Sunday 15th June 2025
Blog Page 348

Drawn to Nature: Flies

Tom Leslie
-
0
Drawn to Nature: Flies

Animals come in many shapes and sizes, none more so than flies. There are flies that mimic other species, flies with incredible iridescent bodies, and even some species that cannot fly at all. I had the pleasure of being introduced to quite a few of these little creatures at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History’s online event: ‘Drawn to Nature: Flies’. This was part of a series of online events delivered by the museum, in which guests are invited to draw some of the specimens whilst listening to an expert’s presentation on what makes them special.

Leading us through the fascinating world of flies was Zoe Simmons, Head of Life Collections at the museum, who is specifically responsible for the museum’s fly collection. Zoe started us off by asking how we might define what a fly is, or at least what it isn’t. Flies, she begins, belong to the phylum euarthropoda, an extremely diverse grouping of organisms, which includes insects, arachnids, and crustaceans. Due to their diversity, arthropods can be hard to classify; however, as Zoe points out, you could do worse than looking for things that are small-ish, crunchy-ish, and quick-ish. These are all qualified terms, because as we will find out, in the case of flies and other arthropods, rules are often made to be broken.

Tom’s illustration from the event.

Flies themselves have a fairly distinct morphology. They have three segments: the head, the abdomen and the thorax. Aside from this common geography, their bodies can be squat and rotund, like the common bluebottle, or long and lean, like a mosquito. Another common feature of flies is their two wings, for which they are named diptera (literally two-winged). Here you also see a lot of variety, with transparent, veinated wings on such species as the fruit fly, or beautiful patterned wings, such as on the liberally-named notch-horned cleg.

When you get up close to these little marvels, you can see a great number of features that might not have been immediately apparent. As Zoe took us through the collection we saw that most flies have small antenna, and their legs are generally structured in the same way, with two long segments and five smaller ones, called tarsi. Some flies are covered with hair, with some of the hairiest being bee-flies, such as Bombylius major. These bumble-bee mimics definitely skew toward the cuter end of the spectrum, but other fuzz-balls can be quite terrifying to look at. One such creepy customer is the aptly named ‘terribly hairy fly’, which has such tiny wings that it can’t get off the ground, and consequently resembles a kind of spider. Moving along in the presentation we encounter some even more bizarre denizens of the world of diptera, with the stalk-eyed fly and antler fly being amongst the strangest. These winged weirdos have highly specialised features on their heads; the stalk-eyed fly looks like a cross between a hammer-head shark and a patron of the Mos-Eisley cantina, whilst the antler fly wouldn’t look out of place mounted on the wall of a tiny hunting lodge!

Image Credits: Hauke Koch and Richard Bartz via Wikimedia Commons

Taking the time to draw these strange creatures allows one to see the beauty in the oddness. Zoe ends her talk with a nod to the contribution flies make to the food chain, as prey to birds and small rodents, and as major pollinators. It just goes to show that, no matter how small, and no matter how odd, it pays to be thankful for the little things.

The natural history museum will continue to put on events both in and out of lockdown, providing interesting activities and learning opportunities for all. Find out more at: https://oumnh.ox.ac.uk/events#/

The full talk is available as a recording on the OUMNH YouTube channel here. 

The Arab Spring: ten years on

Zoe Lambert
-
0
The Arab Spring: ten years on

A decade ago, the Arab Spring shook the Arab World. Today, Syria, Libya and Yemen remain embroiled in brutal civil wars while Egypt is under military autocracy. Thousands have been killed and millions have become refugees, extremists such as ISIS have seen a rise, and even Tunisia touted as a ‘success story’, is suffering from bureaucratic gridlock and facing dire economic hardship. 10 years from its start, it is time to examine the contents of this Pandora’s box; what caused it to be opened, and whether there remains any hope. 

Living in Morocco in 2011, months before the Arab Spring erupted there, I was painfully aware of the authoritarian grip and high level of corruption in the country. Police corruption was blatantly obvious, fabricating law infringements to collect fines and accepting bribes to turn a blind eye to numerous crimes. State welfare provision was severely limited, the education system a complete farce, and some village schools hadn’t seen a single teacher for a whole year. Public healthcare was limited to the cities, and even then, it was dismal. A third of all workers were unemployed with limited welfare benefits, meaning that many had to beg or take seasonal work in Europe to live. Similar and even worse patterns of corruption, authoritarianism and dire socio-economic conditions were common throughout North Africa and much of the Middle East. With such a combination of circumstances, it was only a matter of time before people stopped passively acquiescing to these conditions, and when they did, there would be a violent chain reaction throughout the Arab world.

On the 17th December 2010, the spark came following the self-immolation of a street vendor, Mohamed Bouazizi, outside the Governor’s office in Sidi Bouzidi, Tunisia, in protest against government corruption, becoming the martyr figurehead of the Jasmine Revolution and igniting revolution across North Africa and the Middle East. Inspired by the apparent success in Tunisia, mass demonstrations and violent protests saw the overthrow of President Mubarak in Egypt, after 30 years of authoritarian rule. The call for “Freedom, justice and bread” echoed through Tahrir square, encapsulating the demands of the protestors across the Arab world. Dissent spread rapidly and protests erupted in Libya, Yemen and Syria, rapidly turning violent and undermining their authoritarian regimes.

While countries such as Morocco and Bahrain did see some unrest during the Arab Spring, this remained isolated to the cities, and even there did not attract the scale of support seen across Syria and Tunisia. Morocco was plagued with equally dire economic conditions, high unemployment rising oil and food prices, an ever-growing wealth inequality gap and high poverty rates. The state was hardly less autocratic, the King had absolute power and high levels of government corruption sparked mass outrage. How then did King Muhammad remain standing amid the toppling dictators?

In stark contrast to many of the Arab leaders, the Moroccan monarchy’s stability is anchored by its traditional integration into the culture. King Mohammad VI’s lineage can be traced back more than three centuries, causing his legitimacy to be unquestioned. Children pray for the monarch every morning in school and all houses have a photo of the king. The idea of usurping the monarch was and remains unfathomable. Whereas other authoritarian rulers had been politicians who expanded their own powers and created dictatorships, in Morocco, the monarch’s authoritarianism culturally embedded. This ensured that while there remains a high level of corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency, the institution of the monarchy remains highly integrated and thus much more stable. 

Further, while other dictators had been consolidating their own power and restricting the people, in Morocco the government had already been gradually introducing reforms to liberalise the country. In Egypt, Mubarak had ruled for 30 years, while in Libya Gadaffi had been in power for 43 years, and both had sought to implement reforms to secure their positions. Since his ascension, Muhammad VI had been gradually giving greater rights to women, increasing decentralisation and introduced an independent commission to handle claims of human rights violations. Both he and King Hamad of Bahrain had been gradually introducing reforms to turn their respective countries into constitutional monarchies. Rather than calling for a complete overthrow of the system as had been the case in many Arab countries, therefore, the people called for increased democratisation of the existing regime. As a consequence, protests were reformative in nature, ensuring the smooth transition of the Moroccan state to a constitutional monarchy and therefore preventing violent clashes and power struggles. 

In countries where the revolutions posed a real threat to the governments, there was a great disparity of outcomes. In Libya, the government repeatedly opened fire on unarmed civilians with live ammunition, or attacked protesters with warplanes and armed helicopters, while in Syria, Assad used chemical weapons, causing over 1,400 casualties. This power struggle and extensive use of force seem to be one of the main contributors to the deterioration into civil war. Taking advantage of the unrest, rebel groups and extremists rose to prominence, fragmenting the fighting, which then deteriorated into a brutal civil war that still rages on to this day. Greater success was achieved when the autocrats were overthrown with minimal struggle. Tunisia is heralded as the success story of the Arab Spring, having overthrown their President, Ben Ali, with a relative lack of force. They were then successful in implementing democracy, drafting a new constitution and holding free elections within the year. This decisive overthrow and quick imposition of a new government before divisions could turn into a civil war seem to be one of the major reasons for Tunisia’s success. The prolonged power struggle in the other Arab countries led to the fragmentation of the conflict and foreign intervention, obscuring the intention of the revolution and causing them to drag on. 

Conflicts were further exacerbated by protesters’ failure to recognise that while the removal of an authoritarian regime is the first step in democratisation, it is merely the precursor to a much greater struggle; implementing and ensuring maintained support for a stable democratic system. After the fall of any leader, let alone an authoritarian one, there is a power vacuum that requires strong and decisive leadership to fill. In the wake of the Arab Spring, such decisiveness was impossible. Authoritarians desperately defending their position of power, rival rebel groups, extremists and foreign intervention all exacerbated the conflict, convoluting it and preventing a smooth transition to new leadership. In Egypt, the power and decisiveness of the military meant that they could step in during the instability while implementing a new democracy, thereby crushing it and effectively reinstating a new authoritarian regime. Tunisia, however, had a rapid transition; overthrowing Ben Ali without prolonged struggle, in under a month, implementing an interim government almost immediately and holding free elections within a year. This rapid progression prevented growing unrest and reduced instability, therefore, ensuring that a smoother transition to democracy.

Technology played a vital role in the spread of dissent. In Libya, the revolutionary leaders set up satellite dishes and live-streamed messages throughout the country. Social media was used extensively to organise protests and publicise government atrocities, catalysing the revolutions. This was especially powerful due to severe levels of censorship and control of the media, allowing the scale of unrest to be recognised and messages of the protestors to spread rapidly. While this did have an impact within the country, internet access was limited, with only 65% of all Egyptians having access to social media. It was, however, essential in communicating the progression of the conflict to the outside world. Due to high levels of government control over the media, social media was the only accessible platform from which revolutionaries could freely relay the events of the conflict.

Foreign powers were severely detrimental to the course of the civil wars, convoluting the conflict and obscuring the aims. While many powers entered the wars on the grounds of combatting the atrocities enacted by the government, it has become increasingly clear this is not their sole motivation. In 2018, Trump removed all troops from Syria, leaving only a base near the large gas fields in northern Syria. In Libya, the highly contested oil fields at Al-Sharara remain the centre of the conflict. Control over the crude oil supply has a serious impact on the international oil market and hence on global economies, giving foreign powers significant incentive to interfere. 

Further, it allowed global powers to promote their national image and values by engaging in indirect conflict with one another. Foreign interference thus led to proxy wars being fought in Syria, Yemen and Libya allowing the US, Russia and other global powers to use existing conflicts as a ground to indirectly thrash out their differences. Supporting opposing sides allowed them to have a power struggle without coming into direct conflict. This has led to their own political agendas undermining the objectives of the war at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives. Thus, conflicts that were already convoluted, owing to fragmented rebel factions, were further complicated, causing them to drag on without a foreseeable solution. 

The legacy of the Arab Spring is devastating. In Libya, the last 10 years have seen massacres, abductions, Jihadist occupation – and for what? The country remains embroiled in civil war, with no clear leader and no constitution, making it the perfect climate for trafficking, smuggling and piracy. Massacres and abductions by Jihadist forces and airstrikes from foreign forces are commonplace. The economy has completely collapsed, resulting in high levels of unemployment, while the few who are employed are left without their salary due to major cash flow problems. Multiple attempts to maintain peace have all fallen through largely due to internal divisions among different factions within Libya, and the UN is currently intervening to instate an interim government.

In Yemen, crumbling supply chains and infrastructure along with brutal civil war led to the worst famine globally in a century, with the UN estimating that in 2016, almost three-quarters of the Yemeni population lacked potable water and sanitation and a half lacked food. Almost 16 million were on the brink of starvation, with children dying of preventable causes every 10 minutes. Since then, Egypt has remained under military rule with over 60,000 political prisoners and a debt of over 125 billion dollars. Voices of dissent are immediately silenced, leaving Egypt remaining an incredibly oppressive country, which ranked in 2020 as 117 out of 160 on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, a clear demonstration that the demands made in Tahrir Square are far from being met. 

While in contrast the Tunisian revolution appeared initially successful, the parliament in Tunisia is characterised by inefficiency and stagnation, leading to high levels of dissatisfaction. Many now claim that the objectives of democratisation have not been met, causing them to support other more decisive and radical movements such as extremists, the military or even the previous regime. Despite this, Tunisia is considered by Freedom House as the only free country in the Arab world. While the state is unstable, however, it has already come a long way in achieving the aims of the revolution. There remains hope that if it can withstand current discontent, the regime can reform and strengthen.

Following 10 tumultuous years, it is hard to see any hope for these war-scarred countries. The deep-rooted divisions and dire economic conditions in the aftermath of severe civil wars and military rule are enough to make even a strong, established democracy shudder. Are these the birthing pains of democracy or merely the long drawn out stifling of anti-authoritarian insurgency? The Arab Spring is far from over; voices still call for “Freedom, justice and bread”. The tragic reality is that these voices are gradually being suffocated. With millions displaced throughout the world and hundreds of thousands dead, the cost is hardly justified by any gains that have been made. A decade after the start of the Arab Spring, countries find themselves in a far worse situation, with little hope of the longed-for democracy and losing the energy to keep fighting. 

Image Credit: Maghrebia via Flickr & Creative Commons (License: CC BY 2.0).

Precarity and prejudice: reflections from a Chinese student in Oxford

Flair Donglai SHI
-
0
Precarity and prejudice: reflections from a Chinese student in Oxford

CW: Mentions of Racism.

I am a Chinese international student in Oxford, and I have been living in the UK since 2014. I have not been able to go home to see my family since the pandemic hit in early 2020. I delayed my graduation process as my studies had also been disrupted. The recent restrictions in international travel has made life particularly difficult for many of us international students. Despite my hope that staying put and waiting patiently would see things improve, China cancelled all direct flights to and from the UK in January 2021 due to the spread of the new variant here. As I am writing this short article in April 2021, there is still no sign of flights being arranged again. As I have never been this isolated in my life, I have had much time to reflect on my connections to the UK, and how my racial identity and way of thinking have influenced my life. Below is a personal encounter I recently had in Oxford. I hope that by sharing it with everyone, we can all be reminded that solidarity starts with very small actions and reflections. 

Today I gave money to a white homeless man for the first time in my life. When I first arrived in London, and then Oxford, I was not familiar with the conditions of the homeless here. To me, their life seemed less dire than that of the “real” homeless street beggars I used to see in the non-urban areas in China when I was young. I just couldn’t bring myself to give out pounds to these white people while I hardly even gave small change in yuan back in China. That was just part of the social reality I learned to live with in a desensitized way. Also, because the white people I saw and knew in China were all professors and international professionals, the idea that white people could be poor too really took some time to register with me after I came to this island, as ridiculous as that may sound. 

Tonight, I was really craving some fruit and decided to visit the local Tesco before it closed. I was the only customer at the time, and a young black man was on his last shift, busy arranging the goods on the shelves. I often saw him working at around this time and I felt bad that he always had to be the one doing the manual work until so late. All that people-of-colour-solidarity stuff I had been reading online was at the forefront of my mind when he smiled at me at the counter. As I was walking out of the supermarket with my bag of groceries, a homeless white man suddenly started to shout behind me and chasing me. 

Traumatised by all the news about racist crimes in the U.K. and the US recently, I was extremely scared, as there was hardly anyone on the street at the time. I almost started running away before he caught up with me and gave me the toothpaste that had dropped out from my bag without my knowledge. I thanked him, and, in a friendly manner, he asked whether I could offer him £5 pounds as he was very close to being able to get a bed for the night. I honestly replied that I paid with my phone and had no cash on me, and I asked him whether he would like some of the fruits I just bought. He politely declined and returned to the dark corner he was sitting in before. After I reached home, I started to feel extremely bad about the whole experience, of me being so scared without good reason, but also because of my prejudice against the homeless. I decided to go out again and took out some money for him from an ATM. Nothing much was said when I gave the money to him, and he seemed a bit surprised that this Asian guy returned just to give him the money. I don’t know. It’s really a strange feeling, a mixture of guilt, anger, and shared vulnerability. 

Racist crimes and homelessness are problems the government should deal with, and will not be solved by small actions like this. However, the money I gave out today did bring a little more peace to my tortured mind during these difficult times, if only just to appease my own sense of precarity and privilege. Black, yellow, or white, we were just three poor souls devoured by this dark night that seems to see no end of itself. This is how this world-famous British city feels like in the vast emptiness of spring 2021. The government says it will all go back to “normal” in the summer, by which I perhaps will have to leave the country already, with no clear prospects of ever returning. However, I will remember this episode of fear and guilt that night, before everything gets washed away in the banality of capitalistic hustle and bustle again.

Small actions are useful, but it is necessary to think big about the international politics that lie behind such racialized encounters. We all need to check our prejudice and racialized sentiments if we want to build cross-group solidarity in a global health crisis. 

Trump’s deliberate instigation of racism via highly incendiary terms like “China Virus” and “Kung Flu” has led to a surge of anti-Asian abuses and hate crimes in the US and in many other Western countries. However, there has been a lack of solidarity in many quarters of American society. Many Asian and Asian American communities continue to fail to see the danger of racializing another state with a new Cold War mentality. Immediately after Trump’s speeches, T-shirts with the words “I am not from China. I am X (American, Japanese, Korean, Taiwanese, from Hong Kong etc.)” appeared in online stores and even gained popularity in the US. Such racial or political distancing is essentially racist in itself and counter-productive in the fight against racism. Anti-Asian racism in the West has never been just an Asian American issue, or a China versus West issue, like Trump – or even Biden – would want us to believe. Such exclusive and narrow-minded views are operating with a fundamentally discriminatory logic, as if racism can simply be solved by educating these white supremacists to distinguish Asian Americans from Asians, Chinese from other Asians, mainland Chinese from the so-called “Sinophones” (other Chinese-speakers) or good, regular Chinese from CCP (Chinese Communist Party) members. It in effect encourages them to keep antagonising China as a Yellow Peril, whose very existence is thought to be detrimental to the US-centric international order.

As I have written elsewhere, anti-racist solidarity not only requires cross-racial alliance but also necessitates the sensitivity towards racialized aspects of international politics and the willingness to fully examine the positionality and implication of our critiques before we utter them. As a Chinese student in the West, I have found myself constantly caught in between the entanglement of racialized identities and international political battles. This in-betweenness may never disappear, but no matter what, we should always treat anti-racism as the common denominator of our different struggles, and remember that racists see no nationality, and nor should we when building our alliances. 

Image Credit: Kake via Flickr & Creative Commons (License: CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

‘Blanched and pureed’: what does globalisation do to world music?

Coral Kim
-
0
‘Blanched and pureed’: what does globalisation do to world music?

K-pop group BTS made pop music history with their explosive 2020 single, “Dynamite”. It became the first song by an all-Korean group to top the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Within Korea, Bangtan Sonyeondan (the name with which BTS is more known as domestically) cemented their place among the ranks of retired Olympian Kim Yuna and Tottenham footballer Son Heung-Min as breathing banners of national pride.

But how much good did “Dynamite” really do for Korean culture? Its lyrics are entirely in English. Both of its songwriters, David Stewart and Jessica Agombar, are British, which for some may diminish the significance of its global success. Is the hit single really a triumph of Korean music and the result of successful diversification of the globalised music industry? Or is it an omen of homogenised world music, blanched and pureed under Anglophone influence?

L’exception française is the French response to such questions. France has a history of protectionist cultural policy, which was pursued by the post-WWII culture minister André Malraux. This was contemporaneous with, if not caused by, Anglophobia in the 1950s and onwards (although fear of Anglo-American superiority existed as early as the late 19th century); in the 1960s, President Charles de Gaulle sought to target the Anglo-American as ‘both a historical and a contemporary geopolitical’ rival. It was under de Gaulle, of course, that Malraux was Minister of Cultural Affairs. In line with such history, for music ‘l’exception’ involves a legal minimum quota of French songs played on the radio. A 2013 Financial Times article largely defends the measures, arguing that it: ‘should be understood more positively: as safeguarding a niche for some French cultural products’. Today, eight years later, with world music more globalised than ever in our age of streaming, I doubt such a safeguard is necessary.

The old-world equation of globalisation with Americanisation, the invasion of the Harley-revving rock stars and NYC-dreaming songwriters, no longer holds. Variety’s 2019 article declares our age of Spotify as ‘a time where breaking in America is no longer the primary goal or the definitive sign that an artist has made it’. The mainstage belongs less and less to 15-months-long America tours, Madison Square Garden and the Ed Sullivan theatre—and more and more to streaming platforms, installed in smartphones all over the world. So we begin to witness dynamics much more diverse than the non-American artist / American audience or American artist / non-American audience relationship.

Another dubious equation is that of globalisation with homogenisation. ‘Mondialisation ne signifie pas uniformisation du monde’ [Globalisation does not indicate global uniformisation], argues French political scientist Jean-François Bayart in an interview with Alternatives Economiques. In fact, globalisation has been producing new varieties.

Take rock music. It began, yes, with American rock and roll in the mid-20th century. But what followed American Elvis singing ‘That’s all right’ in Memphis, Tennessee wasn’t simply a range of echoes—although the line ‘that’s all right’ and its many permutations seem to be chorus favourites everywhere—with a kick of gayageum or maracas to vaguely signpost the band’s nationality (this record better sell, man, says the Hawaiian-shirt-sporting record company executive, as the non-Anglophone band frontman from a non-Anglophone country gulps foreignly). The best of what followed was a diverse harmony of original and incredibly distinct rock music from across the world.

French rock musician Renaud declares, ‘Y’a eu Antoine avant moi / Y’a eu Dylan avant lui’ [There was Antoine before me / There was Dylan before him], in his song “Société tu m’auras pas”. This grumbling, broken-voiced descendant of Bob Dylan scribbles French discontent all over his American inspiration, projecting his Frenchness onto American rock’s subversive self-expression—his disgust for the average French bourgeois and bobo (bourgeois-bohemian) makes him all the more French. With Apple Music’s ‘Renaud Essentials’ playlist downloading in the background, I dived into link after link of ‘Similar Artists’ profiles, stumbling upon my current two French favourites, Alain Souchon and Laurent Voulzy.

Mexican band Maná, which I “discovered” from their collaboration with Santana, sent me into a completely new direction. Proudly and loudly rock en español, they blast an internationally popular yet strikingly Latin American sound, imbibed with cumbia and bachata sounds.

Listening to Maná via streaming, as with earlier French musicians, further facilitated my exploration. Hours of listening and half a dozen clicks later, I landed on Spanish-speaking music elsewhere. I began with La Oreja de Van Gogh. When my high school Spanish teacher recommended the band years earlier, I had brushed them off to the back of my mind—the effortlessness and low commitment of the streaming platform allowed me to tap on ‘Puedes Contar Conmigo’ light-heartedly, then download their essentials, then become their loyal fan of 4 years—and still going strong.

Though I may have just exposed my rather low effort, ‘Top Hits’ listening tendency, my experience is but a quick glance at how diversified globalised music can be, and how easily accessible it has become. This is not to reject l’exception française as entirely pointless—its drive toward state sponsorship of local artists is just and needed. Its protectionist grounds, on the other hand, are indeed debatable, if not outdated in this era of incredibly fluid cultural exchange through streaming and online sharing.

“Dynamite” is undoubtedly a product of Anglophone influence. Yet even this single, as an Insider article argues, is more of a ‘balancing act’ between appealing to English-speaking and Korean audiences, and still engages with several elements of BTS’s ultimately Korean identity. Only a few months after the song’s release, “Life goes on,” another single by the group, this time predominantly in Korean and involving Anglophone as well as Korean songwriters, debuted at the top of the Billboard Hot 100 chart. It was the first non-English song to do so. BTS’s successes, then, seems to me as a triumph of Korean culture—if not world culture.

Image credit: Yun_Q via Flickr (Public Domain)

‘That’s So Fetch’: Teen Movie Musicals

Katie Kirkpatrick
-
0
‘That’s So Fetch’: Teen Movie Musicals

CW: brief mention of eating disorders, suicide & sexual assault 

This week it was announced that Heathers: the Musical will be returning to the Theatre Royal Haymarket on the West End for a second run. The musical adaptation of Mean Girls is also still planned to open in London, and Bring It On is being revived this August. The West End is increasingly set to be populated by shows about high school hierarchies, their teenage heroines taking their places alongside the Hamiltons, Phantoms, Elphabas, and Mormons. So many teen movie musical productions lie in wait for when theatres reopen, fuelled by a year of theatre fans multiplying via platforms like TikTok… but will they ever be able to find commercial and critical success outside of the digital sphere? 

While it may seem like a recent phenomenon, the teen movie musical has been part of the fabric of musical theatre for decades. Arguably the first teen movie musical was 1988’s Carrie: based on the 1974 book and 1976 film of the same name, the Broadway musical became one of the most famous flops in theatre history, closing after only five performances. Other teen movie adaptations, however, have taken their place as musical theatre classics – for example, 2002’s Hairspray, now perhaps one of the most popular musicals ever, was originally based on the 1988 film of the same name. Following this, 2007 saw the hugely successful stage adaptation of Legally Blonde, which spawned a casting reality TV show called The Search for Elle Woods and a West End transfer. In 2012, Broadway then welcomed Bring It On: the Musical, with music by Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame.

It was in circa 2018, however, that the teen movie musical really became its own genre. An illegal recording of the Off-Broadway production of Heathers: the Musical went viral on YouTube, and the show’s suddenly massive online following led to an Off-West End run at The Other Palace in 2018, followed by a West End transfer. In the same year, the theatrical adaptation of Mean Girls opened on Broadway, giving iconic lines like “That’s so fetch!” and “On Wednesdays we wear pink” a second life. In the wake of these two productions, numerous other adaptations were attempted. 90s teen movies became a particular target, with the jukebox musical adaptations of Cruel Intentions and Clueless using almost exactly the same soundtrack – to be fair, ‘Torn’ by Natalie Imbruglia is a pretty perfect fit for some retro teen angst.

A huge part of what makes adaptations like Heathers and Mean Girls so distinctive are their fan bases – it seems unlikely that Heathers would ever have made it to the West End without its impressive online following. It was also helped by Hamilton spawning a sudden boom in young musical theatre fans on platforms like Tumblr and Twitter and thus forming the perfect environment for a catchy show about teenagers to take off. Young people make up a huge amount of the audience of musical theatre, and therefore shows that feel like they have been made for them are bound to find an audience. In addition to this, these films often include subjects that feel highly relevant to teens but aren’t often seen in other productions; shows include topics that range from popularity politics and eating disorders to teenage suicde and sexual assault. This intense fan culture extends to live audiences: I saw Heathers twice in London and both times was surrounded by young people dressed up (‘cosplaying’) in red scrunchies, blue blazers, and black trench coats.

The primary issue these productions face is the discrepancy between fan popularity, commercial success and critical opinion. No recent productions have had very long runs, despite their massive online fanbases. In fact, Mean Girls had to resort to some of the least successful stunt casting in recent history, with recordings of Vine star Cameron Dallas as love interest Aaron Samuels going viral for just how incredibly out of tune he was. This is firstly because young people as a target audience are often less likely to be able to buy tickets: West End and Broadway tickets are increasingly extortionate, and teenagers are also less likely to be able to easily travel to London/NYC. Secondly, most of these shows receive mediocre to negative reviews, meaning they tend not to appeal to older theatregoers. With their primary audiences often unable to come, and those who can turned off by poor reviews, it’s not easy for a teen movie musical to sustain its run.

In spite of this, these musicals keep cropping up. Heathers, Mean Girls, and Bring It On are all set to be on the West End soon, and there are always more productions being workshopped (currently including musicals based on the 2010 indie film It’s Kind of a Funny Story, which centres mental health, and the 1999 cult lesbian film But I’m a Cheerleader). This is because teen movies naturally make excellent subjects for musicals. They combine ensemble casts of distinctive, eccentric characters, a comedic, feel-good tone, some kind of light moral lesson, and, of course,  the teen movie musical holy grail: a party scene. While it’s true that the similarities can make these shows feel derivative, they also prove that the format works. For example, the party scenes in all of these productions allow for key plot points to intersect with iconic costume moments, strobe lights, and flashy dance sequences. We see this in ‘Big Fun’ from Heathers, ‘Someone Gets Hurt’ and ‘Whose House is This?’ from Mean Girls, ‘A Night We’ll Never Forget’ from Carrie, and the iconic playboy bunny moment in Legally Blonde. All four shows also share at least one song that breaks down the high school/college food chain and speaks to the pressures of that kind of social environment: ‘Beautiful’ from Heathers, ‘It Roars’, ‘Where Do You Belong?’, and several other songs from Mean Girls, ‘In’ from Carrie, and ‘The Harvard Variations’ and ‘Blood in the Water’ from Legally Blonde. 

The truth is that when these productions take into account the current cultural and political climate and introduce catchy, original music, they can be really excellent examples of musical theatre. Heathers continues to be a success because it manages this – it walks the line between genuine heart and satire expertly, and the music is well-written and catchy. For this same reason, productions like Clueless and Cruel Intentions are unlikely to ever really take off. When using a story that’s already well-known, introducing original music is more important than ever to offer audiences something fresh.

Even successful shows like Heathers and Mean Girls, though, have continually struggled with awards and critics: Heathers received zero Olivier nominations, and Mean Girls had to resort to poor stunt-casting before closing in the pandemic. The reason for this is that musicals centred around teenagers are destined to become ‘cult’ shows: their audience is intrinsically niche, and, due to their youth, unlikely to be able to sustain commercially and critically successful runs, leading these shows to fan-centric cult status. The importance of internet culture also feeds into this, urging us to reconsider how we measure a production’s success.

Looking to the future, it seems like we could be walking into a renaissance of the teen movie musical. With Heathers and Bring It On both in London this summer, combined with the way that the pandemic will have spawned a new generation of young theatre fans eager to get into theatres, we’re unlikely to see a decrease in demand for stories about young people on stage. It remains to be seen, however, whether these shows will ever manage to break into the musical theatre canon and win awards and glowing reviews. It doesn’t look like adaptations are slowing down, in spite of criticism of the lack of original stories in theatre: with the TikTok musical versions of Ratatouille and Bridgerton making international theatre news, who’s to say which film will take to the stage next?

Image Credit: Brecht Bug via Flickr & Creative Commons (License: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

Oxford Union opens courtyard beer garden

Christopher Collins
-
0
Oxford Union opens courtyard beer garden

Summer has arrived early at the Oxford Union, which has opened a new beer garden for food, drinks, and political intrigue. The Covid-secure beer garden, erected in the Union’s courtyard, serves up to 200 patrons and contains a gazebo for more than 100. Seating is at tables of six and Union members can bring guests.

The Union hopes to attract customers with new drinks offers and a new lunch menu each week, including £2.50 cocktails on Thursdays. The Beer Garden will play host to social events from pub quizzes to a drag night, and the Union aims to collaborate with societies such as the African and Caribbean Society (ACS) and causes like Pink Week.

The news accompanies the gradual reopening of pubs and other hospitality venues for outdoor service following the easing of England’s coronavirus restrictions on 12th April. There is no 10pm curfew and no requirement to purchase a ‘substantial meal’.

Members have praised the return to normality at the Union after a largely virtual year. One member, Grace Lawrence said “it’s really heartening to see outdoor spaces opening up especially after spending a term at home.” The opening of the Beer Garden coincided with the reopening of library facilities, and a Union spokesperson indicated that the indoor bar is planned to reopen next month. 

Following Monday’s opening, Adam Roble, President of the Union, told Cherwell “the Beer Garden today has been a huge success, and after a year of uncertainty it’s been so nice to be able to see Union members and their guests socialising in a safe environment again. We are really excited to be able to welcome you really soon!”

Arjun Bhardwaj, Treasurer-Elect, said he is “really excited at the transformation of the historic Union courtyard into one of the largest beer gardens in central Oxford.”

“We know how hard it has been for students to get spots at pubs recently, so with a capacity of up to 200 we hope to meet the large demand. As well as offering a wide range of draught beers, we are also able to serve a variety of food from the bar. We hope our members enjoy the unique experience!”

The beer garden will be open Monday to Wednesday 10am – 11pm and Thursday to Saturday 10am – midnight, with lunch served from 11:30am – 2:30 pm on weekdays. Alcohol may continue to be served until 3am depending on demand.

Image Credit: The Oxford Union Press Office

Oxford Charity Asylum Welcome fights Home Office’s proposed New Plan for Immigration

Yan Chen
-
0
Oxford Charity Asylum Welcome fights Home Office’s proposed New Plan for Immigration

To challenge the Home Office’s proposed New Plan for Immigration, Oxford-based charity Asylum Welcome is providing Zoom consultation sessions, encouraging people to write to MPs, and soliciting ideas for collaborative action against the proposed policy changes. The plan, published on 24th March, is undergoing an open consultation until 6th May. 

Described by Home Secretary Priti Patel as “the most significant overhaul of the asylum system ‘in decades“, the New Plan for Immigration vows to launch tougher measures against “illegal immigration” while rewarding “legal immigration” achieved through resettlement schemes. 

For the first time ever, an asylum seeker in the UK will be branded “legal” or “illegal” based on their route of arrival. Asylum seekers entering the country via “illegal means” – having passed through a “safe country” before reaching the UK – will face the Home Office’s “every effort” at removal. Even those “illegal arrivals” who successfully claim refugee status will be “regularly assessed for removal” and find their access to benefits and family reunion rights limited. 

Asylum seekers’ claims of persecution and their age will undergo closer scrutiny, and people smugglers will face harsher sentences. The plan also promises to streamline the process of asylum appeals and fast-track deportations. 

These “fair but firm” measures, claims Patel, will deter people smuggling and human trafficking and relieve the current pressure on the UK’s asylum processing system. However, Patel’s definition of asylum seeker legality based on means of entry has been refuted by a UNHCR spokesperson, who has noted that the 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention does not “oblige asylum seekers to apply in the first safe country they encounter”. 

Organisations working with asylum seekers and refugees have reacted with concern and alarm. Enver Solomon, CEO of the Refugee Council, has condemned the Plan as “unjustly differentiat[ing] between the deserving and undeserving refugee”. 

In Oxford, local charity Asylum Welcome is taking measures to challenge the plan and encouraging other members of the public to do likewise. The largely volunteer-run organisation provides a range of practical services including immigration and asylum advice, educational, language, and IT support, a food bank, and a gardening project.

Mark Goldring, Director of Asylum Welcome, acknowledges the need to reform the UK asylum system, but says he is “shocked” at the Government’s approach and describes it as “designed to stop people coming to the UK for sanctuary”. 

In response to the Plan’s punitive measures against “‘illegal immigration’”, Asylum Welcome has underlined its rejection of “the two-tier system for people being treated as legal and illegal”, pointing out that refugees often have no choices apart from “‘illegal’” means of entry to the UK in the face of harm or persecution. 

A male volunteer and a female client talking during an employment advice session at Asylum Welcome.
A volunteer at Asylum Welcome working together with client during an employment advice session. Image credit: Asylum Welcome

Asylum Welcome has held four Zoom meetings with refugees and asylum seekers and one with supporters and volunteers to explain the proposals, listen to concerns, and encourage possible proposal response ideas. Goldring states that the charity will “seek primarily to give voice to people with lived experience of the asylum system”. He also promises further action against the plan, vowing to respond “through a range of channels, directly and through networks, alliances and media” before the end of the consultation period on 6th May. 

Members of the public interested in participating in Asylum Welcome’s efforts to respond to the Plan are invited to email [email protected]. Asylum Welcome also encourages those concerned about the Plan to write to their MPs or contribute to the consultation on the UK Government’s website, and provides guidelines for both. 

Top Image Credit: Asylum Welcome

Oxford political societies respond to online learning until the 17th of May

Daisy Aitchison
-
0
Oxford political societies respond to online learning until the 17th of May

Oxford University’s political societies have responded to the government’s decision not to resume in person teaching for students until at least the 17th May. A statement published by Oxford University Labour Club said the decision was ‘an outrage’ and that the government should “rethink their decision” not to allow all students to return to university for the start of term.

The Oxford University Liberal Democrats said that they “wholeheartedly oppose the Tory government’s nonsensical plans, according to which going to the pub is fine but going to a tutorial is not” adding that “we are in agreement with OULC that it is unfair to get students to justify their return.”

The statements come following the government’s announcement earlier in the month which stated that “providers should support the return of students where necessary to support the continuation of their studies, for example, where students do not have access to appropriate alternative accommodation, facilities or study space, where students need to return for health or safety reasons or where there is concern for a student’s mental health or wellbeing”. This means that Oxford students need the agreement of their college before they can return to university for Trinity term.

Explaining their opposition to the proposals, Oxford University Labour Club said that “we stand in solidarity with students who have been overlooked by the government yet again. It is an outrage that, with just days left until the start of term, this decision has been leaked rather than announced.”

The OULC went on to say that “the argument that a full return might cause a spike in cases has no basis in evidence’ and that ‘being forced to justify their mental health at a time when everyone is struggling is unnecessary and unfair.”

The president of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, Asher Weisz, said: “We at OULD wholeheartedly oppose the Tory Government’s nonsensical plans, according to which going to a pub is fine but going to a tutorial is not. We are in agreement with OULC that it is unfair to get students to justify their return. All students should be allowed to return as soon as possible.”

“With cases so low and the rest of the country slowly opening up, the Government can afford to let all students back, especially since statistics suggest that most students are already in their university accommodation. Boris Johnson should invest more time in making sure that return is as safe and orderly as possible rather than in trying to prevent it. OULD will continue to advocate for the right of all Oxford students to come back to the city we love.”

Oxford University Conservative Association has been contacted for comment.

Image Credit: Tejvan Pettinger / CC BY 2.0

 

Antigua and Barbuda asks All Souls for reparations

Charlie Hancock
-
0
Antigua and Barbuda asks All Souls for reparations

Gaston Browne, the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, has written to the Warden of All Souls College to ask that the College pays reparations to the country. Mr Browne said that the College had benefited from profits earned by enslaved labour on the islands.

The College’s library was constructed with a £10,000 endowment from Christopher Codrington, which is now worth around £1.7 million. Codrington owned 900 acres of land on Antigua, the larger and more mountainous of the two islands which make up the country. The smaller island of Barbuda, now famous for its pink sand beaches beloved by Princess Diana, was inherited from his father, who secured a lease of the island at no cost in 1685. His sugarcane plantations were tended by enslaved people.

The use of enslaved labour on the island was not stopped by the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, although the island’s enslaved population were still emancipated at that time. After Christopher Codrington’s death in 1710, the owners of his Barbuda plantations were compensated with a payment of £8,823. 8s. 9d under the Slave Compensation Act 1837 for the loss of 411 enslaved persons. The UK Treasury was still making payments under this act until 2015.

Mr Browne’s letter suggested to Sir John Vickers, Warden of All Souls, that the College should “repay its debt to enslaved persons on Antigua and Barbuda, who were the real source of benefit to all souls.” The proposed reparations would take the form of the creation of a scholarship to the college for “eligible Antiguans and Barbudans”, and donations to the Five Islands (Antigua) campus of the University of the West Indies”.

When approached for comment, All Souls referred Cherwell to a statement on its website reading: “Over the last three years the College has taken several steps to address the problematic nature of the Codrington legacy. It has erected a large memorial plaque at the entrance to the Library, ‘In memory of those who worked in slavery on the Codrington plantations in the West Indies’. It has pledged a series of donations to Codrington College, Barbados (a theological college also founded by a bequest in Codrington’s will) to a total of £100,000. And it has set up three fully funded graduate studentships at Oxford for students from the Caribbean; in effect, £6 million of the College’s endowment is now set aside, on a permanent basis, to produce the income that funds these studentships.” All Souls recently removed Codrington’s name from its library. The College did not remove a statue of Codrington from the library’s centre.

Common Ground told Cherwell they supported Mr Browne’s call for direct reparations from the College. They added: “We want to echo the sentiments of Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, who have already voiced their support for the initiative, and also expressed their disappointment at the fact that the statue of Christopher Codrington still remains standing within the college. By allowing the Codrington statue to remain in place the College is unable to fully stand in solidarity with Black communities both here and in the Carribean. It also shows a failure to truly comprehend the full extent of the dehumanisation, exploitation and trauma on which the College’s wealth stands. The efforts to repair past damages with current studentships offered to students in Barbados are undermined by their continued commitment to upholding the statue and the lack of direct reparations.

“It is positive to hear that the college has responded and agreed to investigate academic initiatives relating to the Codrington legacy and reach conclusions in the coming academic term. We sincerely hope that the college chooses to take action and pay reparations where they are owed. Back in November 2020, after All Souls announced that they will be preserving the statue of Codrington, Common Ground responded to say that we believe the College needs to go beyond acknowledgment if it truly wants to express its ‘abhorrence of slavery’ and stand in solidarity with those affected by colonial injustice. We feel that paying direct reparations to Antigua and Barbuda would be a step in the right direction for All Souls on the way to truly facing up to the atrocities on which the foundations of the College are built.”

The Office of the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda has been approached for comment.


Image: Andrew Shiva / CC BY-SA 4.0

Colleges announce return policies

Jill Cushen
-
0
Colleges announce return policies

Following the government announcement that students on non-practical courses not already exempt will be unable to return to Oxford until the 17th of May, the University of Oxford has updated its guidance on students’ returns, stating: “providers should support the return of students where necessary to support the continuation of their studies.” 

In emails seen by Cherwell, colleges have outlined their policies for students who wish to return to Oxford before May 17th. In line with government and university guidance, students may return provided they fall under one of the exemptions: if they “do not have access to appropriate alternative accommodation, facilities or study space at home” or “for health or safety (including mental health and wellbeing) reasons.” In light of these changes, students who previously applied and were not given permission can contact their college to make a new request. 

In an email sent to students at St John’s College, the college said they shared students’ “disappointment and frustration” at the government update, but informed them: “our objective remains to welcome back as many of you as possible, within the parameters of what is permitted by the government.” For students who claim the exemption of health and safety, including mental health and wellbeing, the college said they would “initiate a discussion about what support [they] may need on [their] return” in order to ensure their safety and that of the wider college community. 

Students at St Edmund’s Hall, who were not already given permission to return, were told they could if “in [their] judgement, this is necessary for [them] to be able to use the facilities such as libraries to study effectively, to prepare for examinations, or for health reasons”. These students did not “need to secure the permission” of the college. 

Hertford College also told their students they shared in their “frustrations” and “had hoped for earlier clarity and a stronger recognition of both the case for return and the sacrifices made by students”. Students wishing to return early were asked to submit a “brief return request” flagging the “general grounds on which the request is being made” and if given permission, can return in the earlier window from 21 to 24 April.  The college also said that “all students who wish to return to residence for Trinity Term will be able to do so in preparation for 17th May” and instructed them to book an arrival slot between May 12 and 15. 

Students at Regent’s Park were told that the college would be happy to consider requests and would “interpret government and University rules as generously as [they] can”. The email also stated that if students wished to submit a request under one of the exemptions, they did not need to go into “great detail” but that a “simple statement of the relevant exemption” would be sufficient. 

The Queen’s College wrote to students stating that those who do not have access to appropriate alternative accommodation, facilities, or study space would be allowed to “self-certify for the exemption” but would require a “supportive GP statement where the student is making a case on matters of mental health”. 

In an email to their students, Exeter wrote: “The College recognises that the prolonged period for which many of you have now been required to remain at home may have made individual situations and difficulties more acute, and that this may include some of you who have previously made unsuccessful applications to return.” 

St Hugh’s told students that given the “slight change in the wording around the Government guidance on exemptions” they are hopeful that more students will be in College than in Hilary term. Wadham also “warmly encouraged” students who fall under one of the exemptions to apply, adding that the college is “very keen” to support those who wish to return. 

Meanwhile, Merton, Somerville, Balliol and New College reminded students that due to continuing restrictions, study spaces in college will be limited in the coming term and there may be nowhere for students who do return to work other than their own study-bedroom. 

Following the latest government announcement on university returns, PresCom, the committee of JCR Presidents, wrote to the Heads of Oxford colleges to suggest they adopt “a more trust-based approach” to allowing students to return. In a Facebook post, they said: “This approach must be both uniform  across the colleges and must respect students’ abilities as responsible adults to make their own decision as to the seriousness of their reasons to return.” 

On April 16, PresCom received a reply from Mr. Miles Young, Chair of the Conference of Colleges, which read: “I am glad to say that there is a clear consensus within colleges as a result of the consultation exercise we conducted in the early part of this week, which favours a consistent approach based on streamlined processes and a high degree of ‘self-certification’, but recognising, of course, that the granting of permission to return is the College’s prerogative, not the students’.” 

He added: “While there will inevitably be some differences in procedures and language, I think you can be reassured that colleges have come together with a willingness to do everything possible to ‘support the return of students where necessary to support the continuation of their studies’, as the new guidance enables them to do.” 

Image Credit: Alison Day / CC BY-ND 2.0

1...347348349...2,511Page 348 of 2,511

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