Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Blog Page 471

Domestic, Religious, Uncanny: the Symbolism of Food in Art

0

If there’s a conclusion to be drawn from C. M. Kauffmann’s Eve’s Apple to The Last Supper: Picturing Food in the Bible, it is surely that food’s cultural currency is both universal and particular. His opening chapter, which discusses what he refers to as the ‘Basic Features’ of biblical comestibles – bread, wine, and fish – points out that the first of these has an almost ubiquitous anthropological history as a staple. The metaphorical and literal prevalence of bread in the Bible, therefore, uses its unchallenged status as a human essential to articulate the fundamental expedience of the Christian creed. Christ can declare himself “the bread of life” and then literalise this claim by supplying the cereal necessity. Yet bread has a broader synecdochal resonance: it alsorepresents the universalising symbolic force of food itself, and thus justifies the centrality of damning and miraculous acts of eating in multiple biblical narratives.

It is likely because, and not in spite of, food’s omnipresence in human life that its various manifestations and methods of consumption tend to be temporally and geographically localised. As Kauffmann recognises, any foodstuff to appear in the Bible that isn’t one of the three ‘Basic Features’ is rarely identified – perhaps its authors realised that the ubiquity of food’s appeal is contingent upon a generalising, non-specificity of reference. As the book turns its attention to artistic representations of the Bible’s ‘food moments’, it becomes clear that illustrators and artists from almost every period of Christian history were obliged to make decisions regarding what food it was appropriate to include in their visualisations.

On occasion, an artist’s choice of food appears to have been based upon its obvious symbolic import, with only a weak connection to contemporary customs. The abundance of cherries in Ghirlandaio’s 1480 frescoed depiction of the Last Supper is probably not a comment on their prominence in the 15th-century Florentine diet but a chromatic gesture to the blood of Christ. The resemblance between the colour of cherry juice and the colour of blood is not an association particular to the gastronomical climate Ghirlandaio was painting in. But the rationale underlying pictorial decisions made in relation to food is not always so overt. The identity of Eden’s Forbidden Fruit was notoriously contested, despite the prevailing tradition of interpreting it to be an apple. There are multiple putative explanations as to how and why the apple-identity came to be bestowed upon Eve’s fruit. One account for fruity trends outside of the Western Church relates different portrayals to the agrarian customs of geographies in which they were produced. Apples were the most widely available fruit in north-western Europe when they first started popping up in artistic depictions of Eden; the same is also true of figs in the Byzantine Empire and their prevalence in eastern visualisations of the Genesis story.

As well as reflecting the prominence of food in the Bible itself, Christian art introduced new scenes of food and cooking to certain biblical narratives. These interpolations often reflect the theological concerns and cultural tides of the painter’s contemporary society. A particularly pertinent example of this phenomenon is the popularity of depicting Joseph cooking in the Nativity scene, which arose in the late 14th century. Despite having no basis in the Gospels, Kauffmann suggests that this pictorial innovation reflects a cultural concern with the accessibility of the Bible. In reaction to the early medieval emphasis on Jesus’ divinity, this pre-Renaissance period sought to humanise the son of God; the rehabilitation of Joseph in his paternal role was conducted through domestic scenes such as cooking. This aided the cultivation of an exoteric Christian iconography, which might be understood and appreciated by the lay community.

The domesticity of food, which this final example of pictorial trends in Christianity utilises, is, I believe, the most persistent capacity in which food appears in art (literary, theatrical, and cinematic, as well as visual). While it has other tonal associations – notably, the celebratory (Gatsby’s tea-party for Daisy) and the sexual (Peter Greenaway’s The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover) – most commonly art tends to evoke the familiarity of cooking and eating: think of the rich, creamy milk that accompanies Stephen Dedalus, Buck Mulligan, and Haines’ breakfast of eggs, bread, butter, and honey at the start of Ulysses, or of Proust’s ‘Madeleine moment’.

But the quotidian, comforting presence of food also renders the edible trope ripe for subversion. One novel infamous for its strikingly detailed, if not especially appetising, description of its protagonist’s eating habits is Iris Murdoch’s The Sea, the Sea. From the custard creams he is offered in his cousin’s flat to his own seemingly impossible concoction of “an egg poached in hot scrambled egg”, Charles Arrowby provides, with excruciating fastidiousness, an account of practically everything he eats across the course the novel, as well as extended passages reflecting on his culinary philosophy. Charles’ investment in what he cooks reflects his theatrical background: the care and thought devoted to the production of a one-person meal which will be gone in a matter of minutes bathetically mirrors the transient art of the stage, which has, somewhat ironically, been his life’s work. Food exposes Charles’ lack of self-awareness: at one point he insists that he is “not a petty purist who refuses to drink wine with curry”, an assertion which sits oddly in a passage full of his prescriptive culinary aphorisms. It reveals his obsessiveness and makes us recognise his isolation: the ritual routineness of his meals stands out in his otherwise unstructured and solitary life. That he considers it worth describing each course of the lunch he eats after the long-lost son of his kidnapped childhood sweetheart turns up is particularly disconcerting. As the plot progresses, Charles’ life increasingly ceases to bear any semblance to normality. Food is no longer a comforting part of the everyday but a false ritual that persists crudely throughout the drama. It works in a sense like the Freudian uncanny, being simultaneously the most normal of Charles’ habits and one of the most horrifying.

While Christian artists included food in the biblical scenes they depicted in order to familiarise them, Murdoch utilises food to emphasise the total abnormality which can characterise human life. Yet this in itself depends upon its cultural salience. Food is both a necessity and a luxury: it can damn you or save you, reinforce the comforting norm or expose a bizarre reality.

Image credit

A bygone age: restaurant reviews

The last restaurant reviews for the foreseeable future were published last week, with introductions that were partly nostalgic, partly apologetic. Reading them, you can sense the underlying fear that the reviewers’ work, perhaps never important in the dull, serious sense of the word, has now become entirely redundant. How, the critics seemed to be asking, could they expect us to read such carefree descriptions of an activity now totally inaccessible; whose tone seem inappropriately insouciant; which celebrate businesses that might not survive the current crisis?

At a time like this, reading restaurant views seems an almost masochistic pleasure, rather like picking at a scab. But wasn’t it always? Hearing about the latest, almost invariably London-based, innovative-but-unpretentious, perfectly-pitched, exquisitely-executed opening, I never really considered the reviewed restaurant as an actual place that I might be able to visit one day.

In some senses, eating out itself was also an act of wish-fulfillment. Responsibilities – of cooking for ourselves, managing budget, nutrition and clearing-up – were temporarily suspended as we entered an environment in which our only purpose was to be served. The enjoyment is all vicarious: restaurant reviews fulfill a certain fantasy, of a life of leisure and wealth, in which our worst problem might be getting allocated a table in a less atmospheric corner of the dining room.

What makes the reviews worth reading is not any imagined utility they might have nor the recommendations they might give, but the writing. The reviewers might know a good deal about the food industry, but first and foremost their job is to offer a depiction of their world, not advise about our own. It’s for this reason that Jay Rayner is always so keen to emphasise that he is above all a writer, rather than a food critic.

It’s perhaps an obvious thing to note, but when we read the work of these critics, we’re savouring their prose in addition to the food they depict. This is even more clearly the case when the places reviewed are considered failures: of course I would never plan on eating somewhere with a chilling atmosphere, or a minutely-portioned and dissonantly-flavoured tasting menu, but I revel in the sarcastic, hyperbolic, witty criticisms of journalists whose only job is to become eloquently irate about slightly sub-par food.

I don’t say this to dismiss the onslaught of articles on store cupboard cooking and budget shopping (after all, this is coming from someone who has published an unashamedly gushing panegyric to the lentil in this very newspaper). Certainly, there is a place for practical food writing, and for a food industry less elitist and more in touch with the needs of the majority of the population. But now, more than ever, seems a time we might want to escape from those responsibilities, from the accumulated anxieties of an increasingly restricted daily life, and restaurant reviews can provide just that escapism. Nostalgia can be just as effective a coping mechanism as grim stoicism, so we shouldn’t feel ashamed about scrolling through the archives, shutting out the real world and conjuring up, just for a moment, the old clink of glasses.

Hands or Cutlery? Resolving an Immigrant Identity Crisis

My home has always seemed a microcosm of twenty-first century India transplanted into the heart of rural England: the resplendent hues of my mother’s saris blossoming against the staid serenity of the surrounding fields; the staccato rhythms of Hindi intermingled with the measured cadence of English; the spicy fragrance of cinnamon and cloves permeating the evening air…

There is a curious ambiguity to the immigrant identity – the sense of inhabiting two distinct universes, yet not truly belonging to either. As a child, I was acutely aware of the palpable, if largely tacit, gulf that separated me from my British peers, demarcated by the varying cultural milestones that punctuated our lives. I, for example, didn’t learn how to properly cut my food with a knife and fork until I turned nine, having grown up eating with my hands. Even a decade later, my awkwardness with cutlery remains a source of considerable anxiety, perhaps because it bears testimony to the fragility of my selfhood – my identity still precarious, still under construction.

But it is a hybrid ethnicity I have come to embrace. Living in Britain does not automatically decentre my Indian heritage. Recreating the traditions of my ancestors sustains my memory of my homeland, and meal-time ritual is no exception. Eating food with your hands seems increasingly anachronistic in a world dominated by silverware – and I admit, it isn’t always the most aesthetically pleasing mode of consumption. It is, however, a custom – an institution – of profound symbolic significance for the Indian people, not solely on a national level, but also on a personal level.

Hand-to-mouth dining draws deeply on Ayurveda, an ancient health philosophy blending science and spirituality in the treatment of disease. It valorises the hands as the conduits of the five elements – water, air, earth, fire and space – so bringing the fingers into contact with each other and with the food activates these elements, forging a connection with the wider cosmos and imbuing the meal with cosmic energy. This emphasis on mindful eating can provide a crucial antidote to an increasingly complex and fast-paced world. Dispensing with intermediary utensils adds a tactile dimension to the meal, which crystallises the connection between the consumer and the consumed. Texture, aroma, flavour and appearance merge and meld seamlessly, at once intensifying and enlivening the gastronomic experience. Finally, there is, of course, a degree of pragmatism. Roti (the flatbread served with practically every meal) and daal (lentil soup) are, evidently, not amenable to the Western knife and fork.

Let us probe further. What can account for the longevity of a dining tradition amidst successive imperial regimes and centuries of social, political and cultural reconfiguration? Ayurvedic rationale is undoubtedly a legitimising factor, but there persists an undeniably deeper, more visceral resonance. It speaks volumes about an enduring symbiosis between nation and cuisine. Think ‘India’, and, almost instinctively, one envisions bustling sabzi mandis (vegetable markets), steeped in the rampant scents and sounds of culinary sorcery. Food is a lifeblood, the literal and figurative pulse of a personality that is constantly adapting and evolving. It pivots not solely upon the physical substance of the meal but also upon the attendant rites and rituals. The principle of ‘unity in diversity’ typifies the Indian national ethos, finding distinctive expression in the vast array of ingredients, techniques, and equipment deployed in service of the culinary art. Although the final product may vary substantially between regions, the resemblance between our eating practices is quite remarkable; whether we think of the naans and biryani of the northern regions, or the idli and dosa emblematic of the South, the custom of dining sans cutlery is ubiquitous. It is, however, more than a communal experience, composing a mutually intelligible cultural idiom through which interregional division can be temporarily transcended, linguistic and religious divergence attenuated. In short, eating with your hands denotes a national identity that does not exclude or discriminate.

But the journey it inspires is, at the same time, intensely personal. As a second-generation immigrant, ‘diaspora’ and ‘identity crisis’ are, to my mind, virtually synonymous. Mediating a pluri-ethnic heritage can be a tortuous process. It is contoured by the dissonance between culture of residence and culture of origin, the assimilation into the former, the neglect of the latter, and the haunting sense of guilt that this routinely evokes. In this context, replicating the dining practices of my parents, and my grandparents, and millions of Indians across the world is strangely liberating. Engaging in so hallowed a tradition, albeit in a western setting, it feels as though I have somehow established a dialogue between the conflicting claimants to my cultural allegiance. The sensation of internal ‘wholeness’ is soothing.

The connection between dining etiquette and identity is abstract but nonetheless compelling. As a unifying force, it articulates a shared narrative of culture, history and national solidarity of particular importance in an era of escalating regionalist agitation. But, for the individual, the implications are even more far-reaching. It reminds us that identity formation isn’t concrete. It is malleable and mobile and composite, inflected by personal agency and inherited tradition alike, derived from a myriad of experiences. It is incredible that the childhood experience of eating with my hands – so reflexive, structured, honed through daily practice – would enable me to reconcile the ‘Indian’ and ‘British’ elements of my ethnicity, and eternally anchor me to the former as I progressively submerged myself in the latter.

Perhaps, then, it is time for us to revise the old adage: you are not merely what you eat, but, equally, how you eat.

A Crisis of Faith?: the role and responsibilities of organised religion

0

When David was King of Israel, his people is said to have been ravaged by a plague claiming the lives of hundreds every day. Following the advice of Jewish Rabbis, King David began reciting 100 blessings per day, successfully fighting off the plague. This is the reason why, even nowadays, practicing Jews are to recite 100 blessings each day. In times like these, it would not be considered unconventional to bless NHS workers, PPE equipment, and modern testing kits. But whilst faith can provide stability and solidarity in times of crisis, we must be wary of religious leaders preaching ignorance and looking for scapegoats.

In many communities, the COVID-19 crisis has indeed strengthened religious sentiment. On March 27th, the pope delivered an extraordinary “Urbi et Orbi” (“to the city of Rome and to the world”) blessing, normally reserved for Christmas and Easter services. Meanwhile, French Imams have dedicated a special prayer against the virus for the whole human family.

Organised religion can offer some security when we suddenly have to do without all that we are accustomed to relying on, be it hospitals, schools, or any other part of public infrastructure. Loving God’s sick and weak people has been a religious duty in many communities for centuries. The Salvation Army, a Protestant Church organisation that became known as the “Red Shield” during WW2, is known for their mobile canteen feeding units providing emergency support and essential items in disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the South Asian Boxing Day Tsunami.

Whilst the causes of crises may or may not be in human control, the way we deal with them certainly is. The prophet Muhammad is said to have advised a Bedouin leaving his camel without tethering it: “Place your trust in Allah, but tie your camel”. With this in mind, believers and non-believers alike ought to condemn religious leaders who ignore public health authorities’ warnings regarding communal gatherings during a global pandemic. Across the globe, pastors of several churches have launched a concerted effort to continue holding services, invoking religious freedoms. One reason behind their dangerous behaviour is plain ignorance. Margaret Court’s Life Church, for instance, have publicly stated that the “blood of Jesus” will protect their communities from the virus.

Where ignorance is encouraged, fatalism and scapegoating have a history of not being far away. At the time, many believed the Black Death was a divine punishment for blasphemy and worldliness. The logical consequence was for communities to purge their villages of heretics and sinners. Not everyone appears to have learned since: prominent ultra-Orthodox leaders such as Rabbi Meir Mazuz have been quick to link the COVID-19 outbreak to humans revolting against nature, citing Gay Pride marches as an instance. When believers turn to God to regain a sense of security, religious leaders must be aware of the impact their decision between invoking religion to unite or divide communities will have.

It would be grossly misguided to attribute the actions of a few to organised religion as a whole. However, we must recognise that we are much more susceptible to easy solutions in times of great insecurity. In the words of the prophet Muhammad, we should remember to always tie our camel.

‘And In The End…’

0

It was fifty years ago today. On 10 April 1970, Paul McCartney released a ‘self-interview’, answering people’s concerns about the state of the band. Here, he wrote that his current break with The Beatles was due to ‘personal differences, business differences, musical differences’—a long litany of estrangement. The press, and the public at large, read this as the long-expected confirmation of the worst. The Daily Mirror’s front page made their interpretation unobtrusively clear: ‘PAUL QUITS THE BEATLES’. The most popular music act of the previous decade crawled into the seventies, a shadow of its former self: fractured, silent, and now separated. The band that Sergeant Pepper once taught to play would never play together again.

So, a rock band broke up. What else is there to say? Four young men grew tired of each other, after being together for the best part of a decade. They became ridiculously famous and, as a consequence, were scrutinised and idolised, vilified and deified, judged and loved. The friendship that led to the band’s formation was tested to the extreme. Throw in touring, artistic differences, romantic commitments, personal tragedies, and a mountain of psychedelic drugs, and we realise that any sort of group stability could not be possible. It soon becomes quite clear that it was always going to happen. The break-up of The Beatles was inevitable.

And yet, so many people yearn for it to have been different. They turn to the band’s final recorded album, the magisterial Abbey Road (1969), as proof that the magic was still there, that they clearly had so much more to give (despite almost all of the songs here being written individually). They might listen to the solo work of each member and lament over the undeniable decline in quality, whether it be Lennon’s self-righteous sloganizing during the early seventies, or McCartney’s trite work of the early eighties (remember ‘Wonderful Christmastime’?). Never has the whole been so much greater than the sum of its parts. Some go even further, endlessly speculating about conspiracies and internal plots, blaming everyone from Yoko Ono to the music industry at large. They are eager to accept every possibility other than the obvious: the magic was not immortal. It would be wrong to expect anything else. As Oscar Wilde writes in Dorian Gray, people ‘spoil every romance by trying to make it last forever.’

However, this predictable, seemingly inconsequential event holds a marked place within popular culture. The Beatles were no ordinary romance, it seems. The writing that orbits around this band, in general, can fall into one of two camps: blind adoration, or frank dismissal. And it is true that the ‘Fab Four’ can be so easily romanticised and mythologised out of proportion. It is worth saying that The Beatles were far from the most innovative, lyrical or technically sophisticated artist of 1960s. Nor were they the most experimental. Aretha Franklin, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, Bob Dylan… they would all surpass The Beatles here.

But their appeal, I believe, stretches beyond purely musical elements. If we are to appreciate the band’s importance, we must first think about the sixties, and how the music of The Beatles is so intimately wrapped up in it—this decade of liberation and counterculture, as well as nuclear weapons and cold war. Nothing embodies the youthful optimism of the early sixties more than the glee and gusto of the first few albums. ‘Love, love me do,’ they cheer in perfect, ungrammatical innocence. Equally though, the band’s evolution from simple love songs to a more surreal, ironic style charts the decline of this youthful optimism, as the Baby Boom generation finally grew up. And such shifting sentiments feel entrenched within the music itself, from the brash A Hard Day’s Night (1964), to the biting Revolver (1966), to the kaleidoscopic, incomprehensible The Beatles/‘The White Album’ (1968). These four Liverpudlians— whether consciously or not—suffused the spirit of their time into a charming catalogue of wonderful pop songs.

A quick thought experiment. If you ask someone ‘What do The Beatles’ songs mean?’, you would likely be answered with a shrug. A nod to LSD, perhaps. However, if, instead, you ask ‘What do the songs mean to you?’, you would get a much more interesting response. “Oh, ‘Yellow Submarine’ takes me right back to my childhood”, “Nothing is more romantic than ‘Something’”, etc. Their enduring strength lies in a combination of the music itself—and the mythology that surrounds it—with its listeners’ deeply personal responses to it, all encompassed by the overhanging context of the 1960s.

And all of this casts the break-up in an interesting light. When we accept the widespread, yet deeply personal, significance of The Beatles, their termination comes across as a real shame. The cultural weight often placed on the band’s demise is easier to appreciate. They would release no more music together, true. But it was more than simply a musical event. The end of The Beatles represents something broader. With its occurrence falling at the beginning of a new, much bleaker decade, it is read now as the final nail into the coffin of the hopeful sixties.

The floppy-haired, love-sloganizing Liverpudlian icons, these self-elected representatives of love and peace, embodied for many people a more positive, albeit idealistic, era. An era which, with this, now felt impossible to retrieve. McCartney’s now quinquagenarian confirmation of that the band was over plunged audiences all around the world into a new and emptier decade, with many aspects of 1960s culture feeling departed. If anyone wants to reclaim that epoque, they simply have to, as the song goes, ‘believe in yesterday’.

Clap for Our Carers: A Revival of Direct Action

0

Standing in suburban London as a short-lived round of applause peters out, I couldn’t help but think to myself: What is the point? Notwithstanding the admirable sentiment behind Clap for Our Carers, there remains the unfortunate fact that my relatively isolated neighbourhood, to the best of my knowledge, contains absolutely zero NHS workers.

Nevertheless, following passive-aggressive comments from some rather cantankerous moralistic neighbours, I found myself clapping vigorously into the silence of a Thursday night for NHS staff that were entirely absent. As a final feeble cheer punctuated the air and everyone turned sheepishly to the warmth of their houses, amid the silence the truth emerged. The clapping is not for carers, not really, it is for ourselves.

Before anyone begins gathering their pitch-forks, torches, and 20-foot straw effigy, allow me to say this; Clap for Our Carers is a wonderful testament to human kindness. It was created with the commendable intention to express gratitude and bolster the morale of an under-appreciated and overwhelmed NHS staff. However, that does not negate the hypocrisy lingering in the participation of many.

Many of these neighbours, those most vocal in their praise, are among those who fail to support the NHS by not adhering to basic government guidelines. They flock to the park in alarmingly large groups, many returned from their chalets and couldn’t quite be bothered with all the trouble of self-isolation. Some are likely to have a mass of toilet-paper in their basement while others are forced to experiment with the versatility of paper-towels.

Ironically, Clap for Our Carers helps facilitate selfish behaviour. Participation in the well-intentioned, abnormal clap-filled display of altruism enables a personal satisfaction and serves as a public display of people who are going above and beyond necessary activity during the crisis. To do something so absent from daily life, they must be! Sadly, this self-affirming enables people to turn a blind eye to their own failure to act appropriately.

Clap for Our Cares typifies the double-think of acting poorly but behaving sanctimoniously. The mindset of performing noble gestures over suitable action has helped contribute to the severity of the current crisis. It is no secret that the NHS has been toiling in a state of crisis for years. While demands for increased support are widespread, action has largely been absent.

People are happy to grumble at dinner parties and launch twitter tirades at their chosen political nemeses, but when it comes to assuming personal responsibility, a reluctance prevails. Most dare not call for the unmentionable, the significant increase in income tax that such change would invariably require. For Tory voters, the uncomfortable prospect was rarely broached, for Labour voters the necessary personal cost was deflected with promises to secure the funding through prying away money from the money-hoarding elite and the corporate world.

The question remains whether the cheers of approval for the NHS displayed by Clap for Our Carers will usher any significant political change. The answer looks discouraging. COVID-19 has not exposed anything new. It has only confirmed the truth that the NHS desperately requires greater financial support. To the dismay of hopeful Labour supports, it seems unlikely that voting patterns will change significantly.

The government response, though initially slow, has been largely appropriate and there has been no Trumpian-scale inaction and incompetency to elicit public resentment significant enough to constitute a shift in electoral behaviour. The likes of which will likely soon be demonstrated in this year’s US election.

Most importantly, no one currently in power is truly culpable for the effects of the crisis. While it is comforting to point fingers at the government, Chinese culinary habits or rather bizarrely for some 5G Masts, such easy explanations remain elusive. Though the shortages the NHS has experienced through decades-long negligence has undoubtedly intensified the effects of the outbreak, as other European healthcare systems struggle to a similar extent, it is difficult to attribute a significant portion of casualties to such negligence. The uncomfortable truth remains that some catastrophes occur beyond human fault.

Clap for Our Carers may reveal the remedy to the current stagnation and the deferment of personal responsibility representational politics naturally entails. The movement and its mass participation has demonstrated the potential success of direct individual action. One woman’s decision to pro-actively display gratitude, snowballing into the mass display of appreciation that has long been overdue.

As catastrophic as this pandemic has been, the necessary social measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 has reminded people of the power of individual action and the profound effect it can have on the welfare of the community. As 750,000 people volunteer for the NHS, perhaps the outbreak has brought us into a new era of direct action and personal responsibility.

Image by Chris Marchant

Review: Portrait of a Lady on Fire

0

It’s strange to talk about love in a film review. It seems to be the object of universal pursuit, or rather, more frequently, the object of universal lamentation; yet few could articulate the shape or form it takes. Celine Sciamma, the kaleidoscopic director of Portrait of a Lady on Fire, does not shy away from the description of the film as an exploration of love, the idea and philosophy of love, or even, to be about ‘sentimental education.’

One is reminded of the ancient Greek encouragement of homosexual dalliances between younger and more mature men as a form of education. But here, the gap between worldly or romantic experience is lessened by the fact that the two protagonists are somewhat equal in age. The film is a slow-burner, with much left unspoken and instead communicated through the ‘female gaze’. The artist pursues her subject whilst the subject invites her portrait-painter. The minimalist style characteristic of Sciamma allows maximum focus on the double ententes of the emotional ‘Cat and Mouse’ game to play out. Each gains more ground on the chess board through observation and better understanding of the other, while still succumbing to the passionate dawning of attraction. 

Portrait of a Lady on Fire presents two hours of immersion in the delicate tapestry of a romantic dalliance that ultimately delights in its purity and sincerity: the Romantic ideal played out more on the canvas and in the beholders’ eyes than through words. Much has been made about the feminist statement of a lesbian film conspicuously lacking in male screen-time, but the universality of romantic harmony sparkles. It is a fascinating study of the unarticulated ways in which one falls in love and receives and gives love, and ultimately, how one lives out a long life ahead without the opportunity of living with one’s true beloved. The film is exquisitely optimistic in its portrayal of a life where characters do not live happily ever after upon discovering true love, but rather move on with the loss whilst cherishing the fleeting enlightenment and fulfilment.

The film, well-received at Cannes, avoids the usual qualities that detain the English from French cinema. It lacks the bombastic existential dialogues whilst disagreeing with the idea of profound and pervasive dread or doom. The scenery of Brittany, albeit austere compared to Mediterranean coasts, is pleasing to the eye; and the use of candles and camp fires in an 18th c. setting evokes a sense of romantic nostalgia. Despite the ever-present sense of inevitable loss, the film is fiercely present. The emotions are simmering beneath the surface, eventually bursting out to offer a tender portrayal of two souls united in love. 

One may never love or perhaps one may get to love happily for the rest of their life. But even if these moments are only fleeting, it is still possible to appreciate the joy. Portrait of a Lady on Fire is a film one may revisit many times, only to indulge in its exquisite artistry and delicious moments of discovery. I am still transfixed with the scene where Heloise tells Marianne: ‘In solitude, I felt the liberty you spoke of. But I also felt your absence.’  

Isolation style guide: How to get out of the pyjama day slump

0

We are spending more of the vacation indoors than we intended to… and with that comes the temptation to crawl into bed in our pyjamas and Netflix all the stresses away. I for one fell prey to prolonged naps on my first day home, staying in my sleepwear, not making my bed and lounging about. Which resulted in an estimated eighteen hours of sleeping leaving me with six-hours before the days end. Coming to the decision that I would have to get dressed in functional clothes every morning in order to not waste the entire day led me to consider what I would even wear during this isolation.

It made me question whether we dress for ourselves, those around us or the places that we are going to. I came to the conclusion that it is a mix of all three. We often dress in things that reflect how we feel. We also sometimes make our clothes choices based on how other people view us. We most definitely dress for the places we are going to: casual hangouts, work, fancy restaurants or big events. However, being at home in isolation can feel as though it’s impossible to ‘dress to impress’ as it has ceased almost all of our social interactions. Despite this, it is crucial that you don’t make everyday a pyjama day and the first step to doing that is setting a routine for yourself. The first step to this is allowing yourself a regular sleep schedule and waking up at a consistent time. Make a rough plan of what you need to get done for the day, such as: exercise; study time; making meals; time for yourself and with your family members or friends in person or over the phone!

Whilst I would love to do all these things seamlessly in pyjamas, I would be lying if wearing such relaxed clothing fully motivated me to do a workout or do a translation for class. I for one would not dream of going for a run in University Parks wearing my pyjamas, so for a morning exercise routine, I like to wear some sports leggings or joggers to get my brain programmed for exercise. In a similar vein, I try to pull on a pair of jeans and a jumper for working, because they are comfortable but not too relaxed. For special occasions such as a friend’s birthday (which you might have to celebrate electronically) it’s more than important to take the opportunity to dress up. It’s all about making yourself feel like you want to celebrate, so why not wear that outrageous dress you’ve wanted an occasion for, or that gorgeous velvet suit that has not felt enough love. Alternatively, if you’re missing your significant other why not dress-up for a date night and show each other that even if you’re far away, you can still look fabulous in each other’s company.

Now as fun and ridiculous as this may seem, before you know it, it will be time to relax in your pyjamas again and resume that Netflix binge. It’s the little things such as changing your outfits as you go through different parts of your day that can really make your time in isolation seem less like a restriction on your style and rather an opportunity to be bigger and bolder with your fashion decisions. Enjoy the freedom and space to experiment with your clothing to help you succeed within your daily tasks and isolation lifestyle.  

Eventual Ghosts

0

My back was towards you on Penny Farthing Lane
But you made the buildings fall away
Replaced by jungles and woods that teemed with chattering life
Washed beneath a napalm rain
And you were the mockingbird, cawing

My ears were secure in podcasted hold as I crossed over Queen Street
But your siren song still drowned out the loud-roaring sea
As we sailed on enthralled in the pursuit of some ardent glory
Unaware of the oblivion rising from the wine-coloured beneath
And you are the prophetess, preaching

My eyes were down as I wandered along Pembroke Street
But you clanked the storybook shut
And opened instead the doors of a gothic manor teeming with chandelier lit balls
As sighs go ignored in the encompassing gardens
And you will be the ghost, haunting

Unless we listen, we’ll all be ghosts.
Lamenting.

Punctuate As The State Sees Fit

0

Before we were mad
We could dance as we wanted
We could kiss who we liked
Conversation could bubble enthusiastically
There was no wrong or right

Before we were responsible
There were no pervading questions
We knew no moral grey
There were categories of (not us) villains
and those who saved the day

Before we were old
We could say we’d seen it all
The heartbreak, betrayal, wonder, love
Every empire’s rise and fall

But now I see we only ever appreciate
Before when it is After

NB: Now try placing commas after the ‘Before’s