Sunday, May 11, 2025
Blog Page 522

‘Little Women’: endlessly adaptable?

0

Another 20 or so years, another Little Women; this time brought to us by acclaimed director Greta Gerwig and starring some of the hottest young actors of the moment: Saoirse Ronan, Timothée Chalamet, Florence Pugh, to name but a few. It seems that every generation is granted their own reincarnation of Louisa May Alcott’s classic novel, the film history of which has been star-studded – Katherine Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor, Winona Ryder and Maya Hawke have all taken on the March sisters over the years. More than many others of its time, especially within the limited selection of novels concerned with the radical subject of adolescent women, it is endlessly adaptable, with Gerwig’s much-hyped film coming to cinemas 151 years after the text’s original publication. Regardless of my excitement at the prospect of another Little Women, I have to wonder why that is: what is it about Alcott’s novel that means we go back to it again and again, staying relevant all this time?

It might have something to do with the novel’s semi-autobiographical nature. Alcott based the novel on her own experiences growing up in Concord, Massachusetts, with her three sisters, Anna, Elizabeth and Abigail, who became the inspiration for the March sisters. Anna, the oldest, was marriage-oriented and dutiful, Elizabeth, “Lizzie”, died of scarlet fever at 22 after nursing a sick child, and Abigail, “May”, eventually trained as an artist in Europe. Louisa herself, naturally, shared many characteristics with the fiercely independent and talented Jo March, a character who continues to inspire writers 151 years after she was first penned. Perhaps this is partly why all four sisters felt like rounded, three-dimensional characters. They made do with their dwindling finances and the absence of their father, but they weren’t uncomplaining about it, as the novel’s opening lines makes very clear – “Christmas won’t be Christmas without any presents,” grumbled Jo, lying on the rug. “It’s so dreadful to be poor!” sighed Meg, looking down at her old dress. They were realistic, fleshed-out characters, with flaws that teenage girls still recognise today: shyness, vanity, an uncontrollable temper.

But this does not necessarily elucidate why we need another adaptation, 25 years on from the 90s version that starred It-Girl Winona Ryder and was widely praised by fans of the book. One thing that felt new to me about Gerwig’s adaptation was how she takes pains to validate every sister’s life choice, so we aren’t left with the idea that Jo’s fight for independence and creative freedom trumps them all. One scene on Meg’s wedding day sums this up particularly well – Jo, bewildered at her sister’s desire for a domestic life, offers her the chance to escape and pursue an acting career, to which Meg responds:“Just because my dreams are different than yours, doesn’t mean they’re unimportant”. A refreshingly modern take on a choice that could be seen as disappointingly conventional. Gerwig also devotes an unprecedented amount of screen-time to Amy and the development of her relationship with Laurie, finally allowing us to believe this traditionally under-explored plotline, with Pugh’s wonderful performance breathing new life into a character frequently considered the “worst” March sister. 

The novel is endlessly read- and watch-able because of its heart; the coming-of-age story of four very different sisters, all of whom face trials and tribulations of their own, but share every success and tragedy and wholeheartedly champion each other’s happiness (yes, Amy does burn Jo’s manuscript, but she grows out of this childish pettiness). Gerwig’s adaptation comes at a time of unprecedented female representation on the screen, with successful shows such as Fleabag, Killing Eve and Big Little Lies reshaping the cultural landscape to make it more inclusive (although there is still a long way to go), and series such as the BBC’s The Trial of Christine Keeler attempting to reshape dominant narratives that have traditionally excluded the perspective of women. What is so ‘adaptable’ about Little Women, I think, is that we’re never quite done exploring the different options available for adolescent women, and how each choice is viewed by the society in which they live. Alcott gave us the material to explore that in 1868, a very different time to 2020, and we’re still looking to her for inspiration 152 years on.

Harry and Meghan: An Unhappy New Year for the Queen

0

Imagine being the Queen right now. You’re 93 years old, and your 98-year-old husband isn’t very well and has spent Christmas in and out of hospital. You’re knackered from the last three years of political turmoil and all the faff of the election, opening Parliament, and the prorogation hoo-hah. You’ve just had to fire the man everyone knows is your favourite son from the family business, for accidentally convincing the nation that he didn’t give a hoot about the victims of his paedophile friend. You’ve even had to prevent him from going to Church with you on Christmas Day because such is the mess he’s caused your family that you can’t be seen in public with him. And then, to top it all off, your grandson decides to give you, your family, and everything for which you have stood for the last 67 years, the most almighty slap in the face. And you find out that your own grandson is effectively severing ties with you not because he talked to you about it and explained whatever difficulties he was in and what he and his wife felt they need to do for their young family, for whatever reason, but because one evening it just popped up on the telly.

Imagine being the Queen and now having to deal with the fallout this will cause for your family and for the institution which you embody. It would be difficult enough if Harry and Meghan had decided to renounce their Royal status altogether and move away. But what they have done is far more damaging to the monarchy. In deciding to retain their royalty whilst renouncing ‘senior’ status, they have essentially decided to live with all the privileges of being a member of the royal family while shirking all the duties that come with it in return. Aside from the role the Royal family play in our constitutional settlement, the unspoken agreement between sovereign and their subjects is that in return for the privileges that royalty is afforded, the Royals themselves carry out their ‘public duties,’ undefined as they might be. Harry and Meghan had a beautiful and vastly expensive royal wedding. The taxpayer has shelled out 2.4 million quid to renovate their cottage. They have now decided that they don’t fancy upholding their side of the deal, and to add insult to injury, they’ll be further abusing their royal status by turning ‘Sussex Royal’ (which they have already trademarked) into a brand to further milk the cow of privilege they are lucky enough to access, to but which they will do nothing in exchange for. It’s clear that the two of them fancy being American-style mega-celebrities, with the added bonus of the prestige of their royal titles, so as to convert a public image of themselves into a multi-million-dollar business empire. I suppose that the funding of the Duchy of Cornwall (which comes from Charles) was not quite sufficient for the lifestyle they want to lead. Not that they’ll be weaning themselves off the Duchy’s income in their quest for ‘financial independence’. They’ll only be renouncing the Sovereign Grant which provides around 5% of their income, whilst generously retaining the rest of it.

So, they have a publicly-funded cottage, the celebrity of their publicly-funded wedding and of their royal status, the debt for which they refuse to pay back, and the considerable fat of Harry’s father’s land to live off. Impressive financial independence. Together, Daddy and the British taxpayer shall provide! Harry may have just become the most senior trustafarian in the world. Maybe when they begin exploiting their branded version of the royal household they’ll write a cheque to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to reimburse the public for its unfortunate investment.

And who is going to have to foot the political and personal bill for all of this? For the fresh wave of republicanism that will surely break as the taxpayer realises just how raw this rawest of deals turned out to be? Poor old Queen. She didn’t do anything to deserve the family she’s got.

New Year’s Resolutions: Do They Work?

0

That my new year saw a rough start is a huge understatement. I spent its first three hours crying alone in my room, for reasons I shall not disclose for the reader’s own good. I made a list of New Year’s Resolutions—with one item left unfinished, to be determined sometime later (should I go with “read 40 books” or “drink more water”? It’s a tough choice). Ironic.

Developing that list put me in an exceptionally contemplative mood—or at least that’s what I assumed was happening—as I went over my past year and how I’d lived it. I felt simultaneously pleased and lonely: pleased because I found myself capable of ruminating over 2019 with an ample sense of satisfaction, and lonely because I realized once again how most of the things from the past year were up to me, and how most of the things in the new year were up to me too. Certainly not because of the disappointing number of new friends I’d made.

Save for some timezone-related discrepancies, the entire world had encountered 2020, for the first time, together. Everyone used to live in 2019, but now everyone lived in 2020. Yet every single individual, myself included obviously, had their own 2019 and 2020. And that’s what making a New Year’s Resolutions list is all about: declaring what and how my new year will be. Not yours, not ours. Mine. My growth, my progress. My new beginning. Another chapter of my life.

But does it work?

This naturally individual nature of New Year’s Resolutions both make and break their efficacy. Most of us are forever locked up in a love-hate relationship with ourselves, wanting us to succeed and feed, but never as capable of acknowledging our successes and failures as an objective observer may be. We see the best of ourselves when we’re alone having that glorious moment writing an essay at 2am in the library; we see the worst of ourselves when we’re getting through that hangover or secretly sneaking off with a snickers bar from our younger sibling’s Halloween stash. All this easily makes us the best experts of ourselves. It would be ridiculous to ask someone else to make your list of resolutions for you; you love and hate yourself best. So of course your own list works and fits best.

Yet it is equally true that promises to oneself are some of the hardest to keep. We’ve all been there. You swear to yourself that you’ll get this essay done by noon; it drags on till you call it a day and decide to pick it back up tomorrow. You read a self-help book and decide to be confident from now on; you’re insecure browsing the cheesy titles in the self-help section, warily eyeing the very distinguished-looking gentleman poring over a distinguished-looking expert’s newest book on James Joyce and linguistic metaphors.

Another notable factor is the significance of a new year. After all, New Year’s Day, not to mention dates in general, is a social construct; there is nothing inherent in a new year that boosts change and/or progress. Yet the celebrations and messages involved, along with the flood of New Year’s posts on social media, did have a recognizable effect on me: they provided a social context to my individualistic resolutions. Comparing oneself to others is rarely recommended, as many focus on and rightfully condemn the habit of valuing oneself and acting according to the external—being a “second-hander,” as Objectivists say. But what about competition and context? Society and culture?

I doubt I’d have made or conceived of any resolutions if there was no New Year’s Day, and people hadn’t made an implicit agreement to make and share their lists online. Does it seem shallow, this admission that I have done it after being inspired by convention and social media? Maybe. It’s true, though. Seeing a friend’s list of her resolutions was what prompted me to make my own, and the rest of our society’s New Year’s culture—sardonic (said too many times, though, to be honest) jokes about the gym crowd diminishing over time, 2020-inspired designs, etc.—that envelops January 1st and a considerable portion of the end of December/the rest of January has been reminding me regularly of my promises to myself, at the very least. The New Year’s culture has thus made me want my new year-new me self to be the best, and my resolutions the most substantialized. There’s clearly more to New Year’s Day than putting things off to the new year.

At the time of writing this article, it is the 10th of January. I can’t say I’m proud of my first 10 days of 2020; I still haven’t decided what will be the unfinished resolution on my list. Yet while I can’t say making a list of resolutions has had or will have a substantial effect on my lifestyle, I do believe that it has pushed me to properly diagnose and think about myself and my life, which may potentially lead to some changes, if qualified and minor: I have now a boosted awareness of how little water I drink, a desire to count the number of books I read, and a sense of alarm at my sleeping habits. Will I keep my promises to myself to drink, read, and sleep more? Like any other honest writer would admit, I can’t say—maybe to some extent, hopefully. Did making this list of New Year’s Resolutions encourage me to assess myself properly and as detachedly as possible? Yes. For a member of a species that regularly consumes physically harmful substances, makes life choices based on other people’s judgements, and pathologically either over-glorifies or over-criticizes itself, that’s something. Socrates would be proud, though Marie Kondo or my walking tracker app may not be.

Why the vac isn’t enough to solve Oxford’s mental health problem

0

“There are few greater temptations on earth than to stay permanently at Oxford in meditation, and to read all the books in the Bodleian.”

Although I most certainly don’t agree with the latter, Hilaire Belloc did have a point. Oxford has operated a short term in perpetuity, with 24 weeks of contact, the rest of the year is supposedly left for that well-needed rest and recuperation. Unfortunately for many, this is seldom achieved. Whether it be simply the stillness and subsequent boredom of the vac after a busy term, or the increasing challenges in the present day to mental health, some students are seeing the vacation period more as something to dread rather than a time of relaxation. Alas, this is the Oxford life, you don’t get the pleasures of being able to relax.

I must admit, I am endlessly jealous of my friends who look forward to going home. Those in the lucky enough position to have a stable home life normally see this time as a way to destress, catch up with home friends, and enjoy those home comforts we miss out on as students (Lurpak rather than olive spread is a favourite of mine). But for others, coming home is not necessarily a base of stability and security, and the vac is merely seen as something to “get over” before they can return.

A 2016 Survey by Oxford University Student Union found that 54% of students felt studying at Oxford had impacted their mental health negatively, with women and non-binary undergraduates twice as likely, and LGBTQ students 2.75 times more likely to experience these feelings. Of course, we cannot assume that the long vacation periods are the cause of this, surely if anything they help? I for one disagree, and would call these ‘vacs’ anything but relaxing. Not only does the overhanging dread of collections mean we are unable to fully recharge, but you should probably read those 19 books you’ve been set by your new tutor. Oh, don’t forget that internship you need to apply for, and the 30 others if you want a decent stab at being employed after you graduate.

The truth is, Oxford does an atrocious job at encouraging its students to use the vacation periods as productive means of relaxing. The instilled culture of working with no means to an end always overspills into the holidays, and the competitive nature of extra-curriculars, whether that be in societies or networking, encourages little preservation for one’s mental or emotional health as they often play catch up out of term time. Our education system fetishizes Oxford to a blinding extent, as the majority of focus is about whether candidates are clever enough to get in. They rarely stop to consider what it’ll be like once you’re actually there. It seems that once a student arrives, they are branded more than capable, and if anyone dare complain about their responsibilities, they are met with little sympathy. “What do you expect?”.

It is imperative that we, as a community, make a significant effort to address increasing mental health concerns over unmanageable workloads at Oxford. What’s more, we must challenge the nature of the vacation we receive as unacceptable in the pressures they continue to put us under out of term time, and strive for healthier connotations surrounding rest and recuperation during these periods. I do wonder if this will ever be possible, as it requires the cooperation of students and institution members alike, to accept that people at Oxford are not superhuman. They are not robotic machines that can maintain pursuit of study for the duration of their course without proper breaks, and without confronting the need for support out of term time as well as during.

As we come full circle, I must admit perhaps Belloc’s comment is more insightful than initially meets the eye. Has a love for academia, and desire to constantly learn and develop one’s knowledge been warped by a competitive need to be the best? Has Oxford systematically controlled us to seek constant academic prowess, never being happy with our own achievements? Has it taught us the association that relaxing is bad, leading to an endemic obsession with study, and neglect to one’s mental health? You best get started then… there’s only 12 million books in the Bod after all.

MUST SEE: Cossacks of the Kuban

0

On the 12th and 13th of January 2020 Oxford’s Ultimate Picture Palace will show the classic Soviet musical Cossacks of the Kuban (1949) as part of Kino Klassika Foundation’s Melodia! season in partnership with the British Film Institute. Previously rarely screened, the film was shown at the BFI Southbank in October 2019 with great success, as part of Kino Klassika’s long-standing endeavour to programme Russian, Soviet and Caucasian films in the UK. Perhaps, it is worth pondering  why a post-war musical, glorifying the myth of Soviet prosperity, is evermore relevant to Russia’s cultural politics today. 

On New Year’s Eve in 1995 Russian Public Television (ORT), now Channel One, aired a faux-retro musical set on a Soviet kolkhoz (that is, a collective farm) titled Old Songs About Important Things. Not only is this piece of popular entertainment remembered with fondness, but it was shown again on Channel One only a few days ago, on the 3rd of January 2020. The film is composed of musical numbers, in which modern Russian pop stars sing Soviet hits. These songs have been so deeply embedded into collective memory that one may easily mistake them for traditional folk music. The film indicates neither the historical period nor the location of the story, but it quickly becomes apparent that Old Songs is a nostalgic and kitsch take on Ivan Pyryev’s Cossacks of the Kuban, which is itself an epitome of Soviet mythology. What does contemporary Russian mainstream entertainment have to do with a Stalinist-era propaganda musical?

The term ‘propaganda,’ with regards to the arts, is often defined as a symbolically direct cultural practice of mass persuasion: “a weapon of state for the purposes of political indoctrination and social control” (James Chapman, 2000). Cossacks, however, is an example of a more subtle strategy of persuasion via entertainment. Pyryev’s musical is a rigidly orchestrated representation of rivalry between two collective farms, The Red Partisan and Lenin’s Covenant. Following the Romeo and Juliet template, Cossacks portrays forbidden love between Dasha and Nikolai, a worker and a technician from competing farms. Recognised for its meticulously choreographed scenes of harvesting to the rhythm of Isaak Dunayevsky’s renowned score, it masterfully admixes an imitation of musical folklore with the representation of the extensive industrialisation of rural Russia. 

Built on a simple plot, this classic of Stalinist-era cinema produces a myth of Soviet prosperity, showing off the agrarian wealth of the southern region of Russia. Approximately fifteen years prior to the release of Cossacks the region suffered from a severe famine, and in 1949, when the film was being made, Kuban, alongside the rest of the country, was still recovering from the devastations of the Second World War. Pyryev’s mythology does not merely gloss over the post-war struggles, but omits them completely in this boastful rite of singing, dancing and, of course, harvesting, so as to fabricate a new history. In another attempt to rewrite history, Nikita Khruschev banned the film completely in 1956 in the process of de-Stalinisation, while his successor, Leonid Brezhnev, allowed a heavily edited version of it to be shown in 1968. Today’s viewer has never seen the pre-1968 cut of the film. However, it seems that Cossacks does more than forge history. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s criticism of capitalist culture industry, ironically, provides a strikingly accurate description of at least some of the strategies of the Soviet post-war mainstream entertainment — those of “mass deception” and “fettering [of] consciousness” (Adorno, 1975).

Surely, Cossacks is an important case study for those interested in cultural politics of totalitarian states. Besides its relevance to niche research, it may, arguably, help one to understand the cultural trends in modern-day Russia. It is precisely this strategy of mythologising entertainment that has been adopted by Russia’s mainstream cinema and television so as to maintain the status quo in which the country finds itself today. As Moscow-based correspondent for The New Yorker, Joshua Yaffa, notes that the CEO of widely popular Channel One, Konstantin Ernst, has been directing most of his energies towards entertainment programming. “The news is momentary and ephemeral,” Yaffa quotes Ernst. “But the artistic realm, this is something deeper. It can stay in people’s minds forever.” Pyryev’s musical did indeed stay in the minds of generations of viewers. For today’s viewer, the film revealed the difference between hard propaganda and, to put it in Adorno and Horkheimer’s terms, the “fettering of consciousness” via highly entertaining fabricated myths. 

An artefact of glorification regarding the mythical ‘Soviet way of life’, Cossacks may be they key to understanding modern Russia’s mainstream culture, from the 2014 Sochi Olympics pompous opening ceremony to the lighthearted late-night talk show hosted by a local counterpart to Jimmy Fallon, Ivan Urgant. Carefully glossing over the harsh political reality of today’s stagnant Russia, its modern mainstream culture has been re-writing history and forging political well-being by means of entertainment. Attending a screening of Cossacks of the Kuban seems like a good way to start understanding this strategy, with the luxury of critical distance. 


* Tickets for the screening of Cossacks of the Kuban can be booked at The Ultimate Picture Palace website.

The Souvenir Review

0

Joanna Hogg’s latest film, The Souvenir, executively produced by Martin Scorsese, depicts the semi-autobiographical coming of age of its heroin, Julie. The plot circulates the turbulent relationship between Julie, a young film student, and Anthony, her older mentor-come-lover, in the 1980s.

Hogg taps into a current predilection of the screen, entering the cinematic space at a point where functional drug use seems to fascinate screenwriters. Inevitably, culture turns its gaze to what has come before, and these dramas are symptomatic of a prior era ignorance – much like Honor Swinton Byrne’s character – to the depths of societies caveats.

The Souvenir, described on IMDb as a ‘mystery’, is anything but. Those who fail to sense the immediate dissipation of Tom Burke’s character are as deluded as Julie, the jarringly naïve protagonist. Ironically, I viewed this in my college room, centred in accommodation where I am doors away from quasi-Julie’s. Her personality was so familiar to me from my time at Oxford that it would not be too hyperbolic to say that at points I almost forgot I was watching a film and not the life of a fellow student. Julie encapsulates the middle to upper class ignorance of privilege; the family-funded student who wants to and believes she is capable of experiencing life outside the bubble in which she exists (something she even professes to her teachers) whilst staying firmly within it.

Anthony enters her life and is nothing but a positive influence on her, until he begins to fail to keep his two lives separate. Anthony is unafraid to challenge her, and his air of arrogance, although flawed, is one that exposes the idiocy of her intentions. Tom Burke’s performance here, is stunning, and utterly convincing, to the point at which we are compelled to favour a heroin addict who steals off his own partner over the victim of his moral bankruptcy. Yet, it is Julie’s victimisation of herself that also prompts this: how can we feel sorry for someone who ends up apologising for being stolen off? Someone who Anthony himself describes as “inviting me to torture you.” Inevitably, she falls short of Anthony’s intellectual mark, but also through a sycophantic and childish personality which repulses, laps up Anthony’s abuse and is fulfilled by her subservient role in the relationship.

Anthony provides Julie with a taste of reality, likely her only one, which no doubt will be further explored in The Souvenir Part II, yet she barely realises this and repeatedly fails to bridge the gap between them in experience. She is an individual who stands aside uselessly as her lover goes into withdrawal, suffering appallingly. Even once she is aware of his addiction, she is as blind as she was before wilfully ignorant, to the blatant needle marks on his arms, (and even Richard Ayoade’s camo revelation of Anthony’s addiction) which point to a desperate need for salvation. Such a character, unless you fall into the bracket of a Julie yourself, fails to draw upon sympathy when she loses someone she only ever buffets against. Theirs is a relationship where the two only ever nudge at each other’s boundaries, primarily due to Julie’s ignorance, and Anthony is a persona that even in death she fails to truly comprehend.

Despite the brilliance of these character depictions, which although in equal parts are repulsive and enthralling, Hogg undermines the achievements of the film with a lack-lustre ending. Anthony’s death is realistic, but anti-climactic, yet the ensuing scenes were if anything offensive. Julie resumes her life, minus Anthony, and in the final shot we see her gazing into the distant horizon. Cliché was something that was profoundly and refreshingly absent from the film (aside from Hogg’s satire of it) yet here it crashes back in clumsily and disrupts the cool conveyance of a highly successful, personal, yet impersonal, adventure in cinematography with a moment of scriptural weakness.The Souvenir is a film that aesthetically pleases [IC1] and gives viewers rewarding character performances and analyses. This aesthetic indulgence is one that often mirrors the plot. Just as the camera intrudes on private spaces, through indirect shots which feel as if they allow viewers glimpses into a life that is truly private and substantiated, often this viewpoint is all too obvious. In this way, the style of the film serves to reflect the main character’s desire to escape the bubble in which she exists through art, and her belief that she truly can do this, despite her obvious inability to escape the glamorisation of disadvantage. The conclusive scene is a continuation of this cinematic lens, yet here it feels that the films creative direction falls short of what throughout seems to be an ironic lens, through a superficial and clichéd final shot. Hogg unfortunately falls short in her conclusion of the plot but perhaps this will be redeemed in the films expected sequel


Top 10 Films of 2019

0

Cinema in 2019 has been surrounded by chaos. The medium is caught in a rocky and acrimonious transition, as some seek to hold onto the traditional moviegoing experience as massive conglomerates and streaming services threaten the current way of making movies. Inevitably, then, it’s a strange time to be a cinephile, and not always a pleasant one.

Thankfully, all of that turmoil hasn’t threatened the steady output of quality cinema; and in plenty of cases, films have been all the better for that surrounding chaos. Here’s a run-down of ten of the best in an extraordinary year, as released in UK cinemas:

10. Ad Astra

All hail the Sad Man in Space champion of 2019. Ad Astra presents an emotional, therapeutic journey with total clarity – a journey into deep space as therapy session, with each new environment a further layer of its protagonist’s well-armoured psyche until the final stage of confrontation and reconciliation. Yet it’s also free to get weird with its surroundings, such as a hyper-capitalist version of the Moon with chain restaurants, a terrifying space monkey attack, and the world’s longest door jump. There’s a pinch of Apocalypse Now in its quest to uncover a mystery man gone native in the wilderness, but just enough to set the plot off in its own rewarding directions. It’s both a rewarding peek under the hood of the cult of masculine self-isolation and emotional repression, brilliantly embodied by Brad Pitt’s amazingly careful performance, and a genuinely entertaining bit of world-building pulp which has space pirates and a fun mystery behind it.

9. Pain & Glory

It would have been so easy for Pain & Glory to disappear up itself, as a work of auto-fiction where the director’s life has become the story; the line between Pedro Almodóvar and Antonio Banderas’ Not Pedro Almodóvar is… pretty thin. Yet Almodóvar’s commitment to presenting an unflattering self-portrait somehow pays-off. Pain & Glory is a work of impressive vulnerability, which lays open Pedro’s emotional wounds and ageing anxiety on the operating table for all to see. In spite of the temptations it faces to self-seriousness, it’s funny, warm and refreshingly uninterested in wallowing in the importance of its protagonist’s pain. Banderas’ performance is close to the best of the year – working its way between impersonation and distinctiveness that preserves Not Pedro simultaneously as tethered and separate to Pedro himself. It’s all topped off by an ending mini-twist so perfect and so conducive to re-evaluating everything we’ve seen before that it’s tempting to just ask directors to cool it on autofiction for several years.

8. Knives Out

Nobody would have blamed Rian Johnson for taking a long nap. Regardless of opinions on his foray into Star Wars no director should realistically have had to deal with that level of vitriol and personal anger. But Rian Johnson did not take a nap. He went and made an original movie with a killer cast that garnered massive critical acclaim, awards nominations and box office returns better than anyone projected. Knives Out is not only a continuation of Johnson’s storied career against the odds – it’s an impressive leap forward in it. It’s really, really fun, assembling a tightly constructed plot and dropping about half a dozen of the year’s most entertaining and idiosyncratic performances, all anchored by Daniel Craig’s absolutely riduculous(ly great) turn as an impossibly Southern gentleman detective. There’s space for Johnson to utilise his online ordeals for good, too, with a ton of sly political commentary, which boils pleasingly down to a refusal to forgive the delusions of the ultra-privileged rich, and gives a chance for Ana de Armas to step forwards into the centre of the film as the most likeable and morally incorruptible protagonist you can ever imagine.

7. The Favourite

One of the few pleasant surprises of a grim night at the Oscars early this year was the UK’s very own Olivia Colman taking the Best Actress prize home. Few pundits had predicted it, but equally few could argue that it was an unjustified choice. Colman’s extraordinary performance as Queen Anne, which balances near-cartoonish unpleasantness and entitlement with an indelible sympathy in spite of that behaviour, anchors a film where just about everyone rises to the challenge set by the premise. Above all, in spite of the darkness of the characters’ back-stabbing attempts to gain royal favour, it’s a genuinely fun film, the script too full of memorable quotes to name, which balances its disparate tones far more gracefully than you might expect from a purveyor of weird arthouse fare like director Yorgos Lanthimos.

6. Little Women

Following on from the incredible Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig proves with Little Women that she’s a gift of a director even with just two movies under her belt. Assembling a note-perfect cast, Little Women 2019 is a manifesto for its source material’s timelessness. The dialogue, especially its rhythm, is slightly modernised up for the rapid-fire expectations of current audiences, and its feminist themes are naturally brought to the forefront, but it’s also a story which is completely grounded within its own time, too, balancing the thoroughly modern desires of its characters within the tight boxes they’re forced into. The chopping up of the story into diverging modern and past timelines is a brilliant move; for the story, as past and present echo and rhyme with one another, building up to a series of masterful emotional punches in the back half, and for performances, as the central cast have to experiment with physicality and demeanour to delineate hugely different versions of their characters. It’s not a movie with a ton of grit, conflict and darkness, but it’s a heck of a long way from being without substance.

5. Eighth Grade

Eighth Grade pretty much requires a director with former vlogger and comedian Bo Burnham’s very specific, niche skillset to work in the way that it does. There’s clearly a significant degree of self-reflexivity going on here, such as main character Kayla’s fumbling, awkward attempts at vlogging that bookend the film, which is apparent even before dipping into the reams of interviews about Burnham’s identification with his own heroine. Eighth Grade is made by somebody who understands its anxiety-ridden, social-media-fuelled, middle school experience, where it would have been so easy to condescend, and that’s what makes it far more than simply another run-of-the-mill coming of age story. Eighth Grade, more or less accurately, assesses the social media generation of instant gratification and pervasive fear of judgement from all corners as the borderline nightmare it is, but it’s notably never Kayla’s fault that she feels the pain and worry that she does. A lesser director might have viewed her constant checking of Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook as self-inflicted pain which could easily be erased, but it’s a testament to Burnham, and also Elsie Fisher’s brilliant and endearing lead performance, that the film never stoops to that level.

4. The Irishman

Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman is the definition of an epic, with a narrative that spans decades and breaks norms in its near-constant use of de-ageing CGI for its three main actors. It’s about mortality, about the price of violence on the human soul, and about the rotten core of the American Dream – little stuff like that. Despite the temptation to peg The Irishman as a maximalist work, it’s predominantly a sombre and melancholic film. Robert DeNiro’s titular hitman isn’t a cool, impressive hero living an aspirational lifestyle – he’s a hollow shell of a man with no values, principles or capacity for genuinely meaningful relationships. Even Al Pacino’s Jimmy Hoffa, ostensibly the id and comic relief of the film, is an innately tragic figure whose inevitable self-destruction is crushingly tracked in slow-motion across the film. The Irishman dares to confront viewers with the doom that awaits the ostensibly impressive ‘anti-heroes’ of the genre Scorsese himself popularised. All of that Marvel discourse may have been exhausting, but at least we got this out of it.

3. Midsommar

To call Midsommar the product of a disturbed mind is actually, on its own deeply weird terms, to compliment it. Conventional wisdom would dictate that Aster would utilise the basic premise to tell a story about a disintegrating and toxic relationship, or he’d go the route of avant-garde creepy cultist horror. Here, Aster does both, at once. Have you ever wondered about how theories of co-dependency apply to Swedish death cults? Ari Aster has, and he’s got a legitimately fascinating and concerningly detailed pitch for you about how becoming the sacred idol of a cult with the power of choosing ritual sacrifices can actually be a form of real emotional nourishment and self-fulfilment. Even in the always-expanding societal acceptance of weirdness in cinema, Aster makes sure to add a little bit of his own special sauce to keep things unsettling. Honestly, I can speak of Midsommar as a grandiose work of abrasive weirdness, and it’s not not that. It’s just that it’s also an emotionally nuanced, surprising funny and thematically rich psychological work at the same time, which is also a banner work in the glorious year of Florence Pugh, and Florence Pugh only. I don’t quite know how it manages to work that way.

2. If Beale Street Could Talk

Another of 2019’s impressive sophomore efforts, If Beale Street Could Talk picks up the baton laid down by Barry Jenkins’ stunning debut, Moonlight, and sees Jenkins’ career head to places both familiar and thrillingly new. It’s a relatively rare example of a traditional adaptation of beloved author James Baldwin, and the way in which it cleaves loyally to the source text – often cribbing lengthy passages of Baldwin’s unforgettable prose into voiceover monologues – whilst gently expanding upon its themes and singular perspective is surely a compelling case for more filmmakers to examine Baldwin’s challenging yet totally rewarding work. Stephan James and Kiki Layne are the mesmerising couple at the centre of the narrative, embodying a relaxed yet deep-rooted ease with one another that’s daringly set against the grim prejudices of the outside world which conspire to intrude on the couple’s happiness. It’s a languidly paced tale told in confidently non-linear fashion, but the depth of emotion on display here is quite unlike anything seen in cinema this year.

1. Burning

It’s not very helpful to say that Lee Chang-dong’s Korean language masterpiece Burning almost defies description, but that’s pretty close to the truth. Despite its realistic grounding in modern Korea, weaving in and out of Seoul and the rural borderlands where North Korean propaganda rings out in the South, it’s an ethereal, ghostly film that refuses at every turn to confirm a straightforward interpretation of its story and its characters. Is it a murder mystery? A psychological cautionary tale about the dangers of paranoia? An interrupted love story? All of the above? The way in which it expertly confounds viewer expectations whilst managing to still deliver affecting emotional arcs and themes among all the ambiguity is a mark of a complex and unforgettable work that lingers long beyond its bloody final act. In a year where Korean cinema stepped up to the plate and gained new levels of international recognition, Burning is a brilliant promise of what it can offer.

Cherwell Fashion Arrives from the Future

0

Rania Kim, Wyn Shaw, Isabella Welch and Tucker Drew pose by the Zaha Hadid tunnel in St. Antonys for some retro-futurism in the world’s oldest university.

Opinion – The Labour Leadership: Making the Best of a Bad Bunch?

0

4 years on from the election of Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party is in electoral tatters. The once great force of Attlee and Blair has been left with its worst election defeat since 1935. Whilst that election actually saw Attlee gain 102 seats following Henderson’s abysmal 1931 performance, December’s leaves Boris Johnson with untrammelled power in the House of Commons and Dominic Cummings threatening a total overhaul of the Civil Service. With the local and London Mayoral elections in May, and devolved parliament elections in 2021, this leadership election might constitute the most important decision Labour has had to make since entering coalition with Winston Churchill in 1940.

The loss on December 12th was incredibly upsetting – like many centre-left voters, I was left with a choice between Boris Johnson’s right-wing agenda which included curbing judicial power, imposition of a hard Brexit, and a continuation of economic policies which have caused suffering for the last 10 years, and an institutionally antisemitic Labour Party, with an incredibly unpopular leader, trusted by few outside of the left of the party, and who lead one of the least inspiring political campaigns I have ever seen run in my life. The following “period of reflection” has become a period of self-congratulation for “winning the argument” (but losing 60 seats and nearly 2 million votes). 

Currently, the leadership election candidates, and likely-candidates include former members of the Shadow Cabinet, backbenchers, allies of Jeremy Corbyn, foes of Jeremy Corbyn, and everything in between. The left of the Party is currently in disarray, as continuity plans were interrupted with Laura Pidcock’s departure from Parliament and the loss of a number of other Corbyn allies.

The current favourite for the leadership is Shadow Brexit Secretary, and former head of the Crown Prosecution Service, Sir Keir Starmer QC. Starmer (who is named after the founder of the Labour Party) was born to a toolmaker and a nurse in 1962, studying at the University at Leeds before taking a BCL at Teddy Hall. He joined parliament in 2015, representing Holborn and St Pancras and his skill and intellect helped him quickly progress through party ranks. His popularity has come as a shock to many on the left of the party, as Twitter analyses his tenureship of the CPS and the role he played in a number of high-profile prosecutions. He has been criticised as being another “middle-class Londoner” though given the background of the current Prime Minister, I am unsure of the impact this will have on the country’s perspective of him. Anyhow, Sir Keir’s pro-European tilt is likely to be popular amongst Labour Party membership which is predicted to have voted 89% remain. He is currently favourite to win the leadership, with recent polls showing 61% support after distribution of preferences. 

Clive Lewis, MP for Norwich South was one of the first to declare his candidacy for the leadership, emphasising a pro-Remain message. He argued that the Labour Party was not resolute enough in its Europhile message during the campaign, which caused a drop in support. It appears he has attracted support from Shadow Home Secretary Dianne Abbott, who signalled her support by sharing his Guardian launch article. Lewis was cleared by Labour of sexual assault in 2017 after being accused of “grabbing a woman’s bottom” at a Conference Fringe event. He was also criticised at the conference for telling a man at Momentum’s World Transformed event to “get on your knees, bitch”. Lewis’ Europhile message may go down well with some amongst the membership, but is unlikely to gain traction amongst those who are fed up of Brexit, and want to focus on scrutiny of the deal, rather than a return to discussion of the referendum result. His platform also includes constitutional change, with a move towards a system of proportional representation, and an emphasis on environmental issues – Lewis has been a fervent supporter of global-warming pressure group Extinction Rebellion. 

Jess Phillips is also one of the candidates to have made a formal declaration of her candidacy, having waited (unlike some others) for our entry into the new decade to announce. Phillips is a well-known Member of Parliament, despite not having served in the Shadow Cabinet and is definitely not a friend of Corbyn, or the Corbyn project. She told journalist and activist Owen Jones that she “would knife Jeremy Corbyn in the front, not the back” and once told Diane Abbott to “fuck off” during a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting, criticising the leader for not appointing enough women to the Shadow Cabinet (though Abbott has put forward a different story). Phillips finds many of her allies closer to the centre of the party, being a regular attendee at Labour First and Progress events – two of the centrist factions within the Labour Party. She reached national attention during the Birmingham School Strikes, where she went up against many of her constituents who were protesting requirements for teaching about same-sex relationships in primary schools. She clashed with many protestors, and called for an exclusion zone around the school to stop intimidation of pupils and teachers. Her constituency witnessed a smaller swing to the Conservatives than the national picture, with her vote-share declining by 2.4%. Phillips has, however, been the subject of criticism over her relationship with the transgender community, with many accusing her of transphobia due to her links with the group Woman’s Place, though she seldom makes public comments about her stances. Her silence is worrying, and her support will waver unless she clarifies her stance, and rejects transphobic politics.

Lisa Nandy has taken Twitter by storm but a recent YouGov poll puts her at only 5% – perhaps another example of why it’s important to take the online-activist-bubble with a pinch of salt. Nandy’s support comes from her ideological positions and the role she has played in the party over the last 9 years. The daughter of Marxist academic Dipak Nandy, she set up the Centre for Towns in 2018 in an effort to redirect infrastructural priorities and re-build a lot of Britain’s broken and outdated town infrastructure. Nandy isn’t aligned with the Corbynite wing of the party by any means (she served as co-Chair of Owen Smith’s unsuccessful 2016 leadership campaign) but nor is she on the right of the party at all. She has been a critic of Labour’s more Europhile policies which may make her unpopular with some members – she voted for the second reading of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal before the 2019 election, indicating that further support would depend on amendments. Nandy’s position, on the soft-left of the party, representing a Leave constituency, and being from outside of the M25 may stand her in good stead for support from those who believe previous election strategies were misguided and she may be able to find her way to a more promising position as she gains more media attraction through the debates. Her launch article was notable for being in a regional newspaper, compared to many other candidates’ launches in the national news.

Next up is Rebecca Long Bailey. “Born to the sound of the Stretford End”, it appeared that Long Bailey launched her campaign in all but name before the 2019 Election even took place, with an intimate video outlining her life story and priorities for Britain posted to her Twitter in November. She is known by many to be a very close ally to Jeremy Corbyn’s team, in particular John McDonnell, with the pair having worked together on Labour’s economic proposals and  is definitely seen as a continuity candidate. Long Bailey replaced Hazel Blears, a former Minister and Secretary of State under Blair and Brown and Chairperson of the Labour Party, in 2015. She had previously been a lawyer at Pinsent Masons, Halliwells and Hill Dickinson, specialising in commercial law, commercial property, and NHS contracts and estates. If she were successful in her bid to be Leader, and to be Prime Minister, would also be the first Roman Catholic to ever be Prime Minister of the UK. Long-Bailey supposedly made a new Granita pact with flatmate Angela Rayner, whom she endorsed for Deputy Leader before Rayner even declared. Some had hoped that Rayner would instead run for Leader, believing she would be better at uniting the party. Long Bailey launched her campaign in the left-wing news magazine Tribune, becoming the most recent candidate to declare. She pledged to continue the manifestos of the 2017 and 2019 manifestos. Her launch seems to have criticised every electoral success of Labour in the last two decades – from Blair’s 3 election victories to the successful 2014 campaign to keep Scotland in the UK. Her launch article did not mention antisemitism once, nor the investigation of the party by the Equality and Human Rights Commission – only the second time a political party has been investigated; the first being the BNP.

Emily Thornberry, like Clive Lewis, was one of the few candidates to launch their candidacies before the New Year hit. Thornberry, the MP for Jeremy Corbyn’s neighbouring constituency of Islington South and Finsbury, has been an MP since 2005 though did not hold any positions in the Brown or Blair governments. As a backbencher, she was on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee and introduced a Private Member’s Bill which sought to improve the control of housing association tenants over their landlords, and in 2008 sought to change the law to allow single women and lesbian couples to seek IVF treatment. Despite not being seen as a natural Corbyn ally, Thornberry has served in the Shadow Cabinet since 2015 and as Shadow Foreign Secretary since 2016. In 2014, Thornberry resigned from the Shadow Cabinet under Ed Milliband after sending a tweet described as “snobby” – a picture of a white van outside a terraced house with the caption “Image from #Rochester.” Thornberry’s difficulty is that she is both not seen as a Corbyn ally, seen sometimes to undermine his position, but equally isn’t incredibly well liked by the soft-left or right of the party for serving in the Shadow Cabinet. It is unlikely that Thornberry would do well as party leader, with her “snobby” tweet perhaps dissuading those who see her as an out-of-touch London MP, a criticism she has long had to deal with. 

The candidates, declared and considering, stretch the breadth of the Labour Party’s ideological spectrum and represent incredibly different parts of the country both inside and outside of Greater London. In its over 100 year history, Labour has never had a female leader. With the PLP currently consisting of over 50% women, it is important that the Party doesn’t ignore the incredible talent of some of the candidates running. Over the next 5 years, Britain will need someone to hold Boris Johnson’s feet to the fire. Though parliamentary defeats will likely be unheard of in this parliament, public opinion and political mood across the country will be able to help shape some of the agenda of the new Tory government. Whatever happens, Labour needs a candidate who can rebuild the party’s relationship with the Jewish community. The last 4 years have been a stain on the Labour Party’s history. We have witnessed Labour MPs, particularly women, hounded out of the party, faced with disgusting antisemitic abuse and bullying whilst the leadership either stood idly by or did not take sufficient action. 

Moreover, the new leader will need to be able to inspire confidence amongst those voters who were lost by the Labour Party in 2017 and 2019. They will face an incredibly hard job of linking two social cleavages – a liberal, richer (on average), city-based group of voters, and the middle class, university-educated voter, with Labour’s traditional base- a more socially conservative, Old Labour-esque economic group of voters in towns still left behind from Thatcherite cuts, exacerbated by austerity in the Coalition and since 2015 under Conservative governments. Though a depressing prediction, the 2019 Election was not just a guarantee for 5 years of Johnson-led government, but 10 years (at least) of Conservative government – even in the midst of the Iraq War, Tony Blair managed to keep a majority thanks to previous victories.

 In order to be victorious in the future, the Labour Party needs radical change. It needs to build new trust with the country, reorientate its priorities and focus on defeating the Conservatives at local elections, national elections (both the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament have elections in 2021) and whenever the next General Election will be. Labour needs a sensible leader, not one marred in historical controversy like Jeremy Corbyn. They need a vision which can unite Labour’s electoral coalition, which marks a decisive break from Corbynism as we enter a new decade of politics, and a new decade of Conservative austerity. Though many (including myself) are unsure of who they will be supporting for Leader, it is without a doubt that the successful candidate must be able to fulfil all of these criteria.

Review: Doctor Who’s New Year’s Day Episode, “Spyfall”

0

On New Year’s Day, exactly ten years after David Tennant’s beloved Tenth Doctor regenerated into Matt Smith, Doctor Who returned with the first instalment of its twelfth series since the 2005 comeback. The first part of the two-parter Spyfall is a fast-paced, at times light-hearted, at times terrifying tribute to 007, international espionage and your perennial invasion of Earth.

Despite the stakes, it’s a simple story. The Doctor (Jodie Whittaker) and friends are summoned by ‘C’ (Stephen Fry) to MI6, who’ve been oblivious to all the previous invasions of Earth and can’t work out who’s behind a string of attacks on agents across the globe. The Doctor suspects it’s something to do with Bromsgrove’s own cyber mogul Daniel Barton (Lenny Henry) and dumps Yaz (Mandip Gill) and Ryan (Tosin Cole) in Silicon Valley to do some hapless sleuthing. Meanwhile, the Doctor journeys to the Australian outback to catch up with old friend ‘O’ (Sacha Dhawan) before the team kick off the Twenties in style at Barton’s black tie bash. 

Sinister Internet tycoons, the international assassination of spies and the Doctor on WhatsApp – it’s Doctor Who channelling the zeitgeist without it ever seeming forced. It says something about the attitude and confidence of  showrunner Chris Chibnall’s second series opener that Stephen Fry is dead within five minutes, and that the whole narrative hinges on a few lines of dialogue in the final seconds of the episode. The real triumph of Spyfall is its unexpected shattering of expectations, which force us to look at the whole episode in a totally new light, right when we least expect it.

The episode reminds us why Whittaker was picked for the job, her performance being the strongest aspect of her debut series, which was received with mixed reviews. She now owns the role, and rightfully defies keyboard misogynists when she reveals her “upgrade” to C. It’s good to see Yaz and Ryan doing a bit more, and you can’t imagine the whole thing working without crooner and star of The Chase, Bradley Walsh, who features as the wistful Graham O’Brien, now participating in an actual chase. It’s also the best Doctor Who has ever looked. It’s filmic, glamorous and colourful, lurching from a Sheffield basketball court to a London underpass, to MI6, San Francisco and the outback. This is Doctor Who for the 2020s.

I still hope that the Thirteenth Doctor is gifted some meatier dialogue over the coming weeks– some real ‘Doctor moments’. Whittaker’s Doctor is fun, but it’s important to be reminded that the Doctor is someone who has brought down civilizations, destroyed worlds and suffered unimaginable heartbreak. Whittaker is, after all, the successor to Peter Capaldi, whose Doctor was locked in a permanent existential/midlife crisis and once spent a whole incredible episode talking to himself (2015’s Heaven Sent). Thirteen’s four  twenty-first century Doctor Who were all successful because we feared them just as much as we wanted to hang out with them. Spyfall’s cliffhanger changes everything and might represent a golden opportunity for a totally new, more intriguing side  of the Thirteenth Doctor to see the light of day. 

This is a Doctor who hasn’t yet dwelled on her past, but she’ll now have to confront some home truths. Her friends will surely get caught in the crossfire. As refreshing as it’s been to enjoy more straightforwardly pally companions like Bill Potts, Graham, Yaz and Ryan (after tempestuous friendships between the Eleventh Doctor and Amy Pond and between the Twelfth and Clara Oswald), I hope we’ll learn more about the relationships between the Doctor and her friends, and see them tested too.

It seems that the Thirteenth Doctor won’t be entirely exempt from the dramatic plot arcs that characterised the Smith and Capaldi years – and that’s not a bad thing. After all, Series 12 begins with rather a lot riding on it. Chibnall’s inaugural series came in for a lukewarm reception and the absence of an overarching narrative arc was singled out as a major flaw. 

While many diehard fans bemoaned the lack of complex narrative, there are plenty of more casual viewers who say the show hasn’t been entirely the same for a whole ten years, ever since head writer Steven Moffat (of Sherlock fame) took over from Russell T Davies back in 2010. The Moffat era faced accusations of being too complicated, too clever and too timey-wimey, like Sherlock but with Daleks. If the Davies era made us believe aliens might march into the house at any minute, Moffat’s Doctor Who was more like fantasy: a cosmic, poetic and angsty exploration of identity that liked to completely blindside us. Ten years after flatulent green monsters infiltrated Downing Street in 2005’s Aliens of London, the Twelfth Doctor, in that staggering one-hander, spent 4.5 billion years trapped inside his own last will and testament with some flies. Clearly, the show has changed a lot over fifteen years, but Chibnall has learnt some lessons and Spyfall, I think, embodies the best of Doctor Who.

Indeed, the episode charts a middle road. It’s uncomplicated, but masterful, offering a nuanced understanding of the impact of Tardis travel on home life. And it throws up some tantalising questions that remain, for now,  unanswered.The Doctor has been issued a stark warning: ‘everything you think you know is a lie’. What does it mean? Will the invasion be thwarted? And, in true cliffhanger fashion, how will they get out of this one? It’s a winning formula, and I hope Series 12 keeps it up. Above all, Spyfall is fun – and perhaps that’s what’s most important. At fifty-six, the Doctor’s prognosis is looking good.