Friday 1st May 2026
Blog Page 724

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.

Blues committee members vote on merger of women’s and men’s committees

0

Tonight, Blues committee members will vote on a potential merger of the currently separate men’s and women’s committees.

The presidents of the Women’s and Men’s Blues committees, Gwenyth Audran and Philip Baker respectively, proposed the merger in order to standardise the awarding of Blues status across women’s and men’s sport across the university. 

However, the presidents’ proposal is expected to meet opposition with captains of a number of teams signing a letter in opposition against the merger.

Writing in The Oxford Blue Bird, a website aiming to provide a “comprehensive coverage of all Oxford sporting matters”, Oxford University Rugby Football Club’s Women’s Blues Captain, Abby D’Cruz expressed her opposition against the merger.

She express her disapproval writing, “the lack of information, consultation, and due process afforded to the proposal has rendered the merger ill-equipped to recognise, much less address, the concerns of the committees it seeks to unite.”

The letter also took issue with the presidents writing, “given there are no fundamental differences between the male and female sports worlds at Oxford, it seems illogical to separate the organisations that help run them”, in a letter advocating for the merger.

D’Cruz wrote in response that this sentiment was “idealistic at best and irresponsible at worst”, citing examples of what she called “an institutional level of bias”, including the de-prioritisation of the scheduling and provisioning of referees for women’s football compared to men’s football.

The letter in opposition was co-signed by Oxford University Rugby Football Club’s Men’s Blues Captain, Oxford University Basketball Club’s Women’s Blues Captain, President of the Oxford University Athletic Club, Oxford University Women’s Boat Club’s Vice President and President of Oxford University Squash Raquets Club.

Another letter in opposition of the merger, which was published anonymously, stated that “it is only logical that the bodies that regulate the awarding of blues should be gender-specific” since “sport is fundamentally gender binary; it is predominantly played separately by men and women.”

The outcome of the vote will be released later tonight.

 

 

Crossing continents

1

In Europe and the United States, job openings for professors are scarce. In developing countries, on the other hand, there is a high demand for academics with PhDs to strengthen universities.

When my husband (from Ecuador, with a PhD from the USA) and I (Belgian, with a PhD from the Netherlands) were looking for a place to settle down, we thought our options through deeply.

Ecuador was an attractive option. The new rules for higher education institutions include, increasing the number of faculty members with PhDs at the Ecuadorian universities.

If you are a biologist, Ecuador is heaven for field work. The Galapagos, Amazon jungle, sweltering mangroves of the coast, and the snow-capped peaks of the Andean mountains host a variety of fauna and flora that make every biologist’s heart sing. It was not such an obvious choice for a structural engineer, never-the-less, I’ve found ways to advance my career, so here are seven tops for starting afresh in South America:

1. Pioneer

Don’t expect to find established labs. Instead, be prepared to pioneer and develop your own labs, fund your software licenses, and start your own ties to the industry. Learn to be the entrepreneur of your research career.

2. Teach beyond your university

Share the knowledge you obtain abroad. Offer to speak at industry events, to the broader public, at schools and at other universities. Bring attention to tpics that may be lacking in popularity, to raise concern.

3. Give back to local communities

Use the skills you learned during your studies to give back to your community at large. Volunteer for causes, with your technical knowledge – it is an element that is important for thee evaluation of the universities.

This is an excerpt of Seven tips for academics moving to Ecuador, originally published 22nd January 2018 on the Global Academy Jobs Blog.

Universities worldwide are recruiting now

Take the next step towards a distinguished career in academia at a top global university. With the latest vacancies from universities in 136 countries, Global Academy Jobs showcases the most sought-after academic opportunities . from over 600 institutions in five continents.

For diverse opportunities in your field, sign up for free with Global Academy Jobs today.

This is sponsored content.

Oxford bans donations from Chinese tech giant

The University has decided to not pursue new funding opportunities with Chinese tech giant Huawei and its related companies in response to spying allegations.

The University currently has two on-going projects with Huawei, with funding for both totalling £692,000. These projects were approved by the University prior to concerns being raised internationally.

The University decided to initiate the suspension on the 8 January and it will last at least three months. Oxford will continue with existing research contracts where funding has already been committed.

The telecommunications company has been accused by the US and others of spying on clients for the Chinese government and stealing trade secrets.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell: “Huawei has been notified of the decision, which the University will keep under review. The decision applies both to the funding of research contracts and of philanthropic donations.

“The decision has been taken in light of public concerns raised in recent months surrounding UK partnerships with Huawei. We hope these matters can be resolved shortly and note Huawei’s own willingness ot reassure governments about its role and activities.”

Oxford Chancellor Chris Patten warned MPs last week that China was attempting to exert a sway over Britain’s universities, highlighting Oxford’s particular vulnerabilities.

Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the former colonial governor of Hong Kong urged universities and government to remain vigilant against manipulative academic practices.

Chancellor Patten called for more collaboration between academics and the British state to counter Chinese influence: “[I]t would be very helpful if there was more agreement within Government about what is acceptable, and if there were a point of contact in Government to which all universities can turn.”

Chancellor Patten noted Oxford’s extensive involvement with the Chinese government, including the recently-opened research centre in Suzhou: “We have quite a few Chinese benefactors. Now we have a huge number of Chinese alumni because we have got over 1,300 Chinese postgraduate and undergraduate students at Oxford – more than most universities – and about 240 academic staff. This is a subject that we are really live to.”

Patten hinted that universities would be under greater financial pressure to accept foreign donations post-Brexit. He also highlighted the importance of donor transparency in countering such influence.

Patten described Confucius Institutes, Chinese government-funded cultural institutes attached to foreign universities, as “an offshoot of the propaganda department of the Communist party.”

He said: “If the Confucius Institute is working on a university campus as a contributor to Chinese language instruction, to understanding about the spectacular Chinese civilisation, that is fine. If it is trying to shape the curriculum, or shape students’ attitudes to Tibet, or Xinjiang, or free speech, or other issues like that, it is not acceptable.”

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy told Cherwell that the Confucius Institute “is a joint venture between a Chinese university and a foreign host university upon the latter’s application. The Chinese university respects the host’s right to make their decision in running the Institute and never interferes in academic freedom.

“The Confucius Institute is strictly for public good, focusing on mutual exchange and providing people with an opportunity to learn the Chinese language and culture, to strengthen educational and cultural cooperation, and to build friendships. The Institute has never participated in any activities in the host country that are political or religious in nature, and will not do so in the future.”

A spokesperson for the University stressed that Lord Patten’s comments were “applied to the higher education sector in general and he does not have specific concerns relating to Oxford.”

Huawei is under investigation int he US and facing a ban in Poland after an employee was charged with espionage. The governments of Australia and New Zealand have blocked the company’s involvement in their internet infrastructures, while Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer Sabrina Meng Wanzhou is currently detained in Canada awaiting extradition to the United States on charges of violating sanctions on Iran.

Other universities that have partnered with Huawei include Cambridge, Cardiff, York, Manchester, Edinburgh and Imperial College, London.

Oxford tutors among 104 signatories on anti-LGBTQ+ petition

0

Over a hundred serving Oxford clergy have signed a petition opposing a call by local bishops for “an attitude of inclusion and respect for LGBTQ+ people,” including staff from two Oxford colleges.

The petition questions whether those in same sex relationships should be eligible for ordination or communion, arguing that the Bible “discourages participation in the Lord’s Supper for those who have not examined themselves.”

Two members of Wycliffe Hall’s five-strong senior management team, Greg Downes and Justyn Terry, are among the signatories, along with five of the college’s tutors and lecturers: Andrew Atherstone, Bruce Gilling- ham, Simon Ponsonby, Michael Green and David Wenham.

St. Edmund Hall’s Chaplain and senior welfare officer Will Donaldson also signed the petition, along with Joel Knight, who oversees a congregation largely composed of Oxford students at St. Ebbe’s. The petition was also signed by rectors of St. Aldate’s and St. Ebbe’s churches, Charlie Cleverly and Vaughan Roberts.

The letter concludes with the signatories threatening to disassociate their churches from the Diocese. They write: “advocacy of same-sex sexual intimacy is either an expression of the love of God or it creates an obstacle to people entering the kingdom of God. It cannot be both.

“The situation is serious. If not addressed, we would all struggle to support the leadership of our bishops in this matter and a number of our churches may want to seek alternative means of receiving episcopal ministry, in recognition that your position is seriously differentiated from theirs. This would be a tragedy.”

The faith reps for Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society told Cherwell: “Whilst it is heartening that the letter-writers affirm that ‘no person is a problem or an issue’, we do not feel this is conveyed by the tone of the letter, which expresses ‘grave concern’, claims ‘the situation is seri- ous’, and says they are ‘disturbed’ by the Bishops’ words of inclusion.

“This kind of tone can have a detrimental effect on the atmosphere and attitudes which LGBTQ+ people experience, who are often already excluded or encouraged to reject their identities in some Christian communities.

“This is especially concerning given that several of the signatories are in pastoral roles in and around the university. LGBTQ+ Soc would like to urge anyone affected to get in touch with us: we’re here to support all LGBTQ+ students in Oxford, and offer a wide range of welfare-focused events, including those specifically targeted at LGBTQ+ people of faith.”

The four bishops of the Oxford diocese wrote to 1,500 ministers in October, announcing the formation of a new LGBTQ+ chaplaincy team and an informal LGBTQ+ advisory group.

The petition criticises the fact that this advisory group “does not include same-sex attracted people who advocate celibacy in faithfulness to Scripture.

“Overall, however, our overriding concern is with the direction of travel which the Diocese is taking as revealed by this letter.”

Quoting evangelical Bishop William Love, the authors write that the new LGBTQ+ guidance “does a great disservice and injustice to our gay and lesbian Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by leading them to believe that God gives his blessing to the sharing of sexual intimacy within a same-sex relationship, when in fact He has reserved the gift of sexual intimacy for men and women within the confines of marriage between a man and woman.”

The signatories write: “We entirely endorse the view that nobody should be told that their sexual orientation makes them an unsuitable candidate for leadership in the Church.”

However, they clarify that this does not include those who are sexually active, stating: “[I]n discussing leadership in the local church, the letter seeks to suggest that this should mean acceptance into leadership of those who identify themselves as LGBTQ+.

“This carries with it a range of understandings about what is appropriate by way of lifestyle. We cannot see how it is right to accept as Christian leaders those who advocate lifestyles that are not consistent with New Testament teaching.”

Arguing that those in same-sex relationships should be excluded from communion and ordination, the petition states: “The Letter makes specific reference to nobody being excluded or discouraged from receiving the sacraments of baptism or the Lord’s Supper. Such indiscriminate participation seems to be inconsistent with the witness of Scripture.”

One of the signatories, St. Ebbe’s Rector Vaughan Roberts, is celibate for this reason. He told Evangelicals Now: “The Bible presents only two alternatives: heterosexual marriage or celibacy,” arguing that “homo- sexual sin must always be resisted.”

The signatories write: “If we cannot clearly advocate God’s revealed will and encourage each other to repent, then we are ill-served by the Diocese.”

The chair of Oxford’s clergy Sue Booys described the petition’s signatories as an “unrepresentative fraction.” Speaking to Cherwell, she said: “My experience is that the Bishops’ pastoral letter has been widely appreciated in the Diocese.”

She continued: “On an issue like this one clergy are speak- ing personally and not for their parishes. For some people it has been distressing to see their clergy signing a letter with which they would not agree.

“The clergy and laity of our Diocese have confidence in the Bishop and his senior staff and are engaging warmly with our emerging missional strategy around the call to be more Christ-like through our Contemplative, Compassionate and Courageous lives in Church and Society.”

The bishops of Oxford, Reading, Dorchester and Buckingham also responded by clarifying that their original letter was “not intended as a theological statement [but rather] to commend love and care in the midst of a challenging period in the Church of England’s ongoing conversation on sexuality.”

The dispute comes amidst a row over Professor John Finnis’ homophobic views, which were the subject of a controversial student petition which garnered almost 600 signatures earlier this month. None of the signatories named in this article responded to a request for comment.

Hard to Be-Leave – Brexit: The Uncivil War

0

The earliest laughable moment in James Graham’s political docudrama comes about five minutes in, when political strategist Matthew Elliott (wellplayed by John Heffernan) and UKIP’s erstwhile MP Douglas Carswell (played out of the corner of his mouth by Simon Paisley Day) turn up at Sherlock’s house in 2015 and ask him what he’s been up to since leaving Westminster. ‘Reading,’ he deadpans; ‘Thucydides. Kipling. Tolstoy.’

I would have found this profoundly annoying, had I been unprepared for it; luckily, in one of the brief jump-cuts during the portentous opening sequence he has already been heard deadpanning ‘Apollonian rationality versus Dionysian intuition’ to a board of executives. Later, he will scribble all over a blackboard while shouting ‘Tzu’s Art of War!’ with deadpan élan.

From these subtle, naturalistic hints, we can guess that Sherlock is a clever man, well-versed in strategy and the classics, but emotionally distant – a brilliant but unreadable sociopath.

I had to keep reminding myself that this was not in fact Sherlock, but Dominic Cummings, campaign director of Vote Leave and mastermind of Brexit’s success in the 2016 referendum. Graham left occasional reminders of this (people would sometimes address the protagonist as ‘Dom’, for instance), but frankly Benedict Cumberbatch plays Cummings as Holmes with less hair and more wood. Perhaps Channel 4 can only make sense of Leave’s victory if it was magicked up by a semi-mythical detective?

Either way, it is clearly tumescent with envy of the BBC Conan Doyle megahit and has decided to remake it: text appears punchily on the screen whenever anyone of importance is introduced; there are feverish but light-hearted splices of Cumberbatch doing unexpected things like playing pool or having a pint, while actually on a serious mission gathering data on punters’ prejudices; while some scenes (Cummings staggers woozily out of a house and puts his ear to the tarmac while music thunders; Cummings sends one message to a Whatsapp group in a board meeting, everyone’s phones start pinging, and he suddenly gets promoted to chairman) could have been lifted from Sherlock verbatim.

Generally, this all makes for watchable TV, and The Uncivil War is well-produced and sometimes quite exciting. It refocuses the events of 2016 in a much more dynamic historical lens than the turgid process seemed the first time around. However, unlike Sherlock, this performance from Cumberbatch is one of actual poorness, which sees one of the English speaking world’s most touted actors hamstrung by a poor script and a northern accent – Cummings occasionally seems to be from everywhere north of Birmingham – which at moments of higher emotion he often forgets altogether.

Nonetheless he commands centre stage, the camera engorged by him. Cumberbatch has simply become too big for domestic productions like this; one is almost never given the sense of Cummings as a real person, for all of Cumberbatch’s fussy method acting, because the shadow the programme does not allow itself to escape is Cumberbatch’s own. It made me nostalgic for 2006 and Starter for 10, where Cumberbatch’s best line as an embarrassed University Challenge captain was ‘It’s a kind of fungal infection.’ Ironically that line sums up his influence here. Graham, like his leading man, is a major West End animal, possibly British drama’s most high-profile political playwright and one of the few whose works near-automatically debut at the National Theatre. It is genuinely disappointing, then, to see the Westminster landscape conjured in The Uncivil War populated only by caricature charlatans – which in Boris Johnson’s case, of course, is a caricature of a caricature.

Richard Goulding’s Johnson is a fine piece of character acting – almost passable for the real thing, though Graham’s refusal to recognise that ‘the real thing’ in Johnson’s case is not merely what meets the eye betrays a lack of the kind of effort a Brexit drama needs if it’s to exceed fifteen years’ political cartoons in relevance. Oliver Maltman plays Michael Gove like an owl that’s been sat on, and his accent is even wobblier than Cumberbatch’s. Nigel Farage and UKIP donor Arron Banks (Paul Ryan and Lee Boardman respectively) are mined for comic relief, which mostly seems to be saying ‘fuck’ a lot; it is a mark of Graham’s effort at some kind of impartiality that Cummings’ Vote Leave campaign have as sincere a distaste as the Remainers for UKIP and the concomitant ineptitude of Leave.EU – even if it inevitably leaves the challenge of Farage to a thoughtful topical scriptwriter as wholly unanswered as that of Johnson.

This is probably Channel 4’s best effort at impartiality on a question which many of its programmers and target audience still find too raw and unpleasant to give much ground on. Even if no Remainers are caricatured at all (though May appears in archive footage as herself, which does half the job), they are at least made out to be as flawed as their Leave counterparts, and perhaps all the more blameworthy for being fatally detuned to the brewing zeitgeist of the last thirty years. Needless to say, this is only impartiality by Channel 4’s standards.

What promises to examine the Leave campaign with frankness and wit ends up leadenly moralising about Vote Leave’s use of online data-gathering methods (seemingly prompted by a sudden revelation in St James’s Park that lots of people use their phones a lot) to target advertisements at fence-sitters. Cummings, whose (legal) use of data-gatherers AggregateIQ is the target cardinal sin of the whole drama, is allowed to appear slightly sympathetic only at the price of regularly voicing contempt for his whole enterprise.

‘Referenda are the worst way to make political choices,’ he deadpans at one point; ‘not that we live in a nuanced or political age, do we?’ At this point the camera starts creeping towards him and an epic note of doom is struck in Cumberbatch’s voice and posture.

‘I hate them; they stop us progressing,’ he says later of nostalgic slogans (i.e. his own ‘Take Back Control’), ‘but in this case, let’s use them.’ It is hard to imagine anyone in real life saying any of these things.

Like Macbeth or a self-destructive drug addict (Sherlock again?), Cummings’ so-called recklessness can only be absolved if presented as a helplessly self-aware hurtle towards a fatal mistake. He has his ‘tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow’ moment right at the end when he leaves a tribunal over the AggregateIQ question with the words ‘We’re all done. Thank you.’ And accidentally knocks over his chair. Subtle.

What is ultimately hard to forgive is Graham’s dated cop-out technique of words on a black screen recounting events which have not been dramatised. This happens twice: at Jo Cox’s assassination, seven days before the referendum, and then before the credits, when Graham makes sure to let us know that AggregateIQ is ‘linked to billionaire businessman Robert Mercer’. After a brief pause the second line sombrely fades onto the screen: ‘who went on to become the largest donor to the election campaign of President Donald Trump.’

The T-word was a long time coming and is dropped with all the portentous reverence of a criminal sentence. The quiet moralism is shockingly crude, and, in implicitly equating an MP’s murder with the election of someone Graham disagrees with, leaves a bad taste in the mouth, and demonstrates how much more water is needed under the bridge before some grown-up perspective can be gained on the Brexit question.

Binge shopping – a no brainer?

0

We’ve all been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, dress, jeans and shoes that we didn’t really need. And now we’re broke and still have nothing to wear.

It might feel like a never-ending cycle that leaves you with a limp bank card and an overflowing closet, but there is some science to explain what makes us buy things all the time (and how sometimes, a little indulgence can be a good thing!).

During a shopping experience, the human brain releases dopamine, which causes us to feel pleasure, chemically programming our brain to respond positively to sales and advertisements. As with receiving rewards, we feel an instant sense of gratification at being able to obtain the item we want.

Additionally, split second decisions don’t function around a careful evaluation of possible outcomes. Instead, excitement causes a spike in brainwaves and results in emotional engagement with the product. Studies have shown that even just anticipating the experience can cause shoppers to instantly feel better.

So, you can almost justify any irresponsible shopping spree as the result of brain chemicals. But what are the consequences if we let our brains (and our bank cards) run wild?

Of course, there’s the obvious, such as financial constraints and a depressing bank statement. But a dependence on excessive shopping can actually become compulsive buying disorder. The fear of missing out on a purchase (otherwise known as ‘loss aversion theory’) causes one to irrationally overvalue the losses of not buying something – to the extent that this is valued at double as much as they’d gain by buying it. Such behaviour is also closely linked to hoarding, as many sufferers will keep every single purchase as a reminder of their ‘victory’ through buying it.

Of course, this is the worst-case scenario and a couple of shopping trips every now and then won’t hurt. Technically, it could even be beneficial for your mental health as it releases dopamine, which simulates feelings of happiness. However, uncontrolled spending can lead to larger money problems. This is especially prevalent around the Boxing Day and New Year sales, promising us savings that could make us happier than we thought possible. When shopping, it may be beneficial to take a moment to consider what you’re buying and whether you can justify it; one shopping trip seems affordable, but a prolonged habit of binge shopping is less so. As cool as the new outfit you have may be, you probably don’t need as much as your brain thinks you do.

The psychology of an evil stepmother

0

The notion of remarriage offers the idea of a second chance, or a rejuvenation. A return to the hope and romance of youth. In fairytales as old as time, children stand in the way of that hope. A woman who may never have had any children herself is forced prematurely into the role of mother for children she doesn’t love. Her body hasn’t been wrecked with childbirth, but equally she has never had the need to be compassionate. Maybe the wicked stepmother will have her own children, but they will only warp her affections even more, as she will only understand how to love her own.

Romances can be thought of as a completion of another person, and a journey together that begins with utter devotion. But if the father already has children, his devotion will always be fractured, his love will never be wholly hers. Thus in order to gain the full extent of that possessive love, she has to either kill the children or put them to work to the degree where their identities are subsumed by the drudgery of the labour they engage in. Inherently though there is a pathetic indignity to it – the necessity of competing with and fighting against children.

In the era of most early fairytales, where children were still treated as property, there is a horror to the notion that they could be set the most gruelling, abusive tasks by a wicked stepparent in a fruitless attempt at vengeance for the way the children are loved. This would be the result of a hatred of an entity that is indestructible (at least until the stepmother’s detestation of the children overcomes her love for her husband and she snaps and kills them) but completely powerless. To despise something so weak, so inoffensive simply because one of the few faculties they have is the love for their father, there is a visceral extremity in this capacity to hate.

Often stepmothers are wicked witches too. If they aren’t siphoning the life out of their children by setting them to menial labour, they are literally siphoning the life out of them. It is but a matter of time before any figure of impure beauty such as the second wife seductress that crashes through the family ends up with occult power behind them.
Why might this be? Children for many families represent an extension of the growth that the parents have found valuable in their own lives. We teach children everything we know in the hopes they will learn from their mistakes and might surpass us, but also as an extension of the ego. By taking forwards our knowledge and utilising it in the world in a myriad of scenarios, children have chances for development that we never had. A lot of people put all their hope for the future in their children instead of themselves when they have them. Children are the futures that parents never had made either consciously or subconsciously in their own image.

But the wicked stepmother never made that choice to translate her hopes for a future into a child, and have a child as the extension of her own identity. Usually the established, somewhat wealthy father, and that marriage represents the future to her, and the children are only a relic of a past that is dead (via their biological mother). The wicked stepmother will show no desire to put any of herself into the children by raising and teaching them. The wicked stepmother has not a scrap of self-sacrifice that traditional parenting demands. She represents parental knowledge withheld, and someone trapped in the family scenario who shows no desire to put any of her own development or ambitions on hold for the children she has been forced to look after. The wicked stepmother has complete mastery over herself and always will, so she retains her beauty and role of temptress even when settling into marriage.

One could easily see how power over the self ends up translating into a type of magic. When the daughters grow up to be more beautiful than she is, in an attempt at all costs to resist sacrificing any of her identity, she will happily kill or siphon off the life and youth of the children before her to retain that dynamic of complete autonomy that seems so alien within a family setting.

Though we may consider the wicked stepmother an archetype of the days of the Brothers Grimm, we still have characters such as A Series of Unfortunate Events’ Esmé Squalor. The extraordinarily wealthy fashionista leeches power from the children by reducing them to a mere accessory – ‘orphans are in’ – and triumphantly parades them around to enhance her own reputation. Like the wicked witch stepmothers often become, Esmé uses her powers of fashion to create chic outfits to disguise herself with and seduce anyone in her path to the children’s fortune and status. Fundamentally, children will always represent the chance for parents to impart their knowledge and offer chances for growth those parents never had.
When faced with substitute guardians who are unwilling to sacrifice themselves, that core process of growth will be disrupted. For as long as children even in some part exist as an extension of parental identity, the self-assured wicked stepmother will exist alongside them.