Sunday, May 11, 2025
Blog Page 523

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.

Consuming Food

0

In his 2008 essay ‘On Food’, Mark Grief lamented that eating had become a hobby, “one pastime among others”. Food and the act of consuming it had been transformed into a mode of entertainment. That was more than a decade ago. In 2020, I’m more likely to watch food for leisure than actually eat it.
I don’t choose to watch all the food that I do. We are surrounded by images of food through advertising, and passively consume vast quantities of it. As good as it feels to look at food in this way, you’d be right in thinking that it isn’t really a hobby – we don’t exactly volunteer our time or eyes to bus stop KFC adverts. But whilst marketeers and food companies might hold us hostage to some images of food, a large number of us actively seek them out.

Deliberately watching food isn’t a novel phenomenon: Come Dine With Me has (unfortunately) been running since 2005 and, though it’s difficult to believe, Mary Berry did have a TV presence before The Great British Bake Off. Up until a few years ago, though, when we actively looked at food on the television or in a magazine, it usually meant looking at a person too. That person was a celebrity chef like, say, the acclaimed food writer Nigella Lawson, or Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, founder of the River Cottage enterprise. The former would make a pavlova for an impromptu, dimly-lit gathering of beautiful people at her central London mansion, and the latter might knock up a 5-cabbage coleslaw to share with his rosy-cheeked, hobby-farmer pals. Sure, the dishes looked great, but mostly we were watching people, people engaged in lifestyles and processes performed through food. It was easy to pretend that, were we to cook the right stuff, we might, for the duration of a meal, be blessed with envious curves and a gift for alliteration, or the kind of earthy, rugged charm that only comes with milking your own goats.
But the power and presence of TV food personalities is fast diminishing. Sure, the Bake Off is still a phenomenon, and it did bring us the national treasure that is Nadiya Hussain; but it’s difficult to ignore recent casualties. Industry giant Jamie Oliver’s restaurant empire lies in tatters, and Nigella hasn’t released a new book or TV show since 2017. We’re no longer interested in the people who made watching food a primarily personality-, lifestyle- and TV-based activity.

Today, actively watching food means foraging for content online, where the most popular cooking videos and images feature almost no human presence at all. Not only is the way we’re sourcing food images changing, but who’s watching has also shifted. TV cooking shows are perhaps, unsurprisingly, associated with the middle-aged and the middle-classes, but research by Google reveals that millennials watch 30% more food content on platforms like YouTube than other adults. One of the biggest producers of online food content is Tasty, a division of Buzzfeed which creates videos shot in an overhead format so you can only see the hands of the person cooking. There might be the odd voice-over, but for the most part, they’ve cut out the middle-man so it’s literally just you, the viewer and images of food. The Tasty formula is simple: videos are short and densely packed with shots of protein- and fat-heavy foods in motion. It’s a model that’s been replicated by similar brands across platforms – it’s almost impossible to open the discover page on Instagram and not encounter several hundred 20-second food videos that end with a cheese pull. Social media is bursting with repetitive food content of this kind and, with each video boasting thousands if not millions of views, it’s content that is being consumed a dizzying rate.

Rather puzzlingly, the lack of variety or discernible culinary skill in these videos doesn’t appear to be a turn-off. I mean, how many 3-minute variations on beef lasagne does it take before we get bored? But the truth is we’re not watching for the recipe; no one really contemplates making a giant bread cheese cube or a 5-layer, mayonnaise-based chocolate fudge cake. In reality, we’re simply obsessed with consuming highly aestheticized images of food that convey an almost grotesque level of abundance.

You might argue that watching someone make a ridiculous amount of energy-dense food isn’t that bad, but with a few clicks you can now witness someone consume a crap-ton of food too. ‘Mukbang’ is a phenomenon which originated in South Korea, but has since garnered an international reputation. In any given Mukbang video you can watch someone eat several days’ worth of calorie-rich food for no other reason than the entertainment of their viewers.
There is something deeply disturbing about this level of visual food consumption. Some experts have warned of the potential psychological and physiological implications of our newest food-related hobby: it’s possible that watching food in this way could provoke our appetites, negatively engage our brains, encourage unhealthy habits and endanger those suffering or at risk from eating disorders. Despite these worrying effects, watching food doesn’t seem to have particularly negative cultural associations. Visual food content is often categorized as ‘Food Porn’, and although the term has a pejorative ring, it’s not often used in that sense. I can proudly caption my Instagram of an oozing egg yolk with the hashtag #foodporn and encounter none of the censure that is directed at other forms of artificially simulated desire.
Whilst watching food is stimulating, it is also comforting and strangely numbing. When we’re entertained by images food we rarely have to critically engage with it. Talking about what we physically consume in our day to day lives is exhausting. What you eat, where and even how you eat it signals our ethical and political concerns (or lack thereof) in an all-too-simplistic way. It can feel like important discussions about food take the pleasure out it. So we stop talking and start watching, because it’s easier. Ironically, though, the way we now visually consume food is desensitizing in the extreme and, like any addiction, more and more is required to feel satisfied. If we truly want to enjoy, appreciate and understand food, we need to challenge how and why we watch it.

Dominic Cummings and his Whitehall Weirdos

0

Special adviser Dominic Cummings helped himself to a wide slice of Whitehall’s well-stretched attention this week after he published a job ad on his blog decrying the presence of privately-educated Oxbridge humanities graduates in government. Coverage has been keen to focus on Cummings (himself a privately-educated Oxford history graduate), and as such has bent his call to enlist “weirdos” into a narrative it doesn’t necessarily fit. The Telegraph’s editor was quick to hail the post as a “broadside against political correctness” while much was made of his dismissive attitude towards “public-school bluffers” and “English graduates”. Cummings’ concerns are instead essentially technocratic, and he is right to seek institutional change.

Cummings’ blog (dominiccummings.com) is a loose-wrought web of findings from papers on machine-learning alongside pop culture afterthoughts which consistently expresses frustration with slow government. In March 2019, he echoed John Von Neumann’s 1955 essay “Can We Survive Technology?” in lamenting the “essential problem that the scale and speed of technological change have suddenly blown past political institutions”, and that “for progress, there is no cure”. In the same post, he wrote that government now requires an “extremely different model of effective action to dominant models in Westminster”. It makes sense he should feel this way. Television, he says, is seventy years old and most politicians still do not understand it well. Social media, less so. How, he keeps asking, can we expect the existing pillars of state to cope with the radically transformative sciences of artificial intelligence and genomics? His 2020 call for “true wild-cards”, “assorted weirdos” and “misfits” (preferably with an MSc, PhD or ‘alternative talents’) to apply directly to a personal email certainly sets new precedent, if unlikely to upend the ‘dominant models’ of the Civil Service. I agree with Cummings that true ‘cognitive diversity’ is desirable in policy implementation as much as, if not more than, in elected roles. He is right to point out that the status quo for diversity in either is poor. The odds of dropping a tennis ball at random from the Press Gallery into the Commons Chamber and hitting any kind of scientist remain low.

 However I distrust both his apparent motivation and mechanism for achieving this change. Cummings also signposts future overhauls to the state bureaucracy, which he labels “SW1”. Singling out “the horrors of human resources”, which “obviously need a bonfire”, the implications of his recruitment drive in Number 10 stretch far beyond the short-term “fast, cheap way to find good ideas” that his email address ([email protected]) demands. The wider changes that this clarion call may pre-empt seem more likely to achieve the “capable state” his blog seeks.

It is true that government should be more widely representative than it is. While not an elected body, the Civil Service is a democratic organ, and as such should be responsive to democratic forces. If it is true that a government should look like those it represents, it is especially true that those who advise the government should be selected from a wide talent pool. A less ‘generalist’ Civil Service, with specific expertise and further removed from the SW1 bubble, could be better at fulfilling the Service values of objectivity and impartiality and well-placed to meet the needs of a diverse population. The job ad is right to seek out those who have never been to university or “fought their way out of a hell hole” and wrong to deride “gender identity diversity blah blah blah” for this reason.

While these (if any) changes would come slowly to the permanent civil service, Cummings seems eager to use the temporary staff at Downing Street as a proving-ground during the five years of long slog in government. His blog brims with ambition and ego, perhaps misplaced. Now that it meets power he seeks to cast a team of managers for ‘megaprojects’ and superinfrastructure, citing examples like the Manhattan Project to develop nuclear weapons or the US Government’s Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). His posts fiddle with ideas like free universal genetic sequencing for the UK population or the use of machine-learning in accelerating government decision processes. While a diverse team of advisers, characteristic of these projects, is at least principally healthy for any executive, the job ad seems to reveal the strange patronage relationship that Cummings could have with such a team. When he writes that “if you play office politics, you will be… immediately binned”, he implies not only his own power to hire and fire but also the importance of personal loyalty. He has no patience for formal hierarchies or “New Labour junk”, he says; “I’ll bin you within weeks if you don’t fit”. In asking that applicants should sort through his own reading list before interview, he is asking for workers that share the academic enthusiasms of his blog rather than the range and diversity he claims to seek. In doing so, Cummings is only replacing one bubble with another built in his own image. He may be right to suggest that government is inefficient or unrepresentative, but at best this job ad provides the wrong answer to the right problem. Certainly, the introduction of “super-talented weirdos” to Downing Street seems unlikely to solve Whitehall dysfunction at large.

How to Maintain Meaningful Relationships over the Vac

0

Pretty quickly you realise that Oxford socialising is intense. A week of regular cups of tea with someone can create speculative rumours about your relationship with them worthy of any gossip mag, whilst a minor (or major) breakdown about an essay deadline, tough tutor or dating turmoil in front of a new friend makes you feel like you’ve bonded for life. In the nine weeks I’ve spent at Oxford, I’ve felt at my most vulnerable in front of people who didn’t know me mere weeks ago and I’ve learnt more about the people I’m close with now than friends I’ve known for the majority of my life. 

The reason relationships at Oxford can be so genuine is that they thrive on the close proximity and the shared experiences. The majority of friendships are formed and maintained with face-to-face connections over cups of coffee or behind laptop screens, cultivating empathy as you experience everything about that person, from the way they hold themselves, to the tone of their voice. This allows an unedited vulnerability more likely to generate a lasting relationship and it’s furthered by the unique culture, uniting students through the power of bizarre bop themes and crewdates. Social media is largely reduced to a perfunctory role of facilitating that real-life socialising and in such a pressurised environment, having understanding friends nearby fosters a supportive atmosphere that breeds BFFs.

But friendships that seemed entirely unbreakable in 8th week now appear far more fallible in the wintry light of the Christmas break. Outside of Oxford, friendships are conducted through a minefield of group chats, DMs and Facebook tags – leaving you yearning for the days of 2am catch-up cups of tea or impromptu get togethers. When you’re home for Christmas and you find your new friends far-flung and preoccupied with family and old school friends you can feel at a bit of a loss. It’s easy to be unenthused by superficial chatter about upcoming collections when you’re used to the animated discussions of the last Bridge Thursday or the drama from the latest bop and you can’t be bothered to type out lengthy prose on what exactly you’ve both been up to.

So meet up with them! The happiest I’ve been this vacation was when I was sat around a dining table with my nearest and dearest from College, having dinner and catching up properly. It’s the easiest way to combat that texting lethargy and seeing friends outside of Oxford confirms that you don’t just work in a specific, pressurised setting. If they can’t travel, or you can’t, Facetime is the next best thing and negates that anxiety about slow responses or what a ‘reaction’ to a message really means.

Relationships move fast at Oxford, close friendships are created in the blink of an eye (or the time it takes to exchange lecture notes) and when a week is an eighth of a term, the time you spend with people becomes far more significant. Whilst this means the relationships you develop can be meaningful and worth maintaining, the vacation is also a good opportunity to take some time away from those newly formed friendships and to gain some perspective outside of the Oxford bubble. Over Christmas people may not be reaching out as much, but sometimes it’s this distance that makes you appreciate them all the more. Hilary term will only reaffirm the friendships formed in the first and the vacation can be a time to reunite with older friends who are often easier to neglect when you’re overwhelmed with books and bops come term time.

If you’re missing people, tell them – though beware the landmine of misinterpreted intentions, the ticking time bomb of replying too quickly, or too slowly and the inevitable awkwardness of a read message with no reply. It’s tempting to just wait until they’re your neighbour again and invite them over for a cup of tea. But be brave and reach out to them; arrange a Facetime call or a daytrip to see them, catch up on how their holiday has been and commiserate about collections together. It doesn’t have to be the incessant chatting, meeting up and nights out of an eight week term, but they’ll be pleased to hear from you, I promise.

How to Maintain Meaningful Relationships over the Vac

0

Pretty quickly you realise that Oxford socialising is intense. A week of regular cups of tea with someone can create speculative rumours about your relationship with them worthy of any gossip mag, whilst a minor (or major) breakdown about an essay deadline, tough tutor or dating turmoil in front of a new friend makes you feel like you’ve bonded for life. In the nine weeks I’ve spent at Oxford, I’ve felt at my most vulnerable in front of people who didn’t know me mere weeks ago and I’ve learnt more about the people I’m close with now than friends I’ve known for the majority of my life. 

The reason relationships at Oxford can be so genuine is that they thrive on the close proximity and the shared experiences. The majority of friendships are formed and maintained with face-to-face connections over cups of coffee or behind laptop screens, cultivating empathy as you experience everything about that person, from the way they hold themselves, to the tone of their voice. This allows an unedited vulnerability more likely to generate a lasting relationship and it’s furthered by the unique culture, uniting students through the power of bizarre bop themes and crewdates. Social media is largely reduced to a perfunctory role of facilitating that real-life socialising and in such a pressurised environment, having understanding friends nearby fosters a supportive atmosphere that breeds BFFs.

But friendships that seemed entirely unbreakable in 8th week now appear far more fallible in the wintry light of the Christmas break. Outside of Oxford, friendships are conducted through a minefield of group chats, DMs and Facebook tags – leaving you yearning for the days of 2am catch-up cups of tea or impromptu get togethers. When you’re home for Christmas and you find your new friends far-flung and preoccupied with family and old school friends you can feel at a bit of a loss. It’s easy to be unenthused by superficial chatter about upcoming collections when you’re used to the animated discussions of the last Bridge Thursday or the drama from the latest bop and you can’t be bothered to type out lengthy prose on what exactly you’ve both been up to.

So meet up with them! The happiest I’ve been this vacation was when I was sat around a dining table with my nearest and dearest from College, having dinner and catching up properly. It’s the easiest way to combat that texting lethargy and seeing friends outside of Oxford confirms that you don’t just work in a specific, pressurised setting. If they can’t travel, or you can’t, Facetime is the next best thing and negates that anxiety about slow responses or what a ‘reaction’ to a message really means.

Relationships move fast at Oxford, close friendships are created in the blink of an eye (or the time it takes to exchange lecture notes) and when a week is an eighth of a term, the time you spend with people becomes far more significant. Whilst this means the relationships you develop can be meaningful and worth maintaining, the vacation is also a good opportunity to take some time away from those newly formed friendships and to gain some perspective outside of the Oxford bubble. Over Christmas people may not be reaching out as much, but sometimes it’s this distance that makes you appreciate them all the more. Hilary term will only reaffirm the friendships formed in the first and the vacation can be a time to reunite with older friends who are often easier to neglect when you’re overwhelmed with books and bops come term time.

If you’re missing people, tell them – though beware the landmine of misinterpreted intentions, the ticking time bomb of replying too quickly, or too slowly and the inevitable awkwardness of a read message with no reply. It’s tempting to just wait until they’re your neighbour again and invite them over for a cup of tea. But be brave and reach out to them; arrange a Facetime call or a daytrip to see them, catch up on how their holiday has been and commiserate about collections together. It doesn’t have to be the incessant chatting, meeting up and nights out of an eight week term, but they’ll be pleased to hear from you, I promise.