With every new email from vice and pro-vice
chancellors, it looks like Oxford is planning to provide undergraduates with
Trinity Term’s full workload and exams, but remotely. While the logistics of
how this would work thus far remain undecided, the University’s final decision
will face many challenges.
The coronavirus outbreak will inevitably affect the physical health of students. A significant percentage are likely to contract the illness, forcing many students to miss multiple exams or assignments, and that’s far from the worst-case scenario. Remote learning may also negatively affect the mental wellbeing of many students. The typical full workload will likely still be demanded but without any of the welfare programmes which Oxford offers, or the social life which can make the workload tolerable. Furthermore, remote examinations rely on every student having access to a computer with an internet connection, in a silent room. This is, of course, impossible for many students.
In my view, Oxford has two options. The first:
cancelling Trinity entirely and continuing from where we left off in Michaelmas
2020. Exams could be taken during Michaelmas rather than Trinity in the future,
with the academic year beginning in January rather than October. This would
have the positive future effect of allowing Oxford to interview and to make
offers after A-Level results are announced in August, rather than making
conditional offers in January. Conditional offers are currently based upon
unreliable predicted grades, meaning the University must estimate how many
students will miss their grades.
Option 1 would also provide finalists with more time to revise ( they would be able to study during the long summer vacation rather than the Easter vacation) and allow all those with end-of-year exams the opportunity to enjoy sunny Trinity term with slightly less stress. This change would, however, need be carried out in conjunction with other British universities in addition to UCAS, in order to bring timings in sync. Despite this, such a change would make sense in the long-run and the current outbreak is a great opportunity to switch from the old calendar to the new.
It may be overly optimistic to assume that university
will be able to resume in time for Michaelmas. An Imperial College study
suggests that the outbreak may continue for up to eighteen months, with a
second wave of the virus possible in the winter. If this outbreak follows the
expected trend, the economy will all but shut down, and there will not be much
of a jobs market waiting for finalists.
The issues with remote teaching will only be perpetuated over time. As such, it may be sensible for the University to go for option 2: something similar to a group rustication, where studies are suspended for a year and then Trinity 2021 picks up from where Hilary Term 2020 left off. Group rustication would be the default option, with students perhaps choosing to opt-out due to a good reason, based upon the likelihood of the pandemic continuing. This option may be difficult to decide upon now, but Oxford choosing option 2 would certainly set a good precedent for other universities to do the same, and it may be necessary given the projected span of coronavirus. Either way, both of the above options are better than the remote teaching and examining which is currently planned. The University should at least consider them, even if they may seem inconvenient in the short term.
With Little Women and David Copperfield playing on screens, and The Secret Garden coming up in April, Emma. is one in a remarkable string of adaptations of much-loved, as much-adapted, literary classics in the current cinema season. Director Autumn de Wilde’s first feature film, starring Anya Taylor-Joy, is based on Jane Austen’s well-known story of a smart and wealthy young woman who fights the boredom of country life by matchmaking (sometimes successfully, but mostly not), until she learns to be less intrusive, and finally finds love herself in her long-term friend and mentor George I-told-you-so Knightley.
While Emma. might not be as emotionally disputed as Pride and Prejudice (the allegedly upcoming new TV version of which is certain to inflame the eternal who-is-the-best-Darcy-of-all-times-battle), it is nevertheless revered as the last of her novels Austen herself saw published, and already the subject of a row of film adaptations (including the 1995 Beverly Hills version Clueless, two 1996 films starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Kate Beckinsale, and a 2009 BBC miniseries with Romola Garai). Thus, Emma. entails the mixture of risk and appeal that appertains to every classic when it comes to (re)adaptation: any new version is in danger of vexing passionate fans, inevitably compared with predecessors, and expected to justify its existence by providing ‘a new angle’ for a story often-told.
On the other hand, classics are thought to be infinitely reinterpretable, and the load of public expectations may be just the prickling challenge a director is looking for – whether in hope to satisfy them or to frustrate them with relish. Autumn de Wilde’s adaptation, however, appears to want to cut off any such discussions from the outset – ‘This is the new Emma. Take it or leave it!’, is what the bold full stop in the title seems to say. But what does this new Emma. offer?
In short: some pretty, well-composed pictures and a good deal of slapstick. The new adaptation bears the overall pastel look of a cream cake, punctuated by a glowing yellow dress here and a crimson red coat there. It is nice to look at the often conspicuously symmetrical shots in which not a single well-trimmed curl, not a cherry on a cupcake, and not a flower in a vase is out of place. As well arranged as the rooms of Hartfield, Randalls and Donwell are the characters’ movements within them: often symmetrical, always visibly choreographed, like the steps of the footmen that obediently carry around screens to shield Mr Woodhouse, Emma’s always worried father (Bill Nighy), and all of his beloved against draught – of which Mr. Woodhouse is obsessively afraid, thus providing the film’s running gag.
Emma. is a decidedly comic adaptation, over the top, and ready to surprise: in his first appearance we see Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn) strip and present his naked backside; in a parallel scene, Emma irritably gathers up her dress to warm her bare bum at the fireside. Every instance of earnest, intimacy or passion is subverted and ridiculed. To give an example: Austen’s novel includes a scene in which Emma holds her baby niece, placating Knightley, cross with her as always on account of some misbehaviour, by the view of this domestic idyll. In Autumn de Wilde’s adaptation, Emma awkwardly holds a toddler in her arms that is clearly too big to be so cradled. When Knightley sits next to her and they both look at the child, so far so iconic, the child burps – and is taken away by a hysterical mother screaming for the nanny, while Emma and Mr. Knightley burst out laughing. Similarly, the romantic denouement at the end of the film (“I cannot make speeches, Emma…”) is disrupted by a nosebleed. In these (and other) instances, the film crosses the line to parody.
Bill Nighy as Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father.
Alright, so Emma. is a more slapstick-y adaption, with a little unexpected nudity – what of it! After all, Austen’s novel is satirical, imbued with sharp irony. So where is the problem? There is none, perhaps: one can go watch the film that, taken for itself, is entertaining enough and perfectly enjoyable. As an adaptation of Austen’s novel, however, Emma. falls short. I do not mean to bring forward highly problematic and scarcely helpful terms like ‘fidelity’ of an adaptation towards the original. But in comparison to Austen’s novel, Emma. fails at quite a fundamental task: interesting the audience in Emma’s development.
Emma is known to be one of the least likeable, least accessible of Austen’s protagonists: she is clever and caring, yes, but also snobby, conceited, spoilt, and incidentally outright mean. She is not as charmingly witty as Elizabeth Bennet or as considerate as Elinor Dashwood. The current adaptation has been praised – and rightfully so – for bringing out a meaner, edgier Emma, less charming than in previous adaptations, but more in line with Austen’s heroine. In Austen’s novel, however, a complex narrative structure allows readers to see Emma’s flaws and errors, but also to engage with her and to see the world through her eyes. Emma may not be excessively amiable in the beginning, but that will, thanks to Austen’s skilful guidance, not prevent readers from identifying with her and developing an interest in her realising her misjudgements and ultimately finding happiness.
Crucial to the unfolding of this structure is the character of Mr. Knightley, who acts as Emma’s corrective, sincerely interested in her moral improvement, while still devoted to her. Unfortunately, the Mr. Knightley of the 2020 adaptation, with his ill-cut whiskers and shaggy sex-appeal, is totally unconvincing as the voice of reason. He still rebukes Emma, but, apparently, merely for the thrill of it. A new interpretation of the somewhat paternalistic love interest Knightley, a friend of Emma’s father, seventeen years her senior, and constantly lecturing her? Yes, please! But not simply by making Knightley look younger, and reducing the slow-grown and multi-faceted affection between Emma and Knightley to mere sexual tension (all too obviously showcased at the Highbury ball scene following the famous “With whom will you dance? – With you, if you’ll ask me.”).
The lack of a convincing Mr. Knightley is one reason why, watching Emma., one may end up, as I did, just not caring whether Emma learns her lessons and is enabled to meet Knightley on equal terms – something that is almost impossible in reading the novel, I would claim, and that takes away the momentum of the story. But primarily, this is the effect of the screwball comedy, the reduction of characters to caricatures, and the repeated undermining of sincere communication and moments of emotional depth. All that creates a distance between audience and characters, preventing real engagement with the latter and concern for their lot. In spite of all the scenes putting their bodies on the spot (the stripping, the bleeding), the characters do not appear as people of flesh and blood. Emma. the film simply does not take Emma the novel seriously enough for that.
So in the end, the film left me with the stale aftertaste of an opportunity not seized: I would have liked to see an ‘edgy’ Emma undergoing a credible change, in a less caricatural setting, at the side of a not so one-dimensional Knightley. As it is, I can’t help but find that Emma. resembles the pastel cupcakes served in it: pretty to look at, but ultimately not very substantial.
If rom-coms are the most comforting type of movie, then David Nicholls writes the most comforting type of novel. He is best known for One Day, a moving but also funny and warm novel on friendship, love and the passing of time. Starter for Ten, about an awkward first-year trying to get onto University Challenge, and Us, which follows a family on a tour of the great art of Europe, are equally relaxing and heart-warming to read. Incidentally, Nicholls also has an incredibly gentle and soothing voice, so if you spot a podcast with him make sure to give it a listen.
Louisa May Alcott
Little Women was the first classic I ever read and, as a 10-year-old, I thought it was mind-numbingly boring. So, I started reading it whenever I couldn’t sleep and gradually over the years, after rereading it many times, it has become the most comforting book imaginable to me. The warmth of the family, the relationships between the sisters and their kindness towards others in the community bring me so much joy. It is the most worn book on my bookshelf and, ten years later, definitely not a boring read anymore!
Roald Dahl
Roald Dahl was my childhood hero – I can still recite passages of Fantastic Mr. Fox and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory from memory. His worlds are so beautifully fantastical that reading these books now has to be one of the easiest ways to return to the imagination and wonder of being a child. I actually decided this week to read one of Dahl’s books of short stories for adults, Kiss Kiss. They are significantly more macabre and sexual than the books of my childhood but at their core they are just as surprising, extraordinary and funny. What could be more comforting now than reading short stories about a man who turns into a bee and a celibate vicar who gets eaten by a woman?
Elizabeth Strout
Whilst Roald Dahl is comforting to read because his books take us far away from reality, Elizabeth Strout is comforting to read precisely because she writes so well about reality. She is best known for Olive Kitteridge and My Name is Lucy Barton and I am yet to find someone who hasn’t fallen absolutely in love with these books after reading them. The prose is deceivingly simple and easy to read but gives such a profound insight into the relationships within communities and families, two groups which have suddenly become significantly more important.
William Boyd
William Boyd is the master of the immersive story. His books often chronicle one character through every stage of their life, capturing them so skilfully that they begin to feel uncannily real. I read Sweet Caress when I was 16 but I can still visualise every stage of Amory Clay’s life, from her relationships in 1920s Berlin to her career as a photographer in the Second World War, as if it had been told to me by a friend. Any Human Heart is equally absorbing, written as the journals of a writer and his experiences of the events of the twentieth century – he even meets Virginia Woolf, Evelyn Waugh and James Joyce. The filmic dreaminess of Love is Blind also makes it the perfect book to curl up in bed with for a day.
Is there a book which is particularly important to you? A new discovery or an old favourite which inspires or uplifts? We want to hear about it! Send in pitches (the more personal the better) to [email protected] and [email protected] to be featured on our brand new weekly ‘Friday Favourite’ article.
Three University of Oxford research projects will receive shares of a £20million government investment to combat coronavirus. Six UK projects will benefit from this research funding, announced by Business Secretary Alok Sharma on Monday.
The three projects include work to develop an effective vaccine, to manufacture a vaccine at a million-dose scale, and to test drugs which may help treat confirmed COVID-19 patients.
A research team led by Prof Sarah Gilbert, developing a new vaccine to protect against COVID-19, will receive £2.2million. The funding will support pre-clinical testing of the new vaccine, new manufacturing, and clinical trials in humans. The team have developed a vaccine, made from an adenovirus, and is planning to begin testing on adults aged 18-50 next month.
Dr Sandy Douglas’ research term, aiming to develop processes
to manufacture vaccines at a million dose scale, will receive £0.4million. This
means, if clinical trials of a vaccine are successful, the vaccine can reach
high-risk groups as quickly as possible.
Prof Peter Horby’s research team, testing whether existing
or new drugs can help patients hospitalised with confirmed COVID-19, will
receive £2.1million. The team aims to have data available to inform patient treatment
in 3 months. The trial will first test two HIV drugs.
An Edinburgh University project receiving £4.9million in
funding will collect samples and data from COVID-19 patients to help control the
outbreak and provide treatment. An Imperial College London team aims to develop
antibodies to target the novel coronavirus, which may help to find a potential therapy.
A Queens University Belfast project will test drugs on cells to investigate how
toxic effects of coronavirus can be reduced.
The £20million is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research and by UK Research and Innovation. This follows the government’s funding of £30million to the National Institute for Health Research for research into COVID-19 and £10million to increase Public Health England’s capacity to test people and monitor the virus.
Business Secretary Alok Sharma said: “Whether testing new drugs or examining how to repurpose existing ones, UK scientists and researchers have been working tirelessly on the development of treatments for coronavirus. The projects we are funding today will be vital in our work to support our valuable NHS and protect people’s lives.”
Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Vallance said: “The UK is home to incredible scientists and researchers who are all at the forefront of their field, and all united in their aim; protecting people’s lives from coronavirus. The announcement made today reflects the vital work being undertaken by our scientists to help develop vaccines and treatments. This research could herald important breakthroughs that will put the NHS in a stronger position to respond to the outbreak.”
Chief Medical Officer Professor Chris Whitty said: “The world faces an unprecedented challenge in our efforts to tackle the spread of COVID-19 and it is vital we harness our research capabilities to the fullest extent to limit the outbreak and protect life. Alongside the world-leading research overseen by the NIHR, these new 6 projects will allow us to boost our existing knowledge and test new and innovative ways to understand and treat the disease.”
Health Secretary Matt Hancock said: “In the midst of a global health emergency the UK is using all its extensive research expertise to quickly develop new vaccines to target this international threat. This investment will speed up globally-recognised vaccine development capabilities and help us find a new defence against this disease.”
The Committee of Oxford College JCR Presidents (PresCom) has published an Open Letter expressing their “disappointment and deep concerns” with the University of Oxford’s response to the recent ‘no-platforming’ of Amber Rudd by the UNWomen Society.
The Society’s short-notice cancellation of the International Women’s Day event where Rudd had been invited to speak reignited a debate surrounding freedom of speech at the University. After complaints from students and the Free Speech Union, the University decided to disaffiliate itself from UNWomen Oxford UK Society (Re-named to United Women Oxford Student Society).
The UNWomen Society cancelled the event as a result of student protest against Rudd’s links to the Windrush Scandal and affiliations to other government policies in her time as MP deemed to marginalize vulnerable communities in the UK. The Society claimed that “holding the event would have been incompatible with our intention to be an inclusive and welcoming society.”
In a tweet the following day, Oxford University responded: “We strongly disapprove of the decision by the UNWomen Oxford UK Society to disinvite Amber Rudd after she had been asked to speak. Oxford is committed to freedom of speech & opposes no-platforming. We will be taking steps to ensure that this situation doesn’t happen in the future.”
We strongly disapprove of the decision by the UNWomen Oxford UK Society to disinvite Amber Rudd after she had been asked to speak.
Oxford is committed to freedom of speech & opposes no-platforming. We will be taking steps to ensure that this situation doesn't happen in future.
Oxford University’s response to UNWomen Oxford UK disinviting Amber Rudd on March 5th 2020
The Committee of Oxford College JCR Presidents published an Open Letter on their Facebook page signed by 25 JCR Presidents on behalf of their respective colleges who have passed motions to condemn the University’s response.
In the midst of difficulty and great uncertainty, it is lamentable that the undersigned presidents’ must present this…
PresCom condemns the University’s response primarily because of its lack of consideration of the student body. The letter states the response “failed on a number of premises to fulfil its duty of care to its students”, emphasising that the University’s conduct was “negligent of student wellbeing and welfare” and “lacked any student consultation (despite commenting on student matters)”.
Moreover, the Committee accuses the University of following and affirming the supposed “false narrative” presented by national newspapers. PresCom, in compliance with UNWomen Oxford, disagrees with the narrative that this cancellation was an act of no-platforming infringing on the University’s commitments to freedom of speech.
The letter argues that the University should have consulted students prior to making a public response.
PresCom contends that this response demonstrates “the widely felt sentiment that the University is quick to abandon its students in the face of unwarranted backlash from national newspapers and high-profile individuals”.
The letter points to the abuse received by Oxford students who were named in national newspapers which the University did not address in its response. Particularly, they emphasise the neglect of the welfare and opinions of BAME students. The society echoed this in their statement on March 6th, stating: “We believe that the University of Oxford’s statement shows a lack of regard for the welfare of black students”.
PresCom further criticizes the University’s lack of transparency in not specifying who its recent statement represents, implying the response is on behalf of the entire University of Oxford whilst disregarding the opposing views of parts of the student body.
The letter concludes with four requests made to the Vice-Chancellor and the University, petitioning for a “public apology to its students” and a commitment to communicating with students before future public responses. The Committee urges for more transparency and greater consideration of student welfare.
The letter emphasises that “as students, we want to be able to feel as though we are not only being listened to by our University, but also that our welfare is prioritised.”
PresCom stresses they take no stance on no-platforming,
focusing solely on the University’s conduct in responding to the issue.
A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “The University is strongly committed to freedom of speech and opposes no-platforming. We encourage our students to debate and engage with a range of views, and to treat others with the courtesy and dignity that they would expect themselves. The University strongly disapproved of the decision to disinvite Amber Rudd and the Proctors have taken just and proportionate action according to the policies which underpin the University’s stance on freedom of speech.”
Cherwell has reached out to United Women Oxford Student Society and the University for further comment.
The world around us is changing at an alarming
rate, forcing many of us to rethink our plans for the next few months. With
these changes may come the need to move back into our hometowns. Of course,
this presents a much bigger problem: moving out of Oxford accommodation over
the vacation period can already be an arduous process of living out of bags for
weeks and piling up stuff that you don’t need at home. However, the prospect of
staying at home next term, when teaching will most likely take place online, as
well as the current need to practice social distancing, means that finding
workspaces in public libraries and cafes is no longer an option. To combat my
fears over being at home for possibly months, I’ve had to find ways of adapting
the space that I am currently in to being home for the whole day and having to exercise,
study, relax and sleep, all in one room.
The first thing I knew I had to start tackling
was the mountain of bags taking up half the floor space in my room. I started
by clearing out things I no longer wear: shoes, clothes, accessories, everything.
I didn’t do this all in a day, but divided tasks to maintain a sense of
accomplishment. This means I’m technically still in the clear out phase! If you
haven’t touched something in six months, you’ve got to ask yourself if it’s
really that necessary to keep. If you have siblings, it might be a good idea to
try and get them to do the same, especially if you share a room. Try and be
responsible with the stuff you don’t need by reselling, donating or recycling
wherever possible. If you have a lot of books, you can send them to your
friends and get them to do the same in return. That way, you always have
something to read.
Once the things you don’t need are gone and
there is a little space to walk around, it’s time to focus on how to make your spaces
feel different. Sitting rooms and dining rooms are not an option for everyone,
so making the room you spend most of your time in a place where you can do
multiple things is key. First of all, make sure you have a bed cover, even if
it’s just a sheet you toss over your bed. I’ve found that after some snacking breaks,
it’s easy to leave things like crumbs and dust behind. To make your bed both a
chilling and a sleeping space, make sure your duvet, pillow and sheets stay nice
and clean under the cover. If you have any spare pillows that you don’t sleep
on, you can chuck them over the sheet to rest on while you eat snacks, read books
or watch a film.
If you have a desk space, clear it! Make sure
this can be a space to work if you need it to be. If you want to make sure you
don’t snack at your desk, keep treats off the table and in a separate box or
bag away from where you’re working. I find keeping things that remind me to do
little bits of reading helpful, for example placing the book I need to start on
my desk the night before. I also have much more limited space for all my books
and folders than I used to at university so I ordered some cheap magazine files
to keep different subjects in one place (you can buy at least 2 for £4 on eBay,
including delivery). Or you could just use an old cardboard box, cut it into
shape and decorate it yourself. You can then store these under the desk to save
space if you don’t have shelves. If you are super limited in space and need a
desk, you might want to invest in a small folding table (around £35 on eBay) or
a bed desk (around £15 on eBay).
If you have any floor space, you can use it for
daily exercise. If you can’t go outside for a walk, then indoor Zumba, yoga and
cardio sessions are a great option. Yoga mats are widely available online and
YouTube fitness sessions are free! I find that being indoors makes you feel
less inclined to commit to exercise, so having items such as a yoga mat in your
eyeline or putting reminders on your phone gives you a little more motivation
to stay healthy. Being back in a room filled with objects that reflect a
younger, different version of yourself may feel strange. But pictures of
friends and postcards of places you’ve been to can be little reminders that things
will eventually start to feel more normal again. I use the FreePrints app for
printing pictures which is really cheap and delivers them to your door. If you
share a room with siblings, you could encourage them to do this together, so
that they don’t feel you’re taking over their space. If you have a much younger
sibling at home, try having a weekly competition where the best piece of art
they create can go on a special place on the wall. This will also keep them
busy when you need to study and write essays.
Try to make the space you’re in one where you set the rules. If that means having a box in your room where you put all your gadgets away for a while, do it. But remember not to be too harsh on yourself – your comfort and well-being matter and should always come first.
In times of crisis, fashion is rarely at the forefront of people’s minds. As the world attempts to navigate daily life in the midst of a global pandemic, and we adjust to the new normal of minimal socializing and a stronger-than-ever reliance on the internet, the plight of the fashion industry takes a backseat to more immediate fears for public health and the economy. It makes sense – who, right now, whether stuck at home in isolation, on the frontline of the fight against the virus, or worrying about how they’re going to pay the bills, is thinking about re-vamping their wardrobe for spring? Fashion isn’t critical to the functioning of society in the way that medical workers, firefighters, and those working the supply chain are. But it’s a vast industry consisting of brands that have a huge presence in the public consciousness, and so have a unique ability to influence people. Not only this, but resources such as textiles and factories can be hugely beneficial if redirected towards the fight against the virus.
LVMH paved the way for Fashion’s response to the crisis by announcing last Sunday that they would use their perfume production facilities (Parfums Christian Dior, Guerlain and Parfums Givenchy) to manufacture free hand sanitizer to distribute French hospitals, who desperately need it. Their press release stated that “through this initiative, LVMH intends to help address the risk of a lack of product in France and enable a greater number of people to continue to take the right action to protect themselves from the spread of the virus”, and that they would “honour this commitment for as long as necessary” This came 72 hours after a call from the French government for businesses to do what they could to help; by Monday, production was in motion. The brand was set to have produced twelve tonnes of hand sanitiser for Paris hospitals by the end of that same week. Soon after, brands L’Oréal and La Roche-Posay announced that they would follow suit.
On Wednesday, following a sharp rise in coronavirus cases in the company’s homeland of Spain, the Inditex fashion group, owners of Zara, announced that they would repurpose their factories to donate masks and other medical equipment to the hospitals who need them. In a statement to Vogue, they said they had already distributed 10,000 protective masks to hospitals and expected to be able to donate another 300,000 surgical masks by the end of the week. The company have had to close half their stores around the world, and although executive chairman Pablo Isla confidently asserted that it was the company’s “strong financial position” that meant they were ready to respond to the crisis, they’ve seen their sales fall by 24.1% as of early March. With Spain’s PM Pedro Sánchez warning that “the worst is yet to come”, and makeshift hospitals emerging in the capital to accommodate the rapidly growing number of patients, the company’s efforts will surely be appreciated greatly.
Magazines and individuals within the fashion community are playing their part, too. Vogue in particular is channelling its content towards the priorities of its readers in these unsettling times, publishing articles such as ’12 Ways To Turn Your Home Office Into A Productive Sanctuary’, and ‘Jewellery’s New Surreal Appeal Echoes The Strangeness Of Our Times’. Anna Wintour has pledged to stay at home, encouraging readers to do the same, as “there is no more important rule for us to follow.” As we begin to see high-profile fashion events such as the Met Gala being cancelled or postponed, it seems that many designers and models will be following suit. Influencers, the subsection of the fashion and social media community with arguably the most sway over public opinion, are also pledging financial support for the crisis – in Italy, Chiara Ferragni raised €3 million in a single day via a GoFundMe campaign and has made a personal donation of €100,000 to fund new hospital beds in one of Milan’s most over-run hospitals. Donatella Versace and her daughter have since made a €200,000 donation to the same hospital. Influential model-of-the-moment Bella Hadid issued a plea to her 29.2 million followers to take the virus seriously, and to not be “selfish”.
It may seem strange to consider fashion at such a time of global uncertainty, when hundreds of lives are being lost every day, but it’s also important to remember that any semblance of normality is something we should protect at all costs as the situation escalates. The fashion industry is playing a big part in providing relief for the crisis, and we need to follow their example: we might not have the resources to donate money or equipment to fight the pandemic, but we can listen to those whose work we admire when they tell us what we can do to help. Fashion is playing its part, and so can we– by wearing the clothes, jewellery, or makeup that help us feel normal, whatever that may be, but staying inside, keeping ourselves and others out of danger, and supporting the brands that are actively helping.
Oxford medical students have volunteered to help the NHS during a time of peak demand and stress. As of March 20, twenty-four 6th year students have joined the emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital in both administrative and patient-facing roles. This includes working at reception and performing blood tests.
According to the university, the students have already passed their Finals examinations and are qualified to deliver basic care. Additionally, non-final year students are assisting in a non-clinical capacity.
Dr Catherine Swales, the Director of Clinical Studies at Oxford University Medical School, told Cherwell that they “have volunteers from all clinical years” and that students are “matched with roles that need filling (as determined by the OUHFT). Non-final year students have been offered non-clinical roles.”
She adds that medical students are equipped for the environment of a national health emergency: “The whole course is designed to prepare students for practice. We would not allow students to volunteer in roles if we didn’t feel they were ready. We have an extensive pastoral care network both centrally and with the colleges and this is very active currently, supporting the students in what we all recognize is a stressful time.”
The COVID-19 pandemic has raised questions about how medical students might receive adequate teaching when universities are closed, especially as much of their practice is clinical. Nationally, universities are considering the possibility of graduating students early. The General Medical Council (GMC) has told students that “legally, it’s for the relevant university to decide whether or not you’re able to graduate”. It encourages universities to continue education and assessment so that medical students may join the workforce as quickly as possible.
Image Credit to Jackie Bowman / Children’s Wing, John Radcliffe Hospital / CC BY-SA 2.0.
The unfolding coronavirus pandemic has led to the cancellation of concerts and festivals around the world: Glastonbury, entire seasons at the Royal Opera House and Metropolitan Opera, and, worst of all, Eurovision. Compared to the threat posed by the virus, these lost opportunities and cancellations may seem trivial, but they are upsetting nonetheless. The mass closure of schools and conservatoires and the effective ban on large gatherings, including gigs and concerts, can be especially upsetting if you are a musician, or know a musician whose livelihood is under threat.
On the brighter side, music is a lifeline for many people – listening to the right playlist can draw you from a state of inertia to a dance party in the kitchen during the long, and often worry-filled, hours of self-isolation (please resist the siren call of TikTok). Listening to music is undoubtedly a different experience in a world transformed by Covid-19 – the apparent dissolution of the musical community is clearest in the absence of gigs, concerts, and shows, meaning performers and audiences can no longer gather in a room to share their passion. However, the communal experience of listening to music need not be lost in isolation, even if it has been significantly altered. Rather than stunting the experience, the measures taken to reduce the spread of the virus have stimulated an influx of creative solutions to this issue, enabled by social media and other web platforms.
One noteworthy initiative attempting to tackle this issue of cultural connectivity is the Corona Cultural Festival 2020 Facebook Page, founded and operated by Millie Cant, a second-year music student at Pembroke College. The page includes a virtual book club hosted on the video call service Zoom, as well as a weekly list of recommendations of books, films, and documentaries. For communal music listening, there are collaborative Spotify playlists and a list of music recommendations shared on a Google Document that anyone can amend. It may not be the same experience as listening to a piece of music in a concert venue, but it provides a virtual space where music can be shared and recommendations exchanged, ensuring listening to music remains an interactive and communal experience even when not experienced simultaneously. Thus far, this page has amassed 1,659 followers, encouraging a creative communal space online in order to, in Millie’s words, “look out for our own and others’ mental and cultural health”. Here, listening to music is a communal experience in that it is linked to the recommendations and experiences of others within a virtual community.
The act of going to a concert has unfortunately been halted by the virus, and cannot truly be emulated virtually, as the physicality of the event is arguably a large part of the experience. However, the live-streaming of concerts and musical performances has allowed a preservation of the sense of immediacy felt in a concert – the listener is truly placed ‘in the moment’ as they hear a piece of music unfold in real-time. Even better, the live stream format helps listening to music to remain a communal experience despite geographical difference – like in a concert setting, everyone experiences the music in the same moment, and without the irritation of someone rustling sweet wrappers five seats away.
Furthermore, the fact that many of the streaming services for opera and classical music venues are now free and available on the Internet may allow a kickback against elitism in the classical community. With these free livestreaming services, such as the Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall, people will be able to explore new music at no cost and from the comfort of their homes. This isn’t to undermine the value of live concerts – for the performers, concerts are the centrepiece of performance culture and a vital source of revenue. However, it demonstrates that listening to music during this pandemic need not be an isolated experience, even when in isolation.
The Covid-19 pandemic is proving to be difficult for the music industry as bands, orchestras, opera companies, and music festivals are struggling, forced to cancel events for the safety of their audiences and the community at large. It has, therefore, become more important than ever to support both music and musicians culturally, financially, and communally. Live-streaming and services like Spotify, YouTube, Google Play and Apple Music, amongst others, allow for the continuation of a communal experience of listening to music. They also support artists – buying merchandise where possible and holding onto tickets for postponed concerts are also valuable steps towards supporting a future for the industry post-pandemic.
I’ve only been away from Oxford for a week. I’ve only spent a week in isolation at home with my parents. But a week is long enough. Long enough to unpack, fuss over my dog, locate and devour the best that the kitchen cupboards have to offer, enjoy a lie in, read the first few chapters of a book, ravage Netflix and try to catch my parents attention over the burrrrr of BBC news by doing handstands in front of the TV. Long enough to check Facebook, wash the dog (who’s smell, rather than excitement, now seems her defining quality), lose my Mum and Dad indefinitely to the 24 hour news channel, have another lie in (because why bother getting up), check Facebook again, throw the phone, slam the door, let out a little scream and, finally, finally, resort to board games.
As is so often the case in moments of mild domestic distress (power cuts, Christmas once food and conversation are spent) board games appear like a shining light in this time of confinement, glowing through the gap between the doors of their dusty cupboard. They promise a laugh or two, an argument or two; connection despite social isolation. Mum turns off the news and we settle on Cluedo. As I unfold the board and glance over ‘the dining room’, ‘the study’ and ‘the lounge’, thumbing the tiny metal dagger and rope, I can’t help but wonder if over the coming months of quarantine the walls of my house might begin to feel just as impenetrable as the boundaries of the board; whether I too might be stuck in an endless loop, dragged from room to room, never venturing outdoors.
I stop in my tracks. There’s an image in my head that I can’t seem to shake. Miss Scarlet, Professor Plumb, Mrs Peacock and co. come to life and stuck in a house together. Wasn’t there a film, based on the game Cluedo that I loved when I was really young? A quick Amazon Prime search later and I have both my answer and its opening credits on my screen.
Clue (1985) is a riot of a film; an ensemble black comedy; a who-dunnit which doubles as a parody of the genre; a farce, choc-full of slapstick humour and endlessly quotable, campy one liners. Double entendres, daft wordplay and all sorts of other silly nonsense surge at unnerving speeds. The film has me at “Monkey’s brains”.
Today Clue is considered a cult classic, but the road to cult appreciation has been a long one. Upon its release the film was a big, fat flop, both financially and critically. Released with three endings, viewers would see a different one depending on what theatre they attended. This ‘gimmick’ was ridiculed by critics who found the film to be laboured and downright silly, joking about the unlikelihood of audiences paying full admission three times to catch three different endings, none of which, alone, felt satisfying. So how did Clue come to received its overdue acknowledgement as a proper movie and not just a cheap gimmick? Well credit is due, at least in part, to run-off from the Rocky Horror/Tim Curry midnight movie circuit. Curry, again, proves himself to be a one-of-a-kind actor playing Wadsworth, the butler who narrates the action (and there is a heck of a lot of it). He acts as the game night host, as it were. Indeed, the film starts out much like a game of Cluedo might in real life. Just as my family members, one-by-one, took a seat around the dinner table to play, each member of Clue’s stellar cast arrives at the door of the mysterious mansion, is assigned a colourful character alias and is shown to their seat at the dining room table by Wadsworth. Cluedo further permeates its film adaptation. Important elements, such as the dead body and myriad possibilities of who killed whom, in what room, and with what weapon, are preserved throughout.
Whilst I love Clue and have come here, mainly, to sing its praises, it must be said that the opening few minutes of the film are pretty dire. Much of this is owed to the challenges inherent to both whodunits and farces: they need a lot of windup before the Jack jumps out of the box. There is a gallery of characters to be established and motives to be assigned. The various rooms whose doors will be slamming need to be mapped out with precision. Whodunits and farces are unforgiving plot machines because they need to be complicated in order to fool their audience down the line, and setting up all the dominos that will cascade in act three can be tedious. Thankfully director Jonathan Lynn and his cast make relatively quick work of it. Once the board is set, with characters, period clothing and an exquisitely detailed, gothic murder house all in place, things begin to fall apart in the loudest, most vibrant and brilliantly melodramatic way possible.
So relentlessly and deliberately convoluted is the plot (which I will not even attempt to relay in this review) that no viewer will likely able to make heads or tails of the film’s central questions: whom, where, why, and with what. One could probably say the same of the actor’s onscreen. This is part of the film’s fun. The bodies just keep piling up as the cast frantically scurry about the house. Like any good farce, events escalate until the escalation itself becomes the central joke, and characters are left delirious and breathless, improvising their way through an increasingly quick, increasingly bizarre plot.
Watching Clue today it strikes me that the film is pretty racy for its PG rating. No wonder I loved it as a kid; it was an early exposure to transgression with no traumatic repercussions. There is murder but no blood, sex but no nudity, tons of screaming but not a single expletive. The movie offers up a buffet of offenses, from murder to blackmail to infidelity to (gasp) socialism, without paying any thought to their often unpleasant complexities. Clue only ever delivers the thrill of the infraction. Perhaps this is what irks so many critics, what leads them to accuse the film of being ‘all show and no substance’. Perhaps this is why some consider Clue as a ‘fast food’ film; instantly gratifying, all adrenaline rush, more akin to a roller coaster than a real movie, a ‘nourishing’ movie.
I couldn’t disagree more. What the film may lack in terms of nuanced storyline, it more than makes up for with its nuanced treatment of language and the cast’s nuanced performances (Tim Curry’s intonation on the word “No” has become a favourite gag within the films committed fanbase). Clue’s ‘show’; its bravado, its clash and clamour, its back and forth, its puns, its facial expressions are its essence, its ‘substance’. Patched together like Frankenstein’s Monster – part boardgame, part farce, three endings – it stomps around in an ungainly fashion, bothering critics. How great!
So, if, over the coming weeks, you’re secluded at home, if Netflix, books and even board games are no longer doing it for you, if you find yourself reaching for the lead pipe, ready to smash in the TV on hearing the word ‘coronavirus’ one more time, I recommend you take a trip to a different secluded house, one with thunder clouds clapping above and a murder waiting to happen inside.
