Wednesday 25th June 2025
Blog Page 552

Transport: an overlooked election issue

0

Much of the election campaign for all of the UK’s parties has been focused on addressing the furore surrounding Brexit. The Conservative Party, under the leadership of Brexiteer Boris Johnson, has been attempting to appease those who are dissatisfied with the extension of the deadline past October 31st. On the other hand, the ‘Remain Alliance’ of the Lib Dems, Scottish National Party (SNP) and Green Party have been pushing to repeal the results of the 2016 referendum.

This single-minded focus is entirely understandable, since the onein-a-generation decision to leave the EU has been at the forefront of world, let alone British (and Northern Irish), politics. If and how the UK leaves the European Union will likely have a major effect on the future of this country, even more so if it is the primary determinant of who will be in government for the next five years.

However, in the midst of all this Brexit-mania, various important election issues have been overshadowed, and it is up to us as an electorate to ensure that the government – whoever it will be from next month onwards – delivers progress on these fronts. Labour’s main attack point during the campaign has been the dilapidation of the NHS in recent years under Tory rule, as well as under a Tory-Lib Dem coalition government. While it is true that, according to the NHS Confederation, the NHS is lacking 43,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors, the problem of the underfunding of public services extends far beyond the realms of healthcare.

In fact, there is no easy solution to an issue which has troubled the government since at least the Great Recession. Both the Conservatives and Labour are promising to increase NHS funding but it is difficult to do so without accumulating too much government debt, especially while Brexit uncertainty is hampering economic performance. The problem is a simple one but one requiring a coherent and nuanced solution.

According to current economic doctrine, the government should increase its spending when the economy is experiencing a downturn in order to stimulate growth. Then, during booms, it should aim to balance the books by reducing net spend, aided by tax revenue increases as wages grow. However, with Brexit looming on the horizon, the economy has edged towards recession, meaning that the government has taken in less tax revenue as a result of the decrease in total private sector spending. This makes it harder to increase public spending without incurring a significant budget deficit (when government spending outweighs tax revenue). Thus, whoever is in government following this election must find a way to increase employment so that it has sufficient tax revenue to fund various struggling public services.

Therefore, this government must keep in mind that a key determinant of employment, and thus social mobility, is the prevalence of transport. In the case of wealthier residents this is typically not an issue, as they can afford to buy at least one car for their household, but it can be a major obstacle to employment for those living in poorer neighbourhoods. This is because in these less-prosperous neighbours there is often a dearth of vacancies, meaning that locals who are geographically immobile struggle to find employment. Some may not own a car due to a lack of funds, some due to physical impairments which prevent driving, and some due to a lack of parking space in the absence of large driveways and garages. Furthermore, poorer individuals who for one reason or another struggle with or are averse to driving cannot afford taxies, and they may struggle to find friends who are willing and able to provide lifts.

This is why quality public transport is vital to the regeneration of such communities. Without functioning public transport, these communities are cut off from job opportunities as well as public services such as healthcare and libraries, perpetuating a cycle of despair. When the residents cannot find employment, they cannot afford to send their children to university. In turn, the children remain locked into the same lifestyle or, seeing low potential earnings for themselves, may be tempted to turn to crime to provide a lavish lifestyle. Better access to public transport is the first step to solving this problem, especially if the various modes of transport are well-integrated and part of an overarching, cohesive plan.

For example, it makes sense to have more public transit stops in poorer neighbourhoods since poorer residents are more likely to make use of services. Public transport in this country also needs to be more affordable in order to properly entice people to use it, especially in the case of the rail network. If a public transport revamp is conducted successfully, there is little doubt that it will benefit the country both economically and socially.

Public transport is not just good for the economy; it is also good for the environment. With Labour pledging a ‘Green Industrial Revolution’ and the Lib Dems touting a ‘Green Economy’, politicians clearly recognise the electorate’s concern for the environment. Therefore, improving the transport infrastructure in this country will kill two birds with one stone, attracting the workingclass vote alongside that of climate campaigners. The UK is now lagging behind on its provision of public transport when compared to much of the rest of the developed world, especially the likes of Scandinavia and Japan, and this is likely to be a key influence behind the rise of inequality in this country.

Furthermore, there is a plethora of evidence to suggest that those who commute by public transport, instead of by car, lead more active lifestyles. This by itself will not solve the NHS crisis, but the promotion of healthier lifestyles will help to prevent the obesity-related diseases which are putting a strain on healthcare resources. Another related policy area which is being somewhat overlooked at this election is the quality of the United Kingdom’s cycling infrastructure. When compared to, for instance, the Netherlands, the UK’s network is once again put to shame. While the UK may be more bike-friendly than big nations like the US due to smaller cities and relatively less traffic, the absence of separated cycle lanes in towns and cities means that it is not a valid mode of transport for novice cyclists. Studies on this area have shown that the primary determinant of cycling safety is whether there is a physical barrier separating cyclists and cars. In the UK, cycle lanes, located on the road, are more exposed than separated cycle paths, meaning that – given that cycling on the pavement is considered an offence – inexperienced and younger cyclists often do not feel confident enough to travel by bike. Not only does this result in increased emissions as they use alternative modes of transport, as well as a more sedentary lifestyle, but it also causes cycling safety to plummet as drivers are less used to dealing with cyclists on the road. Consequently, it is clear that putting measures in place which encourage the use of bikes as well as public transport will result in a healthier, more mobile, and more prosperous Britain.

The Labour Party has proposed to “build a sustainable, affordable, accessible and integrated transport system” in its 2019 manifesto through public ownership of train providers as well as some bus services. It has pledged to reinstate 3000 previously-cut bus routes in order to support rural communities and promised to complete the full HS2 route to Scotland. In the absence of a manifesto (the Conservative Party manifesto has not been released at the time of writing) it is much harder to judge Tory transport policy, though they have addressed the disruption to train services during strikes.

Ultimately, investing in public transport as well as cycling infrastructure will be expensive in the short term. However, it is likely to be effective in the long term since it addresses the issue of geographical mobility, one of the underlying drivers of economic growth. Significant investments in public transportation infrastructure will ultimately prove to be the rare policy that is both economically and socially justifiable. If the next government of this country really wants to help lift thousands out of poverty, it will be public transport investment, and not Brexit, which will achieve this. It remains to be seen whether politicians are too myopic to effectively address this issue – whether their words are just empty pre-election rhetoric.

The Irishman Review

0

Martin Scorsese’s latest film is nothing short of epic. With a nearly three and half hour run time, a 159 million dollar budget, and a cast that includes Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, and Joe Pesci to name a few, The Irishman is not built on half measures.

The Irishman tells the story of the real Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), World War II veteran turned truck driver who begins stealing his company’s steaks to sell to the Bufalino crime family. Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci) immediately takes a shine to him, and Frank soon becomes one of the family’s most trusted hitmen. Russell introduces him to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), head of the Teamster’s union, who needs his help to combat the growing pressure from rivals within the union, as well as from the federal government. The two become close, but after Hoffa is sent to prison for fraud and loses his grip on the union, his actions become more and more problematic for the mafiosos, forcing Frank to choose sides.

The saga spans three decades, a fact that caused numerous problems in development. Scorsese opted for new anti-aging technology instead of having younger actors step in for the early years. This choice proved costly, however, inflating the budget and leading all major studios to turn it down. That is, until Netflix stepped in, giving him free rein.

Hot on the heels of Alfonso Cuarón’s Oscar-winning Roma, The Irishman shows how quickly Netflix is becoming a serious player in the world of cinematic production.

Although the technology isn’t perfect and it is initially odd to see De Niro slightly pixelated, the shock doesn’t last. If anything, the de-aging gives us more time to watch these actors at work.

And they don’t disappoint. De Niro is perfect as the reserved, emotionally stunted Frank, who never gives much away. Pesci, who came out of retirement for the film, is riveting as Russell, whose demure, calculating demeanour makes a change from the brash violence of the characters we’re used to seeing him play.

But Pacino steals the show. He shines as Hoffa, endowing him with all the charisma and hubris of a Shakespearean king. He manages to find the balance between fiery and soft, unpredictable and trustworthy. He does this so masterfully, in fact, that the audience actually finds themselves feeling sorry for the man with ties to the mob. 

Yes, it’s a Scorsese mob film, but this is new territory. The world of the gangster is unravelled; the glitz and glamour are stripped away and we see the ugly consequences of a life of crime. Gangsters grow old and lonely, with nothing to show for their choices. The last 30 minutes creep up on you and stay with you.

There is a sense of weight in the last moments. The main cast and Scorsese are all in their seventies, and it’s very likely we’ll never see a film like this again. As the old Frank is forced to look at his own mortality, the audience is forced to say goodbye to this kind of filmmaking.

Fight for student accommodation giant IQ begins

0

The world’s two largest property investors, Blackstone and Brookfield have joined bidders for IQ, a UK student accommodation company.

As reported by the Financial Times, five potential bidders are considering purchasing the London-based company, expected to be sold for around £4 billion.

IQSA (IQ Student Accommodation) owns and operates 67 student accommodation sites in the UK, from Dundee to Plymouth, with over 80 per cent of its business in Russell Group universities.

IQ’s Oxford Accommodation offers students private rooms in Alice House, located just over Magdalen Bridge in Cowley.

The pair, an American and Canadian business respectively, have long sought student accommodation as a revenue stream, and are preparing bids for a pre-Christmas deadline. Sources close to the deal suspect the cost to reach £4 billion.

Goldman Sachs and the Wellcome Trust, the current owners of IQ, are preparing an “initial public offering” of the business.

Goldman Sachs, which owns 70 per cent of IQ, joined forces with the Wellcome Trust, a medical research charity, in 2016.

Greystar, a US property company, Mapletree, a Singapore real estate investor, and Patrizia, a German real estate firm, are the other companies which are considering bidding for IQ.

Interview: Layla Moran

0

I meet Layla in St Anne’s College, right in the heart of her constituency Oxford West and Abingdon, where she has just spent the day on the ground campaigning. She’s all smiles as we sit down to talk. I ask her about her day, and what issues constituents have raised on the campaign trail.

 “It will surprise no one to know that Brexit comes top. This is an election that was caused because of the impasse of Brexit. We were a remain constituency, I was voted in to try and stop a hard Brexit and I think people see that I’ve been working really hard on that issue. Local issues come up too: school funding; I used to be a teacher, I’m education spokesperson for the party.”

I move on to asking her about the importance of the student vote and issues on education, which she addresses enthusiastically.

“We have to remember in the 2017 election, I quite unexpectedly overturned nearly 10,000 Conservative majority to win this constituency by 816 votes. That was at a time when lots of students did vote; that 816 could well be won or lost on if the students in this constituency decide to vote or not.”

Moran almost quit the Lib Dems over the tuition fee policy. I ask how the Lib Dem education policy has changed since the coalition and where she stands on it now.

“I’ve done student surgeries before and what I hear as top of student concerns is actually mental health. If tuition fees are a graduate tax why don’t we call it that and be more transparent about that.

“On the flip side I spend a lot of time talking to vice chancellors and they are incredibly worried that if you write off all student debt what happens to the budgets to deliver great courses. I think anyone who wants to go to university should find a way to be able to do that and we shouldn’t be artificially capping the numbers because there isn’t the money for places. I think tuition fees have been a positive thing in some ways. More and more disadvantaged students are now going to university and it is right that they should.”

I ask her whether the Lib Dems would consider a coalition this election, and why it happened in 2010.

“At the time we said we’d work with the largest party, but we didn’t predicate who that would be. This time it’s a bit different. For two reasons, one is called Boris Johnson and the other is Jeremy Corbyn. Boris Johnson is the worst of the two: I was never a Tory and I’m naturally centre-left leaning. I think those liberal values we all live by in our progressive society are not shared by Boris Johnson. 

“In terms of equalities, this is a man who called women in burqas “letter-boxes”. This is someone who I could never put into Number 10. On the flip side, Jeremy Corbyn needs to be honest about where he is on Brexit – we know he spent all of his parliamentary career essentially being a Brexiteer. Our leaders: pick a side!

“The other side to it is that many people will know I am half Palestinian. I actually applauded much of the work that Jeremy Corbyn has done on Palestinian rights over the course of his career. However, the fact that he hasn’t been able to contain people in his party who use the cover of Palestine to say anti-Semitic remarks, and hasn’t been able to get a grip on that, I think to myself if you can’t tackle this big issue in your own party then how would you do that as Prime Minister for other issues. I can’t, in all good conscience, use my vote to put either of them in Number 10. We have ruled out coalition with both of them.”

In an article in the Independent, Moran discussed the toxic culture in the House of Commons, and I raise it now, and alleged that Boris Johnson was encouraging hate crimes through his dismissal of death threats against female MPs.

“Yes, absolutely. In the past it has been associated with an old boys’ club; we’ve seen how the Oxford Union operates sometimes. I think there are some people in Parliament, Boris Johnson is absolutely one of them, that love shouting at each other across the floor of the house. I remember the first time I asked a PMQ I was actively shouted down by all sides of the house.

“Boris called the abuse female MPs face on social media ‘humbug’. When you say things like that you almost give permission for those people who want to hurt people to do that. 

David Cameron and Boris Johnson came from similar backgrounds, through the same education system and the same university. I ask if the coalition with the Tories a mistake.

“I voted for it when we had our special conference. What I was hearing from the electorate at the time was that that’s what they wanted. They didn’t want an outright conservative majority government and for us, we had always said we wanted to change the electoral system. At the time, we thought that this was our chance to put Lib Dem policies in place. We stopped them from doing some of the worst things that they wanted to do in coalition. At the time, it felt like that was what the country had asked us to do, and we needed to prove that coalition can work. We made mistakes in coalition but I’m not convinced that going into it in the first place was the wrong thing to do.

The political landscape in the last 10 years, and indeed the Liberal Democrats, have changed dramatically. Is ask if this election is just about Brexit.

“I think for a lot of people it will be. Everyone votes for different reasons. We go canvassing and you ask people what really matters to them and it varies a lot. But most people realise this is almost a pseudo vote for what I think should have actually happened: a referendum on whatever deal with the option to remain. I’m worried though that people who really are sick of Brexit will vote for Boris Johnson because of his “get Brexit done” slogan. That to me is the biggest lie that’s being told in this election. The deal is just a deal to do more deals: it’s the start of a process. Meanwhile with Labour you’re talking about renegotiation, another referendum, and more deals along the way. 

“Our stance of stop Brexit by revoking Article 50 means we’re standing up for what we believe in: we’ve never wanted to leave, and this is being honest with people about that. It’s also the only way to actually make Brexit stop.”

How to get away with murder: claim she consented

0

Warning: this article contains detailed descriptions of violence including sexual violence

Grace Millane, a keen hockey player and recent graduate from the University of Lincoln, was fulfilling a lifelong ambition when she set out in 2018 on a gap year travelling the world. The first six weeks were spent in South America, throughout which she kept in close touch with her parents and two brothers. Next came a stint exploring New Zealand’s North Island. On December 1st , Grace sent her family a picture of a large Christmas tree in the centre of Auckland. The next day, 2nd December, was Grace’s 22nd birthday, and when she did not respond to birthday messages her family became worried. It quickly emerged that she had not returned to her hostel the previous night. Urgent pleas were issued for information on Grace’s whereabouts, and her father and uncle flew to New Zealand to assist police with their missing person case.

The search did not last long. On 9th December 2018, Grace’s body was discovered inside a suitcase, buried in a shallow grave in a nature reserve just outside Auckland.

After sending the picture of the Christmas tree, Grace had gone on a date with a 26 year old man she had met on Tinder. CCTV footage shows the two talking and kissing in a series of bars before returning to the man’s flat. We’ll never know exactly what happened in that flat on the night of December 1st, but a pathologist’s report indicates that Grace was killed by strangulation, forceful enough to burst blood vessels in her nose and eyes, which continued for five to ten minutes, and that she was likely restrained while she was strangled to death. Internet search history shows that the man then watched pornography, took intimate photographs of her body and planned how to dispose of it, and went on a date with another woman while Grace lay dead in his flat. In court, however, his claim was that everything he did to Grace was consensual, and her death was a tragic accident.

The jury rejected this explanation, and the anonymous man was found guilty of murder on the 22nd of November this year. However, this came after a trial in which details of Grace’s sex life were paraded in front of the court and the world press. “Grace Millane was member of BDSM dating sites”, said a headline in the Evening Standard. The New Zealand Herald went with “The girl behind the headlines: Boyfriends and hangovers”.

There are obvious parallels with high profile rape cases, in which the victim’s sex life is publicly pored over for reasons to disbelieve that a crime was committed. The difference is that unlike after a murder, someone who has been raped has consented to come forward, knowing what that entails, and crucially, is alive to give her side of the story.

This is not an isolated case. The campaign group We Can’t Consent To This was set up in 2018 following the death of Natalie Connolly at the hands of her partner. He claimed that Natalie’s fractured eye socket, internal bleeding, blunt force trauma to the head, and bleach poured over her face were the result of consensual sexual activity. He was found guilty only of manslaughter, and sentenced to less than four years in prison. Since then, We Can’t Consent To This has documented 59 similar cases stretching back to 1979. Twenty of these— a third of the total— were in the last five years. The cases recorded by this group involve UK women ranging in age from 16 to 66, many of whom were in relationships already known to be abusive. There has not been a single case of a man killed by a woman where this defence has been claimed.

In a statement for Cherwell, We Can’t Consent To This noted that “just under half the time these claims work in getting a lesser charge like manslaughter, a lighter sentence, or the woman’s death not being treated as a crime at all […] We must stop blaming women for their own homicides.”

Links have been drawn between the increasing frequency of ‘rough sex’ defences and the rising popularity of sex acts inspired by violent and misogynist pornography. For instance, once the preserve only of the most sexually adventurous, strangulation— also known as ‘choking’, ‘squeezing’, or ‘breath play’— is now a mainstream occurrence in pornography. Consequently, many women feel it is expected of them by sexual partners, and a third of UK women under 40 report being non-consensually strangled, slapped, or spat on during sex. Strangulation is a common feature of about two thirds of the deaths recorded by We Can’t Consent To This, and is often seen in rapes and robberies where women are the victims. Women’s Aid reports that a woman is strangled to death by her partner on average every two weeks in the UK, and that non-fatal strangulation in an intimate relationship predicts a sevenfold increase in the risk of later fatal violence.

Labour MP Harriet Harman has recently drawn attention to the ‘rough sex’ defence, asking for a review into whether the sentence of Natalie Connolly’s killer was unduly lenient. Speaking on Woman’s Hour last December, she pointed out that this is not the first time we have seen lawyers arguing that murdered women were ‘asking for it’. Until 2009, it was possible for a charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation, making a person supposedly less culpable for their actions. Cynically called the ‘nagging and shagging’ defence by barristers, it was often used in domestic homicides where a female partner had been unfaithful, had moved on after the end of a relationship, or had simply got on her partner’s nerves one time too many. One instance in 1997 saw a man sentenced to just three years in prison for strangling his wife to death, after she had allegedly provoked him by moving a pot of mustard to the ‘wrong’ side of the table.

In either case, women are being held morally responsible for their deaths at the hands of their partners. Just as with rape, homicide victims now risk being subject to an incredibly intrusive dissection of their personal lives in the public forum. And just as with rape, we are told that there has been no crime; that she asked for it, wanted it, or somehow had it coming.

Whether or not she did indeed ‘ask for it’ can be difficult to determine, but ultimately this is hardly relevant.

Consider this: in an infamous case in 2001, a German man was found to have killed and eaten software developer Bernd Brandes— with his consent. Brandes had responded to an advert posted by Armin Miewes on an online message board for their shared cannibalism fetish; his willing agreement to the entire process is clear from the video they made together of Brandes’ killing. Despite this, Miewes was eventually found guilty of murder, and jailed for life without the possibility of parole. Evidently there are some actions for which consent is no excuse.

As the crown prosecutor in Grace Millane’s case rightly said, “you can’t consent to your own murder”.

In the UK, it has also been established in case law since R v Brown in 1993 that consensual sexual activity is not a justification for causing any injury that is more than ‘transient and trifling’. It would seem then that, by definition, any sexual activity violent enough to have caused death— strangling someone to the point of unconsciousness, say— would be illegal whether or not the victim had consented to it. The trouble though is that the defence will argue that the injuries were only ‘transient and trifling’, that she died unexpectedly during sexual activity which, while rough, was not so violent that her consent would mean nothing legally.

What can be done about this? One possibility would be to make non-fatal strangulation a specific offence, so that injuries resulting from it could not be deemed ‘transient and trifling’. Currently it is classed as a battery, the mildest form of assault; but the gendered nature of strangulation, the number of deaths associated with it, and the fact that it is often sexually motivated in my view warrant an upgrade in severity.

Another possibility would be to revise and strengthen guidelines as to what evidence is admissible in court. For sexual offences, there are rules regarding what questions can be asked on a victim’s prior sexual history, and under what circumstances. The increasing frequency with which female victims’ sex lives are dredged up in homicide cases might suggest that similar rules should be implemented for these crimes as well.

It would also be good to see greater sensitivity in how these cases are reported. The BBC, for instance, ran a headline saying that Grace Millane “died ‘when sex act went wrong’”. It was widely pointed out on social media that we ought to expect more from the BBC than uncritical repetition of the excuses given by accused murderers.

What we really need, however, is a society-wide shift in attitudes towards violence against women. The fact that this defence is used so often, and is picked up so readily by the press, suggests that we are resistant to holding men responsible for the violence they commit, and so their victims shoulder the blame instead. We see it in the phrase ‘sex game gone wrong’, often used to describe these deaths— yes his hands were around her neck, and yes she died as a result, but it was nobody’s fault really, it just ‘went wrong’.

With the increasing eroticisation of violence against women via pornography, advertising, and social media, it is hardly surprising that sex is being used as a justification for women’s deaths. Even back in 2000, the defence lawyer for the husband of 32 year old Mandy Barclay was claiming that she died as a result of “sex that narrow minded people would call kinky”— suggesting that to object to sex that literally left a woman dead was to be prudish and repressed, to not move with the times.

As Louise Perry from We Can’t Consent To This wrote in Standpoint magazine, “Cases like [these] are symptomatic of a wider culture which views violence against women as a normal and acceptable part of sex, and there is no silver bullet for that problem.” For every woman killed by supposed ‘rough sex’, there will be thousands more who have come to expect pain and degradation as part of their sex lives, and thousands of men who are unabashedly aroused by inflicting it. Until we challenge that, the fatalities, and the light sentences for those responsible, will continue.

Review: Macbeth

“I have no spur

To prick the sides of my intent, but only

Vaulting ambition, which o’erleaps itself

And falls on the other.”

If one were to wrap up Shakespeare’s Macbeth with one word, ‘ambition’ would be a good fit. The Renaissance tragedy, first performed in 1606, centrally explores the potential of such ambition and its incessant menace to turn destructive, as well as the intoxicating nature of power – most pertinent themes far from withered today. 

Accordingly, Tom Runciman’s production was ambitious in its creative aspirations for such a classic masterpiece. This was marked by the very start of the play: as the spectator is just starting to get accustomed to the witchy laughter ringing through the studio, the lying body of one of the sisters comes to life on a leafy backdrop, transposing one from the Scottish highlands to a more modern tropical jungle, an overall innovative rendering of the fantastic element of the drama. 

Throughout, the actors and direction successfully conveyed to their audience some of the play’s apogees and ethos. Harry Berry’s performance of Macbeth’s soliloquies, lent authenticity through facial expressivity and impressive clarity of diction, provided a comprehensive insight into the complexity of the character’s vacillating temper. Lola Beal as Lady Macbeth, then, complemented him by her convincingly embodied charm and strength. The crowning of Macbeth with his Lady laying her head on his shoulder in an intimate embrace effectively synthesised the tenderness of their bond, a motif repeated in a more intense form when Macbeth comes back from murdering Duncan. When Macbeth publicly loses his mind and flings his drinking cup down to ground, her firm orders to the banqueters further bring out her characterisation and the support she lends to her dependent husband. The centrality of their fatal tie is memorably underlined once last as Macbeth in his pain and despair upon her death stamps on his crown, presaging his end. 

It was in thoughtful decisions and details that the sound and lighting supported the performances of the actors. The voices of the witches, first with on stage appearance of one but later without any accompanying physical presence, measured well the ascending madness taking possession of Macbeth. In a similar way, having no lighting when the protagonist initially hears that the woods of Birnam began to move and only a dim glow as he threatens his messenger skillfully highlighted his somber descent into the paranoia of tyranny. 

Just as Macbeth eventually suffers the consequences of his ambition, however, the production at times lacked some of its tragic character and vehemence. For some of the arguably defining instances of the drama could have benefitted from some more intention and intensity, such as the “unsex me now” scene. The moments of brilliant height, too, were occasionally undermined by a rather meagre and sudden build up, perhaps a result of the cutting out of a great deal of the original text. Moreover, even though the jungle setting was coherent on itself, it remained a choice unexplained by the general performance; and the red fairy lights were on the verge of kitsch, almost becoming an understatement of the play’s grave themes. 

Still, putting on Shakespeare’s Macbeth is quite a challenge, and in this light Collarbone production was notable. I left the BT studio with the voices of the witches haunting my head and could not sleep at night, a testimony that this production caught the looming and ever-relevant force of the tragedy. 

Review: American Buffalo

0

CW: rape, homophobia, misogyny, addiction

Now is, to put it kindly, an interesting time to put on a production of American Buffalo. Vocal Trump supporter, outspoken critic of “PC culture”, and, most recently, an accused Weinstein apologist, David Mamet is certainly a “controversial” figure – if you’re interested in giving him any leeway at all (full disclosure: I’m not). Particularly, his repeated interest in dealing with rape accusations in his plays, from both the viewpoint of the accuser and the accused (read: rapist) – historically in Oleanna (1994), and more recently in Bitter Wheat (2019) – is one which feels more than a little uncomfortable, peddling the blithely (and quite revoltingly) patronizing notion that all we need to do to work through systemic abuse in the entertainment industry is to get a little bit of perspective. Controversy for controversy’s sake, regardless of who gets shat on, is the name of the game here (and, distressingly, it does all come off as a bit of a game to Mamet).

But what do Stage Wrong make of all this? Their marketing campaign, certainly, has been more interested in posting faux-arty black-and-white photos of random junk-shop objects, or sneaking in wry lil’ snaps of Ross from Friends when they met him at the Bully last Saturday, than in engaging with the complicated cultural moment they’ve chosen to be a part of. “Forget about the context”, they seem to be saying, “it’s just a good play!”. Maybe it’s a stretch to argue complicity in Mamet’s many wrongs, but the willed desire to overlook them definitely raises concerns. One of the actors’ profile picture captions reads, “There’s no reason not to come to American Buffalo next week!” – in the light of the above, I can think of several. 

I find it quite hard to leave all this at the stage door, especially considering the (very, very needed) content warning at the ticket desk advertising “homophobic slurs, guns, and graphic violence” – the exact kinds of discourse I’ve been trying to show Mamet delights in. The play centres around the relationship between three men, Don, Bobby and Teach, who run a junk shop. They accidently sell an “American buffalo” nickel for $90, subsequently realize it’s maybe worth a lot more than that, and so scheme to steal it back. Hate-speech is spoken. Betrayal ensues. 

If anything really stands out, it’s the set and lighting design (Tara Kelly and Harvey Dovell). The towers of decaying junk-shop merch and moody red over-lighting create a brilliantly claustrophobic setting for the actors’ (Arthur Campbell, Henry Calcutt and Nici Marks) astonishingly controlled performances to shine through, and the scrupulous attention to blocking as the characters prowl around the stage works very effectively – especially with Don (Campbell), whose increasingly erratic movements from his desk, set upstage right, to the central table become a fitting analogue to the falling apart of the trio’s schemes. Bobby’s (Marks) nervous energy, and his deeply sad attempts to impress his “friends”, is well-handled and sensitively portrayed.

Despite all its homophobic and misogynistic slurs, the play is most striking for the delicacy of the relationship dynamics between its three characters. The heightening, manic anxiety as the verbal currency of their toxically masculinist value system becomes increasingly slippery, alongside the value of their merchandise, is effectively realized – that is until the final moments, where Teach’s (Calcutt) breakdown comes across more as a childish tantrum than the potentially pathetic revelation of the illusory “American Dream” they’ve all been chasing. This is possibly the result of the decision to downplay Teach’s drug addiction – he’s made very difficult to sympathize with.

The play’s central question thus appears to be the extent to which the characters are the victims or the perpetrators of the toxic value system they take part in, and while Stage Wrong’s production initially deals deftly with it, by the end it begins to falter as its subtleties are rushed (the play feels compressed to fit the Pilch’s two-hour slot). And the result seems less a repudiation of that value system, and more nostalgic glorification: masculinity has been corrupted by capitalism – if only we could purify it! 

To me, this production feels ill-timed and insensitive at best, with a disturbing directorial flippancy about the fact that the language being chucked about the stage is actual hate-speech, that has actual “real-world” consequences (see first paragraph). The performances are near excellent, but why they’ve chosen to perform them is another question. There are things to like here, but they get lost in the distressing mire of the play’s many unsavoury associations.

Review: Malcolm The Miserable

0

The sobering black box of the Burton Taylor was lit up by ‘Malcolm the Miserable’ on Tuesday evening.

Alison Hall’s sarky new script peppers a candid depiction of loneliness into a painfully funny portrayal of the relationship between man and his (new) best friend, Malcolm the cat. Combining comedic escapism with this harsh, and little discussed, reality, you are guaranteed to leave both sated with laughter and pensive.

Entering the studio to find William Ridd-Foxton frolicing on the floor in fully feline form, cat-suit included courtesy of Kat Cooper, is a welcome and hilarity-inducing assault to the mundane; and indeed perhaps more convincing anthropomorphism than the new film of CATS is set to offer. In a confident and determinedly ‘catty’ delivery, whizzing off one-liners with the lick of the paw or a bat of his thickly-lined eyes, Ridd-Foxton’s portrayal of the cultured and indifferent animal was a hit.

Ava Sharpe’s sprawling set design provided an apt sensory stomping ground for the furball-coughing, fussy-eating Malcolm but also cleverly doubled as a representation of the disarray of Vincent’s state of mind. Our heartbroken hero slips between lacking sobriety and sense as he deals with loss and the cold-witted advice of his newfound companion. Gus Brown convincingly depicts the vulnerability of the character who is open even to accepting inspiration and wisdom from a cat.

Vincent’s isolation is made all the more poignant through the use of lighting. As we watch day and night intermingle without a single costume change, his solitude is made starkly clear. Arguably, his loneliness is most apparent in the echoing of his ex-girlfriend’s voice-mail, blasted through the sound system. This is the only other ‘human’ that features in the week of Vincent’s life that we are witness to, successfully rooting our empathy and concern for someone who almost proudly admits ‘you know me, addressing my problems isn’t my forte’. In spite of this pervasive and gloomy undertone, the rapport between man and pet impressively manages to buoy the performance to lightheartedness. From the irreverent exchanges of Malcolm asking both Vincent and the audience to ‘f*** off’, to Vincent’s endearingly pathetic plan to become the new ‘children’s laureate’, Hall draws humour and tenderness to the fore of Vincent’s struggle.

A final image that sticks in the mind is that of the two characters curled asleep on the sofa towards the end of the play, a clear and tenderly felt progression from their jabs taken at the start, ultimately offering a hopeful perspective on the silent killer that is loneliness and a laugh-a-minute in the meantime.

Review: Oxford Contemporary Opera Festival

0

For a fan of opera, an art form so often defined by elitism, tradition and outdated cultural norms, it was a refreshing change to see three short student-composed operas, about themes as diverse as the rise of the far right, workplace harassment and the Hong Kong crisis, performed at the first Oxford Contemporary Opera Festival at St Hilda’s earlier this week. Organised by Exeter music finalist Zerlina Vulliamy, the festival has the goal of ‘presenting a spectrum of what modern opera can offer’, with a focus on ‘contemporary, accessible storylines’.

Indeed, from the opening of the night’s first opera, Hani Elias’ Camus-inspired The Outsiders, it was clear that this festival would push the boundaries of what opera could offer as a genre. Some striking red lighting cast the audience’s attention upon the protagonist Moselle, a falsely accused female defendant and descendant of Simone de Beauvoir, and an offstage male voice ominously described the charge against her, with the defendant herself pointedly remaining silent. These same themes of patriarchal alienation were again brought to vivid musical life in the chaotic vocal trio made up of Moselle’s girlfriend and a second loyal advocate, and an ominous male ‘Judge’, emphasising powerfully the isolation of women and the impenetrability of political power – this effect was enhanced by some imaginative staging, with the women mixed in with the audience and the man high above on a balcony (and also conducting the band). A memorable, comic yet sobering feature of the opera was the insertion of several spoken Trump quotes into the Judge’s arias, such as the ‘nasty woman’ speech, giving the opera a refreshing grounding in reality and extending its scope to include the general isolation felt by those alienated in any way from a far-right political climate.

The idea of using opera to comment meaningfully on contemporary issues was continued to great effect in Vulliamy’s own composition Susanna, a modern transferal of Mozart’s The Marriage of Figaro, the classic tale of oppressed servants standing up against their amoral aristocratic master, to a modern office. Susannatransferred the powerful-powerless dynamic to a typical #MeToo situation, with Mozart’s Susanna now an ambitious office worker receiving unwanted sexual advances from her boss and being subsequently blamed by her co-worker and love interest Figaro for being ‘the boss’ favourite’ and using sex as a means to power. Though perhaps the most traditional musically speaking of the three operas, Susannademonstrated the unique ability of the operatic aria to convey a character’s vulnerability and emotional journey; Susanna’s final aria, carried beautifully by Tamsin Sandford-Smith’s expressive and versatile soprano, believably depicted the all-too familiar emotional narrative of a victim of sexual harassment, from despair and questioning her own autonomy (‘my body, my career, how much of it was mine?’), to realisation that she is not to blame for others’ action and resolve to change her situation with the aid of Figaro. Also striking in the piece was its able transferal of the source material’s themes and characters to a modern setting; Susanna’s exuberant energy and Mozart’s frantic musical motifs were epitomised in Susanna’s bouncy statement in the opening scene that she is ‘the last one left’ in the office, and Figaro’s foolish-yet-endearing persona opposite Susanna’s ‘straight man’ was a dynamic which came across as strongly in this opera as it does in Mozart. Moreover, it would be remiss not to mention that Vulliamy did not do away with the comic value of Mozart’s original, but rather updated it – an operatic soprano’s reaction to receiving a dick pic was a surprisingly yet very welcome and unfortunately familiar moment to see depicted on stage!

Perhaps slightly less convincing was Israel Lai’s Bou6, a reflection on the current crisis in Hong Kong and on dictatorship and rioting in general. Though the themes were a powerful and appropriate fit for the genre given the dramatic moments that opera can easily portray, and the singers very talented, especially Zhao Ng’s formidable personification of Tyranny, the range of scenes and ideas that the composer tried to incorporate (namely the clash of idealism and authority, the reaction to the death of a young protestor and the ‘wake-up call’ received by a tyrant about the reality of youth rebellion) were perhaps too ambitious for such a short piece. Additionally, while the philosophical ideas expressed in the libretto were often eloquent, most notably the climax of ‘there is no riot, only tyranny’, a quote from a real Hong Kong protest banner, sometimes the orchestrations were so heavy as to overwhelm the audibility of the singers expressing these ideas. 

Nevertheless, all three operas were sophisticated musical reflections on contemporary issues, and strong promotions of opera as a socially relevant and emotionally powerful art form.

A Meaty Dilemma

0

In the penultimate episode of his infamous TV show, Who is America?, Sacha Baron Cohen successfully convinced wannabe food critic, Bill Jilla, to eat human flesh. The delicacy served was, in fact, nothing more than a nondescript cut of pork or chicken, but the implications of Jilla’s decision to consume it under a false guise were catastrophic. His reputation was ruined, his job prospects were shattered, and all traces of his existence were duly removed from the Internet. Why all this fallout? Because we humans have almost universally deemed the practice of anthropophagy inadmissible.

It is not, however, just cooking up our fellow men that we seem to take issue with. Many of us, in addition, would not dream of tucking into dog, horse, or swan meat, nor would we willingly consume the unorthodox body parts – brains, hearts, testicles, etc. – of otherwise ‘acceptable’ animals. Whether for cultural, religious, or ethical reasons, it seems that even the most carnivorous among us have their limits, and yet to have these preconceived notions of what is right and wrong seems blatantly speciesist. A domesticated labrador may earn the title of ‘man’s best friend’, but does that really justify our decision to regard it as more intellectually advanced, and therefore more worthy of protection, than, say, a fish swimming freely in the ocean?

This is one of the questions that Jonathan Safran Foer attempts to answer in his riveting bestseller, Eating Animals. In the end, he argues, it all boils down to egocentrism: ‘we care most about what’s close to us, and have a remarkably easy time forgetting everything else’. Nor does it all come rush-ing back to us when we’re faced with buying such products. The meat sold in supermarkets is plucked, sliced, minced, and breaded beyond all recognition, and only the most daring of butchers will have the nerve to hang lacerated carcasses in their shop windows.

The truth – as those in the meat industry are well aware – is that none of us omnivores wants to be reminded of the reality of our dietary choices. There’s a reason that most of us haven’t done much research into the meat industry, or even spared a couple of hours to watch the hard-hitting Earthlings documentary: we’re afraid of the grim details that we’ll uncover. Instead, we sit wolfing down our roast dinners, telling ourselves that we’re not bad people, because, well, at least we don’t eat horses.

That is, until unwittingly we do. One evening last spring, while I was on my year abroad, my Italian host mother served up what I thought was beef tartare. I polished off my plate quick as a flash, and keenly accepted a second helping. Only halfway through this portion did I discover that the food I was eating was of equine – not bovine – origin. My companions hadn’t thought to warn me of this, and quite rightly too, because their horse was my chicken, and it hadn’t even occurred to them that I might have banned it from my list of ‘acceptable’ animals.

A trip to Malmö’s Disgusting Food Museum later that year saw me expand my palate further. After walking past displays of nauseating specialities from across the world – ranging from the stomach-turning casu marzu (a Sardinian cheese ridden with live maggots), to the famously pungent durian fruit – I was invited to come up to a tasting bar and sample some for myself. ‘1 DAY SINCE LAST VOMIT’ read a blackboard; I didn’t have high hopes. However, over the course of the session, my notion of what constituted a ‘disgusting food’ – and, in turn, a ‘disgusting meat’ – was challenged. As it happens, even if you’re a self-proclaimed insectophobe, you can still enjoy the occasional roasted cricket.

My intention in writing this article, then, is neither to implore you to give up meat once and for all – Christmas is fast approaching, and I understand that, like me, not all of you will be ready to transition from turkey to nut roast – nor, conversely, to encourage consumption for consumption’s sake. I ask simply that you be mindful of what you eat, that you remember where it’s come from, and that you regularly check in with your moral reasoning. Ask yourself ‘why this meat and not that?’ and see if your perceptions don’t shift somewhat. If, after some active reflection, you decide to branch out and start dining on kangaroo and porcupine, that’s your call, but if, on the other hand, the cognitive dissonance gets too much, just remember: there’s no meaty dilemma a Quorn substitute can’t solve.