned back to the desk, humming a melody from Wagner.

‘Alright, Raph, have it your way.’

James’s temperamental wife pushed open the door with her backside and put a tea tray down on his desk. Raph shared a smile with her, as beggars share a piece of bread. James did not acknowledge his wife’s entry, nor the tea she had brought. He simply kept on writing.

Author’s Note

We know very little about Madame France Raphael, a secretary living in Paris and James Joyce’s amanuensis intermittently from 1933 until 1937. During the composition of Finnegans Wake (1939), she transcribed 37 notebooks filled with his illegible handwriting. These were often from unusual and difficult sources, such as Morpheus or the Future of Sleep by D. S. Fraser-Harris. While Joyce’s legacy is, of course, Ulysses, Madame Raphael’s are these series of so-called ‘mistakes’ which occurred in her transcriptions. ‘Convibrating bed’ results from Joyce’s coded note which suggests the character designated by ‘^’ is lying on a ‘vibrating bed’, something from Fraser-Harris’s book. This ‘distortion’ survives into Book II Episode 4 of Finnegans Wake as ‘convibrational bed’. Instead of considering these interventions as errors, as scholars have dismissed them in the past, this story re-imagines their moment of creation, the circumstances Madame Raphael was working in, and the odd legacy left by her ‘little Raphs’.

Image Credit: Ole Fossgård/ CC BY-NC-SA 4.0


Cecil Jackson-Cole: The first Philanthrocapitalist

0

For his latest column Thomas Bristow tells the story of the Oxonian who founded Oxfam.

Image Description: Oxfam on Broad Street

As far as charity shops go, Oxfam is perhaps the most famous. You can usually find some quite good things in their shops, and nearly every town has one, including my own small town back home. As a student, they can be a saving grace when searching for hideous bop costumes or more sustainable clothing in general. Perhaps it’s the eclectic nature of charity shops that we find so appealing. But if you had already guessed that Oxfam is somehow related to Oxford, then congratulations, your Nobel Prize is in the post. But more seriously, commemorated by a plaque of its own is Number 17 on Broad Street – the original Oxfam. Along with Italiamo, various Harry Potter shops and the unfortunately named Cambridge Satchel Company, it is a staple of the Broad Street frontage, but there is another plaque on the building, and this one just happens to be blue. It reads; ‘Cecil Jackson-Cole 1901-1979 Entrepreneur and Philanthropist helped establish the first Oxfam Shop and office here in 1947’. This then, is the story behind the man who helped begin a world-wide charity to alleviate poverty, and one which gives us access to many classic books for low prices. 

Cecil Jackson-Cole was born on the 1st of November 1901 in Forest Gate, East London to Albert Edward Cole and Nellie Catherine Jackson. He spent his childhood constantly moving around and never spent much time at the schools he attended. In 1911, the family were living in Grays in Essex, where Albert worked as a shoe dealer and Nellie was a China and Glass merchant. The family moved again, and Cecil left education at the age of 13 to work as an Office Boy, which he subsequently left in 1918. After the war, he became the manager of his father’s furniture and letting business, and eventually bought him out with his savings. In 1928, Cecil enrolled at Balliol College to study Economics and improve his business acumen. Aptly, Balliol is of course located directly opposite where Cecil was to found his first Oxfam. 

By his early 30s, Cecil was beginning to feel the physical effects of the tough economic times, and he entered a nursing home for a short while. Afterwards, he relocated his business interests to Oxford and lived just outside the city in Boar’s Hill. Here his neighbour was the Classical scholar Gilbert Murray, who was a member of a support group for the National Famine Relief Committee. This had been set up in 1942 in order to advocate for the Greek people who were suffering starvation from wartime blockading. In 1942 Cecil offered to be the Honorary Secretary of Gilbert’s subsidiary support group, the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. This was the original seed from which a global initiative was to develop.

At the end of the war, famine relief committees eventually disbanded, but Cecil saw a future for their work within post-war Europe. In 1948, it was decided that the successful fundraising of the charity could be scaled up. Jackson-Cole was a firm believer that business should involve charity, and for the next five years he was instrumental in the expansion of Oxfam. During the 1950s, BBC Radio appeals increased the presence of Oxfam in the public sphere. Cecil retained interest in the charity until his death in 1979, by which time it had far exceeded the borders of even Oxfordshire. Autonomous Oxfams had been set up in Canada, the United States and Belgium. Today however, it is a confederation of 21 charities, with its headquarters in Nairobi. Oxfam has even become the largest retailer of second-hand books in Europe, with around 100 shops selling everything from pamphlets to rare first editions. Though it is disputed, Oxfam themselves claim that the Broad Street shop was the UK’s first ever charity shop. 

Aside from Oxfam, Cecil Jackson-Cole founded many other trusts and charities such as Action Aid in 1972, to provide disadvantaged children with education. He had a pragmatic vision which pioneered modern philanthropism by effecting social change in a business-like way. It is a testament to his effectiveness that most of the organisations he founded are still around today.

Image Credit: Chris McAuley

The Smile’s “slightly crazed and uncertain landscape”

0

Imagine if John Lennon and Paul McCartney had reunited without Ringo Starr and George Harrison and made an album six years after Let It Be. It would have been both very confusing for fans of the Beatles, and very difficult not to measure their new album against the immense heights of Revolver or Sgt. Pepper. For fans of Radiohead, that is not wholly unlike what’s happening with The Smile’s first album, A Light for Attracting Attention. The Smile consists of Radiohead’s two most creative talents, Thom Yorke and Jonny Greenwood, plus jazz drummer Tom Skinner, minus the rhythm section of the band, Phil Selway and Colin Greenwood, and guitarist Ed O’Brien. It’s tempting to compare this album to Radiohead and find it wanting. There is little as epochal as OK Computer, as vibrant as Hail to the Thief, or as delicately moving as A Moon Shaped Pool here. But I will try to keep such comparisons to a minimum. The Smile is not Radiohead; they have a new name, a new line-up, and appear to see themselves to be doing something artistically different (even if some of their songs began life as Radiohead songs).

Despite no less than five singles being released before the album, what in my view are the standout songs of the album, The Same and We Don’t Know What Tomorrow Brings, were not among them. The former opens the album with a synth pulsing into view, slowly augmented by an array of electronic pitter-patters. Its sound is atypical of the rest of the album, but is also an excellent introduction. It takes you by the hand into the slightly crazed and uncertain landscape in which the rest of the album unfolds, somewhere between heaven and a bewitched forest, between all-embracing radiance and the uneasy sense that you are being played.

The Same sounds like a rallying cry for a popular movement: ‘People in the streets, please, people in the streets’ Yorke implores. ‘We all want the same’ morphs into ‘we are all the same’ – a realisation of the shared, fallen nature of humanity? A plea for peace – ‘We don’t need to fight’? Or a call for moral integrity – ‘Look towards the light, grab it with both hands, what you know is right’? Perhaps all of these things. The way the song ends on an abrupt and disconcertingly harsh note suggests prospects are a little bleak. Bleakness is certainly found in other parts of the album, such as Open the Floodgates, but, as so often in Yorke’s work, glimpses of optimism, beauty and a yearning for the good splinter the murk and the gloom.

We Don’t Know what Tomorrow Brings and You Will Never Work in Television Again have a rawness and fervour not seen since 2007’s Bodysnatchers, though Yorke is even more growly here. We Don’t Know what Tomorrow Brings, in amongst simmering, menacing rumbles from the synth that embolden the guitar scuttling above it, sketches creative struggles: ‘I’m stuck in a rut, in a flatland drainage ditch, and I’m drowning in irrelevance’. Given the number of high-calibre songs on this album, I can’t imagine this was a musical rut. Some themes are returned to, and stylistic throwbacks are made to Yorke and Greenwood’s previous work, but the sound could not be confused, really, for Radiohead. The album has too many punk, and sometimes funk (e.g. The Opposite), elements for that, although there remain great swells from string and horn arrangements, probably Jonny’s influence, that lift songs into higher, fragile realms more in the manner of later Radiohead albums. And of course, there is much noodling from Jonny’s guitar, but somehow it sits more prominently on the surface of these songs than is usually the case.  

In Free in the Knowledge these surging strings grow from the electronic undergrowth, accompanied by another terrific vocal performance from Yorke, which reminds me of 2009’s Harry Patch (In Memory Of). I think this song has some very evocative lines: ‘Free in the knowledge, that one day this will end’ leaves me wondering what it would mean to feel free in this knowledge, and if we ever really come to know, or appreciate, this at all. Likewise, ‘this was just a bad moment, we were fumbling around’, makes me think of the difficulty of knowing what’s a bad moment, and what is just bad. Yorke’s lyrics have always been thought-provoking, and those on this album are as engaging as any he has written.

Skrting on the Surface is also a contemplation on life’s finitude. ‘We have only to dive, then we’re out of here; we’re just skirting on the surface’ Yorke sings. Thin Thing, meanwhile, bubbles along until you’re hit by a wall of guitar, atop which you’re left anxiously balanced, wondering where the song is taking you next. I’ve found that, as so often with Radiohead, it takes quite a few listens to get under the skin of these songs, to know what they’re about, and let them say something to you. A song like Speech Bubbles seems at first so ethereal, so tender as to barely be there. But it grows and grows, as the song goes on and with each listen, and it emerges as a warm, woollen blanket wrapped between you and the icy world of which it speaks sinister tales. ‘Our city’s a-flame, the bells ringing … Never any place to put my feet back down … Any feeble branch to put my weight upon’. It is heartfelt and deeply moving.

Not all the songs are as successful. I find The Smoke fairly monotonous and uncomfortably restricted (as though you are stuck in a smoky 1970s waiting room, which may be the point), although the second half does become more expansive. A Hairdryer is also perhaps a bit too contorted for its own good. These would have made excellent B-sides.  The very concept of The Smile is a little confusing for fans of Radiohead and Yorke. Is The Smile just a lockdown project brought about by Thom and Jonny’s desire to write music and the reluctance or time commitments of the other Radiohead members? Or has Radiohead quietly become a legacy act, and The Smile its successor band? I expect we’ll find out in the next few years. Until then, we at least have a new album which is very worthy, for the most part, on its own merits. 

Image credit: Raph_PH / CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Sonnet for Foxe by Anna Cowan and Ruth Port

Dear Foxe I sing a song of love to you,

Whose shell shines like the half compass of heaven,

My beloved Foxe, take this to be true:

We’ll cheer you through the race so loud it deafens.

Our college mascot, our own strong brave knight,

In plated armour, olive carapace,

A crown of laurel, for winning of all fights,

Ringed in golden light, primed for the race:

He’ll race to victory as if with wings,

Speeding through the grass; a blaze of glory

All other tortoises his praises sing,

And down the ancient ages rings his story.

The vanquished hare weeps in his dark burrow,

As Foxe the Tortoise leads us to tomorrow!


Photo of Foxe by Maeve Ewing.

Profit over People

0

Kobi Mohan delves into the devious dealings of a multinational corporation.

Last week, Glencore Plc pled guilty to charges of bribery and market manipulation in the US, agreeing to pay $1.1bn in criminal fines and forfeiture, including $700million in penalties relating to a scheme of foreign bribery spanning seven countries.

Glencore is a multinational commodity trading and mining company, ranked tenth in the Fortune Global 500 list of the world’s largest companies. It controls over half the global copper and zinc trade, nearly a quarter of all barley and 10% of the world’s wheat trade, so if it didn’t help make the battery in your car or phone it probably still put the cornflakes on your breakfast table this morning.

As part of the scheme, millions in bribes were paid to foreign officials in Mexico, Brazil, Venezuela and the DRC, amongst others, in order to earn commodities contracts and avoid regulations and audits. As one U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams, stated whilst delivering the announcement of Glencore’s guilty pleas, ‘Glencore paid bribes to make money’, and did so in the many millions.

The details exposed through the investigation paint a picture of an at-times cartoonishly underhand operation, with code words like ‘newspapers’ and ‘chocolates’ reportedly being used by traders when discussing bribes in writing, with one intermediary emailing a correspondent that ‘the newspapers will be delivered’ by them in person, and so-called ‘cash-desks’ being run out of offices in Switzerland and London as recently as 2016, where, one can only imagine, wads of cash and gold bars were stuffed into grey briefcases and carried nimbly away by long-coated, cigar-smoking, bowler hatted men with beady eyes and whiskery moustaches.

“As one U.S. Attorney, Damian Williams, stated whilst delivering the announcement of Glencore’s guilty pleas, ‘Glencore paid bribes to make money’, and did so in the many millions.”

As far as poor business practices go, this is certainly not Glencore’s first rodeo. Unethical and corrupt, or as headlines love to describe them: ‘murky’ and ‘sleazy’, tactics have been essential to the Glencore way since its founding in 1974. The NYT describes Glencore’s methods in the following characteristically cautious terms: “Among the hallmarks of its business approach is a higher tolerance for politically murky situations, which translates into a willingness to venture into countries where rivals will not.” The list of Glencore’s bed fellows bring together some of the most despicable regimes and crises of the last half century, from apartheid South Africa to the Iraq war- were there oil in Flanders Fields you could be certain Glencore would bribe both sides to make a buck, if only they were around then – thank goodness they weren’t. These days, when it’s not outright dismantling the foundations of democracy in developing countries, it still dabbles in illegal toxic waste disposal and labour rights violations, including the use of child labour, as well as regular tax fraud on the milder side of things.

From its conception, Glencore has been a company that not only places profit over people and planet, but actively disregards the value of the latter two unless serving some purpose in the pursuit of the former. Glencore founder Marc Rich once famously said of corporate transparency due to public listing that it “limits your activity, to be sure, but it’s just a new strategy to which they have to adapt”. The Glencore business model is essentially just endless exploitation and expansion, executed ruthlessly and with a presumptuous disregard for the law of any and all governments. Its founder created and embodied this model, making over $2.5bn with the company by selling oil and minerals on behalf of the likes of Saddam Hussein before going on the run for over 17 years having been indicted on 65 criminal counts, only to be pardoned by Bill Clinton on his [Clinton’s] last day in office. It’s unclear exactly how much like his predecessor the new chief exec. Ivan Glasenberg is, but considering this headline from a 2011 Times article regarding his conduct that reads ‘Billionaire ignored children’s pleas to stop toxic pollution from mine’, the chances of seeing either of them at Heaven’s pearly gates seems slim.

Glasenberg, who oversaw the company during the period the scheme was in operation, could alone pay off all the fines out of pocket and still have a neat £7.4bn left in the bank. Attorney Damian Williams stated on behalf of the US Justice department that bribes were paid by Glencore in the millions not due to the negligence, but ‘the approval, and even encouragement, of its top executives’. Reports of the investigation mention three executives, all unnamed who condoned and oversaw illicit payments and transactions. Two of the three are easily identified as Alex Beard, head of oil from 2007 to 2019, and Telis Mistakidis, head of copper till 2018. (Consider ‘Executive 1’, for example, as one unnamed exec is referred to in reports, who the DOJ said had agreed to the use of $14mn to pay bribes to Nigerian officials and who is described as a ‘UK citizen’ who, in their role, ‘had responsibility over Glencore’s sale and purchase of oil worldwide’ from 2007 to 2019. Who might that be? I guess we’ll never know.) Of Beard, Mistakidis and Glasenberg, not one has faced so much as a slap on the wrist.

Sensational details of code names, cash desks, ridiculous pay checks and CEO’s on the run can obscure the more plainly tragic truth of Glencore’s actions and their consequences. The reality is that these bribes propped up despotic regimes in failing states and disrupted the already fragile political ecosystems of many developing countries by compromising judges, politicians, regulators, and other members of those essential institutions that form the bedrock of democracy. In the name of securing lucrative contracts, dodging government audits and ultimately of making money, Glencore toyed with some of the most volatile countries in the world, ultimately leaving the poorest and most vulnerable of these worse off.

“Of Beard, Mistakidis and Glasenberg, not one has faced so much as a slap on the wrist.”

The DRC lost at least $1.4bn as state-owned mines were undersold to Glencore who made the purchases with the aid of billionaire Gertler who is accused of having made his $2.5bn fortune by “looting Congo at the expense of its people”. Whatever aid Gertler gave, he is still receiving royalties from Glencore, all in euros though, of course, since Gertler has been cut out of the US financial system entirely following sanctions placed on him by the US in 2013. More recently, Glencore has been enjoying the spoils of the former state mines rich in the increasingly in-demand cobalt and copper used to make batteries in electric cars, amongst other things. This has, of course, not be done without a fair share of tragedy and scandal, with 43 illegal miners being killed at a Glencore facility in just one week in 2019.

One might defend Glencore’s practices in developing countries in particular by saying that the company is just doing as the Romans do – doing what it takes to do business with already corrupt state officials, and domestic firms. Their profiting off of resources in developing countries like the DRC is necessary because the state does not have the technology nor the expertise to do this nearly as efficiently itself, and don’t the local people gain too by the jobs created by Glencore’s mines and factories?

“It is almost as if Glencore gains when these countries continue to be unstable and corrupt.”

Without getting into a full-blown denunciation of the neo-liberal global supply chain, to these defences of Glencore I have to say no. Of the jobs Glencore brings, they are often those that existed before that are unsafe, underpaid and nothing to be grateful for, especially considering what conditions Glencore could give some of these workers at the small expense of some miniscule fraction of the average $200mn revenue it rakes in each year. Also, the DRC may not be able to employ the same expertise as firms like Glencore but it’s worth noting that neither did Britain or the US when they were first industrialising in the 19th and early 20th century, and yet, somehow, they did it. Still, sharing valuable information about how to exploit these resources would be useful, yet the cost of such an education should not be the nation’s democracy which, invariably the people lose faith in each time another prospective election candidate sells off a slice of the country’s wealth in return for a hefty anonymous campaign donation. The damage done to countries’ political fabric might just be the hardest to recover from, since it is the health of these state mechanisms that determines how successfully countries can respond to concerns around health regulations in mines or the underselling of state contracts, for example. It is almost as if Glencore gains when these countries continue to be unstable and corrupt.

The fact is that corruption costs the world at least 5% of its net GDP and developing countries shoulder $1.26trn of this loss every single year. Ultimately developing countries, often former colonies, unstable and still grappling with the effects of empire and/or war, are bearing the burden of a scheme of which the lion’s share of profits will be wired back to the already-filthy-rich executives and shareholders of western trans-national corporations like Glencore and sit in Swiss banks without the people of the countries to which much of this wealth is arguably entitled seeing so much as a penny. Glencore’s model is a neo-colonial one, albeit more pragmatically profit-oriented, which places exploitation of the global south at the heart of its growth model and excludes its people entirely from net value calculations. Each penny made off a country’s resources or cheap labour was made at the expense of the future of that country’s people. The company is not the only culprit in such a scheme, but it remains one of the biggest to date.

Gary Nagle, who took over from former Chief executive Ivan Glasenberg just last year has said that Glencore ‘is a different company today that it was when these unacceptable practices occurred.’ With $1.1bn under the bridge, and shareholders quick to declare the matter closed, it appears little, besides the retainment of ‘independent compliance monitors both in the United States and overseas’ and a new chief, separates the old Glencore with the new.

In the end, without so much as leaving a dent in this year’s balance books, it’s hard to say how effective the justice department’s efforts will be in changing the company’s practices. A decade on, it seems Glencore is doing better than ever; indifferent, as always, to all but the profit margins.

St Benet’s Hall buildings to be vacated as students lament loss of “lovely community”

0

St Benet’s Hall announced via an email to students on 2nd June that the Hall’s buildings are to be vacated by October 2022.

The email, from the St Benet’s Hall Academic Office, stated that, “Following a meeting of the Ampleforth Abbey Trust (AAT) on Monday, the Chair of AAT has written to confirm the Trust’s plan to place the two properties on the open market. The Hall will vacate them before 7th October 2022.”

Since 2016, the Hall has accommodated graduate and undergraduate students, tutors and deans in two buildings; the main building at 38 St. Giles, which the Hall has possessed under Ampleforth Abbey since 1922, and the building at 11 Norham Gardens, which was acquired in 2015. Both sites have facilities including a library, common room areas and tutors’ offices.

As stated in The Oxford Student, the loss of access to these facilities “does not confirm that there will be no St. Benet’s Hall next year” but the announcement “makes it unlikely that students can be enrolled in an institution without these provisions.”

The announcement to place the buildings on the open market comes after the University Council’s decision not to renew the Hall’s license as a Permanent Private Hall (PPH) on 16th May.

In an email sent to students two weeks ago, the University Deputy Academic Registrar informed that “the University has decided to start looking for alternative college places for students (to come into effect from October 2022).”  Students have not as yet been informed about the specific allocations of colleges.

For students who had intended to live on-site, the 2nd June email from the Academic Office reassured that “We guarantee that those students who had planned to be residents at St Giles next year will have accommodation.” This may entail residency at whichever college students are reallocated to.

Cherwell spoke to JCR President Julian Danker, who said that “it is important that the reallocation process takes all students’ needs and individual situations into account”, and so he would “prefer the University to allocate students as adequately as possible” to a college.

He acknowledged the uncertainty of this process for students, stating that “it is unfortunate that we have not yet learnt what colleges we will go to next year as we are anxious to integrate as soon as possible, but, given that the situation had been very fluid over the past few weeks, this is understandable.”

When asked about the students’ response to the announcement about the vacation of the Hall’s buildings, Danker said the news was “devastating” to hear. He went on to say that “St Benet’s is one of the most unique places in Oxford, and we are conscious that a precious institution that we are a part of is being lost.

“As a JCR, we also stand in solidarity with the staff at St Benet’s, who have always worked with incredible personal dedication so that students succeed, and who are now faced with losing their main source of income.”

Cherwell also spoke to current members of the St Benet’s Undergraduate body about their reaction to the news and the provisions the Hall has put in place for the next academic year.

A second-year student expressed that he is not worried about his living situation next year, having already signed a housing agreement to live out, like a large majority of his year group.

The student also voiced disappointment at the imminent loss of the “small community” of St Benet’s, and described the “sense of mourning” among the student body. A finalist similarly admitted that “the knowledge that we will never be able to return to the hall in future years is deeply depressing”.

A first year student quickly remarked on “stressful” feelings generated by the lack of specificity she considered the Hall was providing with regard to the plans in place for students for the next academic year. She criticised the fact that students have received at most “four emails over a six month period”, which she thought remained vague about the situation.

The student was sorry that this lack of communication has resulted in information being spread mainly through gossip, which has only reinforced feelings of “anger and frustration” among students.

She indicated that she felt that the Hall was failing to fully prioritise the students’ wellbeing due to this lack of clarity in communication. She nonetheless acknowledged the easy access to support services provided by the Hall for those particularly struggling in this “very chaotic” time.

Another second-year student said she considered the Hall has been as “transparent” with the students as it could be, communicating with the students as and when information has become available.

Multiple students expressed a positive response towards the JCR’s emphasis on student welfare in the past few months. One student noted the “relaxed” atmosphere within the Hall maintained by the “extremely hard work of the JCR, with welfare reps running calming events, and social secs trying to add some light-hearted humour” to the situation.

There was a common sentiment among the students Cherwell spoke to of the close-knit nature of the student body at St. Benet’s. The Hall usually has enrolled around 84 Undergraduates and 32 Graduates, making it one of the smallest of the Oxford Colleges or PPHs.

A second-year student described the student body of the Hall as “a bit like a family”, lamenting having to lose a “lovely community” she is “so comfortable” with for her final year. She finished by emphasising that she is “not sad to lose the buildings, but the community” which St. Benet’s afforded her and her peers. 

The Hall told Cherwell: “The Hall’s senior management and the Trustees are acutely aware of the distress of our students following the announcement last week about the Hall’s closure, and in particular of the high levels of anxiety and uncertainty consequent on the re-allocation process. Throughout this difficult period in the Hall’s life, we have sought to keep all our students, staff and alumni as well-informed as possible. We know how destructive rumour and gossip can be in a small community. From January to April, when much hard work was being done in sensitive negotiations with potential donors, it was important to respect requests for confidentiality. Since the announcement of closure on 2nd June, the University, in liaison with the Hall’s officers, has been working tirelessly to re-allocate our students, and maintain channels of communication, including with our students. We are very grateful for their efforts. Again, those negotiations with other colleges are sensitive and ongoing, but we hope that the University will be able to announce the results of that process as soon as possible. We at St Benet’s remain absolutely committed to the welfare of all our students and staff, both now and in their future years in the University.”

Image Credit: University of Oxford

Plenmeller House

0

Under the covers, inside the walls,
The wind shuffles in from the West,
Rabbits potter in the grass,
And the pheasants lay down to rest.


This is the country,
As it is in itself,
Its shares in green hills,
Space and air its wealth.


The pipes are ticking again,
As we clear away the debris,
Revealing the front door,
And its old, simple majesty.


The old cottage and the grand house,
Mixed, melded and clinging on,
Against the turning,
Against the winter’s song.


I have seen the fight,
The floor and the damp,
I have seen the darkness,
But I read by my bedside lamp.


Firelight leaps upon us,
Primordial and true,
It’s what we are,
Not humans blue.


Return to Plenmeller,
Where the sheep are safe,
And we the sheep follow the shepherd,
Where powerless are the governor and the wraith.

A Drink by Edward McLaren

0

I rise from my screen and enter the horizontal darkness above its frame, itself over the river I do not see. Why is it that when I attempt to do serious work I am always accosted by something miraculous I wouldn’t see in leisure? Two adjacent torches in the distance, not glowering out of plastic but real fire, oppose each other in the night I am looking through. They are angled perfectly for me to see and be unable to discern whether they dwell in two windows of a cottage or in the hands of wanderers sisterly going their way along the hillside. 

Even when they remain in place I can’t be sure if when one dims slightly a fire is going out or one of the prospective figures has climbed up steps. If the steps are there, I cannot help but assume they are leading up to the brow of an ancient mound and perhaps to a temple there. This is how fairies worm into the world. They travel through the excess of a mind, from knowledge to projection, hill to square, and go unobserved until they are believed in. 

Suddenly I am imagining two girls climbing into a bed of grass, blue in blackness, as a coven of two. They have danced with fires a little in their time. But now is enough. They are already going down into the roots of birches by the moment I glance them. Their eyelids are overgrown in rich weeds. They are strange and apocalyptic although their sleep will certainly keep them safe. I relax my eyes and turn down to the screen. One light is left. Two have gone. It demands I read, and type, and contribute work. 

I have wasted a certain amount of my time and yet what was I doing before I did? Geese I am unable to see siren in the massive emptiness over my head. Umbrellas folded stand like hooded figures about the bank. Lights around me pulse like lighthouses at sea. I am working here. I am trying to work at five o’clock at night reviewing books, analysing Greek plays, in the middle of Winter. Perhaps I’ll order a drink. 

But before I stand I have the realisation that when I was dreaming, or whatever I was doing, the only lights that seemed around were the torches and screen. No lights, no lighthouses and no buzzing headlamps seemed to pulse behind me. I was caught up. Or rather, now, at my laptop, typing this, I have been caught. The beams in the distance were shimmers in the web that tightens presently as I struggle to leave. 

Is there any reason I am mesmerised more by my recollection than the event itself? Maybe this moment will also seem unimportant when it goes by and a more interesting thought supplants it. But that won’t alter the fact that, right now, I am aware of the felt significance of the present. It is no stretch at all for me to say that what I feel about this feeling, or remember about this particular memory, is instrumental like the fabric of the soul. 

That is perhaps the wrong word and yet it conjures up the transparent sheet that I am thinking about. The thing that lives in devices of consequence, and things with meanings, I know looks like that. A watery orb that sloshes with bubbles and bellies, and a topaz tone inflected with emerald. That is the being my looking back at my dream exposes it as. 

It is itself. It must be. It is the world and life, and because I myself am alive I cannot deny it, no matter if I later deny the form it appeared in. Even if I revoke the sludge, and do away with the lakemoss, and everything belonging to the black lagoon, it will linger like a ghost, the ghost of a ghost. It will be a fading image and an image. Polaroid, then vector. But each one on the same material before my eyes, conveying the same absolution independently. 

Yes, I will have a beer.

Puzzles Answers TT22 Week 5

0

The answers to the week 5 edition of the Cherwell in TT22.

Two-Speed Crossword
Medium Sudoku
Hard Sudoku
Pencil Puzzle