Wednesday 29th April 2026
Blog Page 723

Sackler family more involved than thought in opioid crisis

0

A recent court ling reveals that the Sackler family, a major source of donations to Oxford University and owners of Purdue Pharma LP, were more involved than had been previously assumed in deceiving the public about the side effects of the opioid painkiller OxyContin.

The memorandum was led as part of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s ongoing lawsuit against the company and 17 associated individuals, including 8 members of the Sackler family.

The court ruling states: “They [the 8 Sackler family members] directed deceptive sales and marketing practices deep within Purdue, sending hundreds of orders to executives and line employees.

“From the money that Purdue collected selling opioids, they paid themselves and their family billions of dollars.”

Since 1991, the University has received over £11 million in donations from the Sacklers’ trusts and from the family themselves. Their donations have gone towards erecting the Bodleian Sackler Library and towards funding the Sackler Keeper of Antiquities at the Ash- molean.

The Sacklers also support a University lecturer and a teaching fellowship in Earth Sciences, and the family’s contributions have facilitated projects in paediatrics and neuroscience.

The memorandum suggests the Sacklers to be directly involved in developing a strong marketing strategy for OxyContin and its other opioids, repeatedly pushing for the prescrip- tion of higher doses for longer periods of time.

The marketing campaign targeted customers for whom opioid use was accompanied by great risk, such as the elderly and patients who had not previously been on opioids, without warning them of the additional risk of drug interactions, addiction, and overdose, the court ling suggests.

The suit also asserts that the Sacklers were aware of Purdue’s repeated failure to notify authorities of “pill mills” and reports on the illegal sale and distribution of OxyContin. According to the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, overdoses from prescription opioids accounted for 218,000 deaths from 1999 to 2017 nationwide.

When asked whether Oxford University will review its policy on accepting donations, and whether they will accept donations from the Sacklers in the future, a University spokes- person said: “All major prospective donors are carefully considered by the University’s Committee to Review Donations under the University’s guidelines for acceptance.

“The Committee considers the sources of an individual’s or organisation’s wealth and may reconsider a donor in the light of new information. The University monitors significant developments in the public domain and the Committee considers donors when potential donations are brought to their attention.”

Richard Sackler, who served as Purdue Pharma’s president from 1999 to 2002, is characterised by the Massachusetts Attorney General as the main driving force behind the OxyContin campaign.

It is asserted in the suit that in 1997 staff informed Richard Sackler that selling OxyContin as a “non-narcotic” in certain markets would provide “a vast increase of the market potential”, bypassing safeguards intending to protect patients from addictive drugs.

The idea faced opposition from Richard Kaiko, the inventor of OxyContin. Noting that products like OxyContin were among the most widely abused opioids in the US, he wrote: “If OxyContin is uncontrolled, it is highly likely that it will eventually be abused.”

Richard Sackler allegedly responded: “How substantially would it improve your sales?”

Purdue Pharma wrote in a statement: “[T]he Attorney General has cherry-picked from among tens of millions of emails and other business documents produced by Purdue. The complaint is littered with biased and inaccurate characterizations of these documents and individual defendants, often highlighting potential courses of action that were ultimately rejected by the company.”

A spokesperson for The Sackler Trust and The Dr Mortimer And Theresa Sackler Founda- tion said: “We support a range of educational, medical, scientific, cultural and community organisations. It is a privilege to be able to support such vital work and we continue to do so.”

Cherwell has contacted the Sackler family for comment.

Gillette’s advertisement is sharper than usual

0

Apparently it still stirs up controversy when a major brand launches a campaign promoting a kinder, more tolerant idea of what it means to be a man. Shaving company Gillette’s newest ad has changed its outdated slogan from “The best a man can get” to “The best men can be”.

The ad feels like a rollercoaster ride through everyday sexism: from bullying on the playground, mansplaining in the boardroom, to groping at the pub. The ad went viral, and received a tornado of praise and criticism alike which is, after all — a landslide victory for the advertising industry. But there’s more to it.

Responses to the ad tell us a good bit about where we currently stand in matters of masculinity.

Toxic masculinity may enter the annals of history as one of 2018’s biggest buzzwords — and it may be time for 2019 to move on. Suppose we all got the bottom line: we can actively decide whether or not we want to encourage certain ideas of what it means to be a man.

It’s in our hands whether or not we want to promote a culture in which a “no” is taken for a teasing “yes”, in which forcing yourself on someone else is being a real man, and in which we measure manliness by the number of drinks you can down on a crewdate. What a revelation: we don’t know everything better than women, it’s okay if we’re sad or afraid, and we can actually be something other than either “macho” or “pussy”.

The fact that we treat toxic masculinity as though it were some novel discovery of the dark side of gender self-stereotyping, rather than the millionth confirmation of that being a timeless problem, is telling. Whilst we comfort ourselves with progressive hashtags, there is something deeply conservative about our generation.

The Urban Dictionary reflects a sentiment that is in fact creepily widespread: toxic masculinity, it says, is “a term that far leftists use to try to manipulate real men into feeling shameful for being themselves and feeling like normal men do”. Far leftists? Real men? Normal men?

What’s so particularly left-wing about promoting a version of manhood that is simply open to the various ways of being a man, rather than so monolithic you can only either be (un)lucky to fit the norm or you’ll have to justify yourself every time you don’t?

The let-men-be-men argument (the ultimate Jordan Peterson move) is echoed in social media commentary across the board.

Award-winning actor and fierce Trump-supporter James Woods, for example, accuses Gillette of “jumping on the ‘men are horrible’ campaign” and calls for a boycott of its products.

Many men were happy to follow suit and have posted pictures of razors flushed down toilets or being otherwise disposed of. Far-right magazine The New American confirms how far-from-okay some are with a masculinity that isn’t rough and rowdy: “Men are the wilder sex, which accounts for their dangerousness – but also their dynamism.”

Similar responses are heard outside the Anglo-American world. Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant published an article with the title “Gillette replaces rough stubbles with guilty conscience — and not everyone is happy about that”. One of the comments reads: “Why doesn’t a sanitary pad company create an ad in which women are told not to exploit men and not always to play the little victim? Or is that sexist?” Meanwhile in Germany, a journalist tweeted that the ad was “an insult for millions of decent men who shouldn’t have to change anything other than their shaving brand”.

Ours is a generation that yearns for the recuperation of all that which postmodernism has so skillfully smashed: fixed categories, stable meanings, hard facts. While our Facebook feed may suggest otherwise, our generation is just as much about Jordan Peterson as it is about Pussy Riot.

The divide between the two runs deep and is, forgive the pun, razor-sharp. It’ll continue to be a daily task to point out that certain ideas of manliness are outdated and simply unacceptable. But that can’t change without normal men, real men, in fact: all men reflecting on their own behaviour, and taking their own share of responsibility.

Tony Hawk visits Meadow Lane Skatepark

0

Teens at Meadow Lane Skatepark were starstruck as professional skateboarder Tony Hawk visited and performed a number of tricks.

In advance of Hawk’s Oxford Union speech last Wednesday, the owner of skateboard company Birdhouse and namesake of the hit game “Tony Hawk: Pro Skater” reportedly performed tricks at the local park, including a Monty grind, a notoriously difficult trick named for skateboarder Monty Nolder.

The appearance preceded a speech at the Oxford Union, at which Hawk reportedly discussed gender equality in his sport and his experience of skateboarding as he gets older.

The Oxford Union Twitter account quotes Hawk as having said “When I found skating, I found my own voice, I found my own style, and I found a way to be creative… All the people that I found through skateboarding were creative, and they came from all walks of life. I felt at home among this band of misfits.”

Some hope that the high-profile appearance of skateboarder Tony Hawk in Oxford will help to stoke interest in skeboarding among the student body. Although Oxford City Council lists the city as having 4 skate parks, although there is at present no Oxford Skateboarding Society.

One student, discussing his attempt to set up such a club, says he has “tried so many times” but has not yet had any luck.

Oxford’s college inequality scheme branded “ineffective”

The University’s scheme designed to redistribute wealth amongst colleges, the College Contribution Scheme, is currently under “live discussions” among college heads, with a new version of the Scheme to be announced later this year.

Under the most recent Scheme (Scheme 6) colleges with taxable assets of above £45 mil- lion paid contributions into a fund from which poorer colleges could apply to for grants. 21 colleges pay the highest threshold of tax, which requires colleges to pay 0.36% of taxable wealth over £75 million.

The highest contributors to the scheme (St John’s, Christ Church, and All Soul’s) provided 38% of the total contribution in 2016/17, while undergraduate colleges such as Lady Margaret Hall, Harris Manchester, and Mansfield did not cross the threshold necessary to make contributions.

In fact, St John’s contribution before rebate would have covered the entirety of the grants confirmed in the year 2017/18 for 2018/19 – a total of £1.6 million and including those for housing allowances at St Anne’s, library expenditure at Kellogg, and graduate scholarships at St Edmund’s Hall.

Using the contribution formula, in 2016/17 the total amount of contributions called for from colleges would come to £11.4 million, a 15.3% increase on the previous year. However, the total amount of contributions from colleges is capped at £3 million per year, with colleges receiving a rebate pro rata when contributions exceed this amount. The central University also tops up the fund by £1 million.

Grant-eligible colleges still have to make contributions if they have taxable assets above £45 million, with these colleges contributing £42,299 in the year 2016/17.

Colleges are eligible for a grant from the fund if they have low taxable assets per student, or if these assets are “below a median or target value in one or more categories” by which college wealth can be assessed. Colleges are required to make “a convincing case for support” before the grant is permitted.

Out of the successful applications to the fund from 2013-21, the largest proportion (66%) went toward maintenance and refurbishment of colleges, while also being spent on scholarships, bursaries, housing allowances and teaching expenditure. St Peter’s College has been the greatest benefactor under the Scheme, receiving £1,163,500 between 2013-21.

Negotiations over the nature of Scheme 7 have been happening internally. Professor Andrew Barker, Principal Bursar of St John’s College said: “while discussions about a new scheme are still ongoing the College is not in a position to comment”.

Private Permanent Halls are excluded from the College Contribution Scheme, preventing them from applying for grants despite typically having smaller endowments.

President of Regent’s Park JCR, William Robinson, told Cherwell: “On the face of it, I can’t think how excluding PPHs from this scheme can be justified. We contribute to wider University life as much as any College, the only difference being our comparatively smaller size.

“Barring PPH access to this money is unlikely to redress the imbalance
in reputation and endowment that exists between us and much of Oxford, and this has a knock-on, compounding effect: we have less money to spend on our independent access efforts, and less to expand our size.

“While the rest of Oxford is able to continue to grow its student body and prestige through these grants, the potential to improve the situation, scale, and lives of our students our research output, and our reputation is curtailed by a lack of funding, while those that need it far less, given their long histories and large endowments, have access. It is hard to work out the thinking behind this scheme.”

Among the concerns raised by those affected by the Scheme is the impact it has on access. According to the University’s Admissions statistical report, colleges eligible for grants tend to take higher proportions of students generally classified as ‘disad- vantaged’. In 2016/17, 12.9% of Mansfield’s admissions were from disadvantaged areas, compared with Trinity’s 6.7%. In the same period, St Hugh’s took 19.2% from areas with low progression to higher education, compared with Queens’ 8.1% – the lowest of all the colleges.

Speaking to Cherwell, Mansfield’s JCR President Saba Shakil, said of the most recent scheme: “This directly affects the availability of a range of educational resources (from college library spending to research grants), as well as the cost of everyday living, and means that students who arrive at Oxford at a disadvantage are then further disadvantaged by the structure of the University itself.”

More broadly, this links to concerns over the equality of student experience between colleges.

Linacre’s CR President, James King, told Cherwell: “Students at Linacre are acutely aware that the wealth disparity between colleges results in a markedly different student experience.

“It is often awkward at our majority international graduate college when students with little prior knowledge of the college system discover that they have more expensive accommodation, less access to funding, and fewer facilities than others on the same courses as them. For example, DPhil students at Linacre can claim a maximum of £300 across the three or four years of their degrees for travel expenses, whereas students at Keble (to take one example) have access to £350 per year, over four and a half times more across a four year DPhil.

“Linacre is under great pressure to expand its student numbers as international postgrads generate profits for the University, but its facilities are increasingly unable to cope (from there only being enough pigeon holes in the porters’ lodge for about half the students, to having to turn freshers away from the matriculation bop because the number of attendees now regularly exceeds the legal capacity of the College bar and dining hall).”

Between 2013-20, Linacre claimed £551,003 from the College Contribution Fund.

King added: “It [the Scheme] has been extensively discussed by Linacre’s Governing Body on which I sit – our College has used it for essential repairs over the years.

“I would support a more equal redistribution of wealth between colleges, with a more progressive system of taxation, a lower bar for contributions (of say £30 million), and the inclusion of PPHs.”

Because they are reliant on grants being approved, poorer colleges often find themselves unable to plan their finances over the long-term and since grants are given with a speci c purpose in mind, poorer colleges can find it difficult to cope with unexpected expenditure.

King continued: “I think most Oxford students would be pretty surprised that Worces- ter and Keble are bracketed of cially as ‘poorer colleges’ able to claim for nancial assistance but Regents Park is not, due to the exclusion of PPHs from the scheme. In particular, Keble is able to claim for financial assistance from the fund despite having the resources to spend over £30m on building the H B Allen Centre, which is essentially a new graduate college exclusively for the use of its own students.”

Furthermore, some believe that no amount of redistribution can compensate for the difficulty in meeting teaching costs, experienced by almost all the colleges.

New College Bursar, David Palfreyman, told Cherwell: “The cost of delivering the Oxford Tutorial intensive undergraduate teaching is approximately £6,000-7,000 above the net fee/ grant income and the gap has to be covered from colleges’ endowment – but there is insufficient endowment across the colleges overall, no matter whether or not it is not spread equally/proportionally, to fund the current size of the UK/EU undergraduate population if undergraduate continue to be ‘properly’ taught.

“The rational long-term solution is to grow endowment through massive extra donations (as some US universities seem to manage), or to curtail the size of the undergraduate numbers, or to reduce the cost of the undergraduate teaching system – or a mix of all three; pending facing such reality a Scheme 7 is simply another bit of sticking plaster.”

Palfreyman also suggested increasing the total sum of the fund from approximately £60- 70 million to around £125 million. This would allow the proportion of the funds spent each year to remain the same, while increasing the amount available to be redistributed.

The last previous round of reforms came into practice in 2016. These involved raising the tax threshold and increasing the breadth of the tax bands to £9m, to make the tax more progressive and increase the proportion of contributions being paid by the wealthiest colleges. As a result of the reforms, the “tax paid by the colleges with the highest taxable net assets has increased as a proportion and the total contribution required of grant-eligible colleges has reduced by half (from £93.7k to £46.3k)”. In the year 2016/17, the total contribution by grant-eligible colleges was £42,299.

The University has been contacted for comment.

 

Beautiful Boy review: powerful, painful, poignant

0

Beautiful Boy is based on the real-life experiences of David Sheff (Steve Carell) and his meth addicted son Nic (Timothée Chalamet). Van Groeningen and Davies’ screenplay combines both the father’s and the son’s memoirs, which allows Carell and Chalamet to bring genuine insight to their performances and provides access to their shared experiences and private sufferings.

The film eschews the superficial indie glamour of Trainspotting and Pulp Fiction with their charismatic cult-status characters. Beautiful Boy is unlikely to have an unintentional glamourising effect. We see Nic cooking meth and shooting up, his needle-scarred arms a visual reminder of the trauma he’s putting his body through. We witness the oblivion of being high before the inevitable crash down to a deeper and darker place. We see him debasing himself: stealing his little brother’s savings and from the family home to get money for drugs and near-death experiences of ODs and relapses after long periods of being clean. As Chalamet says, “it’s really an anti-glorification of drug use,” yet it is so much more than a public service advert.

The non-linear storytelling in Beautiful Boy scatters a selection of happy memories of David and Nic’s bonding – childhood adventures, surfing, and these lighten the lowest moments and show what they’ve lost.

The women in the Sheffs’ lives are somewhat side-lined and restricted to a few emotional scenes trying to support the fragile father and son. Despite telling both sides of the story simultaneously, the focus and framing of paternal control over the narrative supports Nic’s paranoid fears of David trying to control his life. Fear of failure and the tyranny of expectation are hinted at rather than spelled out.

At the heart of this story is the father/son relationship. Carell is comfortable in the scenes where he plays the concerned father trying to understand his son and his addiction. He worries about his own failure as a parent as well as his son’s failure to live up to his expectations. Chalamet’s performance is the emotional heart of the film. He expertly navigates the twisting mood-swings, paranoia and other psychological side effects of a meth addiction as well as the physical degradation.

The final scene is Nic crying in his father’s arms after his most catastrophic and near fatal overdose. We leave Nic at his lowest, which whilst not the most conventional way to end a movie, felt the most appropriate. The message that ‘relapse is part of recovery’ is reinforced throughout the film. To complain of repetition of the recovery-relapse structure doesn’t credit the nuance behind each break-down as the cycle constantly wears both Nic and his family down nearly destroying everything. In a particularly poignant scene in a narcotics anonymous meeting, a mother says that whilst her daughter has only just died, she’d been mourning for years. This strikes a chord as when Nic’s addiction spirals we see the family’s mourning commence through detaching themselves from him. We are denied the happy ending; there is hope, but the threat of relapse and disaster persists.

The film is a moving story of personal struggle and self-destruction shown within an affluent and seemingly happy family. Despite the bleakness of the film which focuses on the struggles to stay clean, the shame and regret of failing to do so, Chalamet wisely says, “It’s about the fracturing of the human spirit … And how that can still … be redeemed and saved.”

Behind the curtain of opera’s accessibility crisis

0

When most people hear the word ‘opera’, their mind is immediately flooded with a series of stereotypes: the fat Italian man belting out high notes like there’s no tomorrow, or the middle-aged, rotund soprano screaming her lungs out ten minutes after she was fatally wounded.

If asked to name an opera singer, most people can probably manage Maria Callas or Luciano Pavarotti. Challenge someone to name an opera singer still performing and the number of people who can find a name in the dark crevices of their mind drops even further.

Most strikingly of all, ask these same questions to university students, and you’ll likely be met with a sea of blank faces. Why then, does opera seem to be such a niche interest among the wider population, but especially among young people?

Opera as an art form is notoriously abnormal. For starters, its authenticity is compromised by the fact that it is sung in its entirety. Pile on top of this the duration of many performances, which require undeniably large amounts of concentration from its audience, and the fact that any English audience member is often going to be watching a performance in a foreign language, and it already seems slightly unappealing.

To make matters worse, the storylines tend to be either unbelievably complex, or based on mythology difficult to represent effectively on stage both with scenery and singers. Cio-Cio-San, for example, the lead role of Madama Butterfly, is meant to be fifteen years old. It is not uncommon for a woman almost thrice that age to be singing the role. The Rhinemaidens, another infamous example, are three water-nymphs who are supposedly submerged underwater in Wagner’s Ring Cycle.

After accounting for the millennial reputation for short-attention spans and the tendency for other art forms in the modern day to be hyper-realist, you have a recipe for disaster. Even the dragons in Game of Thrones, or British politicians for that matter, are more believable than the complex mythological plot of Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte.

But these abnormalities, if seen and embraced as part and parcel of the art form, can serve to enrich the opera-going experience. Much has been said about the aesthetics of opera, perhaps most notably by Wagner, who used the term ‘Gesamtskunstwerk’ (literally ‘total work of art’) to describe his understanding of opera as an art form. Unlike any other art form (except, nowadays, the modern musical), opera embraces theatre, music, and art in an unavoidable synthesis every time it is performed. For Wagner, the individuality of each art form was united in opera and subordinated to a common purpose of shedding light on the human experience.

Opera’s unification of mediums arguably allows these messages to be portrayed with greater complexity and detail than any other artform. The words sung carry their own meaning, but the true intent of their message can be reinforced, contradicted, or complicated by the music of the melody and of the orchestra. In Act two of Rigoletto for example, Rigoletto faces courtiers who have kidnapped his daughter and sings ‘la’ repetitively to a jolly tempo in an attempt to hide his dismay; yet the strings of the orchestra, in a minor key, reflect his underlying agony.

Add in the multitude of each performer’s ability to interpret, both dramatically and musically, the various roles played, and there is a vast level of meaning that can often go unnoticed because of the aforementioned issues. Despite its unbelievability, opera has the potential to be incredibly raw and human.

Issues with opera are not just restricted to what is performed on stage. Much of the lack of appeal, particularly for students, is the absurdly high ticket prices. To give you an example, I pay around £70 a year to be a Young Friend of the Royal Opera House which gives me early access to book tickets. Two seats in a less than optimal location to see La Traviata in January cost me £210. La Forza del Destino, the highlight of the spring season, had completely sold out by the time booking was opened to the general public. If you are so inclined as to become a First Night Patron of the Royal Opera House for a mere £16,094 per year, you have a guaranteed two ‘prime seats’ for the opening night of every production.

Combine this with the culture surrounding opera, and you have the main reasons why opera has come to be seen as an elitist art-form. Perhaps with the exception only of Shakespeare, there is no audience so renowned for its strongly (and sometimes stubbornly) held views as the opera audience. Still today (though mostly in Italy, where passions run slightly higher than the stiff upper lips of the Royal Opera House), singers can be booed off-stage mid-performance or productions halted mid-run because they do not satisfy the tastes of the ‘omniscient’ audience.

Unlike modern theatre, where new works are performed as the norm, opera seasons consist of the ‘repertory’; these dozens of operas, mostly from 19th and early 20th century composers (Verdi, Puccini, Rossini etc.), are repeated around the world every year. Thus, through repetition, the opera-goer expects certain opera to be performed in certain ways. Break this rule in the wrong opera house (La Scala in Milan is notorious for this) and the public backlash can be scathing.

The auditorium culture also reflects this elitism: complete silence is expected throughout the performance (apart from the occasional booing, of course) and if you are late or need to leave to go to the toilet, you are only allowed back to your seats after the interval. This exclusivity is also painfully evident in the costs of pursuing opera as a career. Unlike in normal theatre, there tend to be a maximum of two opera houses per city; consequently, auditions for Young Artist programs across Europe (often seen as a required stepping stone into becoming a ‘proper’ opera singer) can become extremely costly, involving flights to and from major European cities several times a year.

This is on top of the debt you will have accrued after an undergraduate degree or Bachelor of Music from a conservatoire, a master’s in music or vocal performance, regular singing lessons, performance workshops, and summer academies. Unfortunately, it is often a question of whose parents’ credit card is the most flexible, rather than a question of whose voice is the best. It is no wonder then, that opera has an elitist reputation.

More recently however, there has been some significant movement of the operatic tectonic plates, with many of these elitist aspects becoming seen as remnants of the past. Many opera houses across Europe and America have been trying bold new ideas to attract wider (with a focus on younger) audiences to the theatre. The Royal Opera House recently underwent a two-year renovation and is now open daily from 10am, with free lunchtime recitals from chorus members regularly each week. It hosts special performances for school children from disadvantaged backgrounds and has the Young Friends program with access to early booking and insider events at a discounted price for 16-25 year olds. The English Touring Opera travel around the country providing high quality opera performances practically on your doorstep.

The English National Opera (ENO) has enacted substantial reforms. For instance, it announced this December that Saturday-night tickets for under-18 year olds will be free; this allows the opera to be a family outing, not just a stressful evening for the parents who would otherwise have to worry about babysitting or reluctantly purchase a £50 ticket for their seven-year-old.

Moreover, the ENO has Opera Undressed nights at £20 for inexperienced opera-goers which includes a pre-performance talk, and has begun to offer a ‘secret-seat’ lottery whereby you pay a flat rate of £30 to ‘win’ a seat worth over £50 in an unknown location. Additionally, the ENO sings all productions in English to make it more accessible and has recently been casting more singers from BAME backgrounds; their website claims that a third of each nights’ audience have never been to an opera before.

There has also been a significant drive from within the opera singing community to make opera more accessible. The American tenor Michael Fabiano has consistently called for Opera houses to modernise their viewing experience, for instance by having a ‘mobile phones allowed’ section or specific performances where short video recordings are allowed – think of the Instagram potential!

Several opera houses have begun experimenting with more modern productions: a fairly recent production of Le Nozze di Figaro had the Count in a full Adidas tracksuit to highlight both his wealth, and the fact that he’s a bit of a clown. Websites like OperaVision have allowed for livestreams of opera to become regular occurrences and the world’s biggest opera houses have all signed up for their operas to be kept online for months after their initial livestream (because if there’s one business model to follow for success with young people, it’s Netflix).

The issue of a lack of modern repertory has also ruffled some feathers. How are operas meant to appeal to young audiences if they were written 200 years ago? Conrad Osborne, a prominent opera critic and writer, has spoken at length about the stagnation of the repertory. No operas from any later than the early 20th century are considered ‘repertory opera’, leading directors to push well-loved favourites to their conceptual limits. This attempt at innovation results in unbelievable or simply senseless productions;the Planet of the Apes inspired production of Rigoletto seems too far.

Personally, I think opera needs a return to its basics if it is to have a lasting impact on young audiences. Younger audiences will only return if they like what they see. That means not taking unrestricted liberties with the text: you wouldn’t see a Star Trek inspired Hamlet at the Royal Shakespeare Company, so why should a Harry Potter themed Magic Flute at the ENO fare any better? There’s a fine balance between a modern interpretation and a complete re-writing of an opera, the latter often having the potential to give a bad impression to any first-timers in the audience.

Drives to cast more BAME singers are extremely important, and there have been several drives put in place to tackle this issue since the late 1970s when famous sopranos like Leontyne Price began to emerge. World-class BAME opera singers like Pretty Yende are currently paving the way for a more inclusive environment in the future.

Yet with a growing number of such talented BAME singers, it is disappointing that some opera houses have started seeing inclusivity as a selling point, employing singers in roles out of their depth, rather than other singers of BAME or any other ethnic origin, better suited to the roles. The ENO in particular was criticised for doing this last season: looking at diversity as a selling point instead of genuinely attempting to promote it.

Moreover, it’s not enough to just sing the role. Opera is a performance, not a concert. Too many people have the image of the soprano on her death bed singing with perfect posture and as loud as she can, instead of resembling anything like a woman close to her death. Singers like Ermonela Jaho and Lisette Oropesa are good examples of the singing-acting combination that the realism-accustomed modern generation tend to prefer.

This recent change in the operatic world will all be for nothing though, if young people can’t afford to go and see the performances. There are several opera companies looking at making performances more accessible; for instance, the Oxford Opera Company had a performance of Carmen last term with tickets from £10-£35. Hopefully it won’t be long until bigger opera houses follow suit.

Opera is facing a tricky time in its long life. An elitist reputation, though fading, still no doubt dissuades many from visiting the opera. It is not a case of forcing opera into relevance and modernity – opera, like Shakespeare, is still relevant in the 21st century. It is just a case of noticing it. Be it professional or amateur, English or Italian, in London or abroad, I urge you to cast off any preconceptions you might have and go to a production. Hopefully, like me, you will agree with Maria Callas that “an opera begins long before the curtain comes up and ends long after it has come down.”

Still nothing moderate about Malaysia

0

In 2017, I wrote an article entitled ‘Nothing moderate about Malaysia’. It denounced the country-wide persecution of a local chapter of the group Atheist Republic.  After they posted a photo of their meeting online, many received death threats and were forced into hiding.

Whilst it is true that Malaysia is a diverse country that protects the rights of various religious groups, basic freedoms are frequently threatened by the state and the Sharia courts. Several states have egregious apostasy laws that threaten ‘rehabilitation’ and prison time for any Muslim that tries to leave the religion. It was for this reason that Dr Shahidan Kassim, a minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, wanted to identify whether there were any ‘official’ Muslims in the photo. 

“Not once does it [the constitution] mention atheism. This clearly shows that the group goes against the constitution and basic human rights… I suggest we vehemently hunt them down and identify them”, he said.  

Not only did the minister’s comments lack an understanding of human rights, they demonstrated an institutionalised acceptance of oppression. This was nearly two years ago, and since then a new prime minister has taken office. 

Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad assumed office in May of last year, having previously served as prime minister from 1981 to 2003. His election was largely in response to the corruption and authoritarianism of the previous prime minister, Najib Razak, who has been charged with money laundering in connection with the infamous 1MDB scandal. 

Dr Mahathir has made some progress in fighting corruption and has promised to rejuvenate the rule of law in Malaysia. It was with this context in mind that I attended his talk at the Oxford Union last Friday evening. I was optimistic that the country’s political change had coincided with a liberalising of social attitudes. 

After a speech on the problems facing Malaysia, there was an extended period of questioning. Union President, Daniel Wilkinson, asked the prime minister about his ban on Israeli swimmers entering the country ahead of an upcoming Paralympic swimming tournament. 

Dr Mahathir replied: “In Malaysia we have no diplomatic relations with Israel at all, we don’t think that they should come to our country because we have no relations with them… A country has a right to keep its borders closed to certain people… We have borders to only allow people we like to come to Malaysia.” 

The PM refused to separate his racism towards Jewish people from his criticisms of the Israeli government. Wilkinson repeatedly pressed the prime minister on his racist remarks, but he was only met with nonchalance. His trite response that “the Arabs are all Semitic people” was a dismal attempt to conceal his deep-seated anti-Semitism.

He added: “Well it seems that most of them [Jews] support the stance taken by [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu against the Arabs, so when I say only the Zionists, people do not understand. What they do understand is ‘yahudi’ or ‘Jews’.”

Wilkinson went on to question the PM on his claims that Jews are hook-nosed and have an instinctive sense of money. Dr Mahathir retorted that he is free to say what he likes, which garnered a gleeful applause from the audience. And yes, thankfully, Mahathir can express such opinions, for then we can see his views for what they are: lazy, hateful bigotry. 

The Union must be commended for hosting such an influential person, for scrutinising him thoroughly, and for enabling erudite questioners to expose his prejudice. Inviting a range of prominent people to the Union ensures that illiberal views are shown, with a little inspection, to be founded upon nothing but false beliefs and a hateful morality. 

Nowhere was this more evident than when one audience member asked: “Is sodomy wrong?” 

To which the prime minister replied: “In our society, it is wrong. If you want to do it yourself go ahead, but [do it] in England not in Malaysia.”

Writing this in St Peter’s College library, I can see the police patrolling the entrance to St Michael’s street. They are there to control the protests of Marion Maréchal’s talk at the Union – she’s a niece of Marine Le Pen. For the no-platforming, self-proclaimed anti-fascists it does beg the question, where was your protest on Friday evening?

Review: Antony and Cleopatra – a star-studded Shakespeare

0

Antony and Cleopatra is by no means a simple play. Shakespeare’s classical tale of love, war and empire spans over 42 scenes, which, if not managed properly, can easily lose the audience’s attention during its three and a half hour run time. However, this cannot be further from the case. As directed by Simon Godwin, this new truncated production is full of intense passion, touchingly tempered by sadness, where we have some of Shakespeare’s most sublime poetry.

The play is perfused with conflict: between public and private, the political and the personal. Godwin sees it as “not quite Romeo and Juliet and not quite Julius Caesar but a bit both”. It is then very fortunate that Ralph Fiennes and Sophie Okonedo were chosen for such demanding and nuanced title roles. Both won Evening Standard Theatre Awards for their performance, carrying the mantle of theatrical legends such as Anthony Hopkins and Judi Dench in the 1980s.

The action begins with the final scene as Octavius Caesar discovers Cleopatra’s lifeless body lying outstretched in her monument alongside her ill-fated lover. The all-encompassing darkness conveys to the audience a certain solemnity that can only be found in epic drama. It then retraces to Cleopatra’s Alexandrian palace where we discover Fiennes, loosely clad in a floral shirt with his belly displaying, revel in an air of touristy insouciance. The set is dominated by a tessellated aquamarine pool of Hildegard Bechtler’s design that would fit a boutique riad.

Okonedo, on the contrary, possesses all the radiance and confidence that one imagines the fabled ‘serpent of the Nile’ to have. In her opulent gown and flowing robes, she resembles at once a classical goddess and a cinematic star, with an untameable and fiery spirit — a queen with ‘infinite variety.’ “Cleopatra is the ultimate icon”, said Evie Gurney, the costume designer, who used contemporary cultural symbols such as Beyonce as inspiration. “My intention wasn’t to create something that looks like costume, but something that looks like high fashion.” Yet, amidst all this opulence, there is always the realisation that all this is not to last; they will never grow old together.

“A sense of failure hangs over the play,” says Godwin, and “and the trap is to play Antony like he’s a failure.” For the most part, Fiennes delivered a man of heroism and honour. As we break away from the luxurious Egypt to the austere Rome, Fiennes, too, temporarily shakes off his drunken stupor, self-indulgence and doting upon Cleopatra. We witness, as he manoeuvres with ease between the scheming Octavius and the senile Lepidus, the re-emergence of the tragic hero of the triumvirate we all root for. In one extended scene where each of the triumvirate puts on their military uniform in preparation for confronting Pompey, not a single word was uttered for two whole minutes. Instead, we were given a pulsating but dignified sequence of drum through which the unspoken pride of a once great man is made explicit.

Some half way into the first act, Fiennes sings a most moving song about old age that is not found in Shakespeare’s text. While I was enthralled by its melodious originality, I wonder if this has come too early in the play. Our hero contemplates his ‘heavy heart’ and ‘creaky knee’: has he admitted defeat to old age long before he admits defeat to Caesar? Where is the Antony who would cry “Come on, my queen; There’s sap in’t yet”? However, this portrayal of Antony as a man past his prime poignantly coincides with the actor Ralph Fiennes himself, who at the age of 56, might share a few of the same thoughts.

Okonedo’s Cleopatra matches the complexity of Antony with equal magnificence. Quick witted, capricious and passionate, she is a regal queen and more crucially, a woman very much in love. And she in love proved mad. She too suffers as duty calls Antony away from her. She too experiences the pangs of jealousy as she learns of Octavia, Antony’s newly wedded wife, and dumps the woeful messengers in her sunken pools. This makes her all the more relatable to us. In the lucid performance of Okonedo, we are reconciled with some of the seemingly irrational choices Antony and Cleopatra make: they are lovers intoxicated by their mutual adoration and tremulous desires. And for this, we may not even gently blame them. Her end comes in the form of an asp, which is substituted by a live milk snake, whose well-being is meticulously assured by members of the cast. If there is one criticism I would make of her, it is that she draws out her lines almost too much and too passionately at times, which does not allow the more tender feelings of her character to seep through. The result is that by the time of her death, a feeling of exhaustion creeps in.

Tim McMullan as Enobarbus and Katy Stephens as Agrippa give also particularly strong supporting performances. Fisayo Akinade, who played the hapless messenger, provided much of the comedy. Tunji Kasim, as Octavius Caesar, injected his youthful modernity into the play and in doing so, convincingly portrayed the scheming, ambitious politician who would defeat the great Mark Antony.

The National Theatre’s production of Antony and Cleopatra is one of those plays for which the stars have aligned. Featuring high-flying names such as Ralph Fiennes and Sophie Okonedo (and a live snake!), the play was bound to be a hit. As Antony says: [the play] “it is shaped, like it itself; and it is as broad as it hath breadth; it is just so high as it is” — in short, its pervading merits and occasional flaws characterise the production as one of the most original in decades.

Bhajis, bacteria, and bicycles: inside crew date kitchens

0

Oxford’s major crew date locations contravened multiple food hygiene regulations in their most recent inspections, Cherwell can reveal, with food storage, allergen risks, and dilapidated kitchens collectively the areas of greatest concern.

Cherwell obtained copies of the most recent hygiene food hygiene reports from At Thai, Jamal’s, and The Temple Lounge through Oxford City Council, all of which highlighted issues regarding hygiene, cleaning, and confidence in the restaurants’ management.

At Thai were found to be in breach of twelve legal requirements during their inspection in July last year. These included dirty hand contacts around the kitchen, concern about food being stored on the floor, as well as being chilled at 9°C in the walk-in fridge, which is higher than the permitted temperature in the UK. They were also instructed to deep clean their bin area and pest proof the restaurant, as well as being given six months to replace the kitchen floor, with the hygiene inspector describing it as “old, worn and cracked in places”.

Meanwhile Jamal’s on Walton Street, still known as Arzoo’s by many, breached seven legal requirements, with the inspector suggesting a cleaning of the walls and floors in the rear function room, as well as of their kitchen equipment. The same venue closed back in 2012 because of food hygiene concerns, though is now under new ownership. Both Jamal’s and At Thai were awarded an overall score of satisfactory.

The Temple Lounge in Cowley fared slightly better, receiving a four-star food hygiene rating, the same as the Randolph Hotel in its most recent report. Despite this, they were still told to remove their staircase carpet, with the inspector describing it as beyond cleaning. They were also instructed to deep clean and repaint the walls and ceiling in the kitchen.

Creasian on St. Giles came under fire for grease dripping from the kitchen canopy, which they were told to get professionally cleaned. The inspector also expressed concern about a bicycle in the kitchen. The restaurant has since ceased trading.

A representative of a renounced women’s drinking society told Cherwell:

“Although crew dates effectively pay to be rowdy, £15 should cover more than three naan breads and a bad curry. With white tablecloths to cover leftover food, uncomfortable chairs, and never enough cups or plates, the crew date scene is in dire need of an upgrade.”

 

The Race is on

0

When the editor commissioned a piece on whether Liverpool can win the Premier League, he phrased it so as to ask whether Liverpool will “slip up”. This exemplifies the eagerness with which rival fans await to seize on any mistake from Klopp’s men. Steven Gerrard’s infamous loss of footing five years ago is still glorified on the Chelsea terraces – the Blues finished third that season, behind Liverpool. It was Manchester City for whom the slip opened the door, and it is the oil-funded mega-club that the people are willing on once more as their collective champions against Liverpool.

This, however, is not the Liverpool of five years ago. The current table shows just ten goals conceded – this is a metamorphosis from the team that shipped fifty in 2013/14. Firepower at the other end has not been sacrificed; the departure of Suarez and decline of Sturridge has been mitigated through smart recruitment and coaching since Klopp took the helm. More than that, the team is truly collective this time: it is not solely reliant on one or two talismans. There are naturally standout members of the squad – Van Dijk is a colossus at one end, while Salah is a revelation at the other – but the side does not fall apart without them. This is a Liverpool team with both the depth and the quality of champions.

Liverpool, though, are not the only side to have undergone change in the last five years. In many other campaigns a team of their quality would have strolled to the title, but they must contend with the squad that last season were lauded by many as the best the league has ever seen. This title was not bestowed without reason: a world-class coach backed by effectively unending funds is a powerful combination, and the results have been, at time, mesmeric. De Bruyne, Bernardo Silva, David Silva: never has such creativity been assembled in one place. This guarantees service for Aguero, a consummate finisher who can now surely be considered a bona fide Premier League great. Vincent Kompany undoubtedly shares this status, yet he is not a certain starter ahead of John Stones and Aymeric Laporte. In goal, Ederson possesses all of the characteristics desirable in a modern keeper. There are still weak points: the system’s reliance on an ageing Fernandinho was exposed during his December absence through injury, and the full-backs are more adept going forward than they are at dealing with pressure. Nonetheless, this is substantially the same group that broke records for goals, points and wins last season – it is a formidable side that simply cannot be written off, even more so since their 2-1 win over Liverpool.

The fact that anyone can even compete with City would appear to be a victory for the league, particularly when the competitor is a side who in the not-so-distant past were replacing Luis Suarez with Lambert and Benteke. Rewind another few years, and Roy Hodgson was at the helm declaring Liverpool to be in a relegation battle. Surely this is a beacon of hope – good business and good coaching can take a club to the very top, even in the face of a squad funded by immense riches. And yet, while most fans would agree in principle, there is one sticking point: Liverpool. Away from the banks of the Mersey, the joy of getting carried away has been lost. Fans brand as “unbearable” those who eulogise about their team, who compose ballads about its achievements, who forge their very identity around its ethos. They point to the as-yet empty trophy cabinet under Klopp, and do not comprehend the notion of Liverpool fans enjoying the journey despite having not reached the destination. They fear the loss of this last remaining stick with which they can beat Klopp’s side more than they fear the monopolisation of the league.

As such, City are being willed on by the majority. They might get what they want: there is no shortage of quality at the Etihad, and the sheer amount of class at Guardiola’s disposal might yet prevail. Liverpool fans, however, have every right to believe that this won’t be the case – this will be their year. The forwards took all the plaudits in their run to Kyiv last year; Salah, Mane and Firmino are now supported by at least something of the strength in depth boasted by City. An end to the 30-year wait for the title is tangible. Even if it is not to be, however, the songs will not be silenced. The articles won’t stop. The fiercely loyal, socialist identity of the club and the city will not be shaken. Manchester City, the unlikely people’s champions, might stop Liverpool, but they will never shut them up.