Monday, April 28, 2025
Blog Page 556

A Hiatus for Fantasy?

Sofía Sanabria de Felipe
-
0
A Hiatus for Fantasy?

May 19th 2019. It’s 1.45 AM. A room full of comfortable chairs, a pool table, and most importantly, a projector and screen. No people in sight. 15 minutes later, the scene changes. A group of young students – all dressed in comfy pyjamas—sit crowding around the screen. Red, Gold, Black and Grey banners flood the scene as their porters frantically highlight the superiority of their house. The topic of conversation? None other than the rightful heir to the Iron Throne, the culmination of George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire fantasy trilogy turned Award Winning, HBO TV series Game of Thrones. An hour and twenty minutes later, the room goes back to its original state. A lonely House Lannister banner has been left behind. With three beeps the projector finally turns itself off. No more fighting. No more fire breathing dragons, favourite characters left to die, or, arguably, tears left to cry. The War is over, the Iron Throne has been occupied by a — seemingly stable– government at last. The tale has been told, and with no new book in sight, one is left to wonder: is this the end of Westeros?

Or, worse, is this the end of fantasy in our lives?

The 21st century has borne witness to a number of fantasy booksellers and blockbusters. Current twenty-year olds grew up watching adaptations of Tolkien’s Middle-Earth adventures on the Big Screen, reading Rowling’s Hogwarts shenanigans and dreaming of getting lost in Lewis’ Narnia. The last Harry Potter book, however, came out in 2008, it’s two-part movie adaption in 2011. There have been no sign of Frodo, Bilbo, Sam or Legolas on movie billboards since 2014, and don’t even get me started on the last time I heard anyone discuss the Pevensie siblings. I must have been sporting a Spanish football t-shirt, glued to my family TV, celebrating the World Cup championship result. Martin’s world seemed to be the last pawn standing, a sprinkle of fantasy in the dystopian-obsessed late 2010s. And now it too is over.

Only, not really. The Winds of Winter and A Dream of Spring are still a work in progress, fantasy is not, as of yet, fully dead. No. Never. Fantasy is, perhaps, merely on…on…hiatus?

I know what you are probably thinking. Another fantasy geek. Refusing to let go. Refusing to acknowledge that the fantasy genre just isn’t a “thing” anymore, it’s no longer “cool” or “in”. But let me ask you something…when was it ever like that?

Fantasy, not unlike science-fiction, has never been regarded as “hip”, or “high school jock” type of cool. People have been mocked, ridiculed and shunned for scribbling spells in their science text books, walking around speaking Elvish or deciding to stay in and go on a mad, D & D quest instead of partying. So, when asked if fantasy is dying out, if it’s suddenly out of fashion, coincidently shortly after the end of Thrones, one cannot help but wonder… do we actually know how the fantasy genre works, what it’s all about?

Fantasy was never about infamous spoilers, feeds filled with memes and expensive TV subscriptions. The Technological Revolution and the Social Media world we live in have incorporated these aspects into the genre, but don’t be deceived by these mainstream developments. Fantasy, after all, has always been about going beyond, exploring extraordinary worlds that differ from ours, and yet still feel like home. And that is something a lack of episodes, or even new books, will never be able to change.

As we speak, over 700 different stories under the generic “fantasy” tag, are being published on Wattpad, one of Internet’s community of online readers, writers and self-publishers. Another 1,650 under “vampire”, “werewolf”, “magic” and “adventures”. If that wasn’t enough, CNBC published an article on March 16th 2019 highlighting a dramatic increase in the sales of D&D merchandise, doubling every year for the last five. Let’s not forget the number of publications made in non-anglophone countries belonging to this genre, something perhaps Hollywood hasn’t been fond of sharing but is, nonetheless, of major relevance in an evaluation of its livelihood. Fans, as always, are taking good care of it, making the best out of the advantages this mediatised world has given it.

Maybe I am too much of a geek. Maybe I’ve romanticised those worlds too much. Maybe there was never more to them than ink blobs in the shape of letters on a page, or flashy battles on TV. But something tells me that isn’t quite right. Something tells me that while those books are still being checked out of libraries, while people still get into heated conversations discussing Frodo’s utter incompetence, tear up at the mention of Dobby The House Elf, and condemn whoever made the decision to exclude Hermione’s activism from the movies, fantasy as a genre will be far from over. No, the point of those stories was to lay the ground work for extraordinary worlds and tales to be narrated and felt by millions all over the world. And that they have accomplished, and will continue to do so, long after George R. R Martin types the final word of his Dream of Spring. Until then, for critics out there, far from “dying”, they might consider fantasy’s status as, if “alive” and “strong as ever” does not please them, on hiatus.

Mary Quant: a fashion revolution

Georgia Corrigan
-
0
Mary Quant: a fashion revolution

The eponymous popularity of the Victoria and Albert Museum’s sell-out exhibition, Christian Dior: Designer of Dreams, needs little explanation. The escapist splendour of Dior’s dresses and the ethereal showrooms, which feature ceilings gloriously adorned with billowing blossom petals and a dimly lit hall-of-mirrors evocation for the evening wear pieces, conjure the mood of escape that the designer cultivated in his collections. His joyful and fantastical sartorial creations incarnate themselves as a stark contrast to the horrors of the second world war, (his sister, Catherine Dior, survived imprisonment in a concentration camp), and even his copious use of fabric broke free from the necessarily restrictive nature of war-time rationing. Though no world war is raging today, modern visitors can perhaps similarly appreciate a magical escape into the designer’s visual world of pure beauty and unreality, a momentary flight from the political turmoil of pre-Brexit Britain.  

However, much less covered is the V & A’s smaller Mary Quant exhibition, displaying the 1960’s designer’s mass-produced, affordable, short-hemlined pieces for the young working woman who wants wear fashionable clothes that let her move freely. While Dior draws on visions of the ‘other place’ for his inspiration (looking to the visual cultures of Mexico, Japan, China, Egypt and Renaissance France, as well as the female deities of Ancient Greece), Quant brought fashion away from the fantasy of femininity evoked in haute couture, and back to the real woman living, working, breathing in her clothes. Escape is still an integral part of Dior’s rhetoric, the 2015 advert for Miss Dior perfume features Natalie Portman running away from her own wedding. But breaking free is an integral element of fashion design in general, and Mary Quant is no exception; the difference is that her clothes embody an inverse escapism, escape from the escapism of Dior’s fantastical imaginary world of the idealised feminine. While Dior designed for the likes of Princess Margaret (who herself could also be seen as escaping the constraints of royal propriety), Quant designed for the real woman who is condemned to (or free to?) live in the real world.

During my time at the London College of Fashion on a summer course in Fashion Design, I could not help but notice the stories of escape that broke through in the design work of many of the members of our international group. From using clothes to break free from the allegedly constrictive atmosphere of Japanese social behaviour, or playing with the expectations of modesty in female dress in Malaysia, to drawing on fantasy narratives of female runaways from 19th century literature, escapism, even if unintentional, framed much of our artistic expression.

In response to a 1966 male interviewer who asked her if many girls had enough ‘panache’ to carry off one of her miniskirts ‘majestically’, Quant perplexedly replies ‘But who wants to be majestic?’. If Dior runs away from the harsh realities of a war-torn world, Quant runs away in turn from the fantasy of femininity he created. When Yves Saint Laurent became creative director of Dior the designs almost become what one could imagine to be what you would get if you mixed Dior and Mary Quant together: shorter hemlines and trendier cuts but retaining Dior’s regal elegance. It could be said that Saint Laurent’s fashion philosophy was closer to that of Quant; he claimed fashion ‘has to help people to play’, Quant makes fashion a game to play in the world, not a place to escape from it. She escapes from the imaginative function of fashion and breaks free, instead, into the real world.

The Dangers of Disney+

Louis Rabinowitz
-
0
The Dangers of Disney+

For the past few years, the same small collection of streaming services has vied for the attention of UK viewers; Netflix as the default choice, Amazon Prime Video as the alternative, and a handful of other, smaller options of less notoriety. But things are set to change rapidly in the coming months, as practically every big media company will pitch their own tent in an increasingly competitive media landscape. Warner Bros. has HBO Max, Apple has Apple TV+, and NBCUniversal will have… NBC Universal. Yet it’s hard to ignore the effort most likely to take a stab at Netflix’s pole position; Disney+.

Disney has spent the last couple of decades steadily accruing a massive stake in the entertainment industry by buying up mega-companies like Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm, and Disney+ looks set to be a monument to its now-unstoppable success. They’ve leveraged what seems like property of remote notoriety under their ownership for a slate of both original content that looks like it’ll dwarf any competitor. No fewer than seven Marvel TV shows are on tap; and unlike the segregated efforts of Daredevil and co over on Netflix, these will star favourites from the movies like Loki and Scarlet Witch, as well as much-loved characters from the obscurities of the comics such as She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel. The same treatment will apply for Star Wars – the first on the slate, The Mandalorian, will drop at launch and, from the looks of the trailer, has the same glitzy special effects and star-studded cast of the big-screen entries, and it was recently confirmed that Ewan McGregor will be back as Obi-Wan Kenobi for another series – and an assortment of characters from the beloved Pixar roster.

And that’s just for original content. Disney+ will also be home to practically the whole classic Disney library – and, in a move that would have seemed completely baffling before Disney snapped up 20th Century Fox, it’ll be the streaming home for every episode of The Simpsons. It’s a hugely impressive package, backed by a seemingly limitless pot of money, and available for a reasonable price of $7 a month on launch (so probably about £6 when it eventually comes down the pike for the UK). Apple TV+’s offer of a handful of untested original shows, or even the dwindling slate offered by Netflix, who will lose rights to the Friends and The Office when the new streaming services kick in, doesn’t seem all that appealing by contrast.

Unfortunately, not a lot that Disney does these days can be viewed in isolation. They’re an industry behemoth whose influence, with the Fox merger, now seems monopolistic; five of the top six highest-grossing movies this year belong to them, with new Frozen and Star Wars near-certain to join the ranks this winter. Some might argue that this isn’t anything sinister, but rather a reflection of Disney’s ability to make better and more appealing movies than its competitors, and there’s certainly some merit to that; Avengers: Endgame and Toy Story 4 have been two of the most satisfying cinema experiences I’ve had this year. But both those properties came under Disney’s stewardship because of record-breaking acquisition deals; ones which other studios, self-evidently, simply didn’t have the resources to strike. And there’s another pair of billion-dollar successes from this year that bear further examination; the remakes of The Lion King and Aladdin. Plenty of critics and fans have decried Disney’s new strategies of taking their old animated classics and giving them a reskin in live-action form, with few (if any, in the case of The Lion King) substantive narrative changes. Disney didn’t attempt to make viewers forget the old versions in order to enjoy the new – the marketing strategy for their remakes is built upon cultivating nostalgia for those childhood classics, and then loyally reproducing them in full. It’s not as if this is a wholly creatively bankrupt exercise, because the classics are full of antiquated gender roles or racial stereotyping that a modern version can fix or even choose to scrutinise through a more modern and progressive lens. But it’s certainly the case that Disney has proven that it doesn’t need a great deal of new or original ideas to fill their coffers; the ones they’ve already come up with, or those under their ownership, are more than enough. That philosophy is just as true for the ‘original’ series set to hit Disney+ – one of which is titled, maybe ingeniously, High School Musical: The Musical: The Series. It’s open to parody, but nostalgia sells like few other things.

While it’s a smaller issue, there’s also the slippery nature of streaming content itself. Millions of customers have abandoned physical media such as DVDs in favour of the multitude of more convenient options for downloading or streaming films and shows online. But as streaming has come to dwarf physical media, some genuine issues have come to light. For one, because streaming content exists in the cloud, it’s completely malleable; if a company wants to amend one of their films, or if a streaming licence has expired, it’s just one click of a button. All control is in the hands of the company rather than the consumer, and the content available is subject to change at any moment. As Disney+ is set to be Disney’s main ‘vault’ for all of its properties rather than physical media, with Disney having ended deals with Netflix and the like for their content to be available elsewhere, that means that viewers will only have access to a library which Disney has sanctioned as appropriate for 2019, as opposed to the more straightforward sense of ownership granted by physical media. This is an endemic to streaming, and most consumers have happily accepted that they don’t really own content in the same way anymore; but when Disney’s massive influence and very specific brand vision is taken into account, it’s a concerning step forwards. We’ve seen some of these concerns manifested already, with cinemas in the US reporting that Disney have elected to stop sending out prints of classic 20th Century Fox movies such as Die Hard for screenings, in order to prioritise films more readily identifiable as ‘Disney’.

There’s a lot to be excited about with regards to Disney+, in how it looks set to blur the boundaries between film and TV more than ever before, and the sheer wealth of resources dedicated to it. But it’s also a testament to Disney’s firm status as the biggest and most influential force in entertainment today, and its willingness to leverage that status to get anything it wants for its properties, and as such, should certainly be viewed with caution as it launches across the world over the next year or so.

Why a No-Deal Brexit could mean the end of British Film

Charlotte Hall
-
0
Why a No-Deal Brexit could mean the end of British Film

“Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a f*cking big television.” 

Trainspotting: Real black comedy, grime, visual experimentation, tackling difficult subject matter with creative force and cutting wit, and above all else, an against-the-grain counterpoint to the relentless optimism of Hollywood blockbusters. To me that encapsulates the spirit of independent British cinema and TV; scenes to remember, scenes to rebel.

But it’s independent British films that have the most to fear in the looming shadow of a no-deal Brexit. Most people working in the film industry voted against leaving altogether – why? Because the European Union massively supports creative industries in a way that our government alone either can’t or won’t. 

For now, our film industry is doing well. In fact, it’s booming. Gordon Brown’s 2005 tax reliefs have made our little island into one of the top choices for international partnerships in film. Investments into studio expansion have paid off; in the last two years production spend has been at an all-time high. The tax reliefs mean companies can reclaim up to 25% of their spending so long as their project passes a cultural test. Generally, this means having a crew or cast with a portion of British or EEA nationals and spending over 10% of the total budget in Britain, for example in local studios. This is an attractive offer for production firms of all sizes, from the American bigwigs to small cross-cultural projects within the EU. Add to this a recent resurgence of the quirky British cult film and new sources of revenue like streaming sites such as Netflix, and there you have it: a financial and cultural boom. 

The government has promised to keep the tax reliefs in place post-Brexit, with or without a deal. So, what’s the problem? 

Free Movement of People

The film industry benefits immeasurably from the conveniences of EU membership, often in ways that are not immediately obvious and make the lengthy endeavour of filmmaking that much easier and more cost-effective. One of these benefits is the free movement of people across borders. 

In August Boris Johnson insisted that this free movement of labour will end with the Brexit deadline. Leaving aside exactly how he expects to implement this disastrous policy, this could be seriously bad news for our films. A huge portion of the workers on productions in the UK are EU nationals, from the construction teams building complex sets to the highly skilled animators that bring worlds and their creatures to life. In a statement in 2017, Lord Puttnam, producer of titles like Bugsy Malone and The Killing Fields and member of the house of lords, highlighted that of the 25,000 people employed by visual effects and animation departments “between 31% and 35% are EU nationals, and a further 12% are from non-EU countries.” Making it more difficult for Europeans to take these jobs won’t “free up” positions for British animators either: our education system lags notoriously behind in the push for STEAM skills and has consistently failed to invest in the advancement of special effects. There are simply not enough people skilled enough to take over and there is no coherent plan in place to address this deficit going forward. 

In the words of the British Film Institute, who commissioned this research project directly after the referendum, “abolishing free movement risks not only eroding the available pool of staff and talent across the industry, but would also adversely impact the highly skilled activities in VFX, post production, animation and video games.” 

Add to that the costs, complexity and logistical nightmare of acquiring visas for a full film crew and cast when filming in European locations – think James Bond bombing it down a beautiful mountain track in Siena –  and it’s easy to see why people are worried. 

Free Movement of Goods

Equally, the cost of transporting all the required equipment between countries, currently an easy and affordable undertaking thanks to the free movement of goods, will definitely go up in the case of no-deal Brexit. More costs, especially previously avoidable ones, are not good for any industry.

Similarly, the transferral of data is relatively straight-forward and cheap within the EU. In a no deal situation however, this would no longer be this case and in the globalised, internet driven world in which we live this could have a catastrophic impact across the board. When I contacted Margot James, the previous Minister of State for Digital and Creative Industries, she stated that “Data transfers between the UK and other member states are more substantial than even manufacturing exports. If we leave without a deal smooth data transfers will be at risk and this will affect the creative industries.” Data transferral is an indispensable part of modern global business and more industries than film will suffer from this change in particular.

Investment

Whilst the aforementioned complications would affect the whole of the screen sector, it’s nevertheless likely that big corporations, like American giants Warner Bros, Disney, Universal Pictures and, according to recent conjecture, the state-owned Chinese film industry, will continue to be attracted to the tax arrangement in the UK. Big companies can afford to pay the extra costs and outsource jobs internationally where skills and employees are lacking. But it will make it very difficult (not to say impossible) for smaller productions.

So, what gets lost? Ironically, British Film.  

Independent productions especially but production firms generally receive an admirable chunk of their funding from EU investments. Organizations like Creative Europe were founded by the Union to invest in creative sectors across the continent and encourage cultural projects. The King’s Speech, for example, almost never happened due to underfunding, until it received over £1million in EU money. 

And losing that funding means more than missing out on a few indie films. It could be crippling for the long-term future of the industry. “This kind of funding allows productions to take creative risks,” says Nick Hall, a Manchester film school graduate and free-lance assistant art director “in the context of a no deal exit from the EU those will become too big of a financial risk and would mean the cultural relevance of UK filmmaking would suffer.” Because in a world where only big, established corporations can afford to make films, the next generation of filmmakers is left with no way to develop themselves. “There’s nowhere for aspiring directors and producers to cut their teeth. You just don’t get entrusted with million-dollar budgets based on directing a few student films.” 

Christoph Jankowski, the Head of Culture for Creative Europe’s UK desk, pointed out in a recent interview that the HM Treasury had previously offered to replace any immediate funding for projects selected by the EU. Yet the reactionary and changeable nature of the new Conservative party as well as their historical reluctance to support independent British cinema doesn’t make the fulfilment of such promises seem particularly likely. And if Margot James is right that “overall the sector will be less affected by Brexit, with or without a deal, than manufacturing and farming,” then even if labour wins, what kind of priority does film take in opposition to farming and fishing subsidies?

The Verdict

Brexit in general, but especially a no-deal Brexit, will in all likelihood financially cripple independent film. If not in the short term (though very likely in the short term too), it will have carry-on effects on the next generation of filmmakers. We’ll lose access to a whole host of advantages, from funding to skilled experts, without which it’ll be hard to even get the ball rolling on a lot of projects.   

It’s not to say big production corporations don’t produce good films, but they rarely capture the unique voice of British TV created in our independent productions. For the sake of the well-knowns like LGBTQ+ staple Pride or sleeper-hit Slumdog Millionaire to the hundreds of smaller productions that made our favourite directors, actors, special effects artists, etc into what they are today, we need to find a way to ensure the future of our home-grown film industry. 

We don’t want big f*cking television. We want our independent films. 

Balliol students launch petition to bar PM from college premises

Luke Dunne
-
0
Balliol students launch petition to bar PM from college premises

Balliol students today launched a petition to disavow the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, an alumnus of the college.

The petition argues that Johnson’s recent prorogation of parliament is ‘effectively a political coup’ and ‘has seriously undermined democracy’.

The petition then calls on the college to publicly disavow Johnson, with measures including a ban on Johnson entering college grounds, a ban on displaying ‘depictions of or tributes to Boris’ and a suspension of his ‘alumni status and any benefits that may entail.

At the time of writing, the petition has 138 signatures.

The full petition is given below:

“Prime Minister Boris Johnson is a former student of Balliol College, Oxford. With his parliamentary shutdown, effectively a political coup, Johnson has seriously undermined democracy in the United Kingdom. Despite the far-reaching and devastating implications of a no-deal Brexit for many of its students and members of staff, Balliol College has yet to condemn his actions.

“With this petition, we hope to show the College that many of its members are appalled by these actions, and to call upon it to publicly disavow Boris Johnson insofar as:

“1) Boris Johnson should be prevented from attending any Balliol College events, and from entering College grounds;

“2) Depictions of or tributes to Boris Johnson, such as portraits, should not be commissioned or displayed on College premises;

“3) His alumni status and any benefits that that may entail should be suspended with immediate effect.

“Balliol College’s student body has consistently demonstrated its commitment to democratic values. We call upon its members to sign this petition in order to to put pressure on College administration to take definitive action in this matter. Please sign this petition, and share it widely. Thank you.”

One of the authors of the petition, Balliol student Andrew MacGowan, told Cherwell: “Nobody voted for the no-deal policy Boris is attempting to force through with his October 31st deadline, and he hasn’t offered any concrete evidence of progress in Brussels. The leak of Operation Yellowhammer details the economic devastation that would result from a no-deal Brexit.”

He continued: “A bomb went off near the Irish border 3 weeks ago; we’ve had enough. The petition is a joint effort between Balliol JCR and MCR members to make it known that Boris does not speak for us, the Bullingdon club is evidently not a political education, and to paraphrase Churchill, that Britain will not ‘give in’.”

A spokesperson for Our Future Our Choice told Cherwell: “Boris Johnson has disgraced the office of Prime Minister. His mandate comes from 0.14% of the electorate, and to force a No-Deal Brexit upon the UK by proroguing Parliament is deeply concerning and profoundly undemocratic. The public deserve to be consulted in the form of a referendum with clearly defined options, which should include our current deal with the EU.”

Balliol and the office of the Prime Minister have been contacted for comment.

This article was originally published on Medium.

Counter homelessness initiative launched in South Oxfordshire

Luke Dunne
-
0
Counter homelessness initiative launched in South Oxfordshire

Soha House are jointly funding the ‘Housing First’ project with South Oxford District Council, which focuses on providing housing for homeless people with complex needs. Six homes are being provided in the ‘pilot’ stage of the initiative.

Soha House is one of the largest housing associations in the country when measured by growth and has over 6,700 homes in Oxfordshire alone. 

Aspire Oxford, a homelessness support charity, are also working with SODC and Soha House on the project. Their Chief Executive Officer Paul Roberts told Cherwell, “Aspire are delighted to be working in partnership with Soha Housing and SODC to deliver this Housing First project.”

“We applaud Soha Housing and SODC for showing leadership by piloting this model in partnership with Aspire, and hope that other housing associations will emulate this approach in their areas across Oxfordshire.”

“Aspire will be providing intensive, wrap-around support to former rough sleepers with complex needs, which allows them to make significant, positive changes to their lives. The Housing First approach is a vital way forward in tackling our community’s growing homeless crisis and we look forward to working in partnership with Soha Housing and SODC as the project develops.”

Director of Services and Communities at Soha Maureen Adams said, “Soha is committed to working in partnership with SODC to tackle homelessness. Our residents are fully behind this project and want to see us make a difference in their locality.”

When asked about the potential for expanding the project, Ms Adams said, “Soha is undertaking an independent evaluation on the findings of the project so that it can warrant additional support and be rolled out with partners in other locations”. 

Councillor David Rouane, cabinet member for South Oxfordshire District Council, said, “South Oxfordshire District Council is delighted to be working with Soha and Aspire to help some of the district’s most vulnerable residents.  Housing First provides a stable, supportive environment for former rough sleepers to rebuild their lives”. 

Fresh sexual assault allegations against Oxford professor

Luke Dunne
-
0
Fresh sexual assault allegations against Oxford professor

Tariq Ramadan, Oxford Professor of Contemporary Islam, is facing fresh accusations of sexual assault. 

A woman, as yet unnamed, came forward and gave a report to French police in May of this year, details of which surfaced recently following a leak to Le Journal du Dimanche and Europe 1. The assault itself is alleged to have happened in 2014. This comes after numerous women accused Ramadan of sexual assault and manipulation. 

The first accusations against Ramadan emerged in October 2017, when activist Henda Ayari filed a complaint with the prosecutor’s office in Rouen, which said that Ramadan had sexually assaulted her in a Paris hotel room. Ayari had previously recorded the incident without naming the perpetrator in her 2016 book ‘J’ai choisi d’être libre’ (‘I Chose to be Free’).

Just days after Ayari came forward, a second woman filed a complaint stating that Ramadan assaulted and raped her in his hotel room. 

Since then, further accusations have been made about Ramadan’s behaviour, including by a third woman who claimed that Ramadan sent her ‘pornographic’ messages as well as threatening and blackmailing her, as well as four women who came forward with allegations that Ramadan sexually assaulted them while they were teenagers. 

On 31 January 2018, Ramadan was taken into custody by the French police, and was released on bail nine months later. 

Although Ramadan continued to teach for a short while after the first allegations surfaced, on 7th November 2017 he took an ‘agreed leave of absence’ from his University duties. At the time, the faculty of Theology and Religion apologized for their “lack of communication” with students. 

Eugene Rogan, director of the Middle East Centre when Ramadan was suspended, said the following at the time; “It’s not just about sexual violence. For some students it’s just another way for Europeans to gang up against a prominent Muslim intellectual. We must protect Muslim students who believe and trust in him, and protect that trust”. 

The University’s statement on the Ramadan accusations said: “The University has consistently acknowledged the gravity of the allegations against Professor Ramadan, while emphasising the importance of fairness and the principles of justice and due process.” 

“An agreed leave of absence implies no presumption or acceptance of guilt and allows Professor Ramadan to address the extremely serious allegations made against him, all of which he categorically denies, while meeting our principal concern – addressing heightened and understandable distress, and putting first the wellbeing of our students and staff.” 

A statement posted on Ramadan’s website acknowledged the new allegations, saying “I am, of course, aware of the investigation’s new elements and the new complaint, which the media spoke of abundantly on Sunday, August 25th.” “I will speak in the coming days to present the facts with determination, clarity and serenity. In sha Allah”. 

Twelfth Night – Shakespeare’s Rose blossoms in York and Oxford

Imogen Harter-Jones
-
0
Twelfth Night – Shakespeare’s Rose blossoms in York and Oxford

Although Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night was originally written for its namesake winter festival, which was celebrated with excess of music, masked balls, misrule, and general revelry, Shakespeare’s subtitle, “What You Will”, is perhaps more apt for Joyce Branagh’s sunny Jazz Age re-imagining. Shakespeare’s cold, pagan winter becomes a warm, witty and wonderful summer treat, pleasing the youngest to oldest audience members at Shakespeare’s Rose Theatre in York this summer.

Wonderful lightness in tone lets the comic character of Twelfth Night shine through making the Shakespearean language highly accessible. Having seen this company’s production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream last year (now showing at the Rose Theatre at Blenheim Palace, Oxford), familiar faces and themes of mistaken identity and muddled love plots, were initially reminiscent of that play. However, the magic of this production is conjured not from fairies and enchantment but from pitch-perfect music and assured comic delivery.

Whilst this approach was highly effective in bringing out the comedy and entertainment, often lost to the modern audience, the airy festive tone jarred somewhat with the dark and morally troubling side plot of the gaslighting of Malvolio by Sir Toby Belch and Maria, both brilliantly realised by Fine Time Fontayne as an aging but cuddly libertine and the vivacious Rina Mahoney. The image of Malvolio in the infamous cross gartered yellow stockings garnered the expected laughs. However, there is no escape from the fact that their imprisonment and mental torture of Malvolio is disproportionately cruel. Claire Storey’s slightly pompous Malvolio lacked sufficient malice to justify such maltreatment suffered at the hands of fools. This play on the moral ambiguity of the Malvolio side-plot suggested, perhaps, that there is a price to be paid for the revels we all enjoy.

The Rose’s Illyria sparkled and danced its way into the hearts of the audience thanks to Max Dorey’s Art-Deco inspired set, Sara Perks’ Gatsby-esque stylings and Eammon O’Dwyer’s jovial jazz score. This all brought life and vivacity to the stage from the first song and dance of the play, setting the festive tone which the actors maintained throughout the performance with communal dancing on stage and with the groundlings at the beginning and end of the play. 

A large cast of nearly 20, enabled all of the actors to inhabit their role. The entire cast made great efforts to convey the full meaning of their lines, whether that was with a well-timed pause, allowing the audience time to understand a joke, or a subtle raising of an arch eyebrow teasing out the innuendo. As the key player of the comically complicated love triangle, Olivia Onyehara made a wonderful Viola with a clear relationship with the audience through her wryly perplexed asides whilst Leandra Ashton as Olivia played blissfully, and lustfully, unaware of Viola’s true identity. Completing the love triangle Mark Holgate imagined lovestruck Orsino as seemingly unaware that his high-minded pronouncements on love made him comically pompous. Feste the fool is a difficult character to master in a modern reinterpretation – the idea of a court jester being so odd and outdated, although some modern leaders appear to combine the roles of both king and fool. However, Clare Corbett’s Chaplin-esque interpretation of this character deftly combined clowning elements with the wit and wordplay while not shying away from the character’s moral ambiguity.

The character of Sir Andrew Aguecheek can sometimes seem overshadowed by that of Sir Toby. Indeed, in this production Fine Time Fontayne’s ability to conjure bottles of booze out of thin air suggested that he was going to run away with all of the comic episodes. However, Alex Phelps as Sir Andrew gave a hint of Elizabethan dandy strutting in his short-cut ochre raincoat, his every mock curtsey and flourish was a finely judged manifestation of his character’s eccentricity – like a PG Wodehouse toff of the most ridiculous order – this is quite frankly genius and worth the admission price all on its own.

For a rollickingly good few hours of good-humoured Shakespeare there is none better in the North of England this summer. This seasonal pop-up theatre, emulating the Globe in its design, is developing into a cultural highlight, allowing high quality and high energy Shakespeare to be seen outside of London in beautiful locations- historic York and Blenheim Palace, Oxford. I for one hope that the Rose Theatre will blossom in the years to come.

Rose Theatre productions 2019

York: Twelfth Night, Hamlet, The Tempest and Henry V.

Oxford: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth and Richard III.

Debate: Should you choose Leeds over Oxford?

-
-
0
Debate: Should you choose Leeds over Oxford?

Lucy Dyer: Yes, individuals should make choices that best suit them

Having a twin sister who has been studying at Leeds whilst I study at Oxford gives me a unique standpoint on this person’s situation, and an insight into the peaks and pitfalls of both university experiences. On balance, Oxford is certainly not always the right choice for a prospective student.

I may seem ridiculous in arguing against choosing to study at my own university. However, regardless of the Oxford’s renowned name and its numerous networking opportunities, I firmly believe people should base their university choice on which course and environment is best for them.

To start with, the options for degree courses vary massively from university to university: in fact, I could do an entirely different French degree at Leeds to the one I’m doing at Oxford. Studying the wrong course in order to get a degree from the “right” university could leave a student disillusioned and uninterested, wasting academic potential just to add Oxford to a CV.

Likewise, the environment in which a student wants to learn and live is very important. Some may prefer a bigger city like Leeds or want to mingle with students from a variety of UK regions – less likely in Oxford where the intake remains heavily biased towards the South East and Greater London (2016-2018 data).

In addition, those who want the typical British ‘university experience’ would probably be better off somewhere else. Oxford is an amazing university full of historic colleges, crazy traditions and hectic eight-week terms, but for me, it is hardly the ‘cooking on a shoestring, cheap beer, part-time job’ university life found in Leeds. If that is what a student is looking for, Oxford’s not their best option.

To me, a student choosing Oxford’s ‘prestige’ over a university better matched to them highlights a weak point in the way we value educational success. It shouldn’t be about status or what other people think: it isn’t their degree, and they won’t spend at least three years and £27,000 or more studying for it. Surely we should be encouraging young people to choose a degree to suit first and foremost their own interests and preferences. If an Oxford course ticks the right boxes that’s great. But doing an entire degree just to say “I went to Oxford” seems a waste of what could have been three years of much greater personal enjoyment and intellectual stimulation elsewhere.

With the amount of work students are expected to do and the shamefully notorious poor mental health among students today, it is vital that students study in a place that makes them happy and fulfilled. That, far above any reputation or outdated value system, should be the ultimate aim when choosing a university.

Marcin Pisanski: No, many reasons for rejecting Oxbridge are misguided

You know the gist. Oxford is a bastion of white male privilege and class prejudice. You don’t have the proper public school credentials? Keep out. We’re a university so self-loathing it covers itself in ‘Oxbridge Must Fall’ stickers, and our Union hosts debates about burning the uni to the ground. Oxford has a bad reputation.

So unsurprisingly, annually A-Levels results day brings us stories of bright pupils spurning Oxford. Some even go as far as sending their colleges rejection letters, backed unswervingly by The Guardian.

But does it make sense to reject a place which so many in the UK and abroad would sell a kidney to have? Many of those stories do list academic and course-related differences that explain some of the prospective students’ motives. But what they don’t hide is the most common factor of serious misconceptions about Oxford’s acceptance of minorities and state-schoolers.

Don’t get me wrong – there’s a great deal the departments and colleges could do to reduce the admissions gap between those from independent schools and others. We should overhaul our approach to BAME applicants and other underrepresented groups. But the university is trying, and every year the admissions statistics improve.

Those who reject offers are also mistaken in thinking access-related admissions issues are representative of real Oxford experiences. Oxford and Cambridge are reputation-conscious, and UK-wide discrimination against the socially disadvantaged is less prevalent here. I hardly know the school background of most of my friends.

Other common arguments – suggesting Oxford’s designed for students who cherish formal halls with upper-middle class subcultures or specific social expectations – are equally misguided. Colleges are what you make them. Their unique teaching methods and living situations allowing for unparalled University freedoms. No one can fully plan their uni experience so choosing lower-ranked institution over Oxbridge is betting against the odds – and your future life chances.

Being educated at Oxbridge has life-long benefits; it’s pointless arguing otherwise. You won’t have the same opportunities open even if you work hard elsewhere. Nor should you: voluntarily rejecting the offer is hardly an entitlement to complain about how doing so limits your connections and your chance to thrive amongst other top students from the UK and globally.

Some industries weigh that difference more than the others, like politics and the Bar. There’s no good reason to limit your employment prospects so early even if you haven’t yet considered careers in those. Oxbridge also has more to offer financially to undergraduates of all Russel Group universities, with guaranteed income-based bursaries as well as other discretionary funds offered by colleges.

So why would anyone reject an undergraduate experience with unparalleled academic, financial and pastoral support? Doing so based on grounds of inaccurate stereotypes is an offence against your own well-being. It’s time the media stopped promoting these delusions for their own political agendas.

“Absolute shambles”: students prepared to take Ruskin College to court

Rachel Cordery
-
0
“Absolute shambles”: students prepared to take Ruskin College to court

Students are prepared to take Ruskin College court over the difficulties many faced in trying to obtain their degree results.  

The latest in a series of controversies facing the college, students from almost every course suffered months of uncertainty after completing their final exams.

Speaking to the Oxford Mail, 22-year-old Aaron Miles said the college told BA Social and Political Studies students that their results would be delayed for “a small amount of time” in July.

“As it turns out, the results in question have never arrived and we fear they never will. This is the same for most of the students who left in 2019.”

A statement from Ruskin College said a “small number of students” final results had been delayed after the resignation of the external examiners appointed by the Open University. “New examiners have now been appointed and final results will be available shortly.”

“We have not been made aware of any students whose places on masters courses have been affected by delays to marks; in this circumstance we would expect to be contacted by the relevant institution whereby this matter could easily be resolved.”

“Our students are our primary concern and we have been in regular contact with them over the summer. We will continue to support them moving forward.”

A controversial year, Ruskin College faced accusations of “victimisation” following several disciplinary and redundancy threats directed at members of the University and College Union (UCU) earlier this year.

A rally was organised in April following the suspension of Dr Lee Humber, the UCU’s representative at Ruskin College.

At the time, the UCU said in a press release: “UCU is calling for the immediate reinstatement of Dr Lee Humber and for the bogus charges against Lee to be dropped.”

Last month, the entire social work department of the college also resigned after four tutors were made redundant.

1...555556557...2,487Page 556 of 2,487

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley