Port Meadow pollution threatens bathing site status
A recent government report has classified Port Meadow’s water quality as “poor” for the second year in a row. Port Meadow’s designation as a river bathing site was approved in April 2022 on the condition that its water quality improve to a standard considered “fit to swim in” within five years. However, the infamous pollution plaguing the area has put it at serious risk of losing its bathing site status.
Contributing to the poor pollution rating are sewage plants such as Cassington and Witney Sewage Treatment Works, located upstream of Port Meadow, which discharge raw sewage into the river. Thames Water, the UK’s largest water and wastewater company (whose area of responsibility includes Port Meadow), has recently come under fire for pumping at least 72 billion litres of sewage into the River Thames since 2020.
If Port Meadow does lose its status as a designated river bathing site, it would significantly affect local recreational clubs, university sports, and all those who regularly utilise Port Meadow for aquatic activities. The exposure to dangerous bacteria such as E coli and intestinal enterococci, indicated by the “poor” rating to be worse than recommended levels, is already a significant deterrent to student athletes. In fact, in 2022, the levels of intestinal enterococci in Port Meadow were more than twice the healthy limit.
After the figures were released, Layla Moran, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, spoke on the issue in Parliament. Having previously been “delighted” and “so proud to support the community campaign [that successfully ensured Port Meadow’s] bathing water status,” she strongly believes this is “unacceptable” for the people of Oxfordshire. Moran believes the meeting with the Minister is a promising first step but that it “cannot stop there.” She remains firm that the government must “clamp down” on companies like Thames Water and recognise that the public has lost faith in such companies to protect their water.
The statistics report also showed a significant increase in the overall number of bathing areas across the UK classified as poor, from 12 in 2022 to 18 in 2023. Moran identified this as a general trend of carelessness that affects not just Oxfordshire, but the entire UK: “It is insulting to see Ministers pat themselves on the back after a shocking rise in swimming spots rated as poor water quality… This national scandal needs to end now.”
Environment Minister Robbie Moore has agreed to a meeting regarding the protection of Oxford’s Port Meadow, but pointed out that 95.7% of bathing water classifications were rated as “good or excellent,” compared to 76% in 2010. He stated this showed the government “took water quality seriously” but promised to “endeavour to go even further.”
Updated University statement hopes for Gaza ceasefire
In an update to its response to recent events in Israel, Gaza, and the Middle East, Oxford University has expressed its hopes for a further ceasefire. A 18 December social media post from Oxford’s Palestine Society (PalSoc) and Rhodes Scholars for Palestine criticised the update, calling it “timid,” “insufficient,” and “highly problematic” despite being “a step in the right direction.”
Previously, Oxford’s statements and updates did not call for a ceasefire. Rhodes Scholars for Palestine and PalSoc representatives communicated and met with the Vice-Chancellor’s office multiple times in Michaelmas — including on 12 December — and brought forth the “Act Against Genocide” petition that drew support of over 2,000 signatories.
The societies’ joint Instagram post updated its “Act Against Genocide” petition with reasons for its critique of the University’s statement: “By referring to Israel’s genocide of Palestinians in Gaza as ‘military action,’ the University grossly misrepresents Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity as somehow legitimate.
“By explicitly mentioning the Hamas attacks and hostage-taking while disregarding the decades-long reality of Israel’s settler-colonialism, illegal occupation, illegal siege on Gaza, and illegal detainment of thousands of Palestinians including children, the University adopts a partial, ahistorical narrative that reinforces dehumanisation of Palestinians. This stance reveals racist double standards especially when compared to the University’s unapologetic response to the invasion of Ukraine.”
The post further calls Oxford’s actions “inadequate,” alleging the University’s response has added to the “alienation and demoralisation” of affected students while offering them “no tangible, material support.” The societies also stated that the University has not taken sufficient action to protect academic freedom and free speech: “Colleges and departments have repeatedly denied requests to book spaces for Palestine-related events, even activities such as bake sales or grieving circles.”
In addition to expressing hopes for a ceasefire, the University statement condemns instances of harassment directed toward Jews and Muslims in Oxford: “It has become regrettably clear that some of our students and staff have experienced or witnessed anti-Semitic and Islamophobic behaviour within Oxford. As a University, we will not tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment.”
The statement further lays out welfare provisions offered by the colleges and University and lists direct channels for students to report harassment
According to the student societies, the University administration has pledged to meet again at the start of next term to discuss several proposals: further updating its messaging, creating a reporting mechanism for collegiate or departmental censorship, establishing a scholarship for Palestinians students and support for academics-at-risk, and exploring the University’s financial ties to arms manufacturers.
Oxford accepted more than £106 million in anonymous donations
An openDemocracy investigation has revealed that Oxford accepted more than £106 million in anonymous donations between 2017 and 2023 — more than any other Russell Group university. The donations come from just 68 anonymous donors, putting the average amount given over £1.5 million.
Among the more controversial anonymous gifts was the £10 million donated to found the Oxford Nizami Ganjavi Centre. Earlier this year, Cherwell reported on the connection between the Centre and autocratic rulers in Azerbaijan, and openDemocracy attempted to solicit from the University further details about the donor as part of its investigation. Despite these efforts, Oxford has only revealed that the donation came from Azerbaijan and that the person behind the donation was a “highly successful businessperson who wished to remain anonymous.”
The openDemocracy investigation reports that Oxford is “so insistent” on keeping the details of the donation unknown that it has opted to go to court to block openDemocracy Freedom of Information requests.
When approached for comment, the University told Cherwell: “The University will not disclose the name of the donor to the Oxford Nizami Ganjavi Centre; the terms of the gift are such that the donor wanted to be anonymous, and the University is respecting that agreement. CRDRF [Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding] was made aware of the identity of the donor of this gift, who was considered and approved through our usual due diligence process.
“It is inaccurate to say that Oxford University has ‘opted to go to court’ over this case. Open Democracy has taken the Information Commissioner to a tribunal after the Commission ruled for the University.”
The openDemocracy investigation also discusses emails obtained by the organisation which deal with fundraising discussions held by Oxford in 2019. The investigation states that the emails show that the then-vice chancellor was briefed on Oxford’s “ability to draw Chinese government funds to the UK” — “the funds are now flowing,” one message reads.
The emails cover the University’s efforts to set up “potential dates to host the Chinese billionaires,” although, according to the investigation, such meetings never materialised. When approached by openDemocracy for details about the failed fundraising efforts, the University “refused to disclose any records related to the plan.”
The openDemocracy investigation further reveals that there was a concerted effort on the part of Russell Group universities to frustrate proposed legislation which would have required disclosure of donations exceeding £50,000. The former vice chancellor of Cambridge reportedly told government officials that such legislation could “severely impact” fundraising efforts, and other universities “privately wrote of ‘celebration’ after learning that they could keep the identity of givers under wraps.” The investigation does not specify whether Oxford played any role in lobbying against the transparency legislation.
A spokesperson for Oxford has commented on the University’s policy of anonymity for donations, denying that such contributions compromise Oxford’s integrity as an institution: “All Oxford University research is academically driven, with the ultimate aim of enhancing openly available scholarship and knowledge. Donors have no influence over how Oxford academics carry out their research, and major donors are reviewed and approved by the University’s Committee to Review Donations and Research Funding, which is a robust, independent system taking legal, ethical and reputational issues into consideration before gifts are accepted.
“We take the security of our academic work seriously, and work closely with the appropriate Government bodies and legislation. Much of our overseas collaborative research addresses global challenges such as climate change and major health problems where international involvement is important in delivering globally relevant solutions.”
Jeremy Corbyn speaks at Oxford March for Palestine
Hundreds marched through Oxford city centre in a demonstration organised by Oxford Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) on 16 December. The protest marked the tenth Saturday of national action since the Israel-Gaza War began and continued into a rally on Broad Street with speakers including former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, 13-year-old Palestinian Bana Al-Asadi, trade union leaders, and other activists.
Chairman of Oxford PSC, David Hillman, described the mood as “angry, sad, but determinant” to Cherwell. He explained that the persistence of the PSC was because “the genocide goes on” and that even though “it gets more and more evil, our message stays the same”, referring to their calls for an immediate ceasefire.
When asked about the Oxford chapter in the broader national scene, he told Cherwell: “Oxford plays a key role in the fact that our greatest philosophers and moralists have come out against this genocide, so have Oxford University students and the ordinary people… We have doctors at John Radcliffe [Hospital] who have visited Gaza, educating people on medicine over many years, and every week there is a very moving rally by medical students in Oxford.”
Demonstrators came to the march with various signs, with one display drawing a lot of attention from the crowd: Strapped to a protester’s mobility vehicle was a life-sized mannequin dressed in white with bandages around her head wound and a scarlet scarf. The same protester also carried a sign with the same motif and two wrapped baby dolls named Adam and Basil after the two Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers while playing in Jenin.
After an hour-long walk down Cowley Road and High Street, the marchers gathered by the Sheldonian Theatre for a rally.
Corbyn, a long-standing advocate for Palestine and a member of the PSC, spoke at the rally with an emphasis on the UK’s role in this conflict. On the failed United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire, he said: “Britain, to its shame, abstained.… This sort of supine, cynical approach that members of parliament took on this fills me with utter disgust.”
However, more members of parliament voted for a ceasefire than he had expected, which Corbyn attributed to the large number of people demonstrating and writing to their MPs.
Corbyn then criticised the role of the arms industry in the conflict: “Wars don’t come from nowhere. They come from a great deal of money, a very powerful arms industry that supplies the weapons, and the military involvement of other countries.”
Oxford University’s connections to the arms industry was highlighted in the “Act Against Genocide” petition circulated in October which stated that “Oxford is in the top 5 universities in the UK to accept arms funding (2013-2021) from companies found by Amnesty International to fail to ‘demonstrate adequate human rights due diligence’”. The petition has previously inspired student protests as well as the chant “Oxford Uni you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide.”
When asked about Oxford’s role in the conflict, Corbyn told Cherwell that his message for the university is “think of what you do and think of why it’s done.”
Al-Asadi, a 13-year-old Palestinian, also spoke to the crowd: “The UNICEF organisation says that the Gaza Strip has become the most dangerous place in the world for children’s lives… The children of Palestine, like other children in the world, have their own dreams, feelings, and aspirations for the future. Now, I say enough of this transgression and humiliation.
“If there is any remaining shred of humanity, and any sense of responsibility among these officials and decision-makers, [they should] raise their voices loudly and without shame to stop this barbaric and deliberate killing of children and vulnerable civilians.”
The Not So Secret History: Family dynamics
After the madness of the first half of term, these last few weeks have seen at least three of the household retreating back into the house to hibernate and catch up on the work we should have been doing earlier. Although it’s been nice to see more of each other, one of the side effects I’ve observed is a certain fraying of tempers, particularly among those who perhaps spend a little too much time together. I’ve remarked to other friends that I feel like I’m living with two pairs of siblings, and it became apparent this week that, like all family dynamics, ours has its breaking points.
Let me begin by saying that I have nothing but admiration for the way the Classicist and the Thespian have maintained cordial relations throughout not only living together but also working together for months on an incredibly stressful production. From what I can tell, the secret to their success lies in spending lots of time in bigger groups, followed by late night debriefs of these gatherings before bed.
The Poet and the Chef, on the other hand, spend a fair amount of time alone in the house together, and two months in the cracks are starting to show.
The Poet has two brothers, and as an international student they don’t get to see them very often, so I’ve often imagined that they must miss them a lot, and have transferred some of these affections onto the Chef by way of a substitute. At least, that’s what I tell myself. ‘Affections’ is a strong word. What I’m really getting at is that the Poet likes to bully the Chef, reserving for them a tone much harsher than the rest of us are ever subjected to. I once accidentally turned the light off as I was walking past the kitchen, having not realised the Poet was still in there, to be greeted by a shriek of ‘Hey! How dare you, you knew I was – oh, I’m so sorry, I thought you were someone else.’ The Poet did at least have the decency to look guilty – clearly, they would never have dreamed of screaming at anyone else like this, but within the remit of their relationship with the Chef it’s apparently fair game. I’ve often seen them walk into the kitchen while the Chef is cooking and spend a few minutes standing behind them at the stove making critical remarks about the food, or laughing at an item of clothing that’s arrived in the post for them. The Chef’s policy is usually to take this lying down (they have two younger siblings and are, I’m sure, used to it), but recently they’ve started biting back. In one instance, they told the Poet they didn’t like their outfit, whereupon the Poet jumped right back down their throat, telling them they didn’t understand the rules of friendly sibling bullying: ‘it has to be playful!’
If it sounds thus far like I’ve been painting a rather one sided account, let me set the record straight. The Chef has their faults when it comes to cleanliness and general housekeeping, and the Poet is more tolerant of this behaviour than the rest of us put together. It all came to a head this week, however, when a bath mat belonging to the Poet, that went mysteriously missing in about September, miraculously reappeared in the Chef’s bathroom. I have rarely been as tense (outside of a theatre) as I was watching this great showdown: the Poet stood in the kitchen doorway, dripping wet mat in hand, while the Chef sat back on the sofa, insisting what was before them was, in fact, a hand towel, and therefore not stolen goods. As my head flipped back and forth between the two like a Wimbleden spectator, they did not break eye contact, holding each other’s gaze for what felt like an age. Finally the Chef broke the silence: ‘Ok, it might be a bath mat. Sorry.’ I waited for the explosion. But, to their immense credit, the Poet just nodded, and took the mat back to their bathroom. Given the number of times the Poet has had to stand dripping on a cold bathroom floor after a shower in the last few months, not to mention the amount of hours spent looking for the accursed mat, I have to commend them for the restraint of their reaction. I’m not sure I could have done the same.
As with all housemate sagas, however, the story doesn’t end there. A few mornings later, the Poet went to get the milk out of the fridge for their tea, and stood up holding an empty pint carton. Their hands were trembling. ‘I’m going to go and hit them over the head with this right now.’ (the Chef was in bed nursing a hangover). I protested that it might not have been them, and anyway, maybe hitting them wasn’t the right option? ‘I just saw them leave the kitchen with a cup of tea. And they knew I was making tea too!’ ‘Deep breaths,’ I advised. I needn’t have worried. Instead of making their way to the door, they simply put the carton in the recycling, and checked the other fridge. I can’t speak for what would have happened if there hadn’t been more milk in there, but based on the bath mat incident I have to believe their characteristic restraint would have prevailed. That’s what siblings are for, after all: you can drive each other up the wall, but in the end you love them anyway. Household harmony prevails.
Image credit: Lina Kivaka via Pexels.
May The Wolf Die
Read the latest from The Source: ‘May the Wolf Die’ by Nina Naidu
It’s not as though you’ve had your fill.
Each night, a lunar eclipse, a bitter pill,
As if you weep, a call to the throng who long
To ravish me with a siren’s song.
You promise them sustenance, to nurture and feed
The hunger inside until your mouth bleeds.
But you persist, so jagged and raw,
Where you find your prey is the luck of the draw.
It’s not as though you’ve had your share.
The lamb now still, no need to steal
Its organs as if you strive to find
The heart you yearn to redefine.
And claim as your own. But why won’t it fit?
Why even ask? We can both admit
Though countless times, I’d plead and cry,
Those hurtful words, from your lips would fly—
It’s not as though you’ve said your peace.
Tough luck! Your care, a reluctant release.
Words echo, so daring and cruelly profane,
Like shackles on my soul: confine, aim, restrain.
Any last words for your favourite girl?
In this perilous world, where chaos swirls,
Time’s grasp slipping in the cosmos of a final twirl,
Speak now, for soon, our paths unfurl.
Hold on no longer. Release your grip!
Unhinged, unravelled, myself I will strip;
Cohesion lost in the frenzy and fold,
Few words remain for this madness untold.
When you’re all alone, who dries your tears?
Not me — for you’re the only one who hears
This wolf’s cry, your artful deceit.
I will succumb, no longer, to your bitter conceit.
Oxford University Diplomatic Society hosts NATO-sponsored final competition
Oxford University Diplomatic Society hosted its final NATO-sponsored final competition event of “NATO: Fit for the Future?’ at the end of November in the Town Hall. This competition saw groups consisting of students compete on four topics — space, cybersecurity, NATO partners and climate change — presenting proposals on how NATO should be innovated for the future. The winning team was to be given £500 in an event officiated by four expert judges including Dr Timothy Clack, Joanne Hamer, Myriam Shafique, and Juliana Suess.
The event saw a keynote speech by the Finnish Ambassador to the UK, Jukka Siukosaari, speaking about current geopolitical issues such as Finland’s recent accession to NATO. The Ambassador stated that “not all threats can be defended by a rifle or a tank” and that modern-day threats are increasingly illusive. His Excellency noted that “Ukraine has become the most important and pressing concern of European security” and it was necessary for Türkiye and Hungary to ratify Sweden’s accension. It is “important for NATO to ensure cooperation with other international actors” and “streamline, adapt and coordinate plans”.
The winners talked about future collaboration with eastern partners, a coherent and consistent approach to policy-making, increased institutional capacity for partnerships in key regions, increased development of both the EU’s military capability, and its security policy. The winning team addressed renewing the partnership framework, universalising regional cooperation and the inclusion of key partners.
One of the members of the winning team, first-year student Michał Pietrzak who co-presented on NATO partners and won the competition with another first-year Yassin Hachi, stated he was “interested in NATO and international relations for a while” and that they “both have citizenships in countries within the EU and NATO”. For Pietrzak “talking about NATO is really important” given to the fact that the UK “is a key point within NATO” and “through the club mentorship program we were kind of defining what we were talking about more clearly”.
Teams addressed a whole variety of subtopics within the field including private sector cooperation in regards to cybersecurity, more centralised cyber threat analysis, countering Russian military aggression, Islamist terroism and Chinese expansionism, expanding NATO’s geographical footprint across Africa and the Indo-Pacific. Climate change and space also featured extensively in terms of crisis management, sharing early warning capabilities, standardisation of equipment and increased multinationalism.
A group on climate change saw that NATO’s role in the crisis was to boost a climate aware culture, invest in green technology such as photovoltaics, increase in operational resilience, and modernise international climate architecture.
The outgoing president of the society and project director Rosie Wrigglesworth stated that the competition overall was a “resounding success – it was such a fantastic location and really set the scene for an event of this calibre”. Wrigglesworth went on to state that she was “so grateful to have such distinguished guests including His Excellency the Finnish Ambassador who delivered a thought provoking keynote on Finland’s recent NATO membership”. She commented that “the level of student presentations was very impressive, especially given the short time to prepare”. Rosie stated that “…the committee that we’ve had this term has been amazing … just a fantastic team to work with in making this project come to life.”
Oxford Diplomatic Society is planning to start a Diplomatic Academy next term for aspiring diplomats at the University.
Oxford residents complain about South Park damage following bonfire night
Residents have complained that the fireworks display left South Park damaged, possibly for the entire winter, as vehicles used to set up the display churned the turf in the wet conditions. Some people who live near the park complained to the city council that Oxford Round Table, the organisers of the fireworks, failed to protect the ground with sheeting. About 40 complaints were lodged with the City Council.
The display was the 55th Annual Charity Fireworks Display and was viewed by more than 20,000 people inside the park. All profits are donated to charity and over the years more than £1 million has been raised for charities through these displays. Last year £85,000 was donated, according to the Council.
Members of the Round Table who have organised this charity display told the BBC that they are “absolutely heartbroken” at the complaints as, while most people enjoyed the spectacle, they feel “bombarded constantly by a small number of residents”. The fireworks were organised by unpaid volunteers.
The City Council has said that the heavy rain in the preceding week meant the ground was more saturated and so the heavy footfall also caused damage to the turf during the event. They also identified the role of climate change in delaying frosts and resulting in wetter autumns each year, resulting in a wetter ground and thus more damage.
Ground rectification works can not be done until the ground has dried out but Oxford Roundtable are hopeful that the park could be “recovered by Christmas” and stated that there won’t be lasting damage because the areas affected will be rolled by council staff at the first opportunity.
Christian Petersen, a representative for Oxford Round Table said: “This happens every year – we plan for the council to undertake rectification works.”
The park has suffered similar damage in previous years. 2012 saw much more extensive damage after hosting the Olympic Torch event following a very wet summer. As a result, Oxford’s city council stated that they have “every confidence” that a prompt return to normal “will be repeated on this occasion”.
Moreover, Chewe Munkonge, cabinet member for leisure and parks, recognised the concerns but said that they had to be balanced against the huge popularity of the event and the significant fundraising role that the display plays in supporting local charities. He also reiterated that the council will investigate what further steps can be taken to reduce the impact and take financially viable steps.
The City Council has said that Oxford Round Table will fund the repair work and discussions are taking place to investigate what can be done to reduce this impact in years to come.
The Silent Boom of Killers of the Flower Moon: A Review
Minor spoiler alert for the beginning of the film!
Martin Scorsese’s latest film Killers of the Flower Moon has reached UK cinemas and despite the many other autumn releases, it remains hotly talked about.
The film transports us to 1920s Oklahoma, specifically the Osage Nation. The opulence of the nation is immediately clear; we see Osage people being chauffeured and owning acres of land. Through an early slow-motion scene, it is revealed that their land, originally thought to be worthless, was situated above an oil reserve. This oil boom resulted in an influx of wealth for the Osage Nation who soon became the richest people per capita in the world. However, from the offset, Scorsese sets up an underlying tension between those native to the land and the white society that resides alongside them. In an early montage, he creates a dissonance between what we see on the screen and what we hear: graphic depictions of murder are shown on the screen but reported as suicides or unsolved mysteries. For this reason, when our protagonists Mollie (Lily Gladstone) and Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) meet, their amorous back and forth presents a beginning but also foreshadows tragedy. The film is based on the real series of murders in the Osage Nation.
While watching this film, I could not help but feel as though I was witnessing a master at work. Scorsese skilfully blends the quick cuts and dry humour of his early works with a more meditative and evocative tone that is entirely appropriate to the nature of this film. Scorsese is widely considered to be one of the greatest living American directors, and his command of the medium is felt in every scene of this film. The story is unrelenting: he does not hide away from depicting the real tragedy that swept the Osage Nation, nor does he complicate the villains’ culpability. Ernest Burkhart is presented as a complex villain, but his complicity is not questioned. Rather than dramatising the events or creating a spectacle, Scorsese quietly develops the story’s narrative, which evokes an unsettling tension.
It is impossible to talk about this film without mentioning its extensive length. Clocking in at 3 hours and 26 minutes, Killers of the Flower Moon is Martin Scorsese’s second-longest feature non-documentary film and has become the stage for a debate on movie runtimes. Within all the discourse, two clear camps have emerged: those who believe the film did not need to be that long and those who proclaim that it ‘flew by’. My experience aligned with the latter: to me, the film’s length did not feel inordinate. This is a story that cannot be rushed but rather needs to unravel slowly to reveal the cause of the Osage murders. In a way, the experience of watching the film mirrors the unyielding nature of the horrors the Osage nation faced. As a viewer, you are not granted any respite or time to breathe but instead must watch the events as they unfolded.
The discourse on film runtimes seems to be part of a larger conversation on the current state of media consumption. Longer runtimes are not a new concept and have never been uncommon in the film community, though recently it has felt like more films that are longer than the standard two hours are reaching mainstream audiences. Christopher Nolan’s box office hit Oppenheimer was three hours long and even the latest instalment of the Hunger Games franchise, Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, is over two and a half hours long. Alongside the mainstream rise of these longer films, there have been calls for intermissions to allow people to stretch their legs or use the bathroom. Others argue that this diminishes the artistic integrity of a film; if the directors and editors wanted to add an intermission, they would have. This debate is rooted in personal preference, and so there is no simple answer. However, it is interesting that it’s a Scorsese film that has prompted this discussion. It was just four years ago that the director likened ‘comic-book movies’ to theme parks. It was his attempt to distinguish the CGI superhero movies that feel like products of the corporate studio machine from the films that position a director’s vision at the forefront of the filmmaking process and seem more grounded in human experiences. This runtime conversation also links to the rise of short-form content. Perhaps the film’s length is not the problem; maybe it is our attention spans.
Whatever the answer may be, this discussion about runtime does detract from the film’s narrative and the interesting stories that surround the creation of Killers of the Flower Moon. For instance, the film is an adaptation of David Grann’s non-fiction book of the same name, but instead of focusing on Tom White (played by Jesse Plemons), a detective who worked to track down the perpetrators of these murders, Scorsese and DiCaprio shift the focus to Ernest and Mollie Burkhart, not only preventing the white saviour narrative but also giving the Osage Nation more of a presence in the film. Like many other viewers, I would have loved to see even more of the Osage perspective. Lily Gladstone has the standout performance of the film, capturing both Mollie’s stillness and strength. Her restraint creates a powerful contrast with the more turbulent performances of Robert De Niro and Leonardo DiCaprio. I couldn’t help but wish she was at the centre of the film. This links to another discussion that the film has prompted about who has the right to tell someone else’s experience. The film’s ending asks us this question and reminds us that the depredation did not end with Native American land but continued with the depredation of their stories as well.
