Thursday 14th August 2025
Blog Page 458

Coriolanus: Review

0

Coriolanus is set in the early stages of the Roman republic, in the midst of plebeian revolts for grain. Caius Marcius (Tom Hiddleston), nicknamed ‘Coriolanus’ in the course of the play, is a capable and inspiring warrior. He almost single-handedly wins the war against the Volsces, defeating their general, Aufidius (Hadley Fraser). Acclaimed as a hero, Coriolanus is encouraged to run for consul, one of the most important political roles in Rome. But what made Coriolanus such a great soldier – his unwavering pride, his direct, to-the-point speeches – are his fatal flaws as a politician. He is too arrogant, ‘too absolute’: this causes his downfall, leading him to join the Volsces and revolt against Rome.

Coriolanus is a brutal play, with physical fights and visually violent images, such as Hiddleston being drenched in blood for a good part of the play. Rourke gives it a very militaristic and grave tone, creating conflict in different ways throughout. At first, the play is very action-focused, and, as it gets more political, it gradually shifts on power plays to sustain tension, getting at the most personal and intimate point in the end. Some moments relieve the gravity of this harrowing play, but they are not many. They mostly come from Menenius (Mark Gatiss), a father figure for Coriolanus, witty and diplomatic, who shows great emotional depth and political acumen.

This production explores extremely well how it is not his lack of empathy for the lower classes that makes Coriolanus such a bad politician, but his inability to hide it. Pretence is unnatural to him, and he alienates common people by stating what he thinks: he despises them. Far from being a comically bad villain, he is not alone in his contempt for the lower classes: in reality, nobody cares. These aristocrats – even the tribunes, elected to represent the plebs – mock and disrespect the plebeians, and then manipulate them to obtain power. And on their part, the people follow through with the manipulation of the moment almost unquestioningly. Thus, Coriolanus offers an incredibly bleak portrayal of democracy, politics, and power, and it is not difficult to relate it to our contemporary world.

But the human element is always present in this grandiose tragedy about power and the corruption that derives from it. Hiddleston shows us a Coriolanus that is full of contradictions, but also has some genuinely good personal qualities. Coriolanus does not get to deliver as many monologues or soliloquies as other Shakespearean characters, so we can only guess and project our own convictions, but it would be too easy to cast him off as a villain. His intimate, delicate familial connections are constantly shown and explored. In the end, Coriolanus is confronted with a Roman matron (Jacqueline Boatswain), his wife (Birgitte Hjort Sørensen), his mother (Deborah Findlay), and his son (Joe Willis), begging him to stop the Volsces’ army. They are deeply emotional scenes, that do not suffer from a drastic tonal change – affection and love between these characters had been shown many times before. A wonderful Findlay, who is a joy to watch in every scene she is in, is every bit as prideful and determined as her fictional son. And Hiddleston’s interactions with his on-scene son and wife are a sweet, quiet performance of love and conflicted emotions.

Osborne’s scenography is simple, with a wall in the background, covered in graffiti that represent the people’s thoughts and needs of the time. The stage is very rarely empty, starting out with a painted red square in the middle of it and some chairs. Such a bare set gives the play a gritty, almost urban feeling. This, with the use of strong whites, blacks, and reds, accompanied the brutal tones of the play quite effectively. More puzzling were the costume choices, with a weird blend between modern and ancient. If it tried to make the connection between our world and theirs more obvious, it was very unsubtle; if not, it is difficult to find another purpose for such choice, other than a bizarre fashion statement.

Coriolanus is a great play, intense and direct in its critique at those in power, but also subtly touching with its portrayal of family and personal relationships.

The fourth wall: Looking beyond the lens

0

Beautiful, sprightly music plays as the two protagonists of Pierrot Le Fou (1965), Ferdinand and Marianne, cruise around in the countryside in a stolen Ford Galaxie. The film is Godard at his cheeky best – bright colours, violence, making movies about movies. Marianne, Ferdinand’s ex-love and now partner-in-crime, is describing all the things they’ll do once they acquire a suitcase of money:

Marianne: Then, we’ll find a high-class hotel and have some fun!
Ferdinand, hands on the wheel, turns behind him and looks directly into the camera. 
Ferdinand: You see? All she thinks about is fun. 
Marianne: Who are you talking to? 
Ferdinand: The audience.
Marianne glances briefly at the camera too. 
Marianne: Ah. 

These moments are scattered throughout many of Godard’s films, almost offhandedly. At the same time, they’re fun and unobtrusive. Perhaps it’s just Ferdinand here being crazy, talking to a pretend viewer; Marianne, passionate as she is, plays along. Godard’s directing, of course, was neither the first nor last to innovatively explore and toy with the fourth wall. Breaking the fourth wall moves beyond realism, towards a form of transrealism self-reflexively commenting on the fiction and medium itself. In this light, a moment of audience acknowledgement like this can also be understood as part of the many ways Godard popularized many novel techniques – jump cuts, narrative sidelines, chaotic sound camera placement – departing from more formalist filmmaking techniques. Nonetheless, such techniques were for Godard his expression of ‘critical cinephilia’ and response to prevailing film theory, and breaking the fourth wall has been adopted in other films to varying ends.  

The fourth wall refers to the barrier between stage and audience, a gulf between fiction and reality. The term is not unique to filmmaking, having its antecedents in theatrical explorations of realism itself. Against the lavish, distinctly bourgeois set and lighting technology of the 1920s, German playwright Berthold Brecht sought to insert the occasional puncture of theatre’s fiction of its own insulation from the audience. Like other these mediums, the power of film in part derives from its relationship with its audience, namely its ability to – however momentarily – bring viewers into a cinematic world. Much has been written about the various techniques that help to immerse, to conjure up captivating, lively worlds. We are entranced, coming to be invested not just in the plot of a movie but in real stories, not just in the dialogue between Character A and Character B but in the psyches, the motivations, the fates of real human beings. No doubt, some have perfected these techniques – but the best art is what questions itself. 

Breaks in the fourth wall therefore thrive in comedy. Even gentle nudges worked brilliantly, characters engaging the audience, almost winking at their fictional nature. The eponymous character in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off (1986) brings us through a day of playing hooky. Right as his parents fall for his malingering, and leave him for the day, he gets up. “They bought it,” he declares – the connection with the audience is instant, setting the stage for his self-assured, cocky romp around town. The next five minutes are comically instructional, taking the form of a follow-as-you-go tutorial, replete with on-screen text, of just how he’s pulled it off. Deep down the sentiments are relatable for any peer (“Who gives a crap if they’re socialists? Or fascists, anarchists… it still doesn’t change the fact I don’t own a car”). His charisma does not radiate from a distance, but almost as if we’re sharing in his delightfully teenage plotting.  

Yet, the peaks of playfulness are achieved not just through flippant, sarcastic banter between characters or our protagonist’s rejection of societal convention – no, it takes a complete irreverence towards the medium of film itself. True to his comic book self, Deadpool is full of these moments: “You might want to look away from this”, he cautions, right before a gruesome scene – and the cameraman (thankfully) obliges. Even when the credits roll, he lampoons the entertainment industry itself, stepping out in pyjamas. “You’re still here? Go home! … Oh, you’re expecting a teaser for Deadpool 2?”

However, other genres have broken the fourth wall to establish a dialectic between character and viewer, reversing audience’s gaze through an inversion placing us in the heads of characters themselves. Jungian notions of the unconscious feature heavily in the works of Ingmar Bergman. One of his first uses of the technique is in Summer with Monika (1953), as the titular character prepares to cheat on her husband. Godard, in his review, notes how she “stares fixedly into the camera, her laughing eyes clouded with distress, and calls on the viewer to witness her self-loathing at involuntarily choosing hell over heaven. It is the saddest shot in the history of cinema.” One grasps the deep impression the Swedish auteur left on his French contemporary, even as we can appreciate the distinctive ways both directors would toy with the fourth wall over their impressive filmographies. 

It is not that cinema has necessarily become more artificial: the medium itself was never separable from the rest of the film. But perhaps the nature of film-watching itself has changed. No longer must we enter movie theatres, purposive institutions of cinema, especially as streaming becomes easier and far more accessible. Actors become more recognizable, even larger than their characters, particularly with celebrities highly visible on social media. That’s not Winslow the lighthouse keeper, within a self-contained film about a lighthouse, it’s Robert Pattinson atoning for his Twilight sins. It seems trite to conclude that we live in an age of Post-Modern cinema, but the significance of the fourth wall (or lack thereof) is evident when we consider Post-Modern playfulness and absurdity amidst a fragmented, chaotic textual landscape. Today’s prevalence of metafictional explorations of the medium itself, and the fact that no film is sui generis, instead taking cues, motifs and influence from extant works, encourages us to look at breaking the fourth wall as another nod towards how our relationship with film will only continue to change. 

Image via Wiki Images

Review: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes

The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes offers an origin story for everyone’s favourite evil-but-unequivocally-stylish dictator, President Snow. For the uninitiated, his achievements in the previous trilogy amount to mass murdering his citizens, losing control of his totalitarian state after a pretty solid 60 or so year run of oppression, smelling like roses, and being played by Donald Sutherland in the movie adaptation. In this book, however, he is simply Coriolanus, a young student in the early days of the war-ravaged Capitol, furnished only by the grandeur of his name and the ambition for wealth and glory. It all feels a bit anime, and in classic anime fashion he winds up getting involved in the Hunger Games, now in its 10th year with public interest and enthusiasm towards it waning. And even more anime than that, it is in this context that he meets our female protagonist, Lucy Gray Baird, a folk singer from District Twelve whom he has been given the challenge of mentoring. And then they fall in love, which causes all sorts of problems, yet none of this is particularly surprising because this is a Hunger Games book: Suzanne Collins’ fortune is founded on the mining of suffering, with particular regard to will-they-won’t-they-can-Gale-please-leave-I-hate-him love triangles. Don’t fix it, as they say, if it ain’t broke.

To briefly appraise the novel before we get into the meaty stuff: Collins’ prose is sparse and utilitarian, and every word serves a purpose. It is perhaps not beautiful, but it is practical, and it is a pleasure to read. It gives the book a rhythmic energy, building tension throughout the novel and creating a fantastic sense of unease. Collins has also done some masterful world building in here, leaving breadcrumb trails of lore tidbits that will leave both the casual fan and the fanatic appeased. I was particularly impressed by the ending; I spent most of the book dreading what horrible thing was going to occur, but as it built to a climax, I was satisfied that everything that needed to be resolved (or rather, made horrible) was resolved, and it was very exciting and VERY GOOD. That’s objectively, of course, because naturally content-wise it was grizzly and depressing. However, on the other hand, there are a lot of songs. Some of them are good, but some of them are very bad, and some of them, I’m convinced, are from Annie.

Anyhow, now, meaty stuff. So, the first thing that comes to mind, for me, is the consequence of writing a love story between a to-be dictator and a member of the oppressed under class. It’s obviously not going to end well, because he’s going to end up as President Snow, and since we have never heard of her before, we can assume that she is probably going to either die or be killed in some horrible way. Subsequently, it’s not an immediately pleasurably reading experience, as every word is so tinged with dread for the inevitable horrible demise that will strike both characters and their relationship. Indeed, this book was so depressing that even though it’s a young adult novel that clocks in at about 517 pages, it is much more akin in terms of an experience to reading something old, Russian, and double the length. Like a Tolstoy or a Chekhov where everyone dies or has an unhappy marriage and the main point is that modern society is not only a bore but also a plague. It’s that kind of vibe. I also just want to say, before I embark upon any of the big questions (what does it mean? why was it written? should we all be taking heed?), that the romance provided a really engaging emotional spine in an otherwise pretty bleak novel. It is the quintessential romance you might expect from a Hunger Games book, and though I pretended to roll my eyes and make loud cynical guffawing noises, in reality I want it to be turned into a liquid and fed directly into my veins through an IV. But aside from lightening the tone, what utility does this serve, and what point does this romance serve to make?

It’s been around a decade since the publication of the original trilogy. The movies have come and gone, and Suzanne Collins isn’t really, as far as I know, of the JK Rowling ilk where she’ll give out all of the secrets of the universe if someone asks her on twitter. So why now? There are two obvious answers. The first is that she a worshipper of the Canannite god of money, Mammon. We’re going to ignore that because that’s bullshit because everyone in our society is, we’re capitalists, we LOVE MONEY. The second is that a lot of time has passed since Mockingjay hit the shelves, and there have been a lot of dystopias that she has inspired since, and also the world has changed a lot since then (Trump, Brexit, wars, I grew up into a great mind and beauty, a recession somewhere, Trump, Coronavirus, Trump, TRUMP). I think it’s pretty clear that Suzanne has come back to have the final word.

The Hunger Games was borne out of the unlikely marriage of reality television and Iraq war coverage. It sought to make a point about our consumerist society and the commodification of suffering for entertainment. Is it fair to say then, that this was likely inspired by the Trump-some-wars-somewhere-probably-a-recession-Trump-present? We must examine this in the context of the world Collins has created. Fortunately, we do not live in that world. If we feel as though we have been failed by our states, we have the power to protest, to dissent, without having to fear for our lives. We have the choice to live as we please. In this respect we could never relate to Katniss or the people her world. I believe it was a bold and prescient move on the part of Collins to take this novel from the Capitol perspective, which might be perceived as being slightly more equivocal to the reader’s own experience.

Even more so, when it transpires towards the end of the novel that the crux of morality, as Collins describes it, comes from the act of personal choice. The world of Panem is created by the choices of men. The state in which we leave Panem is in the process of becoming a place to live in freedom and harmony with one another without fear. Coriolanus is surrounded by kindness, swaddled by it – from his cousin Tigris, from the Plinths, from Lucy Gray, and the Covey. But ultimately it is his choice to reject all of this kindness to satisfy his own ambitions that results in the world that we enter at the beginning of The Hunger Games. The moral that Collins is setting down in our laps by positioning the novel from the Capitol perspective, that of the privileged group, is that it is down to us, the reader, to ensure that when we make our choices, we must be kind. But if the idea of being lectured on morality by a young adult fiction author doesn’t appeal to you right now, worry not. If one of your trepidations about reading this novel is the forcing a laboured political point, throw that trepidation to the wind my friend, as it is pretty deeply hidden under layers of cynicism and an incredibly high quota of ‘yikes’ moments.

Overall, an enjoyable romp through a horrid totalitarian world with a moral for the current climate that is not only necessary, but positive.

Union presidential candidate hit by multiple allegations he called Secretary a ‘terrorist’

The current Oxford Union Treasurer, and Presidential candidate in Trinity’s elections, has been accused by a number of current and former Union committee members of calling the Secretary a “terrorist” on multiple occasions. 

Speaking to Cherwell, the current Secretary claimed that upon meeting him, “he was surprised by my name and asked where I was from. Upon informing him I am from Turkey, he said that then I am surely a terrorist.” This particular claim is supported by an ex-officer that asked not to be named. They were present during the conversation, and claimed that the Treasurer said  “oh, so you’re a terrorist”, upon learning of her nationality. The Secretary said that “I spoke to him privately after this occasion to tell him it wasn’t okay to call me a terrorist, and thought he was being receptive to this.” She has since posted a statement on Facebook laying out her claims. 

She went on to say that “This was a repeated behaviour. He showed that he in fact wasn’t receptive of my telling him it’s not okay to call me a terrorist. He later called me a terrorist on multiple other occasions, sometimes in passing.” This claim is supported by current Chair of the Consultative Committee, Louisa Broeg, who said that she was present when he called the Secretary “a terrorist but wasn’t confident enough to speak up about it at the time, because I was subject to his abusive behaviour myself.” Another ex-committee member, asked not to be named, stated that the Treasurer the Secretary “a terrorist during the Union’s vacation days whilst in the office with a small group of committee in the room at the time”.

In a comment to Cherwell, the Treasurer denied these claims. He stated “I did not call the Secretary a terrorist, and obviously see why doing so would be deeply, deeply unacceptable.”

The Treasurer has also been accused of making comments denying the existence of Palestine. The Hilary Term Access Officer, Mirza Sameer Baig Chughtai, stated to Cherwell that a comment in front of the full committee took place during Union vacation days. In the context of a discussion about the “importance of discussing the plight of the Uyghur population of China whilst also paralleling it to the Palestinian plight in order to demonstrate [a committee member’s] point about the importance of holding nations accountable to human rights violations”, the Treasurer “chuckled and stated that ‘Palestine does not exist’.” The Secretary also supports this point, stating that he “expressed that Palestine doesn’t exist”.

In response to these claims, the Treasurer said he was “believing (sic) that there is a recording of debate day that ought to be adduced.” The Bursar of the Oxford Union did not respond to a request to see the recording, or indeed confirm the existence of a recording. 

In a Facebook post on Wednesday, the Treasurer said: “Seeing everything in the past week, I’ve taken some time to reflect on views that I previously held and expressed. I know that in the past, I have made comments about Israel and Palestine that were insensitive and ignorant, and, more important than just being uncomfortable, began to invalidate people’s identities.

“For a long time, I’ve stayed quiet about this, and that unbelievably cowardly and self-absorbed. In calling out discrimination, I know the importance of actions and not just words. It’s easy to stay in the wings and to not speak when it is clear that I am implicated and have displayed problematic behaviours. 

“Without reservation, I am wholeheartedly sorry for this. I apologise to everyone who I made to feel alienated as a result of my own direct actions and comments, and I apologise to those who were ostracised by me being complicit in the legitimising of views that I know I should have never have given air to. 

“I am not giving any excuses because this statement is not about providing ANY justification whatsoever, or explanation, for what I said. In light of everything that has gone on the word ‘introspection’ has stuck in my mind. It would be hypocritical for me to call out others but not force myself to do better, which I am trying to, and will, do. In changing my views, I have started to look within myself and educate myself beyond the privileged bubble in which these views formed.

“I am, above everything else, incredibly sorry for this, and going forward will actively tackle discrimination in all its forms.”

Most recently, the Union Librarian resigned following a controversy on his slate over messages invoking the George Floyd killing and protests as a reason to register to vote. 

The Secretary stated: “I’m proud of everyone who has been speaking out about their personal experience and otherwise on racism and discrimination issues. I do not want to take away from the focus on the Black Lives Matter movement in any way.”

In a Facebook post in response, she wrote “I think this is no apology; I believe it is an attempt to save face considering he is running uncontested for President of the Union in the elections starting tomorrow. Instead of coming clean about the discriminatory speech that he is responsible for, Jack has offered nothing but platitudes. Not only does this lead me to believe that he never cared about how he made me feel with his offensive comments, but it makes light of issues of institutional racism that have recently been in the spotlight. A real apology would not reduce his racist statements to a simple political dispute and would acknowledge the racist comments that he has made against me.”

“It is shocking that an officer is allowed to continue holding office having made such comments and showing such biases, and even more shocking that they are running for higher positions. Having studied the rules, I believe there is no rule explicitly against those holding office from being discriminatory or racist. I hope this can be remedied in the future, and I think I’d want to play a role in that.”

Beatrice Barr, the President-Elect, commented that, “I have committed to the Union being an actively anti-racist space, using our international platform for good. This applies to speakers and debates, but also to the Union’s internal structures.The Union’s rules limit transparency in many ways, in particular by failing to allow members and committee to effectively hold their leadership to account. 

“Two weeks ago, I established a Disciplinary Reform Committee, to overhaul these disciplinary rules. This will work over summer to make huge changes, as part of which I intend to make racism an explicit offence – not just the current provision of ‘bringing the Union into disrepute’. Like many of the changes we are making at the Union, this change is long overdue. There is no place for racism at the Oxford Union: our members must know that, and our rules must reflect that.”

Image credit to US Department of State/ Wikimedia Commons.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Interview

Video may have killed the radio star, but Jazz Hands Productions’ radio play A Midsummer Night’s Dream aims towards resurrection, encouraging audiences to “escape the confines of lockdown for an hour or two and enter a world of magic and mischief”. It will premiere on 13th June and then be available indefinitely for free.

Cherwell spoke to Emma Hawkins and Felix Westcott – the co-directors, the producer Ana Pagu, and Darcy Dixon, who plays Titania. Studying subjects ranging from Fine Art to Earth Sciences, they’re certainly an eclectic group. Both Ana and Emma were originally part of staging Little Shop of Horrors but, to their horror, it was postponed from the third week of Trinity term. Emma expanded on this postponement, saying that after the news “we started to explore what forms of theatre were open to us in quarantine and radio seemed like an exciting medium to work with. The prospect of creating a show entirely out of sounds felt like it would be a really fun and interesting challenge”. The limitations of radio are clear in our fast-paced visual culture but Felix counters any doubts, crediting an “amazing audio guy”, other special effects featured and the importance of acting: “if the actor themselves can imagine/believe that they’ve been transported into this bizarre and magical world then that will take the audience there as well”. While being “transported” anywhere does seem unlikely under the current circumstances, it’s certainly a compelling prospect.

As with every piece of student drama this term, rehearsals have all been virtual. Felix has deemed this “very weird” but highlights that they are “using it to our advantage as much as possible… for example layering/distorting actor’s voices for certain lines”. Emma continues that “even things as small as the energy and buzz you get from being in a room full of actors and creatives is very different to when you’re on a Zoom call – but after a while it becomes the new normal… having to focus mainly on the actor’s vocals has been a really interesting experience and has made me much more aware of the power of the actor’s voice”. Darcy gives an actor’s perspective, saying that “though we know we are recording so only our voice will be seen, we still act out the words with our body in some ways – which helps translate what we are saying better”, making for some interesting Zoom rehearsals!

According to Emma, A Midsummer Night’s Dream was chosen as it is “one of Shakespeare’s most uplifting plays. It was really important to us to put on a show that offered the listeners a little escape from the troubles of quarantine for a few hours. Midsummer is magical, comical and transformative, making it the perfect play for now”. Darcy continues that the play “speaks of love, the importance of good communication, community and fighting for what you truly want”.

The production is currently fundraising for Mind, a charity “that provides support to anyone experiencing a mental health problem, by raising awareness, improving services and promoting understanding”. Emma expands on the connection between Mind and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, saying that “with everything going on in the world at the moment there’s a massive rise in mental illness and a lot of the charities that are there to help are now being swamped from this surge, coupled with the fact that a lot of them are losing fundraising opportunities like marathons and the like. Whilst Midsummer doesn’t directly mention mental health I feel it does act as an escape. The fun, comical story can help you lose yourself for an hour or two and relieve the stress of the darkness in the world at the moment”.

With theatres running out of funding, Ana commented on the future of performance: “to say that the current situation has affected theatre is an understatement – on all scales from student and community theatre to West End and Broadway, shows have been cancelled or postponed, sometimes indefinitely. As a theatre lover and especially as a producer, I find this very hard to see unfold. However, I have also been astonished at how the industry is pulling together in these difficult times and how much creativity goes into coming up with alternative forms of theatre. I have had two shows cancelled myself this term, and my advice to anyone in a similar situation is not to lose hope and to use their passion to think outside the box and keep theatre alive until the storm is over. The show will go on and it will be because of the passion, talent and perseverance of the people involved in it”.

Intriguing and magic, this production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream is one to watch (or listen) out for.

Oxford Chancellor criticises campaigns to remove Rhodes statue as ‘hypocrisy’

0

Oxford University Chancellor, Lord Chris Patten, has labelled calls to “throw the Rhodes statue in the Thames” as “hypocrisy”, because the Rhodes Trust funds 100 scholars each year, “a fifth of them from Africa”.

Lord Patten spoke today on the Radio 4 Today programme about protests over the Cecil Rhodes statue and Oxford’s colonial history. He stated that “in almost every aspect of history, you have to look at both sides, and normally there are more than two sides.”

“There are incredibly complicated issues and we actually have to have a sensible discussion, and I am pleased that it is turning into a discussion.”

He said that Nelson Mandela had supported the Rhodes Trust, setting up the Mandela Rhodes Foundation to help heal the divisions and using the South African Constitution to underline his point. Lord Patten described how Mandela looked at a picture of Rhodes when setting this up and said: “Cecil, you and I are going to have to work together.”

The Chancellor said, therefore: “If it was alright with Mandela, then I have to say it’s pretty well alright for me.”

Nick Robinson, Radio 4 presenter, asked Patten whether he was too dismissive a few years ago, because “a young generation of black and ethnic minority people are offended by these symbols.”

Patten said this should be taken seriously in a “proper engaged argument”, which involves “far more fundamental issues… like education, like public housing, like public health.”

When asked whether Oxford should follow Cambridge in setting up an inquiry into how the institution benefits from slavery and colonial wealth, he referred to the guided tours by “young undergraduates” which take visitors around the city explaining places which show the history “people don’t approve of”.

These are the ‘Uncomfortable Oxford’ tours, an independent organisation run by students across the university.

Lord Patten pointed out that the decision to remove the statue can only be taken by Oriel College and disputed claims that the refusal to do so in 2016 was influenced by alumni’s threats to withdraw millions in donations.

He acknowledged the problems Oxford has with racism and discrimination, explaining that it partially stems from the fact that “so few students of colour who are getting the requisite numbers of As at A-Level.”

He also invoked his own role as the last colonial governor, saying he had acknowledged that Britain had acquired Hong Kong in  “appalling circumstances”, but that “we did some good things in Hong Kong.”

Lord Patten spoke in light of the peaceful protest yesterday to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes on the Oriel College building facing the High Street and the resurgence of the Rhodes Must Fall Oxford campaign.

Image credit to James Yuanxin Li/ Wikimedia Commons.

Weird flex, but ok

0

We are being consumed by a materialistic world. We strive for fleeting and futile wealth instead of focusing on what really matters. At least, this seems to be the gist of Kylie Jenner’s latest statement regarding a claim by the Forbes Magazine that she may have doctored her tax returns to inflate her net worth and falsely claimed that she was a billionaire.

‘I can name a list of 100 things more important right now than fixating on how much money I have’. This might mean friends and family, learning a new skill or hobby or just relaxing and reflecting. All worthy goals during this pandemic. In contrast to that is our fixation on money and influencers flaunting their ostentatious wealth on social media.

Their elaborate PR campaigns want to convince us to buy products we cannot afford and do not need. This does not happen in the form of classic advertising but rather endorsement deals where an influencer presents the product in a simple, seemingly casual post on their social media profile. A supposedly spontaneous selfie is now meticulously planned and professionally shot and assiduously edited. Those selfies now translate into clicks and fame and therefore more money from advertising.

Having influencers advertise is a great deal for advertisers as well. It’s less costly and provides another level of engagement with the customer, since there is a conscious decision to watch such a video.

While we are living in a society with rising inequality, we still spend our free time online looking at others shamelessly ‘flexing’. These new celebrities are not famous because of their talent or hard work but rather because they are, or at least seem to appear, rich. Their posts offer an insight into an unrealistic yet alluring life we could never afford ourselves. The walls of the gated communities are torn down and the life lived by the rich and famous is visible to an extent which makes it almost seem achievable.

But why do influencers flex? To make others jealous?

In order to answer these questions, we should look at what we mean by ‘flexing’ in the first place. We seem to have an instinct to show others that we are doing well. We are comparing ourselves to other people all the time, but this has been amplified by social media and brand marketing on those platforms. Showing that we are doing well is part of human nature. However, posting a story of a nice meal we just had would hardly qualify as flexing.

But we are considerate of others. It is not the celebration of our experiences, but shameless displays of wealth, that we call “flexing”. Especially during this lockdown, when our lives are moving online, we need to be wary of focusing too much on others’ experiences instead of our own. We need to see the façade behind their campaigns and focus on what can make us happy. In a society divided by wealth, we should not give those flaunting theirs a greater audience. Kylie Jenner may be right, not just during the current crisis.

80,000 sign petition and Oxford City Council call for Rhodes removal

0

A petition demanding the removal of a statue of Cecil Rhodes on an Oriel College building on the High Street has hit 80,000 signatures after 5 days. This is ahead of the Rhodes Must Fall protest at 5pm today.

It was combined with a further petition, started 2 days ago, which had hit 10,000 signatures. This petition is co-sponsored by Rhodes Must Fall Oxford, the campaign to remove this statue of Cecil Rhodes. Together, the petitions have over 105,000 signatures.

26 Oxford City Councillors have signed a letter to Oriel College saying they support demands to remove the Cecil Rhodes statue from the High Street because it is “incompatible with our city’s… commitment to anti-racism”.

The Leader of Oxford City Council has stated that she has written to Oriel College to “invite them to apply for planning permission to remove the statue”.

“Typically such actions are only allowed in the most exceptional of circumstances. But these are exceptional circumstances, and as a City Council we are keen to work with Oriel to help them find the right balance between the laws that protect our historic buildings and the moral obligation to reflect on the malign symbolism of this statue.”

Oriel College today released a statement on its stance on racism and the presence of Cecil Rhodes within the college. The statement does not specifically mention the statue of Cecil Rhodes facing the High Street or the campaign for its removal.

The college says it continues to “debate and discuss the issues raised by the presence on our site of examples of contested heritage relating to Cecil Rhodes”.

The college also states: “The power of education is a catalyst for equality and inclusiveness. We understand that we are, and we want to be, a part of the public conversation about the relationship between the study of history, public commemoration, social justice, and educational equality.”

The full statement from the Oriel College Governing Body reads: “Oriel College abhors racism and discrimination in all its forms. The Governing Body are deeply committed to equality within our community at Oriel, the University of Oxford and the wider world.

“As an academic institution we aim to fight prejudice and champion equal opportunities for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexuality or faith. We believe Black Lives Matter and support the right to peaceful protest.

“The power of education is a catalyst for equality and inclusiveness. We understand that we are, and we want to be, a part of the public conversation about the relationship between the study of history, public commemoration, social justice, and educational equality. As a college, we continue to debate and discuss the issues raised by the presence on our site of examples of contested heritage relating to Cecil Rhodes.

“Speaking out against injustice and discrimination is vital and we are committed to doing so. We will continue to examine our practices and strive to improve them to ensure that Oriel is open to students and staff of all backgrounds, and we are determined to build a more equal and inclusive community and society.”

The renewed pressure on Oxford University and Oriel College comes after a statue of Edward Colston in Bristol was pulled down by demonstrators at a Black Lives Matter protest yesterday. The Rhodes Must Fall Oxford campaign restarted last week, alongside calls on the University to decolonise and tackle systemic racism.

Image credit to Wikimedia Commons.

Students petition for removal of Rhodes statue, protest planned for Tuesday

0

In the wake of protests following the killing of George Floyd and an upsurge of anti-racist movement across the UK and within Oxford, there have been renewed calls for Oriel College to remove the statue commemorating Cecil Rhodes that currently stands above the city’s high street.

A petition calling for Oriel College to take down the statue currently has – at the time of this article’s publication – over 3,900 signatures. A protest is planned for Tuesday, organised by Rhodes Must Fall Oxford as well as Oxford student groups and Oxford community members. The Facebook event page states it will be peaceful and socially distanced. 

This comes after a statue of Bristol slave trader Edward Colston was toppled and thrown into a harbour during protests on Saturday. The day after, a banner stating “Rhodes, You’re Next” was put up on University Church, opposite Oriel College where the statue currently stands. 

Rhodes was a student at Oriel in the 1870s, and left money to the college on his death in 1902. A prominent imperialist, Rhodes explicitly believed in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon race and advocated vigorous settler colonialism. A scholarship programme in his name has been awarded to more than 8,000 overseas students. 

The Rhodes Must Fall in Oxford (RMF) campaign began in 2016, with university students calling for the statue to be removed, as well as for better representation of non-white culture in the curriculum and improved measures to combat racial discrimination. The campaign was ultimately unsuccessful, with the college deciding to maintain the statue after alumni threatened to withdraw millions if it was removed. At the time, Oriel stated that the figure is “a reminder of the complexity of history and of the legacies of colonialism”.

A press release by RMF published on Monday stated that Oxford continues to “venerate its racist past” via the maintenance of “colonial iconography and a predominantly white curriculum”. The movement currently describes itself as one “determined to decolonise the space, the curriculum, and the institutional memory at, and to fight intersectional oppression within, Oxford”. As well as the removal of the statue, the movement’s current aims as detailed on their website are tackling broader colonial iconography, reforming the Eurocentric curriculum and addressing the underrepresentation and lack of welfare provision for Black and minority ethnic students and staff. 

Oriel College released a statement 9th June, saying: “Oriel College abhors racism and discrimination in all its forms. The Governing Body are deeply committed to equality within our community at Oriel, the University of Oxford and the wider world.

“As an academic institution we aim to fight prejudice and champion equal opportunities for everyone regardless of race, gender, sexuality or faith. We believe Black Lives Matter and support the right to peaceful protest.

“The power of education is a catalyst for equality and inclusiveness. We understand that we are, and we want to be, a part of the public conversation about the relationship between the study of history, public commemoration, social justice, and educational equality. As a college, we continue to debate and discuss the issues raised by the presence on our site of examples of contested heritage relating to Cecil Rhodes.

“Speaking out against injustice and discrimination is vital and we are committed to doing so. We will continue to examine our practices and strive to improve them to ensure that Oriel is open to students and staff of all backgrounds, and we are determined to build a more equal and inclusive community and society.”

Image credit to Wikimedia Commons.

Duke of Westminster donates £1M to COVID-19 mental health research at Oxford

0

The Duke of Westminster, Hugh Grosvenor, has donated £1 million to fund Oxford Department of Psychiatry research on the mental health effects of COVID-19 and lockdown. This is part of the Westminster Foundation’s £10 million fund set up for coronavirus, and it comes in addition to an initial £2.5 million donation providing food for children who qualify for free school meals but were unable to access them due to lockdown. The remainder of the funding is being provided to NHS Charities Together and other research groups. 

The Department of Psychiatry has welcomed the donation. Professor John Geddes, who heads the department, said: “We are enormously grateful for this generous gift which will enable us to scale up our research projects, especially into how COVID-19 is affecting young people’s mental health.  I’m delighted how quickly and expertly our researchers have responded to this global threat. The pace of development means that funding them has been a challenge, and this donation is critically important.”

Research specifically centres on young people’s mental health and stress points that can cause deterioration. An Oxford team is involved in tracking thousands of families through the course of the pandemic to identify what can trigger a mental health crisis. 

Other research focuses include helping practitioners cope with making difficult decisions, understanding how best to communicate illness and death to children, and the uses of digital media to improve health through the pandemic. 

Previous studies have investigated the effects of the pandemic on single parents, as well as the impacts of school closures on education gaps.

Image credit to Michael D Beckwith/ Wikimedia Commons.