Monday, April 28, 2025
Blog Page 594

Lily Allen’s No Shame Refusing Remorse

“It’s a shame, shame, shame, shame for you.” It wasn’t the most popular song of her first album Alright, Still, but Lily Allen’s 2006 ‘Shame for You’ certainly carries across her early confidence. It’s not a shame for her, it’s a shame for you: “Please don’t come around and knock on my door / ‘Cause I don’t want top have to pick you up off the floor.”

Every song is gritty, forceful and unapologetic. You’d be reasonable to think that No Shame might continue in the same vein. But Allen’s latest album is far more raw and heartfelt than her earlier singles, laying bare her vulnerabilities and regrets through the lens of her broken marriage. It is a piece of work deeply imbued in its own context – it demands knowledge of biography to understand this complex, elastic sense of shame. It seems, at times, almost shameful. The first track ‘Come on Them’ declares “Yeah, I’m a bad mother / I’m a bad wife / You saw it on the socials / You read it online.”

Allen claims not to have liked her previous album Sheezus. She has been open about this in interviews, telling Stereogum, “I felt like I needed to be a pop star to pay my bills, and I didn’t feel like that, so I did what I thought pop stars should do, and it was very wrong.” Adding, “I didn’t have a sense of self at the time.” The video of the single ‘Hard out Here’ was even criticised for cultural appropriation with its inclusion of black back-up dancers. There were three years between the tour of Sheezus and the release of No Shame. According to Allen, this has been taken up by nothing but getting divorced and writing. She wanted the album to be really good, better than before – almost as if trying to atone for her previous work. It feels at times like an attempt to overcome shame – to master what she perceives as previous artistic mediocrity with a better, more personal piece of work.

In this light, No Shame becomes an almost ironic title. Her lyrics are filled with confusions, accusations admissions, and contradictions. It seems like a very real, honest depiction of divorce, filled, at times, with self-loathing. But to suggest that the title is inaccurate would be a misunderstanding. Shame, pride, any emotion at all – none of it is hidden. It is a deeply vulnerable album, full of willing exposure.

Her struggles are creatively transformed into successes. She is not denying shame, but refusing to be ashamed of her humanity. Most of all, this album tells us she is honest and a survivor, ready to fight out any battles.

The Intricacies of Married Life

In Tessa Hadley’s new novel, Late in the Day, published in hardback by Jonathan Cape, Alex loves Christine and Christine loves Alex, and Zachary loves Lydia and Lydia loves Zachary – or at least that is how things appear.

The dilemma: Alex and Lydia have feelings for each other, as do Christine and Zachary. These messy, interfamilial dynamics play out in public and in private, at home and abroad, making for a compelling look at the consequences of adultery, and of dredging up the past, for parents and their children.

The novel opens with news of Zachary’s death. Lydia telephones her friends one summer’s evening, at a moment when “the purple-brown darkness of the copper beech next door fumed against the turquoise sky”. Granted, it is subtly expressed, but something does not seem quite right. All three consider Zachary to have been the rock at the heart of their relationships and friendships; with him gone, we are left to conclude, things are bound to go off course.

We learn that Christine and Lydia first encountered Alex, then married, when he gave French classes at their university. With Lydia being someone “men usually noticed”, she makes it her goal to win him. She does, but not for long.

When he meets Christine and learns she is studying for a PhD on the poetry of Christina Rossetti, Alex picks her; Lydia has to settle for Zachary. Suffice to say Alex decides he wants Lydia again, and there their troubles begin.

Incidentally, Hadley makes an interesting structural device of the phone call. If the call in Chapter One can be said to set the plot in motion, then a second call, again between the two women, irrevocably alters the foundations of the characters’ relationships.

The foursome are upper- middle class, fond of art (Zachary owns a gallery at the time of his death, whilst Christine is, for a time, an artist), alcohol, cigarettes and classical music. Of the three survivors, none are particularly likeable. Lydia complains openly about being a “rotten mother”; we are left wondering why she has failed to address this. Alex, meanwhile, is proudly “relieved” that his daughter, Isobel, is “reserved and feminine”, so it is not hard to gauge his views on gender politics.

The claim made on the novel’s dust jacket, that it “explores the tangled webs at the centre of our most intimate relationships, to expose how beneath the seemingly dependable arrangements we make for our lives lie infinite alternate arrangements”, is borne out in Hadley’s crisp, considered prose.

We read, for instance, that, one evening, “Christine had left her cardigan on the arm of a chair and before [Alex] went upstairs again he picked it up, [and] dropped it across Lydia’s bare shoulders”. This gesture, performed with ease, is surely reflective of deeper questions about who belongs in which household, in which marriage.

Elsewhere, the narrator describes how “Alex never used his phone while he was driving – also, he despised that whole infantile obsession with needing to be in touch at every moment”. A reference to the instant messaging now ubiquitous in our lives, this description seems to hint too at Alex’s attitude to emotions, to how he feels about being ‘in touch’ with others.

The evident strains in and between the two marriages, strains which erupt after Zachary’s death, are explored cleverly by Hadley in relation to the novel’s children, who, though young, are nonetheless nearing the age at which their parents met and fell in love – or lust. As if the melding of the four parents and its impact on their children were not clear enough, Grace, the daughter of Lydia and Zachary, witnesses as a young child the four friends drunkenly fondling and fumbling one night.

Hardly surprising, then, that Grace seeks one-night stands – she is found in the opening chapter lying next to her “boyfriend from the night before” – and Alex’s daughter Isobel finds dating difficult, the two of them having been raised by parents in a state of amorous confusion.

The novel’s uplifting coda has much to contribute to the plot. As the novel opens, Christine “pause[s] outside the open door of her studio”, deciding that to return to art, “the fixed point by which she steered”, would be “sickening” and “fraudulent” given Zachary’s death. By the novel’s end, Christine has experienced a profound change of heart, one we can interpret as a sign of her liberation in grief from the constraints of domestic life. Just like Alex’s mother Margita, of whom previously “[h]er husband had taken up so much space in her attention: with his ambi- tion first, then with his disappointment … then his absence”, we sense that Christine will now put herself, and what she wants, first. Such a feminist ending – the studio is surely ‘a room of her own’, that place Virginia Woolf deemed critical to a woman’s chances at creative success – cannot be overlooked in light of the role marriage plays not only in structuring the characters’ lives but arguably the novel itself. Hadley does not finish her characters; to do so would be to fix them, and both they and what they have done cannot be fixed, only negotiated with the passing of time.

One of the novel’s particular strengths is its refusal to apportion blame to a single individual – everyone is guilty of behaving less than perfectly, of further complicating already compromised marital arrangements.
It might have been an idea to further flesh out the characters of Juliet, Alex’s first wife, and Max, Zachary’s brother, but the focus on the domestic dramas at play perhaps explains their relative lack of development.

Alex, Christine and Lydia have become unmoored with the passing of their mutual friend and, in the case of the two women, lover. As young women, Christine and Lydia are said to live “like children camping, play- ing at grown-up life”, and the transition from playful ‘kidulthood’ to responsible adulthood is one every character struggles with; the reader is left to ponder how the way they live now will pan out, if it will last, if they can ever recover their friendships, and if the way things were was better for everyone, despite the secrets and the lies that lay at the heart of their relationships.

The Entangled Affair between Britain and the Catholic Church

0

The 170% spike in Google searches for ‘Can priests get married?’ after Andrew Scott’s ‘hot priest’ in Fleabag is testimony to the reinvigorated presence of Catholicism in the public eye. But the peculiar allure of the cloth has a long and illustrious history, from the lecherous priests of the Decameron to screen incarnations like Brideshead Revisited and Father Ted. In an increasingly chaotic world where people are more likely to recount their sins on Instagram than in the confessional, the sense of tradition and taboo around Catholicism and its rituals conspire to make it more irresistible than ever.

Perhaps Catholicism is destined to fall prey to the cinematic imagination. The multi-sensory service is theatrical in itself, with its ‘smells and bells’ and rainbow of liturgical vestments; the endless lumbering between standing and kneeling positions can recall a game of Musical Chairs, played to the accompaniment of 16th century polyphony. Of course, the British haven’t always found these qualities so endearing. Centuries of persecution, whose effects are still felt in Ireland today, compounded the heady sense of guilt associated with a religion that emphasised the necessity of confession and the threat of hell.

Even in Waugh’s time, Catholics were political and cultural outsiders in England – it is not just the hedonism of Lord Sebastian Flyte that enchants Charles Ryder in Brideshead, but the family’s religion and the adulterous love of Flyte’s sister Julia. Yet Waugh, and the elegiac voiceovers from Jeremy Irons in the 1981 TV series, treat the faith with veneration, even as they revel in flaunting its rules. Ultimately, all roads lead to Rome: the alcoholic Sebastian joins a monastery; Lord Marchmain is reconciled with the Church on his deathbed; Julia chooses her faith over marriage to Charles. Catholicism, exclusionary and exotic, is bound up with nostalgia for an age of the English nobility, and much as Brideshead’s characters and their audiences may delight in transgression, their paths from sin to redemption reflect a respect for and belief in tradition as an antidote to modernity.

In 1995, on-screen Catholicism became more “Drink! Feck! Arse! Girls!”. Father Ted had neither the religious conscience nor the sex appeal of Brideshead, but the surrealism of a show populated by outlandish caricatures and priests behaving badly made it a hit across the world. Even more strikingly, although anti-Catholicism in England had abated greatly since World War II, partly due to an increase in secularism, this was an Irish series – made and set in a country where Catholicism was literally a matter of life or death from the 60s to the Good Friday Agreement and beyond.

The presence of the Church in Father Ted is not theological, as in the works of Waugh and Greene, but as an institution, whose rituals and decrees are shown to be comically incompatible with the morally lax modern attitudes embodied by Ted. Ted’s frantic attempts to escape from his provincial purgatory and back into the arms of vice are constantly frustrated; unable to commit properly to either sin or godliness, he flounders in shame of a different kind, a limbo of secular embarrassment that provides many of the laughs in the show.

For all its irreverence, this take on a divisive subject matter was ultimately humanising, using Catholicism to comment on the universally relatable theme of moral frailty. As one Dublin priest put it: “It captures an essential part of comedy, which is to offer a view of reality, which at times might not be complimentary, and yet it’s presented in a way that gets around people’s differences.”

And so to the kiss that electrified feminists. When Fleabag’s priest breathed “fuck you calling me Father like it doesn’t turn you on just to say it”, he neatly encapsulated the secularisation of Catholicism in popular TV: its transformation from faith to fetish. Mass attendance fell by 400,000 from 1993-2010; in 2018, 70% of young adults in the UK reported that they had no religious affiliation. To many of Fleabag’s viewers, the Church, with its Latin chants and ‘smoking handbags’, is exotic and unfamiliar; its once formidable reputation diminished by conservative social views and a slew of sex abuse scandals.

The appeal of the forbidden is nothing new – but this is Catholicism for the Brexit generation. Church, crown, and state command a sliver of the power they wielded in centuries past. In a ‘post-truth’ age where lies from politicians, corporations and influencers alike can spread without consequence, the Hot Priest represents not only a taboo, but nostalgia for a tradition with a sense of moral order. People may have behaved as terribly in the 1900s as they do now – but at least they pretended to feel bad about it.

You can hack the spice!

0

Spiciness is a quantifiable yet relativistic concept. The level of tolerance for the little red and green devils depends a lot on what you ate as a child. Nevertheless, we all have a limit, not just with the tongue but the stomach as well. Although I have never suffered the misfortune of a stomach upset after a crewdate at Jamal’s (for me I cannot taste any spices from their food), pretty much all of us spice-lovers have to endure the pain on a bad day. Spices, however, are not as antagonistic to our digestive system as you might think: in fact, if eaten well they can make your stomach stronger! Here are several things you might want to consider when craving that hot taste:

1. Not all spices are the same! Most hot spices are obtained from a pepper or chilli plant, though some plant leaves, like mustard greens, are also spicy, and so are some roots, like ginger and horseradish. Chilli peppers contain an ingredient called capsaicin, which causes irritation to the skin when getting into contact and can prevent the normal functioning of the gastrointestinal tract. But many other spices are known to help digestion: ginger, for example, helps to reduce gas, bloating, cramping within the stomach, and may even help with menstrual cramping. Cardamom, as part of the ginger family, performs a similar role in digestion while also providing a source for minerals. Cumin and turmeric, although not spicy in taste, can also be of service to digestive health.

2. Try to limit the intake of other foods which may irritate the stomach. Indian and Mexican food, the two cuisines that receive the vast majority of accusations for causing tummy troubles, contain a lot of other ingredients: red meat, butter (ghee especially), cheese, acid, and portions of oil. Even if your stomach can tolerate a high degree of spiciness, it might not be able to tackle a combined cohort of spices and other ingredients. There are plenty of spicy dishes that are healthier than a greasy takeaway curry-my recommendations would be daal, Korean kimchi stew and seafood tacos.

3. Try to compliment spicy food with the right drinks as well. Caffeine and alcohol are the devils in this regard, while fizzy drinks can cause gas and bloating which are not helpful either. Drink some yoghurt to increase the good bacteria in your gut: a tip here is to order a delicious side of raita in an Indian restaurant. Alternatively, you can also drink cold water to cool down the inflammation caused by spices. So lock up your booze cupboard and pick up some Activia the next time you are feeling chilli.

Happy spicing!

Mauricio Pochettino: the best of the rest

0

The date is the 17th April 2019. The time is 21:49. Manchester City coach Pep Guardiola, who just several minutes ago sprinted the length of the touchline celebrating his side’s supposed late winner, is slouched in the Etihad dugout, forlorn, with his hands on his head. He cannot believe what he has just witnessed, and nor can the football world.

Mauricio Pochettino’s success at Tottenham Hotspur this season is represented by the scoreboard shining out onto the hallowed turf below. It reads 4-3, with Spurs heading through on away goals. Tottenham, having just eliminated the favourites from Europe’s most prestigious competition, the Champions League, have reached the semi-finals for the first time in the club’s history.

Although this was a major shock to everyone involved with football, not least Guardiola, this victory is not the reason Pochettino should win manager of the season. It is instead that, given the might of the financial behemoths in modern football, Mauricio Pochettino is running on a limited budget, with an injury-stricken squad, and yet he has secured Spurs their historic Champions League semi-finals spot and is one game away from securing Champions League football for a fifth consecutive season.

This week Tottenham will open their account in the semi-finals for their first time, faced with fellow tournament underdogs Ajax, and yet have four senior players out injured with Moussa Sissoko just returning after a short spell on the sidelines. Two of those players, Harry Winks and Harry Kane, are arguably two of the most central to Tottenham’s team, and with Kane being Tottenham’s record European goalscorer it must be argued that he is an enormous miss for this tie. Given his absence in the fixture against Manchester City, though, Mauricio Pochettino is clearly doing an excellent job with the players he has available, and “star players” need not be the key component of his formula for a winning team.

It goes without saying that with the suspension of the recently prolific goalscorer Heung-Min Son, who has so often stepped up in Kane’s absence, this tie will be a hard-fought match for Spurs. However, Pochettino’s man-management in both the group stage and the previous two rounds of the competition has proved that he can get the best out of his players.

In addition to the injury list, it is worth noting that Spurs have made zero signings in the last two transfer windows, becoming the first-ever English club not to sign a player in the summer market (although given that Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy sanctioned £850 million to be spent on the club’s new stadium, it’s clear that the club’s focus has been elsewhere than on the pitch).

To his credit, however, Pochettino has delivered results in a difficult time financially for the football club in which both the manager and attacking midfielder Christian Eriksen have reportedly been contemplating moves away. In comparison, Manchester City have a net spend of £-563.24 million over the last five years, a profligate sum against Tottenham’s thrifty £-28.25 million. This is another testament to the astounding achievement on Pochettino’s part to tactically outmanoeuvre Manchester City over two legs despite the striking gap in and financial investment spending power.

Despite this lack of transfer activity, it is becoming apparent now that with their growing injury list, Spurs have few senior players left to put on the bench for this Champions League fixture, but the onus for this is on owner Daniel Levy, and not on Pochettino himself. This is why Tottenham’s position in the League and the Champions League this season is phenomenal and is largely down to the actions and superb man-management of Mauricio Pochettino.

Although Tottenham still must overcome a scintillating Ajax team to reach the Champions League final, regardless of the outcome of this fixture, Pochettino’s season as Tottenham Hotspur manager has been simply outstanding. If they manage to secure victory away at Bournemouth this weekend, they will finally secure Champions League football for next season, a terrific success given the financial might of Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United below them. If indeed Pochettino’s Tottenham do manage to advance any further in the Champions League, it could be a very special season for them, and winning would result in the first true underdog victory since 2004.

There is still much to play for this season, but with his achievements already, there is no doubt: While Klopp and Guardiola occupy the headlines, it is Pochettino who slips under the radar, and is certainly a contender for Manager of the Season this year.

A sport for everyone?

0

The traditional perception of croquet as a genteel, chess-like game is very much at odds with the game’s true nature – at least at an amateur level. Nothing satisfies more than, with the other players baying for blood, stepping up and pummelling your arch-enemy’s ball deep into the thickest possible hedge to raucous jeers of approval.

The Elysian setting of many croquet lawns (particularly in Oxford), with immaculate grass, a spreading beech tree, and a jug of Pimm’s on the table, can serve to mask the casual malice of the game.

Participants may look like they are getting along, with the game often proceeding very slowly. But in their grasp they have blunt wooden instruments capable of denting even the most resilient of skulls. Despite the game often being played on vicarage-like lawns, it can often have such an incendiary effect on those taking part.

In contrast, professional croquet is often dubbed “snooker on grass” – with the successful player often having to think multiple shots ahead – and avoids the viciousness popularly associated with amateur croquet. In top-flight croquet it is tactically unwise to dispatch your opponent into the shrubbery, not least because there is rarely any shrubbery enclosing professional croquet lawns, just a neatly marked-out court.

It is also strange to think that, in order to achieve maximum control in croquet, you are expected to strike the ball with the smallest face of the mallet… why don’t we all consistently hit tennis balls with the frame (on purpose that is), footballs with our toes and putt with the tip of our putters?

It’s also difficult to process that this game is in fact a race between participants to get a ball through a prescribed order of hoops with a mallet in the quickest time, since everything happens so slowly.

By the same token, extreme versions of this genteel sport seem somewhat contradictory: the aptly named “extreme croquet” shuns the garden setting for a more robust terrain which lacks any out-of-bounds or field specifications, featuring hills, mud, sand and water hazards. Bicycle croquet is another variation, in which players are allowed just ten seconds to complete a shot. Meanwhile, millions of people around the world play Japanese “gateball”, a sort of five-a-side speed croquet.

Croquet even managed to make its way to the South Pole in 2005 when a group of American scientists played the game outside the South Pole Observatory. The UK’s highest croquet lawn was created in 2016 in the form of a pop-up croquet garden at the top of the shard. In this sense, croquet seems to be following a similar tack to golf: removing the sport from its traditionally stable environment and placing it in ever-extreme conditions. Cross the game of croquet with a game of miniature golf and you get the hybrid “crazy croquet”.

Moving on from the setting and the technicalities of the sport to the people who play it: just like sports such as boxing or darts, there have been plenty of colourfully-named professional players over the years in croquet, such as Colin “Gritter” Irwin and hall-of-famer David “The Beast” Maugham. This is not something you might expect from a sport that is traditionally considered snobbish and aloof.

To be sure, croquet is not an entirely exclusive sport, and in Oxford’s Trinity term when all you need is something that resembles the right equipment, a bit of space, and a group of friends who want to get involved, this side of the game becomes clear.

Yes, participants tend to be older, mainly because they have got the time to do it, but there are plenty of people in their forties who play as well. In fact, in common with bowls, the majority of players are pensioners, but at the game’s highest level, players tend to be much younger, since strong eyesight and good balance are essential in a sport which requires that players try to knock a ball through a small hoop 30 metres away. Furthermore, despite its reputation as an outdated and conservative sport which works against progression, croquet was in fact the first outdoor sport to embrace equality by allowing both sexes to play the game on an equal footing.

Nonetheless, croquet seems incapable of shaking off its categorisation either as a post-prandial lark for posh people looking for something frivolously sociable to do in their country houses or as a confusing competitive sport that has too many governing bodies, tournaments, and arcane rules to keep track of. However, one of the most amusing things about croquet is that everyone plays it according to their own marginally different rules. At the highest level, there is of course Association Croquet. Golf Croquet is easier to compute and is widely played in many clubs, and then there’s Garden Croquet, a simplified form of Association Croquet. This does have official rules, but in practice it’s likely to be as idiosyncratic as your playing group.

Indeed, Lewis Carroll’s surreal version of the game in Alice in Wonderland typifies the make-your-own-rules approach to croquet which forms part of the sport’s unique appeal: a hedgehog was used as the ball and a flamingo as the mallet, while soldiers doubled over to make the hoops.

Despite being a fictional representation of the game, it shows how playing in different environments and with different equipment, rules, and participants, croquet can be endlessly entertaining. Croquet is, at its core, a test of tactics, strategy, and skill but it can also just be an opportunity to socialise and drink yourself tipsy.

Incorrect Impressions

0

In the late 19th century, out of the depths of Romanticism and Realism before it, a predominantly French art movement began to emerge. Swaying from the minutiae and monotony of clear, defined, detailed paintings that the public were accustomed to, the Salon des Refusés was founded on the principle of housing, as the name suggests, artwork rejected by the more traditional tastes of the Salon. Gone were the clearly defined figures, gone was the need for an obsession with reality, and gone was the predominance of tonal contrast over colour. Impressionism had been born.

Ripples of Impressionism persisted for the ensuing century and, as ever with a movement so influential, there is a tendency to romanticise and isolate its founding principles. So stylistically revolutionary seem Monet’s jolly, middle-class tableaus that we see Impressionism as a rogue wave, formed independently from the surrounding artistic tide. It is comfortable, cosy, convenient even, to assume that Impressionism was a movement, emerging suddenly in a spirit of iconoclastic individuality. But this would be misguided. Far from thoughtful revolution, Impressionism can be seen as a continuation from realist principles (bear with me on that one; I realise it sounds heretically juxtaposed) rather than a spontaneous movement. Even within itself, the movement is rather blurry, lacking the distinct edges of definition that allow us to say: this is Impressionism.

Though the word Impressionism has grown to have a fairly large scope, the intentions of Monet are easier to define. The movement takes its name from his painting ‘Impression – Sunrise’ (pictured above) and this composition is as good an example as any at clarifying the beginnings of Impressionism. Composed entirely in terms of colour rather than the more realistic tonal contrasts, the blue-greens and yellow-oranges Monet used veil the reality of the painting, as does the absence of outlines. Brush strokes form sensations of colour, vibrations of contrast, forcing colour itself to become the subject, rather than a human figure or architectural object. Had he painted ‘Impression – Sunrise’ a few minutes later, the boats would be gone and the sun slightly higher and less orange. The overwhelming sense of ephemerality in this style of painting is consistent throughout almost all of Monet’s work; his snapshots of middle-class frivolities were mostly painted there and then, providing an impression of what he saw on-the-spot. A hatred for theorising and analysis meant that Monet abandoned the slaving away in a studio, painting rapidly in the open air. In this way, the paintings provide Monet’s self-described “naïve impression”, forcing us to explore and evaluate our own sensory ideas of the scene instead of being presented with an easy reality.

This style, initially seen as challenging to understand by the general public, is in fact an evolution of post-Enlightenment realist tendencies. In the age of positivism and Auguste Comte, empiricism had taken a hold in the philosophical zeitgeist, with intelligentsia increasingly coming round to the view that sense perceptions are the only reliable foundation of knowledge. In this way, Realism (the predecessor to Impressionism) thought it unjust not to represent reality as it was. Monet, and subsequent impressionists, took that a step further: they should invent nothing, painting only what they saw in the moment. Now, you may be thinking: “I don’t see things in blurry lines or blocks of colour” And you may be right, but I’d ask you next time you’re in a busy park or watching boats sailing down a river to really look: how many of the people in the distance are you really seeing? Are the highlights on the leaves just a lighter green, or are there glimpses of yellow reflected sunlight peaking through the branches?

Perhaps then, these subjective principles inevitably lead to such variation as we see in Impressionism. But it is not merely variation in individual style that occurs; rather, it becomes challenging to see Impressionism as a single movement when artists deviate far from its founding principles. Manet, for a start, never actually exhibited artwork with the Impressionists, and his famous ‘A Bar at Folies-Bergère’ shows elements of his traditional training, paying far more attention to human form and portraiture detail in the barmaid than Monet ever did with any subject. Compare Manet’s human detail and Monet’s subtly composed landscapes to the work of Cézanne in both fields and you are almost leagues apart. Degas, also universally considered an Impressionist, is certainly lively in his work, but his canvases are often filled with a gradient of rust-coloured oranges and browns, lacking the colourful potency that helped make Impressionism so distinctive. Perhaps as good an indication as any that the movement is difficult to define is that two of its most famous painters, Cézanne and Seurat, both are artistic stepping stones to subsequent movements, Cezanne being considered a bridge between Impressionism and Cubism, and Seurat the more fluid link between Impressionism and Pointillism. A further interesting point is the abundance of French names in this list, begging the question of if the movement is, or should be considered exclusively French, given the alignment of foreign painters like Sorolla with Impressionist principles, something that is rarely recognised because he is Spanish.

Deviation from principles of an art movement is something to be expected and encouraged. Indeed, Picasso described Cézanne as like “the father of us all”, a quote unlikely to have been uttered if Cezanne was more closely aligned with Monet. It is not a bad thing, or even a criticism, that certain artists within a movement strayed from its tenets, but it highlights an unescapable fluidity of progression, deviation, and evolution that art undergoes. While it is much easier to categorise and compartmentalise artists into groups, the next time you read on an exhibition plaque that so-and-so was part of a singular movement, consider whether that is truly the case.

Moving through our suffering: the arresting power of Marina Abramovic

0

“Pardon, what are you looking for?” (repeated) “The exit.”

“Ah, yes. It is down there, between the naked people, and to the right.” Out of everything at Marina Abramovic’s 2017 exhibition The Cleaner (Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Denmark), it is this piece of dialogue that has made the most lasting impression on me. It is not one of her performance pieces, but a real-life encounter laden with irony. A young woman asking how to leave an exhibition about body politics, and a guard giving her the route to do so, candidly listing as one of the required steps a sideways shuffle between a straight faced nude pair standing against either architrave of a doorway. It is as if he is used to answering that question. Telling people to go “between the naked people” no longer moves him – there is no shock, no giggle, no cringe. The visitor’s quest for the exit, however, says something about how Abramovic’s work moved them.

In fact, few other artists – performance or other – have achieved the visceral effects Abramovic has. Using her own body and energy as her primary materials, Abramovic’s work is mentally and physically demanding, for both her and her audiences. In fact, it is relentless. ‘Reperformances’ form a key part of Abramovic’s method. She wants to keep the art live and alive. It must not be left in the 1970s and forgotten. In the immediate sense, she must undergo a physical repetition (or at least the films are rewound and replayed). But they are not perfect replicas or restagings: they move, with fresh life, in and of themselves. These past works are perpetually given new life and body in real time. The exhibition at the Louisiana Museum was the first major retrospective display of Abramovic’s work. Guided by the museum’s curation, we start with an “initiation of fire” to Abramovic’s style, by walking through ‘Sound Corridor (War)’ (1971). This is exactly what it sounds like: a narrow corridor filled with the clattering of machine guns. From here, we work our way through around 100 pieces taken from across five decades of Abramovic’s work.

Forcibly put in the position of an un-empowered bystander, we witness scenes of Abramovic’s naked body being freely abused by a room of strangers, scenes of her screaming and bleeding. She thrusts upon us the decision of the extent to which we wish to engage with what is exposed. And yes, that is “exposed” in every sense: her naked body, and the latent violence of people in everyday life. In 1974 in Belgrade, Abramovic staged (or rather, did not stage, as that implies a sense of control, which she certainly did not have on this piece, despite taking “full responsibility” for the “finished piece”) one of her most shocking acts: ‘Rhythm 0’. She stands, naked and unmoving, in a room. In the same room there is a large table, upon which 72 objects are laid out. These range from everyday objects (a comb, lipstick, a spoon), to food (honey, an apple, bread), to those with disturbingly threatening potential (a pocket knife, matches, scissors), and finally, to the outright dangerous: “I had a pistol with bullets in it, my dear.” Strangers – the audience – were invited to “use” these objects on Abramovic in any way they wished. There was no mandatory instruction to do so; they were, as already said, invited. There was no requirement for the objects to be used in a violent manner. However, six hours later, Abramovic was left (somehow) standing covered in cuts, blood, a gently draped feather boa, and tears. Different audience members reacted in different ways to this blank canvas, but the majority of them were abusive.

Having an emotional response to this is not a choice. Shocked, confused, upset, I questioned why people felt moved to act in such ways. I resented Abramovic for showing me the brutal impulse lurking within their core.

What we do have a choice in, however, is the extent to which we engage with these emotional responses – both of ourselves and of the strangers in the video. What did I do when given this option? I moved onto the next display in the gallery. Like the young woman asking for the exit, I wanted out.

It becomes clear that the intention behind Abramovic’s art is to unveil the frailties of free will, and what atrocities we could commit when given the choice. The Cleaner ends with what can only be described as the antithesis of its beginning. A white room overlooks the craggy rocked shore of Zealand’s eastern coast. Plain and modest little booths of two seats facing each other are orderly arranged. Each seat has a pair of noise cancelling headphones on it. You sit down, and wait for someone – anyone – to do the same, facing you. Then you stare at each other. For as long as you want, in whatever manner you wish. The only rule agreed upon is that you are silent, and still. There is no physical movement encouraged here. Instead, it is a moment of introspection and quiet reflection. At the same time, it is an opportunity to investigate your seated twin. This piece fosters a disquieting engagement with time, forcing the participant into the present with a sense of artificial immediacy.

The effect of this piece is similar to that of The Artist Is Present. The eternal present tense of this title ensures its durability, as does the effect it has on the viewer. It inevitably stays with them. Abramovic first performed the piece at the MoMa Gallery in New York in 2010. Like in the little white room in the Louisiana Museum, Abramovic sat in silence and stillness in a chair, with an empty one opposite her. Visitors came and went, taking their turn (if desired) in the vacant seat. Reactions varied: some wept, others smirked; some seemed self-conscious, others contemplative. One woman removed all of her clothes and had to be forcibly removed by security. Such are the actions provoked by this inertia. Abramovic sits us down with another person and forces us to see them, to look at them, and to realise the complexities and interiority that define them.

Over the course of her career, Abramovic has experienced countless numbers of reactions from people, both during her performance pieces and in critical responses to them afterwards. She has been subjected to violence, self-exposure, and weeping. As an artist, she lives to move others. But what can sometimes go unnoticed is the artist’s own response to the audiences, and indeed, to her own works. ‘Rhythm 0’ happened in real time for both her and us watching. If we are stunned, saddened, or moved in any way when we watch the pieces on film, imagine what Abramovic herself was experiencing during it too. Audience responses can never be preplanned, and neither therefore can the artist’s response be.

From having seen The Cleaner, it seems that Abramovic has been moved by her work, rather than her work having been directed by her. The transition from ‘Sound Corridor (War)’ to The Artist Is Present captures this idea of promoting her own artistic intention to the cultivation fo a more free-flowing performance space. After all the experiences of people’s freely-willed choices to abuse her body, Abramovic got sick of letting people have a choice. Throughout The Cleaner, her work becomes quieter, stiller. They are more physically controlled but retain their mentally demanding quality. Her flesh may be susceptible to the knife, but it is our potential imorality that is vulnerable to exposure. Perhaps the dialogue between the young woman and the guard has stayed with me, because it demonstrates an inevitably failed attempt to continue propping up the state of denial we live in. Even if the young woman wants to leave the gallery, she still must pass “between the naked people” – between the bodies and the lives of others of which Abramovic is so painfully trying to make us aware.

The End of an Era: Endgame

0

Warning- Review contains Spoilers

After eleven years and 21 films, the Russo brothers had a lot riding on their shoulders to deliver a satisfying conclusion to the ‘Infinity Saga’.  Avengers: Endgame does exactly that and justifies the hype that Marvel has generated around the film. Poignant, heart-breaking, thrilling and epic. Avengers: Endgame sees a decade of storytelling brought to a fulfilling culmination, carrying multiple character arcs to a close, but also setting the foundations for the MCU’s future.

Multiple fan theories which mused that the Avengers would undo the decimation by travelling into the past to collect the Infinity stones were proved accurate. Scott Lang’s escape from the Quantum realm thanks to a universe-saving rat, combined with Tony Stark’s genius, enables the remaining Avengers to pluck the stones from the past and build an Infinity gauntlet of their own. The MCU’s rules of time travel are clearly explained without delving into too much exposition. Interestingly, the concept takes on a very different form compared to other films, whereby altering the past does not change the future. Instead the future becomes the time traveller’s past and inevitable. Any alteration to previous events creates a new timeline at the moment of change, bringing Doctor Strange’s introduction of the multiverse into the fore and presenting opportunities for new forms of storytelling in the future.

Tony’s bumble thanks to an angry hulk who doesn’t like stairs means that the 2012 version of Loki is able to nab the Tesseract and make his escape, potentially setting up his Disney Plus series with the original version of Loki sadly remaining dead in Endgame. The limited screen time that the fan favourite is afforded sees him up to his usual delightful antics, mocking Captain America and the Hulk, and using any situation to his advantage.

The rules presented in Endgame initially appear a little confusing, and if you think about them too hard you can be left with more questions than answers, for example how Captain America was able to return to the past to reunite with Peggy without creating another alternate timeline. The Avenger’s decision to return the fallen five years after the decimation also carries significant ramifications for humanity: loved ones return after people have managed to move on with their lives, and whilst those who were snapped have not aged, surviving spouses will suddenly find themselves five years older than their significant other.

However, the alternate timeline theory was the only way that the events of the films since the first Avengers could be preserved. The heroes’ journey through previous marvel films evokes fans nostalgia to the fullest and makes for some comic moments. Take away the music from the beginning of Guardians of the Galaxy and Star Lord’s sing along suddenly looks much less cool. It also enables some of the film’s most poignant moments, such as Tony’s conversation with his Father in 1970 and Thor’s heart to heart with his Mother during the events of Thor: The Dark World, which makes him realise that failure is an acceptable part of life even for a God.

Our heroes’ failure to prevent Thanos from wiping out half of all life in the universe left them in a dark place. Yet it is a testament to the skill of screenwriters Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely that the film is simultaneously amusing and emotionally devastating. Thor’s “I went for the head” when the Avengers dispatch Thanos surprisingly early on in the film, draws a laugh from the audience, but also reminds us of the immense guilt upon the God of Thunder’s shoulders.

A number of fans have taken issue with the shockingly different appearance of Thor for the majority of the film, stemming from his failure to stop Thanos, but the way he is characterised in Endgame is a compelling part of his character arc. Driven into depression by the enormous losses he suffered in Thor: Ragnarok and Infinity War, he retreats into alcohol and food for comfort. Gone are the chiselled abs, replaced by a beer-belly and matted hair to reflect his mental anguish. Yet after everything that he has suffered, this new direction makes sense for Thor and was not just a case of an overweight character being played for laughs. The fat jokes may have been overdone slightly (we’re looking at you Rhodey) but to see Thor at such a place reveals the human in the God, as he comes to accept who he is. Thor made it clear in Dark World that he had no desire to rule and Endgame frees him from the burden in the best way possible.

The final showdown against 2014-era Thanos is one of the most epic fight scenes in the entire MCU to date, as for the first and last time nearly all of the Avengers, old and new assemble to defeat the Mad Titan and his army. A female team up is particularly awesome. Although some may see this scene as too forced, it draws attention to the diversity that Marvel has brought to the superhero genre. Fans who were concerned that Captain Marvel would swoop in and overshadow the original Avengers would have been satisfied that the climatic moment is awarded to Tony Stark, the character who spawned a cinematic universe. Tony’s death was bittersweet, as he is finally able to rest, sacrificing the happiness that he had managed to find in the face of the Avengers failure.

Whilst this action sequence was truly powerful, Endgame is fundamentally more of a character driven piece compared to Infinity War, providing a more fitting goodbye for the original Avengers team and giving each member their moment to shine. True to its name, the film sees the end of some big faces. Ironman and Captain America had been expected, but Black Widow’s death came as a big surprise. The scene had you on edge throughout as Natasha and Clint rolled closer to the edge in their bid to be the one to sacrifice themselves for the Soul Stone.

Endgame’s focus on character is to be applauded, but the amount of plot it needed to bring to a conclusion means that there are a couple of relationships that are pushed to the side. Considering Steve and Bucky’s friendship has been a central dynamic to the Captain America franchise, the duo’s reunion feels a little rushed. Some fans have been disappointed that Captain America passed his legacy onto Falcon, but considering that Bucky is still coming to terms with the dreadful deeds Hydra forced him to perform, Sam Wilson was the best character to bear the shield.

Avengers: Endgame looks set to displace Avatar as the highest grossing film of all time, and such an achievement, to me, would be well deserved for arguably the world’s most successful film franchise of all time.

Ovid’s poetic legacy: a journey

0

Homer told the tale of Achilles and his wrath; Virgil sang of arms and of men. Bestowing a new existential purpose upon the epic genre, and through continual narrative vividly portrays the movements running throughout Ovid’s Metamorphoses veers away from the familiar realm of the battlefield, once so essential in identifying epic as the poetry of war. Instead, the Roman poet is preoccupied with the form of storytelling itself, with his tales: his is an epic of art, and art that emerges from metamorphoses.

Even the construction of Ovid’s epic reflects metamorphosis. Made up of 15 books, each one ends with a transformation, flowing naturally into the next. Ovid sets up a harmonious balance between the cyclical nature of the cosmos and the linear timeline of history so that the two spheres coexist as the backdrop for his investigation of humanity. The Metamorphoses starts with the origins of the world born out of chaos, allowing the reader to see myths of antiquity through Ovid’s eyes as they navigate through time up until the poet’s present day. Ovid refers to his poem as an all-encompassing “carmen”, or song, for the nature of mankind, evolving continuously as the poet himself assumes different personae.

Ovid embodies a prolific poetic imagination that has enthralled the minds of modern poets and Renaissance artists alike. They subsequently strove to emulate his remarkably self-conscious approach to the creation of art, something so modern in sensibility. In ‘Ode to a Nightingale’, Romantic poet Keats alludes to the Ovidian retelling of myths, harking back to Philomela and her metamorphosis into a nightingale. Bob Dylan is another modern bard following in Ovid’s footsteps, inviting us to “dance to the nightingale tune” in his song ‘Jokerman’. By reworking the ideas of the Roman poet, these two descendants carry on a literary tradition established millennia ago. The animal itself becomes symbolic for movement and transformation. Keats, Dylan, and Ovid all share a desire to achieve that same level of raw truth first encapsulated by Homer. And so, just as the nightingale’s song is passed down through centuries, thus the songbird of poetry is immortalised through generations of reincarnation.

The metamorphosis of Ovid’s poetry has ensured its legacy, as prophesied in his own words: “I shall live through the ages.” Like the phoenix rising from the ashes in the final book, Ovid’s spirit is reborn every time a new bard reinterprets his words.