Sunday, May 11, 2025
Blog Page 666

The Mountaintop Review – ‘explores the man behind the pulpit’

-
0
The Mountaintop Review – ‘explores the man behind the pulpit’

It’s not every day that you hear a Migos track booming out of a theatre in North Oxford, but for Katori Hall’s ambitious play The Mountaintop, which made her the first black woman in history to win the Olivier Award for Best New Play, that was only the start of many surprises.

Set during the height of America’s Civil Rights Movement, on the night before Martin Luther King’s death, the audience is transported to Room 306 at the Lorraine Motel on 3rd April 1968. The Mountaintop begins when Dr. King returns to his motel room on a stormy night, having just delivered one of his most iconic speeches called “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” at Mason Temple in Memphis, in support of a sanitation workers’ strike.

The historical figure of Martin Luther King understandably looms over this play, and given the frequent mythologizing of great men, we tend to approach these figures with some sort of reverence. An essential part of Hall’s writing however, is her ability to usurp this model and encourage her audience to explore the man behind the pulpit. This is in no doubt encouraged by Gbolahan Obisesan’s portrayal of King, as he faithfully imitates the cadence of King’s drawl. Obisesan’s King is very conscious of how he appears to the outside world, keeping elements of his suit on throughout his performance. Despite this, we are given intimate access to King, and from the moment we watch him urinate in his motel room, it is very clear that Hall is not interested in playing into respectability politics. Hall accentuates his flaws, even down to a hole in his socks. Hall’s King smokes, curses, and cannot stop himself from stealing lingering looks at the mysterious chambermaid, Camae.

This intimate picturing is channelled through Rajha Shakiry’s beige 60s motel suite, as the audience feels like they are looking through a window at the last moments of this man’s life. The simplistic nature of the set has the further effect of accentuating the chemistry between King and Camae. The dynamic between both characters is electric and it is only with her that he seems to be able to let his guard down.

Dramatic irony is used with great poignancy throughout the play, as everyone in the theatre excluding King knows that this is his last night on earth. Despite this fact, as events unfold it sometimes becomes hard to remember that what we are watching has effectively already become history. A powerful reminder of this is delivered when King asks Camae how she has tomorrow’s paper and she replies matter-of-factly with “Tomorrow’s already here”. Paranoia seeps into Obisesan’s portrayal of King and there are numerous references throughout to his impending death, including a mention to his contemporary Malcolm X, who was the same age as King when he died.

This sense of foreboding is channelled through Lizzie Powell’s lightning which illuminates the stage with bright light, in harmony with the thunder outside. As the lighting and thunder appear more frequently, King repeatedly shrinks back, fearing that the noises of thunder are possible gunshots. The peak of King’s frenzied paranoia marks a shift in the action of the play as Camae calls him by his birth name, Michael, in an attempt to soothe him. Thinking her a spy, King raids the motel looking for bugs and violently lunges for her.

Completely bewitching in her portrayal of Camae, Rochelle Rose takes her performance to another level when it is revealed that she is an angel that has been sent to take King to the other side. This is the pinnacle of the play’s ambitious imagining of the night before King’s death, as it weaves in metaphysical and superstitious elements. Beautiful and audacious, Rose’s Camae is the complete opposite of this ‘bougie Negro’ and we can understand and see why King is attracted and captivated by her.

We are guided through the play by Camae, who ties all the threads of the play together, and simultaneously centres the audience in the past, present, and future. This is perfectly encapsulated in the montage towards the end of the play when King agrees to accept his fate but only if he is able to see the future. What happens next is almost overwhelming, as we are whipped through a journey in history from 1968 to the present. What is most striking about this video reel is that over time some images now provoke conflicting responses, such as a picture of The Cosby Show. There are also images from our present such as Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, Marvel’s Black Panther, and Serena Williams.

Undoubtedly, the play’s success lies in its function of serving as a reminder of the importance of King’s legacy, which is a fitting message for Black History Month. Contemporary relevance can also be seen in echoes to resistance movements such as Black Lives Matter through King’s constant repetition of the name ‘Larry Payne’, a 16-year-old black boy who was killed at the hands of a white police officer.

Through this montage, Camae allows King to see his dream realised. King is finally speechless after seeing the events of this distant future, and at the end of the play he invites us to be a part of this legacy by directly addressing the audience with a rousing speech and asking, “Can I get an amen?”.

Upon leaving the theatre, I was filled with an overwhelming sense of optimism but most importantly, duty. This sense of responsibility for the future is heavily discussed at the end of the play and is captured in the image of ‘passing the baton’, reminding us that, despite our society’s strides towards equality, there is still a long way to go.

Fashion Goes Tits Up

Cara Nicholson
-
0
Fashion Goes Tits Up

When it comes to the language of the female body, particularly that which polices the appearance of breasts, there is a lot of work to be done. Practical minded people would have you know that breasts are merely an organ, but we cannot equate their cultural significance to the kidneys for example. Since breasts are externally visible, and likely because they are inherently linked to femininity and the maternal, cleavage politics are rarely neutral and stand at the intersection of gender, size, race, and class. I have no desire to answer the why part of how mankind (and not just man – the average woman spends $4000 on bras in her lifetime) is so fixated on boobs, yet it is worth looking at how past styles have succumbed to the existing culture of judgement surrounding the female body. I would ask whether recent trends have either exacerbated or worked to dispel the emotional baggage that accompanies owning a pair.

The past hundred years have seen rapid changes to what is deemed acceptable. In an online age of visual culture writ large, those with power can dictate the decade’s style with just one image or ad campaign. While the 1920’s flapper style favoured the waifish and ‘athletic’, the 1950’s tea dress encouraged an hourglass figure. Fast forward to the 1990’s, and Kate Moss’s iconic Calvin Klein ads served to popularise ‘heroin chic’ in rebellion against the more voluptuous models of the 80’s. Indeed, the representation of breasts throughout history has undeniably attached moral value to a woman’s appearance. Though past societies did not deny the sexual allure of breasts, women with large breasts frequently invited ridicule over respect. The Ancient Roman poet Martial jokingly told the story of a big-breasted woman charged a proportionate three tickets upon entry to the bathhouse. This same condescension was reciprocated within the Elizabethan era, where Queen Elizabeth would have herself depicted with a modest, androgynous bosom to symbolise her aptitude for a male dominated role and validate her status as a ruler. Such prescriptiveness continued within the conservative grounds of the Victorian era, whereby women sought to maintain a coveted balance of prudishness and femininity. Fashions favoured the mere suggestion of breasts, their covered shape emphasised by a corseted waist.

Arguably, today’s beauty standards have expanded to include both ends of the spectrum. Kendal Jenner’s more traditional ‘catwalk body’ has aided her success in modelling, yet it is Kim Kardashian and Kylie Jenner who are comfortably seated as core members of the Kardashian empire. Their aesthetic of bodycon, waist trainers and push up bras heralds a new extreme. Another reality TV series to impact cleavage politics is Love Island. The rise of the contestant collaboration with brands such as Missguided or Boohoo often frames ‘sex appeal’ as the main selling point. However, I would argue that the cult of mesh, cut-outs and bandage dresses is not as inclusive as one might hope. The re-emergence of the underwear as outerwear trend reveals the lingering expectation of coded flirtation, since they generate the same teasing hourglass figure with which past fashions were infatuated. Of course, pretty bralettes and Calvin Klein sports bras are a welcome addition to many wardrobes, but for some they consolidate a restrictive exclusivity. Firstly, it can take a fair amount of money to dress up in a way that resembles how good you’d look dressed down. Secondly, the majority of unsupportive backless bodysuits and flimsy bra tops are catered towards smaller sizes. At times, it can seem that only women around a C cup or below can navigate fashions crushing double standards: remind people you have boobs and you are instantly enigmatic, but spill out or show too much and you risk becoming ‘cheap’ albeit sexy. While we are happy to ogle at Love Island stars (many of whom have had breast augmentations), curvy girls who buy into the trend are likely to face derision at some level. Rihanna’s recent Savage X Fenty catwalk celebrated female sexuality and asked them to dress for themselves, while also providing a very respectable range of sizes. What better antidote to the increasingly dated annual Victoria Secret show?

While one hopes that the onus of respectability is not so dependent upon modesty, the media’s rhetoric surrounding breasts appears ever reluctant to keep up. Celebrities who openly reveal too much cleavage face subtle eyebrow raising *read slut shaming*. Who knew a bunch of fat, glands, and connective tissue could fuel so much of The Daily Mail’s output? To pretend that we can truly hope to discern a celebrity’s confidence, promiscuity, or mental state from the amount of cleavage displayed on any given day is laughable. When a celebrity ‘flaunts her incredible curves’ post breakup, could we ever admit that this faux journalistic show of support only constructs a space for readers to ogle and judge?  I’m not suggesting the press ignore the fact that breasts exist, nor should we stifle attempts to dress in ways which hide or enhance them, but I doubt whether this pretence that celebrities wake up questioning ‘what should my boobs say about me today’ is sustainable. Even Theresa May has fallen victim to this culture of shame, when, in 2016, her outfit at the parliamentary budget caused a meltdown among reporters who presumably hadn’t realised working women over 40 own breasts.

Finally, on a slightly more serious note, I want to return to breasts through the lens of their ‘organ status’. Studies have shown how when this organ goes wrong, women are often faced with a double blow of mental health issues that follow the physical ailment. A 2016 study on the self-esteem of post-masectomy women with breast cancer revealed that, while the body image of participants plummeted, the levels of anxiety and depression rose among nearly all involved. Moreover, many women who struggle to breastfeed their child will relate to feelings of guilt and failure. You would be forgiven for finding current conventions both polarising and rife with hypocrisy, and the success of campaigns like the ‘saggy boobs matter movement’ and brands such as ‘Pot Yer Tits Away Luv’ indicates a desire for greater representation. All I can advocate is that women be allowed to make their own choices without judgement; to enhance or reduce, to be seen or not to be seen. As long as you are not hurting other people, there is no ‘right’ way to be a woman. I am left with many questions, particularly that of whether it is ok to play the patriarchal culture that we reject. Either way, I need to see a bit more change before I can truly calm my tits.

 

 

 

 

 

‘A zero-carbon-footprint production’: an interview

James Tibbles
-
0
‘A zero-carbon-footprint production’: an interview

Space is an ever-evolving concept in theatre. It is currently being stretched and challenged with the rise of site-specific theatre and increasingly environmentally conscious theatre companies. I sat down with Bea Udale-Smith and Conky Kampfner to talk about their exciting new project How to Save a Rock with a Circle, a project which seeks to explore the intersection between unconventional theatre spaces and environmental themes. Although Bea is no stranger to unusual theatre spaces, having recently staged a physical theatre production about child birth in St Catherine’s boathouse by the river, but this production presents the team with even more challenges. They seek to stage a production that is entirely environmentally sustainable in Makespace Oxford, an organisation situated in a disused Wadham building on the canal.

What is the show about?

It’s loosely about climate change. The play is devised, but the idea that we’re thinking of is how normal people respond to climate change. What’s a good response and how does that relate to how we live our lives? Ultimately, it’s about the power of groups. We start with the individual and then see what these people can achieve when they work together. What we definitely do not want to do is create a piece about climate change that is all about doom and gloom.

Where did you get the idea from?

I got the idea from thinking about using a mile-long tunnel which has recently been converted into a cycle path in Bath. I started thinking about what sort of play would suit a space like this. I came to the conclusion that the only sort of show that would work in that venue would be a play about environmentalism and the issues that cycling brings up. It has developed into a zero-carbon-footprint production!

What do you plan to do with the venue?

We didn’t want to use a conventional theatre space because we wanted our location lighting to be environmentally friendly. Using a normal theatre venue, but then not using the lighting rig, would seem like a waste. We also want the stage to be in traverse with seats and sofas that are already in the venue. Hopefully, when people come in and sit down it will feel very different to entering a conventional theatre with rigged, raked traverse seating. We really want to encourage people who would not normally go to the theatre to come and see the show.

Can you tell us about the venue you will be using?

We are using the gallery of Makespace Oxford. It is basically an organisation that turns empty and unused buildings into affordable spaces to hire for environmental and social justice organisations. They are currently housing about 15–20 incredible organisations in this building right by the canal in Jericho. I first got in contact with them just because I walked past it and loved the building! The atmosphere and space really fits with what we want to do. One of their founding partners is the CAG project which is the hub for about 60 environmental groups across Oxfordshire. They also house SHARE Oxford, a library of things which you can borrow instead of buying new, which is something we are trying to do with the play. It is really nice to work in a space where you don’t even have to debate the ethos. It’s a collaborative space that really feeds into the sense of group unity we want to foster throughout the play.

Do you think site-specific theatre is more accessible than other traditional theatre spaces?

There’s a danger of site-specific theatre being less accessible because it can be less easy to grasp what it is. You have to be comfortable enough to know that it might not be what you expect. For example, I think shows like Punchdrunk’s Kaberiroi last year – which was just for two audience members who were led on a tour across London – can be quite alienating for people who aren’t really interested in theatre. Equally, that is the good thing about site-specific performance: it can blur the boundaries of what is real and what is not and challenges the conventions of what theatre should be. We hope that our play will do the latter – hopefully challenging some of the formality of the audience’s role which is usually associated with theatre.

It is also important to remember that in site-specific theatre, the venue becomes probably the most important visual part of the play. In some ways, the venue is just as important as what goes on in the play. The site can imbue the play with a lot of meaning that you’re not even sure about until you actually do it.

How do you want the audience to feel when they enter the space?

As relaxed as they possibly can. I want them to feel like it’s a space where, if they wanted to, they could turn to their neighbour and say something. I want the space to be as important as the play and be a place where people can feel empowered as part of a group to bring change – maybe people will even exchange Facebook details!

Would you call this political theatre?

Definitely not. The main premise we started with was that we wanted it to be optimistic, which makes it slightly less about politics, and more about people. What it is not is a lecture. A lecture can give you all the facts, but theatre can give you solutions by giving you a world that shows you a hope for the future.

If you want to find out more about MakespaceOxfordtake a look at their website http://makespaceoxford.org/. How to Save a Rock with a Circle will be playing 6th, 7th, 9thNovember 2018.

Vigil held to commemorate victims of Pittsburgh synagogue attack

-
0
Vigil held to commemorate victims of Pittsburgh synagogue attack

Several hundred students and members of the Oxford community attended a vigil at Radcliffe Square last night to commemorate the victims of this weekend’s mass shooting at a Sabbath service at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh.

A multi-faith crowd listened to and participated in Hebrew and English prayers, and spiritual readings led by leaders of the Oxford Jewish Society (JSoc), who hosted the event.

Attendees also lit candles to commemorate the eleven dead and six injured. Saturday’s attack is believed to be the deadliest anti-Semitic attack on the Jewish community in the history of the United States.

JSoc organisers began the vigil by proclaiming: “We stand here tonight in solidarity with the Jewish community in Pittsburgh and all those effected by the shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue.” After noting, “our Jewish community can always rely on the strength and the solidarity of the wider Oxford community,” they read aloud the list of victims of the attack.

The vigil continued with Hebrew prayers for the souls of the deceased and for healing of those injured and harmed physically and mentally in the attack.

The vigil formally concluded at 8:00pm with a reading “A Prayer for Pittsburgh”, written by gun-control advocate Rabbi Menachem. However, attendees continued commemoration and Hebrew prayer until 8:30pm.

During the vigil, JSoc President Harrison Engler referred to recent attacks in Charleston, Orlando, and Finsbury Park, saying: “In all these cases individuals were targeted at places they felt safe, surrounded by other like them.”

Mr Engler told Cherwell that the vigil’s large number of participants showed “the people of Oxford stood up and showed they wouldn’t stand for anti-Semitism in Pittsburgh the same way they won’t stand for it here.”

Vigil attendees were as young as five years old and came from a variety of faith backgrounds.

Members of Oxford Jewish Society (JSOC) lead the vigil

One attendee said she reacted “with shock but not surprise” to the news of the attack and wanted to attend the vigil to “share in community with other students, both Jewish and non-Jewish, to express our grief at this trauma that has afflicted our community.”

A 46 year-old has been arrested as a suspect in the mass shooting and faces twenty-nine charges. Media reports have drawn attention to their social media record of promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

The suspect will appear for a first appearance in court today.

Historic panel relocated from Union due to clash with far-right speaker

Isabel Morris
-
1
Historic panel relocated from Union due to clash with far-right speaker

The Silk Road Panel, an event initially scheduled to take place at the Oxford Union in early November, has relocated to a college venue following concerns over “anticipated anti-free speech protests” incited by another event being hosted at the Oxford Union on the same day. 

The Panel, organised by the Oxford Silk Road Society, will represent the first time senior diplomatic leaders from all five Central Asian states – the Republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – sit on the same panel at a British university. 

The panel discussion coincides with Alice Weidel’s visit to the Union, which is also scheduled for Wednesday 7th November. 

Weidel’s visit has attracted a flurry of negative attention in recent weeks, with Stand Up to Racism Oxford and Unite Against Fascism coming together to organise a protest against the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party leader’s visit on grounds that her party “built up its following by stoking up racism against migrants, Muslims, and refugees.” 

Protestors plan to gather on St Michael’s Street from 6pm on the day of Weidel’s speaker event – at the same time diplomats speaking on the Silk Road Panel were scheduled to dine at the Union, their panel having taken place in that afternoon. 

Oxford Union President Stephen Horvath told Cherwell: “We regret that the Silk Road Society have chosen to move their exciting panel out of our premises, but we respect their decision.

“There were some constraints on our end [to host the Panel on Union premises] due to the anticipated anti-free speech protests that evening (e.g. the inability to host an enjoyable post-event dinner in the Macmillan Room if there are megaphones being used in St Michael’s Street, difficulty for the exit of speakers by car). 

“There were also points from the Silk Road Society (e.g. the sensitivity of diplomats in thinking the protest might be about them, the request that there must be a dinner). 

“In light of this, our two societies explored a number of avenues for rescheduling the event, including cancelling the dinner, or changing to one of two possible dates in a seven day window surrounding the scheduled event. 

“The Silk Road Society then unilaterally (and I don’t mean this in a pejorative way – it is of course their right) decided to move the event off premises and cease any logistical co-operation with the Union in this event.” 

Silk Road Society President Marcello Fantoni told Cherwell: “Due to the expected protests at the Union on the day that the panel was to be held, we decided to relocate the event to ensure that everything goes smoothly for all parties. 

“We are confident that we will still be able to host a very productive discussion at our new location, but we regret that it seems preference is being given to controversial speakers.”

Fantoni also cited concerns about “forced association through proximity” with the Weidel event. 

Horvath confirmed that the Union also asked Weidel if she might reschedule so the the Silk Road event could go ahead. However, the far-right politician was “unable to amend her intended travel schedule” to accommodate for a date change. 

The Silk Road Panel is will now take place in the Nissan Lecture Theatre at St Antony’s College, at the same time as previously scheduled. Oxford Union members will still be able to enjoy free entry for the event.

The UK embassies of all five Central Asian Republics have been contacted for comment.

Brexit, lunch and dinner

Zahra Farzanekhoo
-
1
Brexit, lunch and dinner

Take a brief glance along Tesco’s confectionery aisle and you’re in for a shock. But why? A look at the information on the various US imports reveals that these treats ‘may have an adverse effect on the activity and attention of children’, contain various flavourings and colourings such as ‘Brilliant Blue’ and ‘Sunset Yellow’, and are ‘produced from Genetically Modified Organisms’.

Whilst legal and highly regulated by the EU, we should worry about this becoming the UK’s new food standard, if we do end up striking a trade deal with the US post-Brexit.

In a document published earlier this year, the US Trade Representative laid out the many grievances they have with food and product standards in the EU.

They also made clear what a trade deal with the US would involve. The listed prerequisites included the scrapping of EU labelling standards on food and cosmetics, a relaxation in the use of crops for biofuels, and less regulation relating to animal welfare. These are standard US requirements for any trade deal they seek to negotiate.

For example, washing chickens with chlorine – a hazardous process – could become the norm, if the UK decides to make a deal with our ally across the pond. The scrapping of regulations pertaining to agriculture and food is dangerous both to the environment and to our health.

Relaxing labelling requirements should greatly concern consumers, who have the right to know what they are feeding their families. Getting rid of some EU requirements, such as ensuring Cumberland sausages, Cornish ice-cream, and the like are indeed from those places, seems minor, but can have a major impact on the local economy of these areas.

A fall in food standards is a fall in quality and a deviation from the purpose of food – which should be both enjoyable and nutritional. Reducing food to its mere chemical components and ignoring all potential health concerns is not the approach we should take. This is an approach the UK government should rule out.

Aside fom chlorine washed chickens, there are many other US industry practices that threaten us in the UK. For example, the use of steroids, some of which are carcinogenic, is banned in the EU but commonly used in the US cattle industry.

Similarly, some herbicides such as atrazine, an endocrine disrupter which has been found to cause breast and prostate cancer, are allowed in the US but are banned in the EU. Clearly, the Environmental Protection Agency, FDA and USDA have vastly different standards than those we’ve come to accept in the UK.

Perhaps the reason behind this disparity in standards is that in the US private companies greatly influence these public bodies.

These publicly-funded bodies, founded to look out for consumer and environmental welfare, are colluding with corporations such as Monsanto, a large agrochemical firm in the US specialising in GMOs and herbicides.

Sustain, a group who advocate for better farming practices, found that there are ten times the level of food poisoning in the US than in the UK. The effect of the potential carcinogens is one that will take longer to materialise but is nevertheless extremely concerning.

A trade deal with the US, in which we will most likely be asked to compromise on these standards, will likely adversely affect low income families – those who cannot afford to go to Wholefoods and pay the premium to buy organic and those in rural areas who do not have the choice.

It is absolutely crucial that we maintain pressure on our government if we seek to avoid this.

Brexit throws Hockey Cuppers into jeopardy!

Abby Ridsdill-Smith
-
0
Brexit throws Hockey Cuppers into jeopardy!

The Mixed Cuppers Hockey League has been forced to use last year’s leagues, following an organisational cock-up from the University Hockey Club.

In a message sent to the Mixed Hockey Cuppers group chat, a member of OUHC said, “Due to the guy who ran Cuppers last year being uncontactable and us not being able to access his account the leagues are the same as they started last year!”

Will Dry, the former secretary of OUHC, was responsible for the league tables, but has now rusticated to co-lead Our Future, Our Choice, a pro-European advocacy group for young people.

He told Cherwell: “As the chaos of Brexit becomes clear, including the hockey results inaccessibility crisis, people are of course entitled to a say on whatever Theresa May negotiates.” [Sic.]

The news has been met with frustration by the mixed hockey community. George Steijger, former captain of the Exeter College Hockey Team, told Cherwell:

“The club and players are very disappointed with the league organisers, as the hard work we put in over the course of the season has not been rewarded.

“Unfortunately, this mistake makes the college leagues less competitive. Hopefully this mistake isn’t repeated and we receive an apology.”

The president of OUHC declined to comment.

Bar Wars: St Peter’s strike back at Regent’s cocktail theft

Eve Webster
-
0
Bar Wars: St Peter’s strike back at Regent’s cocktail theft

Oxford College Bar Review has called Regent’s Park College bar “the best in Oxford” amidst allegations that it has plagiarised St Peter’s College’s ‘Cross Keys’ cocktail recipe. The supposed “theft” has caused uproar at St Peter’s, with students describing it as “an outrage”, “a crime”, “annoying”, “the greatest compliment they could’ve given us”, and “only a way for them to acknowledge” that St Peter’s Bar is “at the top of the chain”.

According to the bar treasurer of St Peter’s, the Oxford College Bar Review divulged the Cross Keys recipe on Facebook, where he believes Regent’s Park found it. He added that the Cross Keys cocktail is a staple of the college. He said: “If this was between Wetherspoons and something else, they would sue each other, but because it’s at college level it’s trivial.” When asked, the bar manager of Regent’s Park, Trevor Lau, denied the allegations of theft. He admitted there are certain similarities between their ‘Paradise’ drink and the Cross Keys, but stated that their drink was made independently through their own trial-and-error process.

The drink has subsequently been renamed the ‘Salty Peter’s’, as a “response to undue saltiness over such a small matter.” Lau also expressed a wish to “congratulate St. Peter’s Bar for being the first ever bar to mix fruit juice with alcohol.” St John’s College has also been criticised for using a cocktail with a similar recipe to the Cross Keys. When asked about the matter, St John’s Bar Manager Yannick Joseph told Cherwell: “We can stop serving the drink, it was a trial run anyway.

“I only started serving it because students were asking for it. I got the recipe from a student who came to the bar.”

The difference between Killing Eve and Bodyguard? One has female characters who actually resemble women

Susannah Goldsbrough
-
0
The difference between Killing Eve and Bodyguard? One has female characters who actually resemble women

As the brightest colours in an autumn of exceptional British TV drama, Bodyguard and Killing Eve might appear to be leaves from the same tree. Both are centred on the corridors of power of a London that has been ever so lightly dunked in feminist utopia, giving some heavyweight women actors – Julia Montague and Gina McKee in The Bodyguard, Fiona Shaw and Sandra Oh in Killing Eve – the chance to shape foreign policy, catch criminals and bark orders to their cowering male sidekicks. But if you pay attention beyond the first episode of either, it becomes rapidly obvious that these are two very different kinds of TV show. It’s just weird that so many critics seem not to have noticed.

Bodyguard ripped through the BBC’s viewing figure records just as its bullets ripped across your TV screen, or as Richard Madden, the bodyguard himself, ripped through… oh, wait, no, that was meant to be as Richard Madden is ripped. The critics clawed at their stocks of superlative, in a desperate effort to capture the wit, the tension, the brilliance of Jed Mercurio’s latest script. But an until-now excellent writer and some household acting heft is not a guarantee of quality. It was, and remains to me, an utterly bizarre critical and public response to an incredibly mediocre show. It was as though ten million people sat down in front of their TVs every Sunday night and were mildly and collectively hypnotised (by the flawlessness of Madden’s butt cheeks, no doubt) into thinking that they were watching a tightly-written thriller, instead of an aggressively implausible premise unravel into shoot-out-heavy soft porno. The only journalist I could find to see past the hype was Janice Turner, who labelled it ‘Fifty Shades of Grey with a red box.’ Bang on.

Fast forward a month, and Killing Eve approaches the small screen, softly and sexily, much like its mesmerising blonde assassin when she’s going in for the kill. Villanelle is fished from the same kind of fantasy land as the entire plot of Bodyguard, but cleverly so. Her haunting unreality counter-balances the realist comedy of the show’s real stars, Eve Palastri, and Carolyn Martins (played by Oh and Shaw), the British security operatives hunting her. We already knew from Fleabag that Phoebe Waller-Bridge can write dialogue, and man, she has not lost her touch. Oh and Shaw are the best fictional double act I have seen for a long time. Their intelligence and ambition is heightened, rather than made ludicrous, by their wonderful weirdness, and their seemingly unlimited ability to misread social cues. What takes Waller-Bridge’s writing from hilarious to hard-hitting is that her comedy wraps around something more serious. The moment when Carolyn turns up on Eve’s doorstep in the middle of the night and asks her if she needs anything at the shop, ‘Milk or…?’, is hilarious. But it is also the moment she recruits a new and brilliant agent to catch a violent assassin. Oh’s fantastically expressive face is a joy to watch, but more importantly, emblematic of society’s utter confusion in the face of powerful, high-functioning, unconventional and imperfect women. We call them “odd”, like Carolyn. You only to need to watch Jodie Comer’s metallic, penis-chopping turn in the role to see how absurdly imprecise such terminology is.

Which brings us back to Bodyguard. Keeley Hawes is a genuinely excellent television actress – just watch Line of Duty, or The Hollow Crown – but the character of Julia Montague does her no favours at all. She is a power-suited ice queen hiding a soft, melty core of emotional vulnerability, that only some heavy thrusting from the hunky Madden can satisfy. She is exactly what some men, and probably some women, would like powerful women to look like. That is, not really powerful at all, but dependent on a kind of super-masculine safety blanket. And as such, the character is utterly untrue. Perhaps that’s why Mercurio killed her off – to rid himself of an unsustainable fiction. And yet, it is Bodyguard that has been sanctified as the best television of the year, Bodyguard that Killing Eve is compared with, not against. This, I would speculate, is partly the fault of some poor formatting decisions on the part of the BBC. Mercurio’s Sunday 9pm slot was the TV event of the weekend, and left its viewers swapping theories on the latest cliff hanger in the build-up throughout the week. Killing Eve, on the other hand, was thrust unceremoniously onto the iPlayer, Netflix-style, tensionless and unsatisfyingly bingeable.

But in the end, we just got this one wrong – the viewers, the critics, Mercutio, Hawes and the BBC. It’s not too late to admit that Bodyguard was soft porn for our generation, and that were it to take physical form, Villanelle would have killed it off long ago, with a sharp knife and a smile.

SU opposes AfD leader’s Oxford Union visit

-
1
SU opposes AfD leader’s Oxford Union visit

The Oxford Union’s decision to invite leader of the Alternative für Deutschland, Alice Weidel, to speak on next month was condemned by the Oxford University Student Council this Wednesday evening.

Following a wide-ranging debate, 72% of the voting members expressed opposition to Weidel’s invitation.

Oxford Student Union President, Joe Inwood, told Cherwell that the Council “decided by vote to make a stand against the invitation of a proponent of values contrary to those of Oxford students.”

Student Council members, including Vice President of Welfare and Equal Opportunities, Ellie Macdonald, were keen to express that they did not consider Weidel speaking at the Union simply an exercise in “free speech”.

They argued that the AfD, which is now the third largest party in the German Bundestag, does not just broadcast “hate speech” – it has also actively condoned physical violence in Germany against minority groups.

Concern was about the invitation was expressed by those present, who noted the increase in racially-motivated violence in Britain in recent years.

In Oxford, a Stand Up to Racism street stand was attacked by two men in Carfax in August. Stand Up to Racism Oxford is one of the key groups involved in organising a protest against Weidel in November.

21 of the 38 representatives present at Council voted in favour of condemning Weidel’s invitation, while eight voted against. There were nine abstentions.

Oxford’s Liberal Democrat MP, Layla Moran, has backed the Union’s decision to host Weidel. This puts her at odds with the city’s Labour MP, Anneliese Dodds.

Last week, Dodds said: “It is very concerning to hear that the Oxford Union has gone out of its way to court a far-right politician in this way.

“The AfD marched alongside Pegida, an extreme-right group, during protests in the German city of Chemnitz last month, which featured protestors making Nazi salutes and openly threatening migrants.”

In contrast, Moran said: “The AfD’s views are abhorrent and do not reflect the values of Oxfordshire, the United Kingdom, the Liberal Democrats nor the vast majority of Oxford University students.

“However, I do think their views and those of similar parties and organisations in the UK should berobustly challenged in healthy andopen debate.”

Last week, President of the Oxford Union, Stephen Horvath, told Cherwell: “The Oxford Union remains committed to the principles of political neutrality and free speech, and we invite a variety of political leaders from different countries and competing ideological camps.

“In recent years, those perspectives featured and questioned at the Union have ranged from Julius Malema, leader of the radically leftist Economic Freedom Fighters in South Africa, to Marine Le Pen.

“Alice Weidel is the leader of the largest opposition party in the German Parliament. After Dr Weidel’s speech in the Union’s debating Chamber, members will be welcome to ask her questions, and challenge her views if they wish.”

1...665666667...2,493Page 666 of 2,493

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