Friday 1st May 2026
Blog Page 732

Aquaman review: DC’s latest offering fails to marvel

Molly Chell
-
0
Aquaman review: DC’s latest offering fails to marvel

Marvel and DC have fought for domination within the superhero genre since 2013, when DC jumped on the bandwagon of extended universes with the release of Man of Steel. Though both brands are enjoying success, Marvel films are generally more lauded than DC’s offerings. While Marvel has smashed records and sparked hype with Avengers Infinity War and Black Panther, DC has disappointed fans and critics alike with Justice League. Though its latest offering of Aquaman has set records for Warner Bros. in China and beaten Infinity War in presales, its lack of depth and complexity won’t help DC in struggling out from the shadow of its rival. It is far superior to Justice League, but is certainly no Wonder Woman.

After brief appearances in Batman v Superman and Justice League, we finally discover Arthur Curry’s origin story. The underwater Kingdom of Atlantis, ruled by Arthur’s half-brother King Orm (Patrick Wilson), seeks to unite the people of the Ocean and to strike against the surface world. In a typical tale of origin-seeking and assuming of responsibility, it is up to Aquaman to prevent a full-scale war by reclaiming his birthright and searching for the Trident of Atlan.

In a time when we are persistently warned by scientists of the dangers of global warming and rising sea levels, the plot’s focus on the issue of sea pollution makes Aquaman surprisingly topical. But the film fails to take full advantage of this contemporary conundrum. The war between land and sea is not fully resolved at the end of the film – though Arthur is accepted as King of Atlantis, the issue of the damage being inflicted upon the ocean is left hanging in the air. The film narrows down its set-up of an expansive conflict to a simple battle for a throne, yet fails to do so with the excitement and ingenuity managed by shows such as Game of Thrones.

Yet director James Wan has created enchanting visuals, as the film delights in the colourful and vibrant shots of Atlantis that seem to transport the viewer to this hidden and alien world. The well-choreographed fight scenes provide the excitement and tension – a scene in which Arthur prevents a group of pirates from hijacking a nuclear submarine stands out as particularly visually enthralling. This is a film made to be enjoyed on the big screen. Its heavy reliance on CGI is not, for once, a pitfall, but creates a magical effect in bringing a setting as complexly imaginative as Atlantis to the screen.

But what the film makes up for in visuals, it loses in character dynamic. The intimacy between Arthur and Princess Mera (Amber Heard) feels forced. The relationship between the two offers enough to the viewer without an unnecessary addition of romance, and the romance itself offers little to the plot. Wan could perhaps learn from Rogue One’s presentation of a compelling relationship between male and female protagonists that does not rely on romance. The forbidden love between the Queen of Atlantis (Nicole Kidman) and lighthouse keeper Thomas Curry (Temuera Morrison) is an example of better writing, however, and imbues the film with the air of fairytale through a touching and beautifully shot opening scene.

DC is known for being tonally darker than Marvel, but Aquaman feels lighter than previous entries, though the attempts at humour fluctuate between being delivered with perfect comedic timing and falling completely flat.  The crucial let-down remains the lack of depth given to the majority of the characters – even Jason Momoa’s Aquaman could have been fleshed out more. This superficial use of character is disappointing, as DC manages to cultivate character complexity in their TV work, particularly in Legends of Tomorrow, that somehow fails to translate into their films.

Aquaman makes for pleasant viewing, but proves unable to repeat Wonder Woman’s winning formula. Marvel manages a successful balancing act of characterisation and plot that DC so far cannot live up to. If DC is ever to give Marvel a proper run for its money, it will have to start producing films that are much more than just ‘fine’.

The decline of Wonderland: festive fun or Christmas consumerism?

Shamika Tamhane
-
0
The decline of Wonderland: festive fun or Christmas consumerism?

Since Christmas’s modern conception in the mid-Victorian period, the festive season has always seemed to be under threat from capitalism, commercialism and immigration; all which allegedly seek to demean and dilute the ‘true meaning of Christmas’. Seeing as Christmas is still going strong and has been taken up and adapted by different people through the years, I would be reluctant to say it has declined, especially as the option to worship and celebrate at a church is still open if you are not too busy complaining about the moral decay of contemporary Christmas.

That is not to say that there haven’t been trends in how we celebrate Christmas and more generally the winter season. On the continent, markets selling handcrafted gifts, warm spiced wine, and street food have been around for decades. This idea has now been popularised in the UK in the form of a quasi-imagined Bavarian market complete with elements such as Oktoberfest and bratwurst. Such markets bring in families, couples and friends eager to have fun in the sometimes depressing and cold winter months. The most infamous of these is Hyde Park’s ‘Winter Wonderland’ which had been around for a decade before the rest of the country seemed to catch on.

Large-scale winter festivities aren’t new to the capital; when the Thames froze over during the ‘Little Ice Age’ people would come together to play games, eat, ice skate, and sell goods. Whether they had to pay £5 for some churros and scout out the perfect Instagram photo opportunity in 1688 is quite another matter of course. I’ve always been more a summer person but in recent years a love for mulled wine and the aforementioned churros made me more accepting of chilly spells. By this definition, ‘Winter Wonderland’ was a perfect way to spend an evening in London.

My intention for the evening was for something cute and slightly clichéd, but it quickly turned into something more crowded and consumerist. The cost of this event is a different matter altogether considering the high prices in London. But most people are aware of this and would be naïve to assume otherwise. I only intended to go on a couple of rides and buy some £5 mulled wine as a treat, the latter of which I gave up on because of the lack of seats. Still, you can enjoy Christmas markets without spending any money by taking a walk and soaking in the festive atmosphere – but even this proved to be impossible with the crowds.

I will mention that we visited on a Saturday evening which in hindsight was a terrible idea. It’s clear that they were unable to cope with the sheer volume of people entering: the site was filled with litter and it was impossible to find seats in the Bavarian Village. Despite the venue’s best attempts at crowd control in Hyde Park and the areas nearby, it was apparent that the evening was quite chaotic for everyone. Those with small children deserve a medal for their bravery and patience in bringing a five year- old into such a busy environment. The event also impacts the rest of London with the closure of some tube stations.

The issue is not the entertainment. Warm drinks, ice skating, rides and markets are a lovely way to spend time with loved ones over the festive season. Only a real cynic would take issue with this. But Hyde Park’s Winter Wonderland has become a behemoth, logistically impossible and perhaps overhyped extortionate vehicle of money wasting and consumerism. Part of the appeal of European style Christmas markets is that they offered something quainter and low-key; a wholesome activity in the Winter season which all ages can enjoy. The London prices and queues near Hyde Park indicate that this is no longer the case. However, not all Christmas Markets are defunct: countless towns and cities across the UK host them. York, Birmingham and Chester are just a few of the better-known ones, but there is likely to be one very nearby if you do some research.

It’s not all bad though: as we were packed into slow-moving crowds at Knightsbridge tube station, we were relieved that the worst of Winterland was over and we could easily find a pub to enjoy a glass of mulled wine in peace, away from the chaos, the crowds, and the mindless Christmas consumerism.

Australia versus India: the perfect ending to Christmas Day

Cal Flintoff
-
0
Australia versus India: the perfect ending to Christmas Day

When on December 26th, 1975 a West Indies side widely regarded to be the finest on the globe took to the field for day one of the Melbourne test match, an 86,000-strong throng of Australians were offered a glimpse at what would become a staple of the cricketing summer for years to come: The Boxing Day Test Match.

With the series tied at 1-1 at Christmas, the West Indies’ dominant display to level at the WACA just a week earlier prominent in the Aussie psyche, express-quicks Jeff Thomson and Denis Lillee ran riot to dismiss the opposition cheaply. Thomson ripped out the top order and picked up the first five; Lillee bowled Viv Richards and claimed the next four. The Australian opening pair cruised into the end of play and the appetite was well and truly whet for the cricketing carnival to become a regular tradition.

Australia won the test by 8 wickets and went on to crush the series 5-1, collective Christmas hangovers remedied by high-class test cricket being played at full throttle between two ferociously competitive sides. Although the official inception of the occasion in the calendar, stymied initially, but no doubt ultimately moulded by Kerry Packer’s drive to modernise cricket with his newfangled World Series, didn’t arrive until 1980, the test is widely regarded to be the precursor of the sporting bucket-list-behemoth that exists today.

Although at the height of summer for Melburnians, for English cricket fans the contest provides the perfect curtain call to a long hard day of festivities, the pitch report creeping ever closer as Waternoose is finally thwarted in Monsters Inc., team news filtering through as repeats of Outnumbered finally run out, and the first ball arriving, a shiny conker glistening like a seamed-Christmas bauble, as the apprehension finally takes its toll on the family, out like lights on the adjoining sofa.

You stare out the window and imagine you’re there, greeted by an amphitheatre of noise as Chris Tremlett steams in from his mark. Somehow, he extracts steep and rearing bounce from the cold and wet tarmac in your front driveway and Shane Watson, glove uprooted from the handle, can only fend to Kevin Pietersen. You’re transported back to your front room as the clock ticks past midnight; in the dying embers of the day, the perfect gift arrives.

In recent years, the Melbourne test has not been as much of a happy hunting ground – for England supporters, of course, but for bowlers, aficionados of genuine contest, and groundsmen alike too. Since that famous triumph for England in 2010, Australia have comprehensively farmed the match, winning five of the past seven, including revenge over England in 2013 in front of the largest crowd ever drawn. In that span, Steve Smith averages 136 at the ground and has registered four consecutive centuries.

No, it’s not that attendances have dwindled as such – the Ashes continues to attract like bees to nectar – or that Australia have never been successful before – between 1999 and 2007 the side won nine consecutive Boxing Day Tests – more that the Melbourne test has just been starved of a genuine white-collar rivalry to enliven the coliseum; the ball fizzing and spitting through to the keeper and the Australians offered some bite for their bark.
No series has arrived in Melbourne alive and in the balance since England used success as a springboard to a first away Ashes win since 1987. Until now.

As Virat Kohli and co. roll into town, their bowling pack firing down bouncers as if crafted in an outback lab and the skipper registering his 6th ton in the country – more than any current Australian batsman – the series lies tantalisingly balanced at one apiece, just as it did on that day in 1975, when the prescient Australian public witnessed the birth of a true spectacle. Whilst they cannot have foreseen the gem that is Rishabh Pant in close proximity to a stump microphone, the re-drawing of the battle lines between Kohli and Tim Paine at the newly-christened Perth Stadium has produced a rivalry, rough around the edges but largely the right side of the moral compass, reminiscent of old.

The cornerstone to India’s desperate attempts to draw first blood in SENA countries (South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia) , the test match once more has a licence to thrill. BT Sport’s coverage ensures a blockbuster reprisal in its role at the epilogue of the Christmas schedule awaits, but it is also the fitting conclusion to a belting year of Test cricket, unique by nature and incomparable in full flow. Book-ended between Alistair Cook’s heroic vigil and the present day has been an emphatic reaffirmation that the game’s purest pursuit is doing just fine.

Sandpaper aside, although the punishments handed down will surely mitigate the development of ball tampering in years to come, the year has been punctuated with several competitive and thrilling series; with precious away victories; clinics of probing bowling and obdurate batting. According to Australian statistician Ric Findlay, the number of centuries and five-fors are in perfect harmony for the first time: there has been 65 of each (in 2014, for example, there were 110 centuries and 50 five-fors), and but for late cameos from Mushfiqur Rahim and Tom Latham the year would also be uniquely deficient in double-centuries.

There are signs too that Test cricket can co-exist, and mutually benefit, the burgeoning global sphere of Twenty-20 cricket. Ireland and Afghanistan have test status thanks to their exploits in the shorter formats. The ICC Test Championship no doubt draws its origins in the myriad league tables of franchise cricket. Day-night and four-day trials have arisen from the same school of thought.

As Christmas comes to a close, take solace in the fact that test cricket never will.

Nothing beats a traditional German Christmas market

-
0
Nothing beats a traditional German Christmas market

Food markets are always unique and fun ways to eat something different, but there is something about Christmas markets that is even more special. There is nothing quite like strolling past dainty wooden huts with a hot cup of mulled wine, peering in at the artisanal Christmas tree decorations or stacks of home baked biscuits. An originally German tradition, but increasingly popular throughout Europe and North America, Christmas markets were born as simply a festive version of the markets that regularly took place in town squares.

As any Christmas enthusiast can testify, no two Christmas markets are the same: there is great variety, and really no rules about what kind of food you may find there. However, in Germany, as well as other north-eastern European countries, the tradition of the Christmas market is more established than it is in the UK, and Christmas market food and drink is more predictable as a result, with the same familiar Christmas treats to be found in most markets. As well as mulled wine, you will find German egg liquor punch, large gingerbread-type biscuits in the shape of hearts, roasted nuts, fruit dipped in chocolate, and of course, plenty of sausages. Beyond this, every region has its specialities which cannot be missed, such as stollen — a Christmas cake with candied fruit from Dresden. Not far from there, in Prague, the mulled wine and nuts remain, but different Czech foods appear: cones of sweet roasted dough dusted in sugar and cinnamon, as well as spit-roasted hams. This doesn’t exclude, of course, the presence of other, less traditional or not especially Christmassy foods, as are more common in British Christmas markets. Churros, chips, crepes and doughnuts, for example, are as present in continental markets as they are on the Broad Street Christmas market. It does seem that we have fewer Christmas culinary treats suitable for outdoor markets in the UK, apart from the beloved mulled wine and mince pies, which may be the reason British Christmas markets seem to host a wider variety of street food rather than the same seasonal foods.

Of course, Christmas markets are not only about food, we cannot forget the lights, decorations, music, and good company. When a carol, or ‘All I Want for Christmas’ is playing, and you are taking in the scene with a friend, seasonal cheer can be achieved whatever you happen to be eating or drinking.

Homelessness is not just for Christmas

Tom Davison
-
0
Homelessness is not just for Christmas

The Britannia Royal Hotel, Hull, caused outrage early last week by cancelling a charity booking reserved for 28 homeless people.

Carl Simpson, of Raise the Roof Homeless Project, initiated the £1,092 charity venture in the hope of providing two nights of welcome relief for some of Hull’s rough sleepers over the Christmas period. Their mission had been unduly aborted. A spokesperson for the hotel cited a call from someone claiming to be from the charity, who had warned of “trashing of rooms, fires, theft of hotel goods and property and damage to property” at last year’s event, in an attempt to explicate the hotel’s decision to cancel. Ibis, host of the 2017 Christmas booking, denies that this was the case and the Project itself has denounced the accusations as “lies”. That the Royal Hotel’s actions stem from a discriminatory stance towards the homeless community seems to be undeniable. The cancellation is a perfect distillation of the nation-wide stigma attached to the issue of homelessness and the homeless themselves in the UK. The hotel must come to terms with the media backlash and public outcry they have incited.

For me, the actions of the Britannia Royal Hotel provoke a second, more fundamental consideration about the nature of homelessness in the UK. Upon reading the story we should feel uncomfortable, even outraged, with the hotel’s myopic, insensitive handling of the whole affair. Their defence is anecdotal at best and insulting at worst, and the criticism levelled against them is rightfully scathing. But, if we are to take a step back from the specifics we see reported in the news, the detached observation is a simple one: an isolated mistreatment of a group of homeless people at their most vulnerable has rightly created public outcry. The story in the news is a demonstration of the media and the public’s increased perceptiveness towards the issue of homelessness during the harsh winter months. But homelessness is not a seasonal problem.

It is easy to see why homelessness is often perceived as a more pertinent issue over Christmas. The sub-zero temperatures and stark weather patterns constitute a severe or even fatal threat to anyone living rough on the streets – a horrific reminder of this came when a homeless man collapsed and died outside Parliament just this week. Indeed, during the winter of 2017, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported the deaths of at least 78 homeless people in the UK. The severity of the problem is further magnified by the fact that much of the rest of the population spends the festive period exchanging presents and sipping mulled wine in the warmth of their own homes. But it is not enough to take most notice of homelessness at a time when its most obvious effects are pronounced, where rough sleepers are literally freezing to death on the streets. We should do more to fight for pre-emptive measures.

On the same day as news about the Britannia Royal Hotel’s cancellation broke, Lord John Bird wrote in an article for The Big Issue, the publication which he founded: “Treating poverty of this kind as a seasonal concern gets you nowhere fast. We have a system that you might call winter comfort. Yet the reason why people are homeless – and why we need to help them – happens in all the other seasons.” In other words, the issue of homelessness simply doesn’t remain in the headlines for long enough. Lord Bird further claimed in the article that he has refused to be interviewed by TV and radio stations about homelessness this Christmas. His actions constitute a protest at the media’s seemingly fickle shows of sympathy towards the issue, until the next, more exciting item comes up on their agenda.

Importantly, the fact that the Christmas period helps to raise awareness about homelessness is certainly a good thing, but we should do more to spread this awareness and focus our attention on the systematic causes of homelessness. Not enough is being done to tackle the issues of mental health, rising house prices, and the generally negative public perception of rough sleepers. If we were able to maintain our concern across all seasons, there might be fewer people living on the streets at Christmas.

Although, thankfully, the Doubletree by Hilton, Hull, has offered to put the group up free of charge, with breakfast and Christmas dinner included, over these dates, they will still return to the streets after the 25th. We should not stop fighting for them once the Christmas lights have been turned off.

Why The Nightmare Before Christmas is the most underrated Christmas film

-
0
Why The Nightmare Before Christmas is the most underrated Christmas film

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993) was one of the least successful Disney movies ever made, although it was eventually released through Touchstone Pictures after being deemed too scary and threatening for a mainline children’s Disney movie. In the box office, it made about 1/10th of what Aladdin made. If you’ve heard of it, it’s probably because it was re-released by Disney in 2006 and popularised during the emo scene, as its songs were covered in an album by Fall Out Boy, Marilyn Manson, Panic! At the Disco, and others. Subsequently, it’s often thought of as a movie for people trying to be edgy (and who haven’t fully let go of 2006…).

If nothing else, it’s unlike any other Christmas movie. At one point the protagonist Jack Skellington powers Christmas fairy lights with an electric chair. The music and lyrics were written by Danny Elfman, chosen by Tim Burton because of Burton’s appreciation for Elfman’s twisted new-wave band Oingo Boingo, an act that was by no means writing music for children. Subsequently, viewers were presented with a kid’s movie in which there are multiple songs about the kidnap or cooking alive of Santa Claus. The protagonist is a Byronic hero, the skeleton king of Halloween Town, and although my English tutors might be disappointed, I still appreciate his balladic soliloquies almost as much as I appreciate Hamlet’s. After all, one of his claims to fame is ‘since I am dead I can take off my head to recite Shakespearean quotations.’

So a monologuing skeleton man gets wanderlust after years of stasis of only ever managing Halloween and steals Christmas to run, more in search for an intellectual challenge than anything else. This is one of the factors that sets it apart from other Christmas movies – it’s framed in terms of a fundamental dissatisfaction with holiday tradition being routinely accepted. Jack Skellington does not want to keep doing Halloween just for the sake of it, and the moral of the movie is certainly not something about the holiday spirit. After an Icarus moment of being shot out of the sky by surface-to-air missiles while delivering Christmas presents (yes, this does happen), Jack sings about wanting to create a Christmas more memorable and greater than any which has come before. The purpose of a holiday is not to go through yearly cycles of going through the same ritualistic tradition every year. The purpose of a holiday is a successful act of escapist transportation into another world. By abandoning routine, stumbling into the Christmas world, and obsessively putting everything into stealing Christmas for himself, Jack Skellington is doing exactly what we should do with a holiday: letting its lore and atmosphere inspire us as a break from the mundanity of our own lives.

There are several Christmas movies that confuse me as to why they are even ‘Christmas movies.’ Heckle me in the comments section, but I’ve always found people excusing Love Actually’s content on the grounds of it being a Christmas tradition a little disturbing. The uncomfortable nature of glamourising cheating in Alan Rickman and Keira Knightley’s sections, men abusing their power dynamics over women who are literally their servants and can’t even talk back in Hugh Grant and Colin Firth’s segments. There are so many movies that just present a romance with the backdrop of Christmas, just making us bitter single people feel even more bitter during the holidays as the shared cultural experience creates a pressure to try and find love over the winter.

Most Christmas movies end up presenting the themes of family, sharing, or love, even though these are values that we should really hold up at all times of year. The Nightmare Before Christmas shows that it is fine to find a holiday dull, or to question the purpose of repeating it every year, but suggests that a holiday can be a magical break from life if you make it your own and interpret it in a personal manner. It has a soundtrack to rival any other musical, a very dark tone, and a message about holidays unique amongst other Christmas movies. If you’re going to watch one new Christmas movie this holiday, make it this one.

 

Fur and the necessity of consumer engagement

Alison McArthur
-
1
Fur and the necessity of consumer engagement

If you’ve scrolled through Instagram at any point in the last few weeks, you’ll be aware that faux fur is back for winter.  And not just the classic “oh this? It’s my grandmother’s” 50s-style coat. This year: the bolder, the better.  Influencers are swathed in their brightly-coloured Shrimps purchases, and the trend received the official stamp of approval by Burberry, who sent Cara Delevigne down the runway in a floor length “rainbow” cape earlier this year.  Inevitably this is has filtered down to the high street in a big way. Fur has truly become fashion.

Despite the variation in style, one thing is consistent: it is all “faux”.  Faux fur has long been championed as an ethical alternative to real fur; brands are at pains to stress that they do not use real fur, as are influencers, who (presumably to pre-empt a tirade of abuse from their followers) ensure that their captions clarify that their coat is indeed “faux”.  Real fur, it seems, is off the menu. Animals are not harmed in the name of fashion, the brand gets a good image, and consumers get that warm fuzzy feeling both inside and out.

Unfortunately, it is not that straightforward.  Recently environmental campaigners have been calling for a renaming of faux fur to ‘plastic fur’, as it is made from and sheds harmful plastic fabric that takes thousands of years to biodegrade.  This revelation is not particularly surprising; we have long been aware that the use of synthetic materials in clothing is hugely detrimental to the environment.   Like the anti-fur movement caused us to think about the consequences of wearing fur, this new movement against “fast fashion” is causing us to think about sustainability and the impact of our behaviour as consumers on the environment.

As exemplified by the real fur vs faux fur debate, it is not always possible to reconcile these two viewpoints.  From a sustainability perspective, real fur is far better for the environment: it can often be sourced second-hand, is biodegradable, and lasts significantly longer than faux fur; on the other hand, unlike real fur, faux fur garments do not cause direct harm to animals in their creation (though it has been observed that synthetic microfibres entering the water systems from washing plastic fabric are filling the stomachs of fish).  Ultimately, there is no single correct answer – the decision to buy real fur, faux fur or neither is a personal one, and depends on our individual moral and ethical views.

Crucially, this issue also highlights another decision that we as consumers need to make – whether to inform ourselves of the direct or indirect consequences of our purchasing habits, or to remain ignorant. The wealth of information now available to us, means that it is almost uncommon to read the news or to log into Netflix without seeing an article or documentary on the environmental impact of the fashion industry and plastic usage. It is no longer acceptable to let our purchasing decisions be guided purely by the latest trend in consumer sentiment, or what brands tell us is the more ethical choice.  

This type of herd mentality encourages a lack of engagement in our purchasing decisions, which can be harmful, as it may cause us to feel more easily satisfied by making “good” choices, and to overlook our other more problematic shopping habits.  Buying a faux fur coat does not make one an ethical consumer, and neither does eschewing plastic straws. The same is true for bringing our own bags to the supermarket if we then feel it gives us license to, for example, ignorantly shop at stores that have a record of poor supply chain practices. If don’t truly engage with why we are doing these things, it leaves the risk that any positive habits we have formed will fall by the wayside as soon as that issue is no longer at the forefront of public consciousness.

Educating ourselves on these issues will allow us to become more conscious consumers and to make better informed decisions about our purchases.  It would allow us to consider, for example, why many of us wouldn’t wear real fur, but would be perfectly content to buy a leather handbag or shoes.  Our motivations are complex, and our actions often hypocritical, and as such it is beneficial to take time to understand them in order to gain a better insight into why we make certain decisions.  Through the collective acknowledgement that every purchase also has an ethical and environmental price tag, this will result in a shift towards shopping habits that will be better for the animals, the environment, and the planet.  

Beyond Juvenal: “who will guard the guardians?”

-
0
Beyond Juvenal: “who will guard the guardians?”

I hear always the admonishment of my friends:
“Bolt her in, constrain her!” But who will guard
the guardians? The wife plans ahead and begins with them. (Juv.Sat.VI.346-348)

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” asks Juvenal in his sixth satire, detailing the issues with preventing your wife from being unfaithful. Who will guard the guards themselves? That is to say, who is faithful enough to guarantee the behaviour of others, or is able to be beyond reprimand themselves?

Within the context of the Satire, it is clearly a humorous proposition. Juvenal’s line is in response to the suggestions of his friends that they chain up their wives to prevent them running amok, and he counters hyperbole with hyperbole. A line of questionable value to a modern feminist, certainly, but clearly a stock situation – one need only look to Ovid’s notorious Ars Amatoria to see that a wife’s adultery was practically a given in ancient literature.

All of this was unknown to me when, recently viewing the 2009 film Watchmen for the first time, I happened to recognise these words smeared in red paint across a wall. However, I didn’t recognise the quotation from the Satires (which, being a post-mods classicist, I probably should have) – instead, I recalled the same line from Terry Pratchett book. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who watches the watchmen? (Or, as Pratchett puts it in the early Guards! Guards!: “Quis custodiet custard?”)

It’s an unusual case of extreme cross-cultural reference. But Juvenal’s line is unusual, not so much because it has lasted since ancient times (though admittedly, that in itself is amazing) – many artworks are fond of quoting a semi-philosophical Latin maxim to give their work that added ambiguity. No: what is so startling is that, when transposed into the realm of new-age superheroes, it’s taken such a dark tone. From a cameo in Batman vs Superman to a narrative in Judge Dredd, the TV Tropes webpage is full of such references.

But why this quote in particular, and what’s the reason for its persistence? It seems the morally-grey tone of these series are what have enabled the quote to have its continued impact. It carries an inherent suspicion of those placed in positions of authority; but while in Juvenal this is the hired help, a person who is able to be controlled at some underlying level, here it is applied to those in authority over us. Moreover, it concerns those who have not been chosen by us, and it is suggested that we would not be able to rid ourselves of it if we wanted to. Juvenal’s bodyguard can be dismissed at will, but the likes of Superman cannot be dealt with so easily.

Such an interpretation is, in fact, by no means new. Even in Plato’s Republic a similar idea is raised, and this has found its way down through Mill to the present day. In many ways, the threat of an authoritarian government is democracy’s greatest fear; a ‘watchman’ chosen for the people, which is unable to be removed when it rebels against its duty. It’s the same idea which resonates when we are confronted with accounts of police brutality. The people we choose are meant to be the ones who protect us, but when they turn against us, the fault still seems to reside with ourselves. We ‘should have known better’. We shouldn’t have voted for that candidate; Juvenal should have paid the cash for a better guard.

Or perhaps the money would have made no difference. There is, after all, a certain inevitability to the corruption of power – at least as each form of media would have us think. Unbridled power never seems to be able to be handled responsibly. With the dark turn of superheroes, there’s no longer a Superman who uses his power for good. There’s no longer a government who will do good left unchecked.

For his part, Plato seems dismissive of the issues raised, which, given his own pro-authoritarian bias, isn’t particularly comforting. Perhaps in the mass of pop-culture references this is the core philosophy being returned to – a negative interpretation which, somewhat ironically, has its roots several hundred years before Juvenal even put pen to paper. Is this what Juvenal has in mind when he jots down such a witty maxim? It’s not far-fetched to assume it is, but, in an ironic twist, it’s a humorous subversion which has so succinctly captured the authoritarian issue at the heart of a philosophical epic.

With so many dark and gloomy interpretations permeating what was most likely meant to be a light-hearted and jovial work, it is perhaps only fair that I return to Pratchett’s Discworld series – where I first stumbled into this rabbit hole – and offer up my own optimistic interpretation, or misinterpretation, as the case may be. Perhaps it’s the series’ sympathetic, reliable guards, or maybe it’s the ambiguity of the original custodiet, but I translated it somewhat differently – Who will protect the protectors themselves? In other words, who will ensure that we look out for each other? It’s a far cry from Juvenal and his adulterous wife, and it’s nowhere near the cynicism of modern politics, fictional or otherwise. But it is, I think, an apt question to ask. And that’s what makes Vimes’ reply to the rhetorical question so comforting: “I do.”

OULC signs letter condemning Chris Williamson

Charlotte Moberly
-
2
OULC signs letter condemning Chris Williamson

The Oxford University Labour Club has become one of 30 University Labour organisations to sign a letter in condemnation of MP Chris Williamson, after he tweeted in support of a musician condemned for expressing anti-Semitic views.

Gilad Atzmon, a jazz musician, was prevented from performing in Islington alongside The Blockheads by the local council, which is held by Labour. Williamson tweeted a petition calling for his reinstatement.

The letter called on the party leadership to “withdraw the whip from Chris Williamson until he listens to the concerns of the Jewish community and properly educates himself about antisemitism.”

The letter, written by the Edinburgh University Labour Club, read: “Today Chris Williamson’s actions have again shown a complete lack of respect for the Jewish community. He repeatedly platforms and supports antisemites and takes no responsibility for his actions. We wholeheartedly condemn this.”

Mr Williamson later tweeted: “I was asked to share the petition after being told that a ‘jazz musician who plays with the Blockheads has been banned by Islington Council merely because of his pro-Palestinian views’. Clearly I shouldn’t have taken that at face value.

“Gilad Atzmon was undoubtedly banned because of his deplorable anti-Semitic views, which have nothing to do with the Palestine solidarity movement and certainly nothing to do with me. I am truly sorry.”

Disabled Students Officer and the Social Secretary of OULC, Isabella Welch, told Cherwell: “Following the motion OULC passed condemning anti-Semitism within the Labour Party as a whole at our Trinity General Meeting, the Labour Club Executive Committee decided without objections that the logical extension of this motion was to sign the open letter condemning Chris Williamson, along with nearly thirty other university Labour Clubs across the country.

“An apology from Williamson is not enough, as he has consistently shown an inability to learn from past mistakes. Only a withdrawal of the whip from Williamson will allow the Labour Party to send an appropriate message to the many who have been offended and hurt by his actions.

“It is the ethos and a foundational value of the Labour Party to stand up against all forms of racism, and we as a university Labour Club are disappointed that the Party leadership has not yet taken suitable action against Williamson.”

The national Labour Party leadership has yet to respond to any condemnation of Williamson.

 

Does Tumblr’s porn ban actually make the site safer for anyone?

-
0
Does Tumblr’s porn ban actually make the site safer for anyone?

On 17th December, microblogging site Tumblr banned ‘explicit sexual content and nudity’. This ban marks the end of a process of sanitisation of the site that began when it was bought by Yahoo in 2013, and the beginning of the end of Tumblr as a safe space for LGBTQ+ people, women, artists, and sex workers.

When Yahoo bought Tumblr in 2013 for a hefty $1.1 billion (including liabilities), the company were buying into millennial counter-culture before the rest of the world had realised what mainstream millennial culture was. Tumblr was, and in some ways still is, the home of devoted fangirls (and a few fanboys) producing reams of content inspired by countless books, TV shows, and films. This aspect of Tumblr is unlikely to change much in the wake of the site’s recent ban of adult content: GIFs and edits that don’t feature nudity or sex will be unaffected, as will written erotica.

This is where the Tumblr Staff’s vision of ‘a better, more positive Tumblr’ starts to crack. Visual material featuring explicit sex scenes will no longer be allowed to be shared on the site, limiting the extent to which fans can appreciate their favourite shows and films: they can no longer share and create art featuring sexually explicit content that, in most cases, they have already seen. Moreover, such content was already automatically hidden for all users with Safe Mode (introduced in 2017, and nearly impossible to disable), as was other adult content. This should have been enough to keep such content hidden from minors and those who did not want to see it.

Look a little deeper into the semantics of the ban and its real targets appear. This ban was introduced to ‘keep the community as safe as possible’. This explanation was the ‘tl;dr’ form of the fact that Tumblr was removed from the App store, after its filters proved ineffective at stopping child pornography. This is an oversight that should not happen on a site as big as Tumblr, and indeed does not happen on other social media platforms.

The removal of the Tumblr app from the App Store was probably the final straw, not the only reason behind the ban. Tumblr was one of the few places on the Internet where sex workers could practice their trade following an amendment to US legislation that held the owners of websites liable for the facilitation of sex work on their sites, and the site had a massive pornbot problem. Anyone with a Tumblr account probably had several pornbots following them. A blanket ban on all adult content was the easy way to cull the pornbots and protect the owners of Tumblr (now Verizon, who bought Yahoo in June 2017) from the legal consequences of sex workers operating on the site.

This all points to neglect of the site by its new owners, heavy reliance on algorithms and not enough real, human moderation.

Tumblr staff revealed the ban’s more sinister side, however, through the actions they took in the two weeks between the ban being announced and it being enforced. In those two weeks, content in the queer and LGBTQ+ tags was being automatically flagged as NSFW. For decades LGBTQ+ people have been trying to show a cis and heteronormative society that their experiences of gender and sexuality are not inherently perverse and degenerate. Tumblr was a space where LGBTQ+ people could feel safe and had created communities in which they could explore their gender and sexuality away from such judgements. That space no longer exists. Tumblr staff have shown that they perceive any LGBTQ+ content as inappropriate simply because it is LGBTQ+, whether it is sexually explicit or not.

Whilst it is now more difficult for LGBTQ+ people to find content on Tumblr that validates and celebrates their identity, nothing has been done to tackle the growing neo-Nazi presence on Tumblr. Blogs that share overtly racist and violent content have been untouched by this ban, and another recent change in Tumblr’s community guidelines that allowed all hate speech to be reported, which they took the pains to defend against claims of ‘censorship’: ‘we are fierce defenders of free expression’, does not seem to have hindered the growth of this side of Tumblr at all.

Worst of all, the announcement and wording of the ban show what Tumblr is becoming. Setting aside the blatant misogyny apparent in the fact that ‘female-presenting nipples’ are no longer allowed to be shown in a sexual context on Tumblr, the phrase suggests that Tumblr’s ineffecient moderating team are to decide whose nipples are female and whose are male. As a result, they become the gatekeepers of trans identities on Tumblr. Not only that, but the same moderators who have already decided that LGBTQ+ content is innately inappropriate have also been given the power to decide which instances of nudity are politically, medically, or artistically significant, and which are not.

The Tumblr that gave LGBTQ+ youth access to pornographic content made by and for people like them, the vocabulary that allowed them understand and vocalise their identities, and a community they could find friends and role models within, is dead. In the words of an executive who left the site last year, “Nobody at Yahoo ever understood what they bought and what Tumblr was. That fundamental issue is the core of lots of problems.” This ban, and the effect it is having on marginalised communities who have nowhere else to go, is the final result of that misunderstanding. Tumblr was never a neat, conformist platform like Instagram or Facebook. Banning adult content cannot change that and all Tumblr can do now is cling onto those users who don’t know where else they can take their content.

1...731732733...2,581Page 732 of 2,581

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by Jamie Ashley