Tuesday 8th July 2025
Blog Page 574

Lenny Abrahamson Interview

Laura Plumley
-
0
Lenny Abrahamson Interview

Never one to stick to convention, Lenny Abrahamson’s self-proclaimed lack of homogeneity in his work is what has led him along his distinguished career path as a director. What’s most striking about his films is their defiance of genre stereotypes. Take the critically acclaimed Room, for which Abrahamson was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director in 2016. The film is based on the book by Emma Donoghue, and centres around a young woman, abducted and raped, and the child she bears subsequently. The film could easily have been a thriller focussed on the nail-biting escape of these two characters. However, while playing with this idea in the film’s middle act, Abrahamson creates an outstandingly sensitive commentary on the parent /child bond and, how, contrary to expectations, this little boy is able to have a normal childhood. Or take his later film The Little Stranger (2018), which was pigeonholed as a horror film but which in fact is far more a genre bending character study of the central character.

Abrahamson’s film making work has earned him many accolades and in 2016 he was appointed as visiting Professor in Film and Television at Oxford University. This professorship was part of a Humanitas programme funded by the Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust. From public lectures to intimate workshops, his yearlong engagement formed part of a four year programme involving three other prominent individuals within the film and television industry: Michael Winterbottom, Kelly Reichardt and Sam Mendes. It afforded students the opportunity to learn directly from individuals such as Abrahamson who have made names for themselves in the notoriously difficult world of film and television. Despite his success now, Abrahamson’s path into directing is less than conventional. Born and bred in Dublin, he excelled in science and decided to study theoretical physics at Trinity College Dublin. Although from his mid-teens he developed a real interest in cinema, he wasn’t sure he could pursue it as a career – “It didn’t seem like a real option” he noted when I visited his Dublin offices. However, whilst at Trinity he changed his studies to philosophy and set up a production company with college friend Ed Guiney. He and Guiney still work together and it’s in this company’s offices that we sit on a sunny afternoon to discuss his career and what defines his work; his process as a director; his views on the ever-changing film industry and his current project, a 12 part TV series based on the best-selling novel, Normal People, by Sally Rooney.

Abrahamson’s first critically acclaimed project came in the form of 2004’s Adam & Paul. Set in Dublin, it follows the tragically comedic drug addicted duo as they navigate a day in their life. This was followed by Garage in 2007, and What Richard Did in 2012. Then Abrahamson seemingly took a break from the darker subjects of his previous film to make Frank, a light absurdist comedy. Yet at its core, the film still has Abrahamson’s trademark serious, poignant message, this time about mental health. Then came Room and The Little Stranger.

Throughout this varied oeuvre of work, there remain several constants – one being the relationship between film and audience. Abrahamson has the knack of making his audience part of the narrative, almost creating another character. They are as involved and invested in the action as any of the characters on screen. Because of his subtlety in dealing with the narratives, he often forces the audience to visualise details of scenes themselves, rather than spoon-feeding action to them. “It’s a constant battle to prevent lazy mental habits,” Abrahamson says, “to crack open their normal way of seeing something”. He applies this mentality not only to his delicate storylines but also to the characters he presents. “You think you understand the character and are allowed to feel a comfortable familiarity with the type of person you think they are.” Then a metamorphosis creeps in, making it very difficult for the audience to continue in that frame of mind.

While he doesn’t allow his audience to rest of their laurels, he’s also very rigorous in his own exploration of the story: “the experience of breaking opening judgement and constraint is probably the thing that I’m most interested in.” In fact, when it comes to picking his projects, it’s the desire to

challenge himself that drives him towards a certain story. “The project has to wake something up in me that I can’t let go of”. With Abrahamson, it’s a very instinctive decision, which is a trait that he carries throughout his entire process as a filmmaker. Yet he also notes that while instinct is important, the ability of the director to collaborate sensitively yet confidently is the key ingredient to a successful film. “You have to work with people in a way which is respectful and exhilarating for everybody but which pushes the project into a shape that matches you. I have to make it, I have to understand it, I have to feel it otherwise it won’t work”. Being clear and convincing in his role as a director must be precisely the reason why his films are successful. If a director isn’t clear about where they stand and what creative authority they have, everything can fall apart. “And it can absolutely fall apart! To the extent that actors won’t talk to each other, no one knows what’s happening!” he muses.

Abrahamson’s collaborative mindset is something which starts long before filming. A lot of his films have been adaptations and for several he’s worked directly with the original author to create the screenplay. In fact, his current project, Normal People, is one such project. The book, written by Sally Rooney, centres around two characters as they transition from school to Trinity College Dublin. Both Abrahamson and Rooney attended Trinity, years apart, and won the same scholarship as the book’s two main characters, so there’s a personal connection to the story for both of them. Above all, however, Abrahamson emphasised that it was the sensitivity with which Rooney dealt with the relationships between characters, and how unusual they were as people that drew him to this adaptation. The book reflects the ebbs and flows in the lives of an essentially oddly matched young couple. It highlights the changes in the balance of power between them and lesser characters with whom they interact. They progress from school to university, and this voyage through self-discovery and awareness is something delicately developed by Rooney.

Abrahamson is vitally aware that the way people view and experience entertainment has become far easier, with access at anytime and anywhere. The entertainment business has embraced globalisation, particularly with the advent of platforms such as Netflix and Hulu. Directors who would have just worked in the film industry 20 years ago are having to embrace the world of streaming and television in order to remain current. Does the quality of the product suffer with this small screen target? Are we the audience missing out on the big screen experience by being able to download films to our phones? As Abrahamson muses, the audience can now view films and series on their phones to watch on the tube, walking along the street, in the kitchen. But what that means is they are never really focussing on the product. There is always an element of distraction. In a cinema you are subsumed, completely engrossed in the film, because there is no choice nor outside distractions.

It remains to be seen how Abrahamson translates his six episodes of Normal People to the streaming screen, and if he grabs the audience’s attention sufficiently to make them come back for more. If his past work is anything to go by and his understanding of present-day viewers, I have a feeling this next project will be collecting more awards.

Oxford Students Disrupt Mining Company’s Recruitment Event

Luke Dunne
-
0
Oxford Students Disrupt Mining Company’s Recruitment Event

The Oxford Climate Justice Campaign protested at Glencore’s recruitment event at the Old Bank Hotel on Monday night. Glencore are a multinational commodity trading and mining company. They are the world’s largest exporter of thermal coal, as well as trading in oil, metals and minerals.

The event was advertised by the Careers Service as chance to, “discover the opportunities Glencore can offer you in the oil and energy industry”. 

Glencore staff and the police all attempted to move protestors, who were blocking the entrance to the event. When participants attempted to enter through the hotel’s restaurant, protesters leafleted outside. 

The campaign’s protest was attended by a group of around 15, consisting of students and local residents. 

A spokesperson for the campaign said, “Around 500 members of the public were leafletted and many hundreds more saw our huge ‘CLIMATE CRIMINALS: GLENCORE OUT’ banner. Attendants had engaging and supportive conversations with students, local residents, hotel and restaurant guests, and even those who had come with the original intention of attending the event” 

“With the exception of those with control over booking, we appreciate staff were just trying to get on with their jobs. However, a high class venue such as The Old Bank Hotel also has a responsibility to address the climate crisis. When it profits from renting its establishment to climate criminals such as Glencore, it becomes complicit in the crisis, and we hope it will make the decision not to repeat such events in the future.”

Glencore and the Careers Service have been contacted for comment.

Call to Science: Brecht’s Life of Gaileo

Jack Franco
-
0
Call to Science: Brecht’s Life of Gaileo

Amongst the many, or few, reasons that young people take on the challenge of university, work or technical education is a belief we take for granted: that year on year, our lives will get better. On a grand scale, we call this ‘Progress’. We believe that Progress – such as scientific research to save our planet, yet more ‘innovative’ readings of Hamlet, and radical automation – is inevitable.

Let’s turn this on its head: if it were inevitable, surely, we would not worry about working so hard at it? This is precisely why knowledge, the fruit, and driver of Progress is valuable. Because we discover it by aiming at the imprecise, the hard-to-find. Scarcity, even here, is value. Knowledge is desirable not just because it improves our lives, but because the success of discovery is like an addictive drug – the joy and value of Progress lies in process, too. 

In short, all the research undertaken through hypothesis, trial and error, and brute force is a constant attempt at reaching what generations before us have deemed desirable. We start from the frailest of foundations and unearth the most durable truths. 

Rarely have our foundations seemed so frail as the present day: a time when we are most in need of innovation, and faith in the deftness of humanity, we seem to be at a loose end. When faced with calls for a Green New Deal to stop the climate emergency, we dare not contemplate the complete socio-industrial revolution required for it to succeed, from transforming our economy to revolutionising the minutiae of our daily lives. We try to make the United Nations work, yet we will never dare to question a bizarre, self-interested Security Council that dictates affairs as if it were still 1946. A world order that has seemed stable for over 70 years is now feeling the consequences. 

At this stage we have a six-pointer to play – away from home. We need to convince ourselves that behind all progress is a utopia, triggered by the glint of a hint towards new possibilities: the desire to attack the imprecise with courage because it is worth a struggle. It is knowledge that is worth protecting for the sake of everyone, not just partisan interests – we aim for knowledge that has a life beyond policy briefings. Such knowledge, however, can make itself dangerous, because it threatens our status quo. It crosses borders, reminds the powerful of how powerless they risk becoming, and destroys illusions of supremacy.

There is one man that, more than ever, we can invoke when fear of the new creeps around the corner. Galileo Galilei, whose name adorns satellites, secondary schools, his hometown Pisan airport, and graces some of the greatest scientific writing – and writing, full stop – is our man. He saw that discovery was worth more than professional honour, or even putting bread on the table, and so he became discovery’s greatest huntsman. He recognised the personal contradictions involved in perilous work, such as questioning the cosmological status quo imposed by the most powerful institution in the world at the time – the Catholic Church. He realised that even if Padua gave him the freedom to research, he needed the power and money of Florence’s Medici to create a stir and proclaim heliocentrism, at the risk of persecution. He freely crossed both private and state borders, putting himself at the service of the fishmongers, housekeepers, and merchants who could question the world for themselves with a simple instrument: the telescope.

With that, too, Galileo saw value beyond the personal and political. The telescope first came from the streets of Holland, and he took it, improved it, gave it a wondrous importance unbeknownst to those using it to chart faster shipping routes. He reproduced the telescope, giving a new importance to its physicality: the lens grinders who built it became as crucial as the eye behind it. The man who knows how it works is the safeguard of its fragility. The work of craftsmen shows us what we need to achieve, whilst the scientists bring to light what we can afford to be. It is this collective effort that constitutes true discovery. Galileo took what he saw with his own eyes, and, at the risk of his life, committed it to paper. That too – his Discorsi – ran a perilous journey across the European borders to Holland, where, fittingly, its stimulus the telescope was born. 

All this history is also fruit for the stage. Bertolt Brecht’s Life of Galileo explores the relevance of Galileo’s remarkable attempts at revolution. It is Brecht’s mythology of Galileo that counts almost as much as the man himself, because it provides us with an icon to push forward our own frontiers, the same way John Milton wrote into Paradise Lost, the product of his own encounter with Galileo. But we must not forget that Brecht’s depiction of the revolutionary consequences of his work depends on showing the ordinariness of his attempt: a profoundly defeated man replete with flaws demonstrates that it is conviction, often exchanged for madness, that counts. His character did not possess the perfection of his calculations but served to prove not just celestial truths but a human one: that we can all follow his route, that his aims were attainable, and not the doing of a godlike, infallible scientist. 

It is this humble utopianism, to turn the world on its head and around the sun, to commit to making this revolution a worldly one for the sake of humanity, that should encourage us to see that a new world is possible, ready to be forged. The inspiration and the call to science, humanity’s most potent arms, is there, hidden behind humble treatises, and we have no excuse. 

Bertolt Brecht’s Life of Galileo is being performed at Keble College, O’Reilly Theatre, Third Week of Michaelmas Term (30th October – 4th November 2019).

A Definitive Guide to the Falafel and Hummus wraps of Oxford, ranked

Anna Jones
-
0
A Definitive Guide to the Falafel and Hummus wraps of Oxford, ranked

1. The Alternative Tuck Shop

The sandwich-press finish and unrivalled chat from our much-loved staff members means ATS’s offering is the true pinnacle of chickpea-based goodness – definitely worth the (fast-moving) queue.

11/10

2. Najar’s

Despite a slightly odd premises and long queues, Najar’s falafel is undoubtedly top-grade, authentic stuff.
9/10

3. Hassan’s

Tastes great after Bridge; admittedly not so great any other time. Points given for the sheer size of the thing and the unrivalled 3am atmosphere.

8/10

4. Taylors

Wonderful presentation and a real air of sophistication. However, too much crunchy veg (and therefore not enough hummus). 7/10

5. Kebab King

Used as a last resort after the hassan’s- hit-by-a-van fiasco last Hilary – would only recommend in the event of similarly distressing times. Overall lacking on every aspect while still managing to provide noteworthy stomach pains the day after. 4/10

Brexit’s forgotten stakeholders

William Prescott
-
0
Brexit’s forgotten stakeholders

Though it has been decades since most union jacks came down across Britain’s once-vast empire, 14 disparate territories remain under London’s control. Though largely unknown to most of the British public, the decisions they take can still have a considerable impact on the 265,000 inhabitants of these surviving imperial relics. Brexit is the major event threatening change.

Of course, not every territory will be affected. With no permanent inhabitants, nothing will change in the British Antarctic Territory and the South Georgia and Sandwich Islands. Nor is Brexit the greatest problem some of the territories face. Britain’s last Pacific colony, the tiny Pitcairn Islands,  with just 42 inhabitants, faces an uphill battle just to retain its existing population in the face of continued emigration and the inability to attract newcomers. This difficult task has not been assisted by an abuse scandal earlier this century that saw nearly a third of the adult male population jailed for child sex offences.

One Brexit concern is the potential loss of diplomatic allies to assist Britain in retaining several territories whose sovereignty is disputed. As an EU member, Britain has enjoyed Brussels’ diplomatic support in its longstanding feud with Argentina over the Falklands. Theoretically once Britain is out of the bloc, there is no reason for that diplomatic support to continue. Although, no matter what happens, Argentina is in no state to capitalise on the opportunity.

The British Indian Ocean Territory, carved out of Mauritius shortly before the latter gained independence in 1968, is the source of another controversy. Mauritius regards the separation of the BIOT from its territory as illegal. Some commentators suggested that Brexit, by reducing the UK’s influence abroad, will make it more difficult to hold the territory. This is in light of growing calls for the BIOT to be returned to Mauritius and its former inhabitants to be allowed back, after the British shamefully expelled them to make way for a US military base. Britain recently lost a non-binding International Court of Justice case that called for BIOT’s return to Mauritius and was humiliated at the UN General Assembly on the subject. This defeat had little to do with Brexit, however. Ultimately, though, as with the Falklands, it is difficult to see what major difference any international pressure would make, especially with the large US base on Diego Garcia going nowhere fast.

A more serious dispute concerns Gibraltar, the only British overseas territory formally part of the EU, and the only one to vote in the 2016 EU referendum. Spain has been trying to regain the tiny but strategic peninsula ever since it ceded Gibraltar in perpetuity to Britain in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. Gibraltarians, however, are very proud of their British identity, and want nothing to do with Spain. Sentiments were not helped when Spain closed the border entirely between 1969. It did not fully reopen until 1985. Diplomatic rows periodically have erupted ever since.

The concern is that after Britain leaves the EU that Spain can apply pressure to the territory, especially since Spanish consent will be needed for any final EU-UK settlement. So far Spain has declined to use Brexit as a tool to settle the dispute, though it caused anger when draft EU regulations concerning post-Brexit visa-free arrangements for UK citizens referred to Gibraltar as a ‘colony of the British Crown’. The draft withdrawal agreement would have provided for some continuity for Gibraltarians, 96% of whom voted Remain in 2016. While border checks already exist between Gibraltar and mainland Spain since Gibraltar falls outside the EU’s customs area, these are quick enough to allow workers to commute daily from one side to the other. The local economy relies heavily on cross-border trade. A no-deal scenario would be thus far more problematic than a managed exit, with the UK Government’s Operation Yellowhammer document predicting up to four-hour delays to border crossings and disruptions to essential supplies.

A related concern is the possible economic impact of Brexit, especially for those territories bordering the EU. Gibraltar is the most obvious example, but not the only one. The island of Anguilla in the Caribbean—which somewhat uniquely launched a successful rebellion in 1969 in order to stay British—is dependent on the neighbouring Franco-Dutch island of Saint Martin for basic supplies. Because it lacks a long enough runway of its own, Anguilla also relies on Saint Martin’s airport to bring in tourists and much-needed tourism revenue with them. Family ties also run deeply across the three neighbouring territories. Should it be cut off from the Single Market, Anguillans worry that their access to goods and essential services will be cut. While the British Government regards such fears as unrealistic—many goods are in imported from the United States rather than from Saint Martin—these reassurances have not been accepted by the islanders.

Trade is also a worry for several territories far away from any other European territory. Though much closer to South America than to Europe, more than 90% of the Falkland Islands’ fishing exports go to the European Union, as do more than three quarters of its wool exports. Should tariffs be imposed on those industries, the impact on the territory’s 3,000 inhabitants could be considerable. Britain has not guaranteed that it would compensate the Falklands for any loss of export revenue should easy market access to the EU be lost.

Other territories are likely to be less severely affected, even in the unlikely event of a hard Brexit. Several of these—like the Cayman Islands and Bermuda—are major offshore financial services centres and as such have been condemned for facilitating global tax avoidance. Tourism, especially from North America, also plays a large role. Although it is impossible to forecast anything with certainty, as much of their trade is with states outside the EU, it is doubtful that Brexit will cause as much damage as it might to, say, the Falklands.

There is also concern about the potential loss of European Union development aid. Several of the territories, like Anguilla and the British Virgin Islands, have benefited considerably from European Union assistance. This is especially pressing since several of the Caribbean territories are still recovering from 2017’s devastating Hurricane Irma. Beyond the Americas, the isolated South Atlantic island of St Helena and the even more isolated Pitcairn Islands benefit substantially from EU funds. In theory there is nothing to stop any future British government guaranteeing the existing support. However, while Britain has promised to match any existing funded programme, there is no guarantee of what will happen once those programmes end. Because these territories have minimal political influence in Britain itself, this is worrying.

While one might expect Brexit-related disruption to fuel demands for independence, there has been little evidence for this so far. In truth, many of the overseas territories remain British for a reason. Some of the populations are very small. The Falklands, with only 3,000 inhabitants, could not survive on its own, even if Argentina should intervene. Volcano-devastated Montserrat, whose capital is buried under a blanket of ash, is likewise too economically weak to stand on its own.

While theoretically an independent Gibraltar might be economically feasible, the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht make it impossible. If Britain wishes to give up sovereignty, it must offer the territory to Spain first. Because Spain never will accept an independent Gibraltar, the idea is therefore a non-starter. The most likely candidate for independence is Bermuda, which voted against the move in a 1995 referendum. Although there have been occasional murmurings, and one of the major parties on the island officially backs independence, Brexit does not seem to have influenced that particular debate.

With so much drama going on in the mother country, it is easy to forget that hundreds of thousands of people outside the British Isles are being affected in ways that even most informed observers would not even consider. While there is no need to cancel Brexit, there is a real need to plan for its impact beyond what will happen to the United Kingdom itself, and to reassure all those who are caught up in the Brexit process. Offering financial assistance to manage any disruption, guaranteeing continued development aid, and considering the territories’ needs in Brexit negotiations are all essential. Given the loyalty these territories have shown over so many years, it is the very least that Britain can do.  

Kurdistan: Betrayed again

Ararat Ameen
-
0
Kurdistan: Betrayed again

“I was born and raised here but my parents are Kurdish. Kurdistan. No, not Kazakhstan, Kurd-DIS-tan…” at which point I might, somewhat frustratedly, provide a brief history of the Kurdish people.

Until recently this has been my response of the tiresome question of ‘where are you from’. I eagerly express my claim to Englishness while tacitly separating myself from my nebulous Kurdish identity. Last week, roaming Oxford in a stupor following Trump’s withdrawal of American troops from Syria, I chanced upon the delightful Sanders of Oxford. wherein I found a Middle Eastern map from the mid-18th century marked with ‘C U R D I S T A N’, the words delicately arched in a small but clear font.

We Kurds have a favourite saying: ‘We have no friends but the mountains.’ From birth, it’s burned into our consciousness . We’re reminded of it whenever our struggle makes the news; even more when it doesn’t. This pervasiveness of this saying reveals an inherent irony in the Kurdish character who, despite this adage, cannot escape our naturally xenophilic and receptive nature. Recent Kurdish history charts a tragic series of betrayals by Western powers we once considered friends. Kurds are tempted into alliances by the tantalising prospect of independence. We’re excited into action, then let down in the final moments, before our dream is achieved. We’re the eternal pawns in a game of toxic international chess.

Trump’s rationale (spewed forth, unsurprisingly, via a Twitter tirade) for removing troops from Syria is a false claim that ISIS has now been totally annihilated, rendering further Western intervention an unnecessary muddying of the Middle East’s murky politics. But it’s easy to find a far more pragmatic rationale: it frees up millions in the American coffers to fund his promised tax cuts.

It’s tempting to place this decision in the wider picture of Western foreign policy in the last few decades. We can claim it as another example of the West’s weakening resolve, exemplifying ongoing moral panic and a deepening existential crisis. But to say Trump is an anomaly is an understatement; his terms of operation are purely mechanical and numerical; philosophical and abstract ideas like honour and duty mean nothing to a man whose greatest literary outpouring was The Art of the Deal .

His thought-process is clear. This decision ostensibly puts “America first”. It’s a short-term patching up of the hole in his coffers left by the Chinese trade war. It feeds his base for his re-election campaign. To President Business(man), it’s a no-brainer.

Not long after this announcement, Erdogan started his offensive against the Turkish Kurds to whom he was finally awarded a direct and unencumbered passage. Since the end of the First World War and the signing of the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 which promised a Kurdish independence referendum (later revoked by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1924) Middle Eastern geopolitics has been operating on the simple principle that one’s enemy’s enemy is one’s friend. Kurdish territory has proved a valuable resource to the countries amongst whom the Kurdish region has been divided; Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish and Syrian governments have spent the last century working independently to collectively undermine Kurdish efforts for independence.

Kurdish subjugation has proved to be a point of unity, the single common denominator in the otherwise fraught relations of these neighbouring countries. One might conclude that this oppression has perversely protected greater peace in this large corner of the Middle East.

This inverted symmetry is best encapsulated by Orwell in 1984: war against the Kurds preserves the peace; oppression of the Kurds guarantees the freedom of its neighbours. And the final tenet of this prophetic trio can be judged in two ways to determine Kurdish fate. First, Kurdish aid has been the strength of its neighbours, the force keeping this region stable so that the Kurdish flag can never fly and their borders forever undefined. Alternately, the strength to rise from this situation belongs to the Kurds alone, fuelling the fires of Kurdish nationalism until the region implodes and political and structural realignment occurs.

However, it is hard to imagine Kurdistan being independent without the aid and the internationally recognised moral authority of the very powers who have betrayed it so consistently throughout history. Within my identity lie both the victim and the aggressor; I like to say it is Kurdish blood running through my veins and English oxygen keeping me alive. I am English because the English were instrumental in robbing my grandparents of their Kurdishness, the resulting wars driving my parents into refugee camps and making a perilous journey to safer land like many before them and many after; I am English because I could not be entirely Kurdish.

Erdogan’s ferocious offensive will be sure to have the opposite effect to that which he desires. The systematic oppression suffered by Turkish Kurds is almost unparalleled by the rest of the Kurdish region: they were denied the right to speak their native tongue for over a century, Kurdish names were entirely banned, and they have been trapped in total destitution until very recently.

Yet despite this adversity, perhaps unsurprisingly, these most oppressed Kurds have a sanguine spirit and the strongest notion of what it means to be Kurdish. Erdogan will succeed in unifying the Kurdish regions, strengthening their identity and risking creating a real terrorist organisation out of dissident groups attacking the heart of Turkey. The people to suffer most from sanctions imposed by America upon Turkey will be the Turkish people themselves.

Erdogan will impose aggressive economic discomfort in order to claim more power, acquire greater undemocratic legitimacy, and stoke up anti-Western sentiment. He will likely align Turkey ever closer to Russia, consequently creating the optimum environment for the spread of misinformation not just in Turkey but throughout the international community so that, as Hannah Arendt foretells, we will believe that everything is possible and nothing is true. Everything remains possible.

I find myself back at Sanders rummaging through the delicate sheets, and I let out a deep sigh. Perhaps one day while fumbling through a real atlas or while spinning a modern globe, Kurdistan, surrounded by its serene rivers, protected by its loyal mountains will catch my eyes, tearful with joy.

St. Anne’s vegan hall change

Shannon Yang
-
0
St. Anne’s vegan hall change

This Michaelmas, St Anne’s College Oxford started offering a vegan option at lunch and dinner. Previously, St Anne’s only offered two meat options and one vegetarian option, with vegans having to ask for a ‘mystery’ option not physically displayed or listed on the online menu. The new changes mean that now one of the three listed options will be vegan, and sometimes a second may even be vegetarian.

Making vegan meals a standard option on the daily menu was the idea of St Anne’s new head chef, Ben Gibbons (formerly Head Chef of Hertford). “It is something I tried at Hertford College during my time there and it worked out well,” he told me via email. “The vegan options are great dishes that will suit themselves to the vegetarian diners when there isn’t a vegetarian option running alongside the vegan on the same service.”

Vegans at St Anne’s welcome these changes with it allowing both vegans and non-vegans to access to high-quality, ethical vegan food. Emmaleigh Eaves, a second-year French & German student at St Anne’s, is vegan and commented:

“I think that more people will opt for the vegan option simply because now they can see it. Often I’d come out and my friends would say ‘oh I wish I had that’, so it will definitely give a choice. From looking at the menu, the vegan options all sound like nice and ‘normal’ like ravioli and pie, so it’s not like anyone is being forced to eat raw kale and carrots!”

Another vegan St Anne’s student, second- year music student Toby Anderson, agrees that the change will increase transparency about the vegan option, as well as give it an equal place on the playing field. “In the past the vegan options always seemed to me to be this extra thing made on the side with little love or passion. Perhaps the way it was denied a space amongst the other meals gave it an image of lesser-ness. Also, more and more people around college are going vegan so the vegan options will start to become more popular and have more care given to them.”

The news comes amidst wider efforts to increase the quality and availability of vegetarian and vegan food at the University. In November, over 1660 students participated in the annual Veggie Pledge contest run by the Oxford SU.

In the last edition of the Veggie Norrington Table (a triennial survey-based ranking conducted by the Oxford University Animal Ethics Society, published in 2016) St Anne’s placed joint 13th out of 30 colleges. According to anonymised comments from the survey, colleges vary widely in terms of the vegetarian and vegan food offered. Colleges such as Keble and Christ Church offered meatless Mondays. It was commonplace for vegan food to be not on display but available upon request, as was the case at Lady Margaret Hall, while at other colleges, such as Exeter, vegan food would need to be booked beforehand or was not available at all. Respondents also noted the lack of protein, and the overuse of certain ingredients in vegetarian meals, such as mushrooms, tomato sauce, and cheese.

Felix Taylor, President of the Oxford University Animal Ethics Society and DPhil candidate in English at St Hugh’s College, commends the move and hopes other colleges follow suit. “Considering the bigger picture these kinds of changes seem utterly necessary,” Taylor said. “Last year this very university released a study suggesting that a vegan, plant-based diet is the single largest way to reduce our environmental impact – not simply in terms of greenhouses gases,but land use, water use, and acidification. It takes 15,000 litres of water, for example, to produce a kilogram of beef. 9,000 for lamb.”

“Livestock and humans combined now make up 96% of all mammals, and yet meat and dairy currently constitutes 18% of all calorie intake and a third of protein. The science is beginning to seem incontrovertible on the matter, not to mention the fact that philosophers are branding the practice of factory farming one of the largest ethical crises of the modern era. In terms of going a step further, Cambridge University colleges have recently taken beef and lamb off their menus because the production of these kinds of meats are the most damaging to the environment. It would be encouraging to see Oxford adopting similar, university-wide changes, if it wants to continue to lead the way in sustainable and environmentally-friendly initiatives.”

In terms of nutrition, Taylor believes the new options at St Anne’s won’t negatively affect students. “Just looking at the menu for Week one, many of the dishes offer sufficient sources of protein like puy lentils, jackfruit, tempeh, dhal (made using lentils”. He told me that “enough of the right fruits and vegetables will also cover iron and calcium, so there doesn’t seem to be too much to worry about on that front. “We know that a well planned plant-based diet is one of the healthiest options: various international health associations attest to this.”

Taylor doesn’t anticipate any backlash to this type of change. “For those who eat meat their options remain. For vegetarians there’s even less to worry about as the meals are technically vegetarian anyway,” he said.

“It’s also clear that vegetarians don’t particularly want meals simply covered in cheese, so this might provide some relief! One of the main reasons I hear from people who see the appeal of a vegan diet but who haven’t made the leap is that it’s too difficult,too expensive or too much effort.“

“For colleges to provide good-tasting and nutritional vegan options every day will allow people on the fence to eat vegan without extra effort on their part, and hopefully en- courage them to continue the change outside of college.”

Review: Under Your Sky

Guy Brabbins
-
0
Review: Under Your Sky

‘I want to wake up with you in Wales again and watch that sun go down,’ are the words sung by Kiaran Crook, lead singer of the Sherlocks, to kick off this new album. They are lyrics that tidily sum up what is to come. By this, I do not mean that the album conjures up the idyllic warmth of a Welsh evening, but rather the bold originality of a Tinder profile. One would be forgiven for thinking that references to long walks on beaches or being a dog-lover were to follow. Now that certainly isn’t to say that it is an unpleasant album – I myself have always loved the beach and own two dogs who love it even more than I do – but the problem here is, to stretch this analogy to breaking-point, it’s the same old dog on the same old beach. 

The opening is strong, though. Thanks to some sharp percussion and propulsive guitars, one is hooked from the off. ‘I want it all’ and ‘NYC (sing it loud)’ both boast a fiery momentum, while the huge choruses worm their way into the listeners’ ears after just a couple of renditions; so far, so good. In fact, this winning streak continues for a fair few songs. The third track, ‘Waiting,’ is a pretty little indie romp, while ‘Magic Man,’ quickens the pace just as the record is threatening to drag, with some fiercer production, a killer riff, and even a decent guitar solo to boot. 

The rest of the songs are almost all equally pleasant; anthemic hooks, cheery guitar leads and ‘whoaaa, whoaaa, whoaaa’ bridges are stuffed into nearly every one of them. The problem is, this formula gets tired remarkably quickly, quite probably because it’s the same formula that’s been churned out by every British indie rock band since the mid-noughties. As the record drags on, it can’t help but become offensively inoffensive; we are left gagging for something different. The majority of the album would’ve been labelled derivative last decade, and from a band that sees themselves as the forerunners of a rock revival, it is ironic that they are perhaps the finest example of why the genre has grown stale as of late. Even their South-Yorkshire buddies, the Arctic Monkeys, a band they very clearly (perhaps too clearly) idolise, have managed to change things up lately. 

A refreshingly relentless optimism though, established in the opener and persistent throughout the entire 40-minute run-time, saves the record, while nostalgic lyrics and enormous guitars ensure they’ll continue to be a festival mainstay over the next few years, for better or for worse. It is by no means a poor record, just one that has already been made multiple times under countless guises over the last couple of decades. 2/5.

Interview: Another Sky

Chloe Whitehead
-
0
Interview: Another Sky

“How would you describe your music to those who haven’t heard it before? – 

Being punched in the face then kissed tenderly.”

Another Sky, a London-based four-piece band, have taken the alternative scene by storm: haunting, enchanting and curiously wistful, they secured a slot on the prestigious BBC Later…show and regularly perform across the country to smitten fans. Their incredibly well-received 2018 debut EP ‘Forget Yourself’ and recent release ‘Life Was Coming In Through The Blinds’ are a testament to the talented musicality of the band’s members, Catrin (singer and guitarist), Naomi (bassist), Jack (guitarist) and Max (drummer).

Who is your biggest musical inspiration? 

The band formed out of a mutual love for Talk Talk’s later, more experimental work. Personally, my musical hero is Tracy Chapman. She’s a storyteller who captured people’s realities, the lives that weren’t being represented in mainstream music at the time. 

Naomi is inspired by artists like Radiohead and Kelly Lee Owens. Anything wielding ethereal, heavy bass as a weapon. 

Jack is inspired massively by Tom Petty, James Taylor etc. All the classics. REM inspired Chillers, can you tell? 

Max is inspired by electronic dance music. Jon Hopkins was a big turning point for him. As a kid, he’d jam for hours to late-night BBC6 with his Dad and brother. To be honest though, we don’t each have a ‘genre’ or ‘artist’. Me, Jack and Naomi love Jon Hopkins too. We show each other music we like then assimilate each other’s tastes.


Your song ‘Apple Tree’, from your recent EP ‘Life Was Coming In Through the Blinds’, is stunning; as is the artwork. How are they related?

The original Apple Tree artwork features a man with daffodils for eyes, something artist Mikey Burey drew from the song itself. The EP artwork is a massive nod to Talk Talk’s ‘Spirit of Eden’ and ‘Laughing Stock’, but I feel it relates to Apple Tree too. We can water ourselves instead of cutting off parts of ourselves. Mikey deliberately put oranges instead of apples, though. Orange trees have to be grown in greenhouses in the UK. I don’t know why, but I feel like that’s significant.

Where is your favourite place to perform? 

We just did a show at Village Underground, our biggest venue for a headline show to date, which feels half like a Church, half like a bunker. I think…there is our favourite, so far. We like venues with vibes.

Have you ever been to Oxford before? What’s been your experience of the city? 

When we last performed in Oxford, all I had time to write in my tour diary was, ‘a woman comes up to the van and says to Naomi, “I thought you were hiding an immigrant in there”.’ Reading that back always makes me laugh. It sums up England at the moment, not just Oxford. Oxford reminds me of a more beautiful version of my hometown. It’s a fairytale place, really. We feel really calm there.

Which other acts are you looking forward to seeing at the Ritual Union Festival?

Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs Pigs, Far Caspian and SELF ESTEEM. We gigged with Far Caspian last year at Live at Leeds and I really, really, really need to meet Rebecca.


Which part of being in a band do you most prefer? Touring, writing, recording, performing …? 

I prefer writing and recording. I’m happiest holed up in a studio for days on end. Performing is a double-edged sword for me, it’s similar to taking drugs. I have the most amazing time then completely crash the next day. 


How do you think digital streaming platforms such as Spotify/Apple Music/Tidal etc is changing the music industry? 

That’s a big question. Music is more accessible to people and that’s what I love about the internet, no more gatekeeping music. Like I’d be able to buy records. But these streaming platforms don’t exist in a vacuum. It’s happening across every industry and exploitation is especially prevalent in the arts. There are some really shitty things going on.


What do you think of the popular music charts at the moment? 

We’re really happy Sam Fender got to number one.


What are your plans for the future? 

Get laid. Finally.

How to almost win a Nobel Prize

Lois Heslop
-
0
How to almost win a Nobel Prize

This week, three Oxford University academics have been awarded Nobel Prizes for their contribution to the fields of chemistry and medicine. In chemistry, Oxford Professor John Goodenough and DPhil graduate M Stanley Wittingham shared the prize for their contributions to the development of lithium-ion batteries, and in medicine the prize was shared by Professor Sir Peter J Radcliffe, for his discovery of how cells detect and respond to low oxygen levels, known as ‘hypoxia’. This brings the Nobel Prize tally for Oxford-associated academics up to 72, more than France has achieved in total. Should we be celebrating? Not yet.

In science, awards committees generally favour discoveries and contributions by an individual over an entire career. With the rise of global scientific collaboration, research papers can have tens if not hundreds of authors, so it is down to the committee to decide which scientist has made the most significant contribution. This system relies so heavily on the judgement of a select and secretive group of individuals that it has been argued that their decisions have been fraught with mistakes and omissions. Notable non-awards tend to fall into two categories: scientists who contributed to a Nobel-worthy breakthrough only to be overshadowed by colleagues or competitors, and scientists who simply set out after a problem the committee didn’t consider Nobel-worthy.

The reason for non-awards in the first category is oft suggested to be so because of the tendency of science and especially the Nobel Foundation, to be so white, male and Eurocentric. Of the 209 Nobel Laureates in physics, only three have been women, and each has shared the honour with two male colleagues; Marie Curie in 1903 for her work on radiation, Maria Goeppert-Mayer in 1963 for work on the nuclear shell atomic model and Donna Strickland last year for work on pulsed lasers. Professor of Astrophysics and Fellow at Mansfield College, Oxford, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, credited for the discovery of pulsars, was famously snubbed for the Nobel Prize in 1974, when it was instead awarded to her supervisor. In an interview with Cherwell earlier this year, Bell Burnell recalled her experiences as a grad student, recounting that “one of the reasons [she] was feeling an imposter was that [she] was a minority.” Not only are the Nobel committee so depressingly conventional, but the entire culture around academic science actively discourages the progression of women and minorities beyond undergraduate level. From prejudiced supervisors to department-wide bias, it’s uncommonly impressive that Bell Burnell and other female scientists have broken through such a hostile academic climate at all.

In the second case, we are increasingly shown that being honoured with the Nobel Prize is partly down to luck and the whim of the committee. Conveniently, the Nobel Foundation operates under a secrecy clause, and will not reveal the names of nominees or any information about the nominations until fifty years later. For several decades, the Foundation did not regard astronomy as a Nobel-worthy discipline which is thought to explain the glaring omissions of Edwin Hubble and George Hale from the honours in physics. In 2014, the prize was awarded to three Japanese scientists, Shuji Nakamura, Hiroshi Amano, Isamu Akasaki, for their invention of the blue LED light, which together with the red and the green LED, made energy-efficient bright white LED lighting possible. The inventors of the red and the green LED did not receive a Nobel Prize. Even if you are a 61-year-old American male Harvard professor (revealed to be the most likely winning Nobel combination by BBC Future), it often seems that whether or not you win the prize is largely random.

While the Nobel Prizes in science seek to recognise the individual or group “who made the most important discovery or invention in the field of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine”, as specified in Alfed Nobel’s will, it is time to break the illusion of the Nobel Prizes in science. They are not impartial, objective anointments of the best and the brightest of the world. We must recognise them for what they are, awards as academically partisan as they are scientific.

1...573574575...2,515Page 574 of 2,515

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