Monday 4th May 2026
Blog Page 723

Mary Queen of Scots review: ‘artistic licence breathes life into history’

Molly A Chell
-
0
Mary Queen of Scots review: ‘artistic licence breathes life into history’

Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots are undoubtedly two of British history’s most well-known female figures, their rivalry forming the focus of many films and novels. In her directorial feature debut, Josie Rourke brings a fresh take on this fraught relationship between two women ruling in a man’s world. The film begins as Mary (Saoirse Ronan) arrives in Scotland after the death of her husband, the French Dauphin, and takes us through her difficult time at Scotland’s helm.

Rourke takes a well-known motto of the Scots Queen to poignantly open and close the film. “In the end is my beginning” was the famous saying Mary had embroidered onto her cloth of estate during her years of English captivity, and the film also ends as it began, in 1587, with Mary’s imminent execution after being implicated in a plot against Elizabeth’s (Margot Robbie) life. Through this creative choice, Rourke cleverly embeds the tragedy of Mary’s life into the film’s very structure.

A charge of historical inaccuracy is typically laid against any historical drama, and Mary Queen of Scots is no exception. But considering that historians still heavily debate the truth of Mary’s story, Rourke can easily be excused for bringing a creative twist to elements of Mary’s life still shrouded in mystery. Well-known facts are so smoothly blended in with acts of artistic license that it is difficult to tell one from the other unless viewers are familiar with the minute details of Mary’s life. The most interesting divergence from pure historical fact is the presentation of a love triangle between Mary, Darnley (Jack Lowden) and the Queen’s secretary David Rizzio (Ismael Cruz Cordova), as there is a lack of conclusive evidence that the two men had a sexual relationship. Rizzio’s gruesome murder hence takes on deeper meaning in the film, with Darnley destroying the physical manifestation of his sexuality.

The film will no doubt interest history buffs as it provides its own answers to the big questions circulating Mary’s life – whether she had a hand in the murder of her second husband Henry, Lord Darnley, and the circumstances of her subsequent marriage to Lord Bothwell (Martin Compston). Some may be disappointed that important moments in Mary’s life are skipped over, such as her forced abdication and lengthy imprisonment, but for the sake of running time these omissions are unfortunately necessary.

Historiography centred on Mary Queen of Scots has fluctuated between portraying her as a victim or a perpetuator. Rourke gives us a Mary capable of fitting into both categories, and for this reason may come close to the true historical Mary. Ronan is an excellent choice for the role of Mary, as she combines the Queen’s fierce nature and independence with her increasing desperation. She is betrayed both by the men in her life and ultimately the woman who should understand her the most.

David Tennant gives a spot-on performance as Protestant preacher John Knox. Famous for being misogynistic even in an era that was hardly noted for its gender equality, Knox’s antagonism towards Mary translates well onscreen. His harangues against Mary, calling her a ‘strumpet’, and his commentary on the evil of allowing women to rule contributes to Rourke’s overall depiction of the difficulties faced by these two women in establishing their authority. Yet Rourke also counteracts this ever-present misogyny in the film’s most powerful scene, one that sees Elizabeth swoop down a palace corridor as a sea of black clad male courtiers fall to one knee as she passes.

The central irritant of the film was the decision to dramatically age Elizabeth beyond her years, as Robbie’s Elizabeth is a lot more disconcerting to look at compared to previous depictions. The fictional meeting depicted in the film between the two queens took place in 1568 when Elizabeth was only 35 years old. Though Rourke’s intention was no doubt to reveal Elizabeth’s vulnerability behind the mask of stoicism that she must present to her subjects to survive, the imagery is too blunt. This endurance is more effectively communicated through scenes of Elizabeth consuming herself in her art. The film’s recent Oscar nomination for Best Consume Design is, however, well deserved, as no expense is spared in crafting the Virgin Queen’s lavish wardrobe.

The film’s most interesting, yet factually inaccurate scene, comes with the meeting between Elizabeth and Mary after the latter flees to England seeking her cousin’s help. It is an emotional moment that culminates years of rivalry and competition, and although there is no evidence to point to it ever having occurred, the film would lack an emotional pay-off without its inclusion. Its execution was partially flawed, as the tension building until the moment when Mary finally pulls aside a sheet to reveal Elizabeth was slightly overdone. It felt as if the setting was being milked a little too much for all of its dramatic potential.

Any inaccuracies aside, Mary Queen of Scots is a brilliantly directed and passionate take on one of history’s most famous ‘sisterly’ relationships, and brings our attention back to two women whose stories are always worth telling in new ways.

Jenny Holzer at the Tate: An Exhibition for Instagram

Olya Makarova
-
0
Jenny Holzer at the Tate: An Exhibition for Instagram

The first thing you see when walking into a Jenny Holzer exhibition is text. The new Tate Modern display is no exception – the entrance to the exhibition is a small, high-ceilinged room empty save for walls filled with repeated phrases and wandering readers. One sentence reads “SYMBOLS ARE MORE MEANINGFUL THAN THINGS THEMSELVES,” and it becomes increasingly obvious, reading on, that Holzer cannot possibly mean the bold statements. Rather, they are there simply to provoke thought, or, at least, reaction.

Holzer has been making art since the 80s, but has since moved away from the use of original text which characterised her earlier work. Many quotes in the Tate exhibit are recycled from her most famous series, ‘Truisms’. The series popularised phrases such as “Abuse of power comes as no surprise” and “Protect me from what I want”. The quotes were printed on t-shirts, tweeted, and displayed in bold-face italicised Times New Roman on a pastel pink background then uploaded onto tumblr.com. You’ve probably seen Holzer’s work and not even realised it is art.

The intentional of the art is, however, unmistakeable in the exhibition. For one thing, it is located inside a museum. For another, it creates an incredibly strange space – a public space (the exhibit, like the Tate Modern, is free entry) which is pervaded by text. Unlike Holzer’s previous works, which usually placed or projected texts into busy public areas, physical and virtual, the Tate exhibition forces the public to come to the text. As we have learned from Orwell’s ‘Books v. Cigarettes’, the public are not very excited by the concept of reading, and must therefore be enticed.

Holzer excels in this, creating a space which demands to be filmed and uploaded to the internet. In this, the exhibit itself becomes an exercise in conceptual art – it is effectively forced out onto the wider public by being so ‘grammable’, transgressing the museum space. However, it also loses some of its focus in that form. The text becomes secondary to images of neon lights and strange interiors. Even within the exhibit, the text begins to feel gratuitous; the inscribed black and white marble benches are barely legible and the flashing messages pass too quickly to process.

This is the main failing of the exhibition; Holzer seeks to be transgressive in every way – soliciting emotional response for victims of human rights violations in Syria while simultaneously deriding the desire to construe meaning by overloading her viewers with highly politicised and often-conflicting text. Holzer’s art poses as anti-establishment, and is yet incredibly commercialised. Perhaps this is the convenient message of the exhibition: anti-establishment is also establishment. I am undoubtedly accidentally paraphrasing one of Holzer’s truisms – though they are so copious that I may not even be paraphrasing.

However, if the death of authenticity is the message of the exhibition, it is a message which is expertly imparted if it was intentional. The ‘Truisms’ (1984) which were once hot takes in the days of second-wave feminism become the banal reminders of female victimhood, such as one plaque which reads, “AFTER DARK IT’S A RELIEF TO SEE A GIRL WALKING TOWARD OR BEHIND YOU. THEN YOU’RE MUCH LESS LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED.” Holzer’s previous art is implicated in the information overload, and leading the viewer to question Holzer’s work as a whole.

If the death of authenticity is the message, can the exhibit even be art? When does the art itself become a commercial enterprise, amassing currency which is not physical, but in the form of followers and posts?

Holzer’s disregard of her own text leads me to think that in this exhibition, as in most conceptual art, symbols are more meaningful than things themselves, but perhaps it is the wrong symbols which are the most meaningful.

Pictures in the sandcastles

-
0
Pictures in the sandcastles

The study of history has often highlighted the appearance of patterns, cycles and repeating structures in the motions of human activity. Seen generally as an organising force, arriving at times almost predictable, and precipitating some of the greatest rises and falls our past has to offer, the term revolution is perhaps the best we have to map onto our own activity. It encompasses both the tide-like consistency and refusal to be tamed that we see in human behaviours. The reason for this incessance, and our impotence despite awareness, is most likely its origin. It has been said in various formats that ‘blood alone moves the wheels of history’, most recently by Dwight Schrute of The Office fame, and his retro-historical counterpart, Benito Mussolini, but I propose an interpretation which would thankfully liberate the phrase from its genesis at the heart of fascism. ‘Blood’ is not that spilled in violence, but the purest human movement, the liquid force and flow that provides the impetus for contractions and expansions of a society under the writhing heat of its own people. The motions and patterns of political and social upheaval are indicative of the most fundamental of human urges.

With this in mind, it is then easy to see why those often responsible for the initiation and realisation of grand changes do so via methods which closely reflect the fundamental origins of their movements. Art as a political force, used to instigate social revolution and redefinition, draws its efficacy from its proximity to the nature of politics and sociolog y. Defining art in this manner however does not necessarily term it ‘base’, or invalidate any connection we may draw to high culture, elevated thought or profound examination. On the contrary, it creates an observable continuum between the more primal and vital desires, and their subsequent political articulation.

Expressing an innate sense of entitlement or obligation, be it to a cause or for human rights, is often accompanied by a propogandist call to some form of natural or transcendent image. ‘The motherland’, ‘service’, ‘duty’, all raise, in those susceptible to their charms, an ineffable lurch of spirit. Yet, when thinking about art in a political context, there is a necessary element of coherence and validity; it is not enough to call upon a generic sentiment with no purpose or affiliation. This most likely engendered, sense of obligation must be harnessed, directed and controlled by a socialised and contextualised piece of art. Having already written for this paper on the topic of propaganda, I must specify that I am not again doing so. What I speak of here is, admittedly, the basic formulation by which coercive campaigns and the like are generally realised, however, it more importantly signposts why the arts are such an effective medium for political communication. The ability to establish a commonality between the innate compulsion and the ideological, in a medium as semiotically established as the visual arts or literature, is a powerful one.
Whilst the availability of a potent tool may be tempting in and of itself, it does not inherently justify the compulsion many artists feel to involve themselves in political issues.

The dissident Chinese artist Ai Weiwei is perhaps the best known example of the ‘artist as activist’ complex that seems to strike many in his field. He famously stated that “if somebody questions reality, truth, facts; it always becomes a political act.” The processes of introspection and the critical gaze prompted and foregrounded by artwork are often destabilising enough to qualify a piece as ‘political commentary’. This is compounded by the fact that, in our aggressively postmodern age, we have a vastly increased awareness of the structures of political systems and how semantics are shaped and crafted. With this augmented knowledge, it is nigh on impossible for modern artists to operate entirely aesthetically. A precedent has been set, a tradition established or a theory constructed around almost all forms of visual art and literature. This is not a limiting structure, as it simply adds to hermeneutic engagement as opposed to restricting it, but it does mean that creating serious artwork and being agenda-free is an almost impossible balance to establish. All art has become political, because politics itself has transcended its Estate, becoming so ubiquitous that the most minute of interactions is now laced with some form of implicit bias.

I do not wish to pass judgement on this state of affairs, it requires far deeper engagement and an assessment of the separation of the social, individual and political. But it remains undeniable, that all expression has been rendered politically charged, meaning that any artist making an attempt at creative expression, is consciously setting forth, acutely aware of the clinical political treatment their work shall receive. It is questionable whether or not it is a choice to create art with an obvious, and publicly proclaimed ideological agenda, or whether we are simple a society primed to search for one. Yet it would be insulting to the intelligence of any self-described artist to presume them sufficiently naïve as to remain unaware of the significance of their composition.

In addition to this, we must also consider the oppositionality inherent in the idea of self-expression. It is the removal of the individual, from the context of the individual and their then placement in the public sphere. In doing so, the artist is undermining the constitutive fabric of a public setting. Instead of a society being an agglomerated mass of unique voices, each consciously directed into the public frame, the artist has removed the detaching medium of vocality, placing at least an insight into the entire self in a very expositional setting.

This distinction is one that has manifested in art and literary theory for a long time, but its potency cannot be underestimated. This action presents the individual as infinitely complex, an institution equal in scope, capacity and therefore influence to the state. Any form of self-expression will be an immediate enemy of those desiring conformity or cohesion, as total assimilation of an individual is impossible without consent or coercion. In creating art that is, for want of not sounding like a country music critic, true and expressive, an artist takes a stand against their own imposed definition. It is the transition from reader, to writer, or from spectator to performer. Politics is there to be witnessed by those it controls, so when another entity exists in an equally exhibitionist manner, and with access to the same semiotic tools, a threat is immediately established. The artist as revolutionary is a wonderful image, and perhaps one that is forced upon creatives of our day. However, it is imperative to recall both the political power of artistic media, and the inherent ideology of created works. I remain undecided as to where the ‘urge’ lies in this dynamic, but it is clear that such structures are expressive of fundamental tenets of human nature and society. Forgive the attempted pith, but it appears that ‘ink alone moves the wheels of history’.

Introducing 2019 in colour: Living Coral

Ailin Cheng
-
0
Introducing 2019 in colour: Living Coral

Before the start of every year, Pantone, the authority on colour-intelligence, reveals its prediction for the Colour of the Year. As of last month, Living Coral has earned the title for 2019. This warm, peach shade draws on earthy tones whilst maintaining a sunny intensity, making it a versatile one to represent a range of contexts.

On on hand, the earthy quality of this colour relates to the growing concern of climate change and pollution. The orange tones vividly recall their namesake: the coral reefs that are valued for their vibrant hues, all the more so now as bleaching and climate change become an inescapable reality. Living Coral optimistically relates to a need to reconnect with the natural world, and to emulate this in our lifestyles. On the other hand, the warm, sunny quality of this colour is particularly noteworthy at a time when technology and ‘social’ media is driving rifts through communities. Pantone’s Executive Director, Leatrice Eiseman, states: ‘with consumers craving human interaction and social connection, the humanising and heartening qualities displayed by the connival Pantone Living Coral hit a responsive chord.’

This is quite a development from the mood approaching 2018. The 2018 Colour of the Year was declared to be Ultra Violet, a bright electric purple that, as stated by Pantone, ‘communicates originality, ingenuity, and visionary thinking that points us toward the future.’ The violet hues were representative of modernity, and an era of innovation and ingenuity driven by technology. Purple has long been an important symbol for counter-cultural icons, with Jimi Hendrix, Prince, and Bowie being its key promoters. In 2018, this electric shade was brought to the fore by Tokyo’s youth. The shade was embraced for its gender-neutrality and futuristic hues, with Shinjuku and Harajuku-goers soon sporting the bright colour in alternative, androgynous silhouettes. Spreading out beyond Asia, from Hamish Bowles’ stunning ultra violet walls to the S/S18 collections of Gucci and Balenciaga, the shade has been a key one for all elements of design this year.

Reaching beyond design, these colours also infiltrated everyday life on a microcosmic level. Purple began re-colouring the food scene. Speared by the trend of clean-eating and Instagram-hyped colourful food, ingredients such as purple ube, taro, purple cauliflower, beetroot and anthocyanin-rich purple tea have been making appearances across healthy-eating cafes and restaurants.

All these examples go as far to acknowledge the accuracy of Pantone’s forecast. Given the almost monopoloid hold Pantone has over colour intelligence, the colour of the year may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yet the colour of the year is more than a guiding forecast; it is through the careful mapping of macro and micro trends that current moods and atmospheres are translated into a visual form.

Our intuitive awareness of colour symbolism allows it to be a useful tool in expression. This dates back throughout history, when rich lapis-lazuli dyes were used exclusively for the highly-esteemed and royal. Meanwhile, the instantly recognisable ‘On Wednesdays we wear pink’ quote shines a spotlight on the subtle associations that can be evoked simply through colour choice. In the renowned TV show Breaking Bad, character development can be tracked in the colours they wear. As Walter White becomes further embroiled with his alter-ego, Heisenberg, his colors become stronger, moving from initial shades of neutral green towards red and eventually black. When faced with defeat or the return of his cancer, his khaki shades return.

Colour is more than a fashion statement, and has always played as much a role in shaping cultural and political identities as it has in personal identity. The clashing, angry red and blues of the Republican and Democrat battle in the US are but one example. The World Cup last summer saw people taking to the streets in proud display of their national colours. The Pride movement’s flag, meanwhile, proves that colours aren’t necessarily a means of reinforcing divides: the flag cleverly plays on the ideological divides denoted by different colours, including and representing all shades in a brilliant rainbow display.

It’s still too soon to tell what role Living Coral will play this year. A keen eye may notice its increasingly frequent appearances on the catwalk. Marc Jacobs led the charge with a collection dominated by pastel hues, featuring wearable coral and blush-toned looks. Meanwhile, Brandon Maxwell combines structured tailoring with the fiery coral shade in his collection of flared trousers and shirt-dresses. Within days of Pantone’s announcement, interior design and fashion magazines were publishing articles on how to prepare for the soon-to-be trend. On a superficial level, the significance of the colour of the year may simply be the need to jump on these bandwagons. But the wider symbolism of this shade and the reasons behind Pantone’s choice make colour a powerful tool for participating in and being aware of the social climate.

Saudi Arabia’s sporting mission

Cal Flintoff
-
0
Saudi Arabia’s sporting mission

It is a small detail that has been glossed over in the face of more puzzling aspects to the story, but it is one that forms part of a larger and more uneasy trend that has been slowly developing. When Wayne Rooney was arrested at Washington’s Dulles Airport in December, his private jet had been returning from a presumably lucrative sojourn to Riyadh, the Saudi Kingdom capital; it would be a righteous tale, but it is rather unlikely that a mix-up with sleeping pills came about through Rooney’s sheer indignation at the humanitarian crises he witnessed, or the vivid imagery of a public execution, now forged indelibly into his mind.

 No, Rooney was an access all areas guest of Geox Dragon Racing, the American motorsport team who compete in Formula E: a relatively new, electrically-fuelled pursuit that has caught the eye, and the wallet, almost paradoxically so, of the prescient petro-magnates of Saudi Arabia.

Dubbed ‘Mario Kart’ of the streets due to the set of luminous blue LED lights affixed to each driver’s halo – fluorescing in a newfangled “attack mode”, each driver’s personal quiver of golden mushrooms – the concept has been incredibly successful. The spectacle is modern and attractive, the carbon footprint is diluted, pit stops are a thing of the past, and, more markedly in the eye of investors, there is no overriding sense of the engrained hierarchical structure that pervades through modern Formula 1. For Felipe Massa, the attraction as a driver is rooted in this mentality: “Maybe many drivers can win the championship.”

For the riches of a Saudi dictatorship, however, the seduction is of a more nefarious kind; eventually, the oil will run dry, and the economy badly needs to diversify and develop more sustainable, multi-faceted income. On the face of it, investing in renewables seems logical, innocuous even. The sovereign wealth fund has ploughed money into Uber, and more recently the American electric car start-up Lucid.

But Formula E is a good place to start because it represents the subtle dichotomy between the State’s public pontifications on infrastructure and access, and its private desperation to reverse a tarnished image in the West by opening up the Kingdom to the world of sport. Now wedlocked into a 10-year contract to host the season curtain call at the street circuit in Riyadh, the Saudi regime has handily positioned itself at the vanguard of a global sport just experiencing its revolution. Unsurprisingly, the official take adopts a different angle, and chooses to praise the “mission to accelerate the transition and uptake of clean transportation”, and to “inspire the next generation of technicians and engineers within Saudi Arabia.”

To entangle itself so inexorably into the global economy, to become a major player and a central trade hub even when the barrels are not so bountiful, the state must also radically overhaul an archaic, authoritarian society. Or, more appositely, engineer the impression it is doing so: Vision 2030 is perhaps the most well-documented transformation plan in history – its reformative roots promising to overhaul women’s rights and develop the education and recreation sectors – and well, that’s the point. Armed with a burgeoning portfolio of events, the sporting industry is the perfect global circus through which the Kingdom is purporting to have changed.

The story is already ten years down the line, next door in the Gulf, in the UAE. Under Pep Guardiola, Manchester City have become one of Europe’s putative powers, a genuine heavyweight and a home to the most attractive football in the land. In a brilliant analysis of the ownership last year, Nicholas McGeehan forensically unpicked the true and alarming scale to which the club is acting as a baby blue smokescreen to continued human rights violations. When British national Matthew Hedges was detained and psychologically tortured under alleged counts of spying in the Middle East, the polarised reaction was an uneasy snapshot of the process of sportswashing in action, betraying to the naked eye the conflict of interest that many sporting governing bodies have been welded to by prostrating so willingly to the Emirati cash.

https://medium.com/@NcGeehan/the-men-behind-man-city-a-documentary-not-coming-soon-to-a-cinema-near-you-14bc8e393e06

British flat horse racing is another pursuit locked enduringly into business, its entire revenue model increasingly subsisting on the affluent region’s penchant for the sport. European football is, quite literally, being engulfed by its thirst for tainted capital from the region; like a teenage foray into a Colombian narcos gang, it soon becomes apparent that these are deals of the interminable variety, with far-reaching consequences.

https://twitter.com/leemottershead/status/1065537704958533632)

Worrying, then, given the incessant and unabating stream of civilian deaths in Yemen through Saudi-led coalition air-strikes, how seamlessly Mohammad Bin Salman – The UAE crown prince Mohammad Bin Zayed’s trustee and partner in torture – was able to enter the market, brokering deals to bring each of the major sports to his country, one by one.

For the current generation of sports stars, perhaps being desensitised to the metropolis of Dubai, the UAE’s glorified tourist department, blinded by its beauty and attracted by its undoubtable allure, is at least a forgivable act; to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Saudi Arabia though, is reprehensible and irresponsible. No wonder Amnesty International labels the West “deeply hypocritical” in its dealings with the state.

As a society we must wake up and see how wrong this feels. England’s leading international goalscorer uploading his “unbelievable day” in the Saudi capital to his Instagram feed with the same rhetorical flourish as if it were Mykonos or Barbados; Richard Branson assuming directorship of the luxury new Red Sea tourist resort in exchange for not so discrete investment into his Virgin Galactica Scheme; the president of FIFA ceaselessly trumpeting a

virulent Saudi-led $12 billion plan to corrupt club football just after witnessing his predecessor thrown in jail for handing the World Cup to their arch-enemies Qatar, willingly placing the most popular sport in the world slap bang in the centre of its most politically turbulent war.

And yet, before the tragic murder of its most outspoken critic after a series of punishing columns in the Washington Post, there was curiously little introspection. The notion that Saudi Arabia may so brazenly purchase our compliance through our most-loved escape, sport, is ridiculous, but there are clear signs it can work.

Do our sports stars have a duty to speak out? To positively mould their sphere of influence? Surely, we too, as fans, ticket-holders, tweeters, commenters, have a duty to question, to resist, to inform. Our support has never need be unconditional, and never should be.

If you look hard enough, there are signs that it may be happening. The Italian SuperCoppa, an itinerant exhibition that also counts Doha and Tripoli among its more exotic destinations, has come under heavy fire for its proposed location in Jeddah. More importantly though, as the date nears, Italian fans are now discovering the true extent of the horrors that their league has plundered them into: a Saudi-imposed ban on unaccompanied women in the stadium forcibly segregating legions of support, a rupture through the very heart of the game. If money could talk, then it would almost certainly have the voice of Serie A president Gaetano Micciche, befuddling his way through the chaos with a robotic loyalty to his contract: “Until last year, women could not attend any sporting event, [this is a] historic first.”

It is not the only sport to touch down in the country in January. Golf is a pursuit that has willingly integrated Dubai into its standard fare, as a result making its stars richer than ever but flirting dangerously with a post-Tiger era where most would struggle to tell their Bryson DeChambeaus from their Xander Schauffeles, and only the majors and Ryder Cup retain their true aura. The European Tour is ploughing on with its decision to introduce Saudi Arabia to its gilded Desert Swing series; with a tournament structure that allows players to select the events they roll into town for, it leaves little to the imagination why such a stellar field has been assembled for the inaugural event.

Surely, then, Europe’s Ryder Cup golden boys, the iceman Henrik Stenson and the eminently likeable Justin Rose, could be relied upon to recalibrate their moral compasses to the real world from which sports stars are so often allowed to slip from. Instead, if you squint hard enough, you can just about make out the spinning black and white wheels where their eyes should be.

Henrik Stenson: “The course looks spectacular and I’ve heard a lot about the Kingdom’s plans to grow golf in the region and I’m excited to be a part of it,”

Justin Rose: “I’ve heard a lot of positive things about Saudi Arabia and I’m delighted to see a new tournament added to the European Tour schedule.”

Smile and wave boys smile and wave.

Bolsonaro’s most vulnerable targets: the Indigenous Brazilians

-
0
Bolsonaro’s most vulnerable targets: the Indigenous Brazilians

1st January marked the inauguration of one of the most controversial figures in politics today: Jair Bolsonaro, the President of Brazil.

Bolsonaro is a man famous for despising almost every single identity group of which he is not a member, from gay people to via women to black people to immigrants. Calling him the “Trump of the Tropics” might be too kind – in many ways he has gone beyond even what the US President has said.

Anyone can watch Bolsonaro telling a congresswoman, “I wouldn’t rape you because you don’t deserve it”, or can look up his interview with Stephen Fry where he claimed “homosexual fundamentalists” were brainwashing children to “become gay and lesbians to satisfy them [the fundamentalists] sexually in the future”, or when he told Playboy Magazine that “I would prefer my son to die in an accident than show up with a moustachioed [i.e gay] man”. 

In this age of internet and easy access to information, the only thing more frightening than Bolsonaro himself is all the people who voted for him, fully aware of what he stands for.

Proudly pro-torture and pro-dictatorship, Bolsonaro is a self-declaring homophobe who considers his sons too “well raised” to date black women or to be gay. Yet he democratically won 55% of the vote and now occupies one of the most powerful positions on the world stage. 

As of January 1st 2019, arguably the group who are now most threatened are those within Brazil who have little, if any, idea of this election: isolated, indigenous tribes.

The Amazon rainforest contains “more uncontacted tribes than anywhere in the world”, according to Survival International. The government believes there are at least 100 isolated groups, who have survived hundreds of years of external threats including slavery, logging and disease.

Bolsonaro goes beyond viewing the indigenous tribes and the quilombolas (the protected, black descendants of Afro-Brazilian slaves) with racist contempt. He does not believe in their right to exist in a culture outside of “mainstream” Brazil.

In an unbelievable backwards act of colonialism that violates international and national law, he has said he wants to abolish existing indigenous territories, give ranchers guns, and to forcibly integrate the indigenous tribes. Within hours of taking office, Bolsonaro gave an executive order to transfer the regulation and creation of indigenous reserves into the hands of the agriculture ministry, which is heavily lobbied by the agriculture sector.

He views the indigenous people as merely an “obstacle to agri-business”, and he doesn’t want to get “into this nonsense of defending land for Indians” because the gold, tin and magnesium in the Amazon make it “the richest area in the world.”

Bolsonaro has said: “The Indians do not speak our language, they do not have money, they do not have culture. They are native peoples. How did they manage to get 13% of the national territory?” 

The huge irony of course is that while Bolsonaro views the indigenous tribes as foreigners and outsiders in Brazil, under these terms, Bolsonaro – a white man of Italian and German descent only a couple of generations back – would be the real immigrant compared to these indigenous tribes.

That the indigenous population do not operate in the exact same way as Bolsonaro’s vision of Brazil – with the same currency, language, ideas and systems – does not mean that their culture must be swallowed up and spat out by the rest of Brazil. That they are different does not make them any less human, nor the land any less theirs.

While Bolsonaro and the Amazon rainforest may seem distant to us, the democratic election of Bolsonaro raises bigger questions for all of us around the world. Britain’s colonial rule may seem a thing of the past, but with a recent YouGov poll finding only 21% of British people regretted colonialism, and prominent academics such as Niall Ferguson arguing the case for the British Empire, it’s hard to ignore a wider failure to denounce colonisation.

The Anatomy of Portioning

Serena Millen
-
0
The Anatomy of Portioning

For a population facing serious challenges from weight-related health problems, the issue of portion sizing is particularly important. It is estimated that we overeat by 200-300 calories a day, and part of this is due to the fact that portion sizes are often overestimated.

For anyone who has ever read portion sizing information, it is obvious that the lack of clarity present in packaging is problematic. From im- perial measurements to multi-portion packets, it is hard, especially in such a fast-paced society, to ensure that we are not over-eating.

Recently, the BBC released an instructive video based on the new guidelines from the British Nutrition Foundation which aims to tackle the problems associated with portion sizing. The video shows how to use your hands to perfectly portion out a meal, with measure- ments such as two cupped hands for green vegetables, and half a thumb for a portion of peanut butter.

This instructional guide is an easy and accessible method for people to work out how much they should be eating, and is an important step in helping people to take control of their diet in a time when nutrition in the UK is so poor. Instead of necessitating the use of scales or measuring cups for foods, the use of the hand system makes it much easier to work out what exactly is an appropriate amount of each food group.

Nations such as the US, plagued too by their own health issues, already have far clearer packaging. Information on packets of sweets, for example, will specify exactly how many make up a portion, and some companies in the UK have started to adopt these guidelines.

However, more needs to be done and food producers need to take responsibility for problems which their portion recommendations are creating. The new nutrition guidance offered this week is useful for helping people to take control of their portion sizing; nevertheless, it is not solely the responsibility of people to ensure that they, and anyone else they are cooking for, are eating appropriately every meal. The availability of pre-packaged meals also reduces the ability of the population to control their portion sizes all the time. Instead, responsibility is passed over to the companies that produce them.

Portion control advice can only go so far in helping to tackle the current health crisis, and more can be done to ensure that people have options which allow for healthy choices. Socioeconomic factors also play a significant role in dietary options, and this is a factor that needs to be considered and tackled on a larger scale and over a longer period of time.

That said, raising awareness may be most important, and if guides such as the BBC’s are released more frequently, people will be guided towards healthier choices in an accessible way.

Review: Frog’s Legs – ‘light-hearted façade with a dark core’

Lawrence Li
-
0
Review: Frog’s Legs – ‘light-hearted façade with a dark core’

As the great Oscar Wilde once said: “My own business always bores me to death; I prefer other people’s”.  This nosey sentiment pretty much sums up Frog’s Legs, in which drink buddies, Martin and Duncan, take it upon themselves to ruin the life of the local pub owner, Franc. All because they suspect his wife is French. Thrice they try, thrice they fail. Their only ‘success’ is in enabling him to live lavishly in the Ritz for the rest of his life.

“It is quite unlike anything else you’ve seen in Oxford”, says Hugh Shepherd-Cross (Teddy Hall), the writer and director of the play, who aimed to “tread the fine line between offensiveness and good taste”. Offensiveness there is no shortage of: the eyebrow raising amount of ‘cocaine’ (substituted with icing sugar) snorted on stage is certainly not for the faint-hearted. As for good taste, well, the fact that tickets were sold out a week in advance is perhaps the best evidence of its good artistic sensibilities.

With his glassy grin and lovable mannerisms, Sam Scruton (St John’s) proves to be a real comic presence on stage. His portrayal of Martin strikes the right balance of chumminess and idiocy, making even the absurdities of his circumstances believable for, and relatable to, the audience. While we know that his swift demise will come in the form of a wood chipper at the hands of an angry loan shark, the character himself never achieves that anagnorisis. He lives out his life with a simple joie de vivre, and who is to say that it isn’t a noble life to lead?

Rory Wilson (New College) was equally fine as Duncan, Martin’s partner in crime. Mercurial, lurid and surprisingly erudite regarding Oscar Wilde’s sayings, he remains by Martin’s side no matter how dire their situation is. A particularly moving scene finds the duo penniless and homeless on the street: cuddling together for warmth, Duncan still jests at Martin as usual – only, unbeknownst to him, it is in fact their final moments together. This, in my humble opinion, is what true friendship looks like: not to part with gaudy praises in times of glory, but to remain true to each other till the end.

Franc, portrayed by Nathan Brown (Teddy Hall), the hapless pub owner, also impresses in his unique way. With astonishing gullibility, he manages to fund his cocaine habit, receive a life-long membership at the Ritz, win a major cooking competition, and buy Blenheim Palace! His innocence conveys a certain adorable quality, such that he almost resembles a walking teddy bear on stage. Furthermore, the rendition of his original music added a lyrical touch to an otherwise very cleverly written play.

There are only a few gripes with the play, which can be mentioned briefly: looking past its light-hearted façade, the core narrative occasionally ventures into territory perhaps too dark and sinister. Not only does Franc’s wife suffer a horrible death by lorry, but the all-male cast are also alcoholic and drug-stricken – does the production glorify a certain public school type bravado in young men? Or, perhaps, the political should have no place in the theatrical: in this age of heated debate and divisive opinions, a jovial yet dark play like this may be becoming something of a rarity.

The Pitchfork Disney Preview – ‘a play of delight and disgust’

Eve James
-
0
The Pitchfork Disney Preview – ‘a play of delight and disgust’

The Pitchfork Disney: the name itself betrays something of the twisting dreamscape fairytale Philip Ridley’s 1991 play offers up for our delight – and equal disgust.

As Presley, Alex Fleming-Brown’s face shifts constantly between sweet charm and threatening, even malicious glee, twisting in and out through his maze-like monologues much like the snake-filled narratives he describes. In fact, all the actors carry their dialogue brilliantly. It is easy to get lost in the twists and turns of the many narrative monologues which seem to tumble inevitably out of these volatile characters, but they manage their audience expertly in their switches between emotion and horror, edging into humour and then back again just as quickly. We lose ourselves in each character’s troubled imagination – Lou Lou Curry’s Hayley raising the emotional stakes in the first scene I saw, with both twins alerting us to the psychological discomfort just on the edge of the explosive, surreal imagery.

This all unravels within a disconcerting contrast of threatening monologues and a sickly-sweet set design, dominated by the shiny foil of empty chocolate wrappers, while the chocolate itself drips and churns in an unceasing projection behind the actors, masterminded by filmmaker Immy Done. Designer and assistant director Felix Morrison explains: “We went for a minimal set, interspersed with pieces of colour. We wanted to create a decaying run-down environment which also has elements which externalise the childlike magical nature of the twins’ psyche. The tinsel curtain and the projected window act as portals, from which the ghost-like characters such as Cosmo appear.”

This is a play situated constantly on the brink of imagination and reality, which revels in the discomfort when one inevitably forces its way into the other. The actors push up into one another’s’ faces and then slide away again, and indeed it seems we are never not either recovering from a moment of dramatic climax, or building steadily and ominously toward the next. We feel the shock when Alasdair Linn’s Cosmo’s commanding bombast suddenly concentrates into tight, raw, devilish reality as he approaches the audience. These actors have to work hard, constantly working up the fervour and emotional complexity these moments demand and controlling the uncertain come-downs.

Something Ridley himself has emphasised is this play’s ability to “mean something different” with each new production, and in the current political climate it would certainly be easy to hash out a trite warning from its ominous imagery. “We actually decided to move away from some specific contemporary angle,” comments director Bertie Harrison-Broninski, however: “it felt a bit superficial to just make it about Brexit or something, it doesn’t accommodate the diverse themes of the play. So we made a play where it is very difficult to pin down any specific identity; it’s detached and lost, like the children.”

‘Ancient children with chocolate, ancient children with no vocation.’ So Cosmo taunts a terrified and enthralled Presley, but his recurring engagement with his audience makes it almost impossible not to feel that somehow he is taunting us too. Two scenes are perhaps not quite enough, in such a twisting, testing, and truly surreal play, to see for sure what the focal point is around which this dreamscape drama spins. Nevertheless, this careful handling of an incredibly demanding play promises to be a thrilling and exciting piece of theatre. Not to be missed.

Confusion and internal division: Why Brexit won’t feature in today’s three-party debate

Cherwell News
-
2
Confusion and internal division: Why Brexit won’t feature in today’s three-party debate

Students may be surprised to see Brexit overlooked at today’s Three-Party Debate, hosted by the Oxford Forum.

The debate will allow each student political part to debate the other two individually, and will focus on the current government, inheritance tax, and the fate of the Liberal Democrats. 

Oxford University Labour Club (OULC) vetoed Brexit-related motions proposed by Oxford University Liberal Democrats (OULD) including “This House believes a People’s Vote is preferable to any Brexit Labour could offer” and “This House believes a general election is a better resolution to Brexit than a People’s Vote”. 

OULC told Cherwell they submitted a counter-proposal “THB that Brexit is the most pressing issue facing this country” which OULD rejected, however OULD deny the claims they had vetoed the motion.

The Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA) were also reluctant to debate Brexit, believing that students are “just very bored with talking about it”.

President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, Damayanti Chatterjee, expressed her disappointment that there would not be debate on the “biggest issue in British politics since the Second World War”. 

Chatterjee told Cherwell: “My committee and I were in strong agreement that the best debate topic for our debate with OULC would be a motion on Brexit and a People’s Vote. 

“However, I was informed that OULC would not debate any motion about a People’s Vote and then told by OULC Co-Chairs that the society would not debate a motion on Brexit at all. We are disappointed that OULC will not take a stance or defend their party policy and are concerned that they have cited any debate of Brexit between us as unfair. 

“The Liberal Democrat and Labour policy on Brexit differ just as significantly as the Liberal Democrat and Conservative policy on Brexit, with the former supporting a second referendum wholeheartedly and the latter arguing to rule out no deal and for an incrementally closer union with Europe than May’s deal, delivered through a general election if Labour wins a majority in it.

“We still welcome the chance to debate with them at the Three Party Debate and will gladly take their suggestion of an allegedly fairer motion “This House Believes the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant” as an opportunity to do just that and as a better alternative to having no debate at all.” 

Speaking to Cherwell Winter said: “It is not the case that OULC were reluctant to debate Brexit and although we rejected some Brexit based motions, we also proposed Brexit-related motions which were rejected by the other parties.

“The reason a motion on Brexit could not be agreed is that OUCA were reluctant to debate Brexit on the basis that they did not think students were interested in the topic. We offered a motion on ruling out a no-deal Brexit which OUCA rejected, and related motions on immigration which OUCA also rejected.

“The motions suggested by OULD, relating to Brexit, were not practical for this debate. They included a motion on the People’s Vote, a policy which is part of Labour’s current plan and supported by many OULC members, which it would not be appropriate to take a collective stance against as a club.” 

“All in all, the event has been poorly organised, with parties expected to agree motions amongst themselves at the last moment, with little input from the Oxford Forum.”

Speaking to Cherwell Tristan Wang said: “There has been a reluctance on the part of the OULC on certain proposed motions relating to Brexit.
“As I understand it, the reason is because there is disagreement within Labour on the topic of Brexit.
“However, I am unable to understand how it can be claimed that discussion on Brexit was avoided. Anyone with reasonable knowledge of current affairs would know that it would be difficult to debate confidence in the government (OULC vs OUCA: “TH has no confidence in the Government”) or the relevance in the Liberal Democrats (OULC vs OULD: “THB that the Liberal Democrats are irrelevant”) without addressing Brexit. Those who attended the event can vouch that Brexit and the EU featured extensively in argument.”

Winter also alleged that the two other parties had rejected topics including fracking, tax, and education. 

President of OUCA, James Beaumont told Cherwell: “While we were reluctant for a debate on fracking or the public sector pay gap, largely due to internal division on the issues, that is not the case for immigration. We discussed several wordings with OULC, but could not agree on an exact wording for the motion.

“We also proposed several others, including a broad debate about capitalism, and another about welfare reform, which were rejected. I believe that we have now agreed on ‘This House has no confidence in the Government’, which will of course cover many of the topics mentioned above.”

1...722723724...2,583Page 723 of 2,583

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 Jamie Ashley