Thursday 7th May 2026
Blog Page 823

Isle of Dogs – a minefield of toxic stereotypes

7

Throughout Isle of Dogs, Anderson masters the hearts of viewers with characteristic ease, finding his customary delicate balance of hilarity, sombreness, and cunning. The dogs were charming. Yet, despite the wit of these animal protagonists, Anderson seems confused regarding what message he wishes to convey; man’s best friend is overshadowed by the jarring cultural aspect of the movie.

Isle of Dogs is a bit of a minefield. As a student of Japanese, I relished the untranslated dialogue, smugly whispering translations to my partner who was watching with me. Anderson used this technique to highlight the power of certain scenes. His visuals (such as facial expressions) don’t always need to be aided by speech, leaving audiences to feel the full emotional impact of each scene’s stunningly crafted visuals. However, there is a darker side to this multiculturalism. Viewers may well agree with some critics who have taken issue with the use of Japanese in the movie. While the Japanese-language script is at times simplistic due to the visual complexity of the animation, this simplicity can also be construed as dismissive when taking into account this movie is set in Japan; the native language of the country swept aside to serve merely as a backdrop.

Unsurprisingly, as a Japanologist, I felt uncomfortable when faced with Anderson’s portrayal of the country and its culture. In Isle of Dogs, Japan is morphed into a Second World War-style military dictatorship, its leader ready to unleash a holocaust on dogs – he even included a shocking shot of what appeared to be gas chambers. Other chilling allusions to the Holocaust are rife throughout the movie, most pertinent of all the election night decree, which triggers the orders to exterminate all canine-kind. Japan was indeed a dictatorship during the war, but the ruthless image Wes Anderson portrays is rather two-dimensional. In a similar way that typical Second World War films ham up the German dialogue to make even the calmest phrases sound angry and venomous, Anderson makes most of the Japanese dialogue sound violent and aggressive. All this politically charged rhetoric is particularly jarring as this movie does not tell a specifically Japanese story. In fact, Anderson himself admits that Isle of Dogs could be set anywhere. This begs the question, why bother throwing around a bunch of stereotypes about a seemingly arbitrarily chosen country, especially a country which is already deemed alien terrain by much of the Western world?

What’s more, Anderson does not reserve stereotypes solely for the Japanese. There were only three significant female characters in the movie, who all act solely as romantic interests. What grated on me most, was the female American exchange student, but not solely because she was one of the pigeonholed female characters. Instead, my main issue with this character was the fact that a white American director had made a movie where a white person comes to a non-Western country and becomes the only figure with the morals and guts to act for change. The Little Pilot may be rebellious, but even he is driven more by the desire to find his dog than by general concern for all canines of the country. It is disappointing that Wes Anderson believes it’s acceptable to write “white saviour” characters, though perhaps not surprising in light of the white narrative of The Darjeeling Limited (2007).

It’s unfortunate that I was left with a resounding feeling of unease on leaving the cinema. Isle of Dogs has great concepts and stellar delivery working in its favour but ends up a confusing mess of cultural appropriation instead. Dear white directors, can we please stop reducing Asian countries to pretty landscapes?

Charmed Lives British Museum review – “you can almost feel the sea breeze darting across your face”

Located just off a discreet corridor on the ground floor of the British Museum is the entrance to its latest free exhibition, which focuses on the works and lives of three post-war artists: British writer Patrick Leigh Fermor; British Neo-Romantic artist and friend of Lucian Freud, John Craxton; and Greek artist Nikos Hadjikyriakos-Ghika. Even the entrance itself is an indication of the winter sun the exhibition brings to this relentlessly chilly British weather, as the walls of the corridor are painted almost to the ceiling in a saffron hue, clashing with the luminous yellow of the high-vis jackets worn by security.

As you move into the exhibition you are certainly not cheated of the warmth promised by the glowing corridor that greets you. The colours of Greece clearly animated the brushes of these painters, whether it be the bold simplicity of opposite colours in Ghika’s study for a poster, or the use of a wide range of colours all in similar hues in Craxton’s ‘Still Life with Three Sailors’ or Ghika’s ‘Two Ruins, Mistras’. The latter is a particularly impressive landscape, using colour to create an abstract and impressionistic effect, contained within a geometric structure, a visual vocabulary learnt from his study of Byzantine art, as well as his teacher Konstantinos Parthenis who had contact with the Parisian avant-garde. Ghika’s contrasting use of colour and structure appears in other landscapes of Crete and Hydra, showing a blend of Cubist-inspired forms and his interest in what he called “Greekness”.

That landscapes from both artists form the majority of the exhibition is indicative of how place was so integral to these artists practices and works. Indeed, Patrick Leigh Fermor is predominantly known as a travel writer. To emphasise that place is at the heart of the exhibition, the works have been curated according to the different towns or regions in which the artists were shaped, such as Crete, where Craxton lived, Hydra, the location of Ghika’s family home, and Corfu, where Ghika built his own villa.

It was Corfu in particular that became a haven for the three artists and their friends. A place in which they seemed to find a certain magic, Leigh Fermor described it as “a refuge of unique atmosphere and charm.” To help us experience what was so captivating about these locations – whether it be the Corfu’s connections to Ancient Greek mythology, or the ‘Mediterranean Light’ that Hydra was so famed for – the works are lit so that the viewer has a strong sense of being an outsider peeping through a window, shutters bleached by the sun, into this vibrant part of the world. This is achieved by keeping the exhibition in low light while the works are spot lit. Such a contrast between the space occupied by the viewer and the fully lit bright world of the image emphasises that the power of Craxton and Ghika’s works lie in their escapist nature. It reminds us that, while they do have the power to transport our imaginations to the world of quiet fishing villages and rugged landscapes which evoke the adventures of mythical heroes, physically we are in a gallery room in the centre of bustling London, where the sky is patchier and life moves faster.

The exhibition also works across discipline with a strong display of archival documents to emphasise the impact of the Greek islands on each of these creatives. These span from intimate letters between the three, greetings cards sporting Craxton’s designs, and the book covers that he designed for Leigh Fermor. We are also informed that Fermor’s wife, Joan, shared a love for animals with Craxton, influencing his addition of them to his artistic repertoire.

Indeed, some of this archival evidence is in fact more successful than certain paintings, in particular Craxton’s images of cats. His other portrayals of animals too strongly recall his influencers – for example, a painting of a goat from 1956, which is drawn in an almost join-the-dots fashion, is too similar to Picasso’s ‘The Bull’. Craxton’s landscape of Hydra from 1963 and his ‘Reclining figure with asphodels’, with their plant structures that closely follow those in works such as Matisse’s ‘La Gerbe’, are further examples of an artist who has not fully found his direction. Furthermore, his portraits of the local people are at risk of being too sentimental.

It is not just that some of these paintings are too-close-for-comfort to the great artists we so protectively love, but also that they do seem to be limited in their wider significance. There is a very gentle nod to a sense of cosmology, which appears so regularly in Ancient Greek literature, in a few of the paintings, notably Ghika’s ‘Black Sun’ 1947, bursting with houses, trees, a huge hill and its titular sun.

In general, however, the view presented in the exhibition is narrow – something which might be expected from the three artists, all of whom who had the luxury to engage in the life of a bon-viveur. Yet this does not mean their works should be dismissed as simply the product of indulgent individuals, willing to enjoy their surroundings but never actually understand the experiences of those who inhabited them. They clearly all possessed a vivacity and zest that makes for seeing or reading. It’s the success with which the exhibition has captured this that for an hour or so you can almost feel the sea breeze darting across your face, and the gentle prickle of the classic British sunburn.

St Anne’s JCR website hacked by pro-Palestinian liberation group

2

The St Anne’s JCR’s website has been hacked by a pro-Palestinian liberation group.

The website’s top banner, which originally read “St Anne’s JCR” and “University of Oxford”, said “HaCked by Raiz0WorM” [sic] for a few hours on Wednesday afternoon.

JCR President Tom Mitty told Cherwell: “We’re seeking advice to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

Raiz0WorM has previously posted pro-Palestinian liberation messages on other hacked sites.

Other than the banner, the rest of the website is unaffected, meaning that students can still access menus for hall, copies of minutes from previous JCR meetings, and the JCR constitution.

Mitty said: “We are in touch with the company who provide our platform, to see if the technical situation is any more complex than mere changing of text.”

The text was changed again later in the afternoon to read: “St-Annes-JCR”.

The hackers’ previous targets have included a Portuguese consultancy firm, a music festival in Grenoble, and Laugharne Township Community Council.

The hacker has told previous victims to contact them for information about their site

A St Anne’s student told Cherwell: “Obviously it’s worrying. The hacking looks fairly amateurish to be honest, but it’s alarming to think what could happen if a more malicious branch of hackers set their sights on getting in.

“I’m mainly just confused as to why our JCR page would be targeted. I wouldn’t have thought hall menus and tortoise updates would have been top of a hacker’s agenda.”

The hack comes soon after a leading cybersecurity firm found around 200,000 stolen addresses with the ox.ac.uk domain name after trawling the dark web.

How to: Survive Trinity

0

As someone in their third year, and studying science, I have survived two Trinity’s worth of exams already, and I would like to think I could offer some advice. I know my friends wouldn’t describe me as a pinnacle of emotional stability during these terms, but I hope that someone, somewhere, might find this helpful.

The first thing to mention is making sure you still have fun planned into your term. Try to identify things you’d like to do, and make sure you make time to do them. I know it’s hard enough to do this during non-exam terms, but giving yourself time when you know you can enjoy yourself helps keep up morale and gives you structure when weekends and weekdays can become indistinguishable. It’s also an excuse to make sure that you make time for your friends (who you may begin to neglect as exams begin to loom).

It is also important to try to maintain a healthy diet and lifestyle. I’m not talking about heavily reducing your chocolate consumption – this is challenging at the best of times and Trinity is probably not the time to start – but rather it is important to ensure that your behaviour is sustainable for what can seem like a very long 8 weeks. Essentially, I am talking about trying to eat three roughly balanced meals a day, try to get your 5-a-day, and try to keep to a sustainable sleeping pattern. If fizzy drinks and snack food are what’s getting you through your revision, that’s absolutely fine, just make sure they’re an addition, not a replacement, to your normal diet.

Try to find a way of working which works for you, and make sure that gives you the flexibility you need. Some people seem to enjoy working in their rooms, but I know if I spend a prolonged period of time without human contact, I lose any ability to concentrate.  This is alongside any sense of the outside world, and most importantly the perspective it brings – mostly that I am not the only one stuck at a desk. I find working in libraries as a nice middle ground between being cooped in my room and the distractions of trying to work elsewhere – you’re working in silence, but at least there are other people working in silence near you.

Also, as much as possible, it helps to give your days structure where you can. Leaving your accommodation or your room to eat, study, and get some fresh air can help you feel in control. And, importantly, on days where you can’t work and the structure you’re trying to maintain fails, it is important not to dwell on it. Tomorrow is always another day. Sleeping, in particular, can be hard to get right (I know the frustration of lying in bed unable to sleep all too well), and here it is important to worry as little as possible about it (easier said than done, I know).

I have written this for those with exams, and I recognise that no two experiences of Trinity are alike, for those with or without exams. And I know I am writing this over the vacation, and a couple of weeks into term I will already be struggling to maintain this. The key thing to remember is that you have eight weeks to get through, and that you can only do what you can do. Trinity can be hard, but there’s a long summer after it (and a trashing to look forward to).

Oxford ranked best student city for long-distance lovers

0

Oxford is the joint-best city to live in for students hoping to maintain a long-distance relationship, according to new research.

A survey of 2,353 students by Liberty Living revealed that the average student would only be willing to spend £21.93 and travel for two hours and 12 minutes on regular journeys to visit their significant other.

Of those currently in a relationship, two out of five (39%) would be willing to pay £30 or more, with 65% willing to travel more than two hours on a journey to see a partner.

Out of single students, only a quarter would be willing to spend over £30 on regular journeys, and only 48% would be willing to travel over two hours.

#Oxlove16683To all the Oxford Guys and Gals in long distance relationships, you’re great and it will be worth it. Hang…

Posted by Oxlove on Friday, February 16, 2018

 

Oxford and Nottingham were ranked the joint-best cities for long-distance lovers.

Five other university cities can be reached from both that fall within the average student’s journey time and cost – Southampton, Coventry, Portsmouth, London, and Bristol are all reachable from Oxford for under £21.93 return (and under two hours and 12 minutes’ travel time).

A second-year English student, whose girlfriend of two years studies in Nottingham, told Cherwell: “I’m not surprised that Oxford and Nottingham ranked so highly – it’s a pretty easy journey between the two.

“And the two cities complement each other well, with both offering their own quirky and exciting student vibe.”

#Oxfess12633Does anyone have any experience with long distance relationships? My girlfriend studies at Merton and I study at LMH so we see each other just once a term. #LMHIsSoFar

Posted by Oxfess on Saturday, February 17, 2018

 

40% of those surveyed said that they thought seeing their partner once a month was acceptable, while only 83% of respondents said that they expected their significant other to be completely faithful.

60% said that a relationship would have an impact on where they choose to study.

A Liberty Living spokesperson said: “Students today are under a lot of financial pressure, so it’s not surprising that they have to put a price tag on their ability to maintain long distance relationships while they’re studying.

“Spending as high as £505 on average on a years’ worth of visits to see your partner is a real sign of commitment and proof that romance isn’t dead.”

Brexit is causing fondue resurgence, claims Oxford professor

1

An Oxford professor has attributed a spike in the sales of fondue sets to the global financial crisis, geopolitical tensions in the Korean peninsula, and Brexit.

The traditional Swiss dish has seen something of a comeback in recent times, with retailer John Lewis seeing a tripling of sales last year, as online hits for cheese fondue recipes soar.

While the reason for this surge in popularity is still up for debate, food psychology expert and fellow at Somerville College, Charles Spence, has claimed that Brexit and North Korea might be responsible for the fondue renaissance.

Writing in the International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, Spence said that the sales spike may seem surprising at first “given that fondue doesn’t fit with either current trends toward healthy eating or the rise of more Instagrammable dishes”.

However, he goes on to argue the fondue craze can be better explained as an embodiment of social angst about the future – prompted by events such as Brexit.

He notes: “The nostalgic (reassuring) element of fondue may be particularly appropriate at the present time when the world seems like such an unpredictable and dangerous place, what with the recent global financial crisis, the North Korean situation, Brexit, the Migrant Crisis, etc.

“In this sense, [Claus-Christian] Carbon’s observation that consumers tend to shift toward rounder cars at times when world seems like a dangerous place, and toward more angular forms when all is well with the world may be relevant.

“It would not seem unreasonable, I think, to suggest that nostalgic comfort foods become more appealing/fashionable at those times of local/global uncertainty too.”

Professor Spence, who is also known for helping design many of Heston Blumenthal’s famous dishes, also believes the Swiss origins of fondue are particularly pertinent from a “gastrodiplomacy” perspective.

“One can’t help feeling that at a time when the UK is figuring out if/how to separate from the rest of Europe, that this nostalgic food stands originates from a part of Europe that stands outside the European Union but is still connected with the rest of the EU in much the way that many Brits would hope to achieve.

“Perhaps, then, the resurgence of the fondue can partly be explained by Brits trying, implicitly or otherwise, to convey an impression, or identity, through the food we eat of the future we would like for ourselves.

“In this regard it would be hard to imagine Black Forest Gateaux, Brie, or Bratwurst having anything like the same appeal at the present time here in the UK.”

Spence also speculates that the practice of dipping bread into gooey cheese is key to the dish’s revival, noting that it is well established that a person enjoys food more when they feel they have helped create it – a phenomenon known as the ‘IKEA effect’.

“One can, of course, argue about whether dipping pieces of meat into hot oil or stale bread into a bubbling pot of gloopy cheese really counts as participatory, but it certainly seems like an idea worth countenancing.”

How to: Get a date

0

Like spontaneously breaking into song and dance or the transformation of a stereotypical nerdy girl into a beautiful belle, going on dates seems to be a myth confined to the world of cheesy teen movies. In university, where you barely have time to do your pile of laundry and eat before pre’s (definitely eat before you pre), it seems ridiculous to seek a prospective significant other through such an archaic and time-consuming process.

When, in the middle of an essay crisis, you realize that your bitter heart is melting and all you want is a cuddle, this handy guide will give you the low down on selecting and enticing a future lover. Oh, and just a disclaimer: like most student journalists, I am by no means qualified to offer any advice on the topic I’m publishing advice on.

First step: what are you looking for? Considering possible suitors is important, and even if you’re desperate for a date, don’t lower your standards. What do you value in a possible partner? Great looking? Will never judge you? Smells attractive? Someone who you could have fun with when you’re with friends but ultimately have the most fun when it’s you and them and Netflix in bed? Granted, those criteria also apply to the average pizza, so first consider if you actually want another human to hog your duvet and demand your affections. If instead you’re just looking for some melted cheese relief, stop reading here and make a trip to Pizza Stazione to pick up your newest significant other.

If you’re thinking about going for another Oxford student, their college is an important factor to consider. If your prospective beau is from your own college, think again. shitting where you eat is a bad idea – and when you inevitably don’t share a second date, the awkward eye contact in hall will lead you to despair. Equally, you don’t want to tease yourself by going on a date with someone who seems perfect and then later down the line realise that you have to walk miles to get to their place #LMHissofar. Other than that, the choice is down your personal preferences – whatever your shared interests are or who you find attractive.

Second step: desirability. An unreliable source on the internet tells me that people are more attracted to men romantically if they are funny, and women less if they are funny. Ladies, this is absolute bollocks – if someone finds you less attractive because you’re funny then they’re weird and they hate entertainment. As such, the first step of desirability is humour. WikiHow suggests that you ‘practice jokes ahead of time’. If you’re the type who thinks they can tell a good joke, you’re probably not funny. And if you’re the type to read WikiHow for dating advice, you’re both not funny and need to re-evaluate your life decisions. This is Oxford so you presumably have some vague intelligence: use some clever and spontaneous niche humour – read the crowd before making Oxfess references, but puns relating to mutual interests are always a good shout.

Realistically, as a far as physical attraction is concerned, physical chemistry is all about biology, but don’t mistake your pheromonal allure with BO – take a shower.

Final step: relatability. Now you seem wonderful, but don’t ruin it. Don’t be a dick. Treat service industry staff well. Use your table manners. More than anything: don’t let anyone think you might row, particularly if you do. Nothing says sadism more than someone taking pleasure in freezing cold water at ridiculous o’clock– your erg-sculpted body is not worth the prospect of an evening of boredom as you spend your first date talking about your diet plan.

Now you’re ready, and if you are successful, please don’t tag each other in every Oxlove you see – it’s the new PDA: cute in small quantities, but nobody really wants to have it all over their newsfeed. If you’re not successful, sign up to Cherwell blind date: perhaps beggars can’t be choosers after all.

On the lookout for love?

We can help!

Get in touch with our Life Editors on Facebook or email [email protected] to be set up on a blind date this term

Historians slam plans to replace display cases at University museum

0

Plans to replace the wooden display cases at the Oxford University Museum of Natural History have been met with criticism from historians and architects.

The University submitted proposals to replace the wooden cases with new glass cabinets, to the dismay of some prominent members of the architectural community.

The history of the wooden cases dates back to the 1860s, when construction on the museum was completed.

The cases have since been replaced by 20th century replicas, and are seen by over 750,000 visitors to the museum each year.

The cases occupy the central court of the museum, and house many of its specimens. The entire collection is valued at around £7 million.

A heritage assessment carried out by the University claimed that the changes made to the cabinets over time had diminished their value, concluding that they made only a “small positive contribution” to the historic value of the museum.

Secretary of the Victorian group of the Oxfordshire Architectural and Historical Society, Peter Howell, said: “It is an astonishing indictment of Oxford University, and of the Museum in particular, that no research has been done into the origin of these cases.

“The contribution which these cases make to the architectural and historical value of the Museum is inestimable.

“The argument in the application that ‘the fact that they evoke a sense of history is fortuitous rather than designed’ is utterly absurd.”

Peter Howell labelled the move “utterly absurd”

Architectural historian Frederick O’Dwyer has claimed that the wooden cases were an important part of architects Thomas Deane and Benjamin Woodward’s original 19th century design of the museum.

He said: “The fact that the display cases are in part 20th century replicas – with similar construction features – of Deane and Woodward’s designs – rather than the original of 1859-62, does not devalue their importance particularly as they were designed as part of an integrated architectural and decorative scheme by Deane and Woodward.”

Architect Birkin Haward, who wrote about the Museum in Architects’ Journal in 1989, also disagreed with the University’s assessment.

He said: “It would affect a critical element of the design of this wonderful building and as a consequence totally alter one’s perception and enjoyment of the interior forever.

“If [the plan] goes through I have absolutely no doubt it will be seen as a matter of regret for years to come.”

Historic England stated that it had no objection to the replacement of the cases, due to the ‘long history’ of alterations they have undergone and the lack of original material remaining.

RSC Macbeth Review: ‘technical wizardry fails to bring any tension or magic’

The Royal Shakespeare Company has thrown everything they’ve got at this production and it really hasn’t worked. Set in what might as well be a bleak modern school hall, the play’s technical wizardry fails to bring any tension or magic. From lightning effects around the stalls to billowing smoke and vast wall-sized projections, the current version of Macbeth in the main house is clearly designed to be a modern-day theatrical spectacle and yet it falls a long way short.

This seems to be due to the Marvel effect: actors’ best efforts being hidden away under ceaseless special effects. The Banquo’s ghostly appearance to Macbeth at the head of a long dynastic apparition, for example, is a crucial scene in any production of ‘The Scottish Play’, and yet in this production it barely registered with the audience as a result of an overabundance of technicality. Dimly-lit crowns appear behind glass in a raised corridor, while the shadowy ghost of Banquo vaguely points at them in the background as Macbeth monologues upstage – astonishingly, neither of the people I went with could remember this after the show, which I can only presume was down to how much smoke was filling the stage at the time.

Past successes make it difficult to pinpoint what made this technology friendly Macbeth so soulless. Previous RSC productions have made use of similarly extravagant effects and spectacle (2011’s phenomenal Merchant of Venice) and bare sets (the most recent Coriolanus) alike.

It may be the total lack of emotional connection the characters fostered in the audience’s hearts that is the issue. The set and effects – while certainly needlessly complex – cannot be described as overshadowing good acting. It seems plausible that such details been turned up to 11 in an attempt to mask some less-than-compelling performances and bizarre directorial decisions.

Vague attempts to explain Lady Macbeth’s madness through repeated and unnecessary hammering home of how many people she’d indirectly been involved with killing are both clunky and ineffective. Giving the murderer of MacDuff’s children a voice recorder which inexplicably later comes into her possession seemed to suggest that the audience has been deemed incapable of thinking for themselves.

Christopher Eccleston’s Macbeth, meanwhile, is shouty and uncompelling, though there are admittedly brilliant flashes of what might have been as he writhes in agony at the appearance of Banquo’s ghost. For the most part, however, Eccleston’s Macbeth seems to be simply going through the motions of killing, governing, and fighting; it is as if there is no emotion or even real intent behind his actions. In a recent interview in the Radio Times, Eccleston commented that “when the BBC did The Hollow Crown series…I didn’t even get a call. Didn’t get an audition…did they think I’m a crap actor?” You might think that, Christopher… but I couldn’t possibly comment.

It is perhaps worth noting, however, that at one crucial moment he hurled a bread roll over a table – only for the roll to bounce and land perfectly balanced on the back of a chair, briefly bringing a stunned silence to the theatre as the entire cast and audience stared on in disbelief. To say that Eccleston’s performance was upstaged by a bread roll might be a little harsh, but I’d be interested to hear from any other RSC-goers in the next few weeks whether or not he manages to repeat this astonishing feat before the end of the run.

A further issue was the editing of Shakespeare’s text; in order to achieve a snappy run-time of 2.5 hours (including interval), many lines have had to be cut. In the main, this was an admirably smooth process which led to a pleasantly pacy production – in other cases, however, such editing was little short of sacrilege for anyone even remotely familiar with the play. The Apparition’s famous urging of Macbeth to be “bloody, bold, and resolute” has been done away with; in its place a rogue between-scenes toast of the same line between two minor characters, losing all the line’s gravity and significance, and leaving the audience perplexed as to why it had been included at all. Moreover, Banquo’s last moving last words to his son before he is murdered – “o, treachery! Fly, good Fleance, fly, fly, fly! Thou mayst revenge” – have been removed altogether. The curious decision to project other quotes onto the very top of the set provides little restitution from this, instead distracting and detracting from what lines are left to be spoken onstage.

Projection forms a major element of the production design – not only the quotes, but also places (“GLAMIS”) and updates on the passage of time (“LATER” / “NOW”) are broadcast to the audience in bright white letters three feet high. While the programme insists that this is to remind the audience of Macbeth’s preoccupation with time, it left me unavoidably thinking of time-lapses in Spongebob Squarepants  – “THREE HOURS LATER” flashed through my mind at multiple unfortunate moments of the play. On a similarly anachronistic theme, perhaps the oddest directorial decision made in the entire production was to have a digital red second-by-second countdown clock ticking down for the last two hours of the performance, relentlessly central to the audience’s view of the stage. While at times putting me in mind of a ticking bomb or even an episode of Bake Off (“MacDuff! You have one hour remaining!”), the annoyance of constantly knowing how long is left (for the audience, not for play’s actual time-frame) ultimately seems more akin to leaving the mouse on the screen while watching YouTube, and hence condemning yourself to the timer at the bottom.

This is not to say, however, that the production is entirely without merit. It picks up considerably in the second half, as the superb pairing of Edward Bennett (MacDuff) and Luke Newberry (Malcolm) were able to breathe convincing life into Shakespeare’s words at last; the reveal that MacDuff’s children have been killed is heartbreaking, in stark contrast to Eccleston later skating over the death of Lady Macbeth in the least moving portrayal of a spouse’s death I have ever seen. Michael Hodgeson, as the Porter, is both the most memorable and most perplexing part of the production – no mean feat. The porter is often portrayed as a jolly or drunken character, but the current production casts him as a caretaker, constantly sweeping the carpet and chalking up an ever-increasing tally of deaths on the very wall of the theatre, in a sufficiently ominous fashion to – all too briefly – inject some sense of suspense into the play.

Nevertheless, this production is very nearly worth seeing for the coronation scene alone. Suitably imposing music vibrating through the theatre, a red carpet plunges towards the front row, and Eccleston enters swathed in what might just be the most substantial cloak ever created. With an almighty swish, he turns to face upstage, kneels, and is crowned. Unfortunately, however, the subsequent scene is stolen by some very distracting re-rolling of the carpet; quite why this could not have been left until the end of the act escaped me.

Controversial an opinion as it may be, it seems possible that these faults are simply part of a much larger problem: perhaps Macbeth is just very hard to stage. The RSC’s 2011 attempt was unfortunately very forgettable, and the current production at the National Theatre has suffered from poor reviews despite a sterling cast (Rory Kinnear! Anne-Marie Duff! What could possibly go wrong?). Even Kenneth Brannagh’s legendary staging of Macbeth on a traverse stage in a deconsecrated Manchester church struggled to find a compelling way to balance the intimate conversations between the Macbeths with the necessary enormity of the final battle. Quite how Shakespeare intended it to be staged, we will never know – but what is clear is that the current Marvel-esque RSC version is a long way from doing justice to one of Shakespeare’s most eloquently written and emotionally tumultuous plays.

Civilisations Review: Repeating the same mistakes

0

Civilisations, on paper, should work. Its aim is to update Kenneth Clarke’s documentary series Civilisation, which aired in 1969 and traced the development of art across history. The original series gained plaudits for its high production standards, thus setting the bar for the BBC history documentary over the next fifty years.

But it also came in for sharp criticism for its exclusive focus on male artists, for its deterministic depiction of the development of the Western canon, and for its Eurocentrism. Not surprising, for a documentary crafted 50 years ago, but Simon Schama, Mary Beard, and David Olusoga, the terrible trio chosen to update this BBC relic, fell foul of all the same potholes. Tasked with modernisation they didn’t quite pull it off.

Civilisations, try as it might, can’t break free from the paradigm of Eurocentrism. It’s really the story of one civilisation; the plural in the title is merely decorative. Mary Beard as a classicist,  predictably speaks mainly about Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. In the episode ‘How Do We Look’ she touches upon Olmec art, but even this is considered from a ‘European way of seeing’, an understanding within the bound of the cognitive world of a European looker.

The underlying, and seemingly unalterable, issue here is that BBC shows are produced for BBC audiences, who in their vast majority are British. Our cultural upbringing, our education, and the world around us have fed us the same teleological narrative which Civilisations can do little to escape; The classical civilisations of Rome and Greece begat the Renaissance, which begat the Enlightenment, which in turn begat industrialisation, which begat the modern world.

Popular history appeals to this familiar storyline, by giving us Lucy Worsley talking about how the Tudors and the Stuarts helped forge the Britain we know and love today, or Dan Snow recounting how Winston Churchill inspired the nation to overcome the greatest evil the world has ever faced.

David Olusoga reinforces this narrative in ‘First Contact’. The aim of the episode is a noble one: to show that cultural synthesis is the product of two civilisations coming into contact with one another. Yet every example he gives is of a European as the active agent in the relationship. This serves only to reinforce the idea of European dynamism and superiority in the so-called ‘Age of Discovery’.

Where is the blending of Indic and Islamic art forms which happened across the subcontinent; what about the first contact between the societies of South East Asia and the Sufi mystics who dominated the Indian Ocean? These major ‘first contacts’ don’t get airtime because they would confuse and unsettle audiences; an early modern world culturally dominated by Islam would not fit in with the narrative of European progress and civilisation, so it is helpfully removed from the narrative.

Civilisations shows us what is wrong with television history: it is comfortable, easy, armchair viewing that reaffirms the place of Britain, and of the West, in the minds and the eyes of the viewer. It doesn’t challenge its audience to go beyond the pales of their imaginations and consider a truly different hierarchy of world civilisations where the West isn’t on top.

Most damningly, Civilisations fails to grapple with perhaps the most fundamental issue when approaching comparative and inclusive art history; the study of art over time as an academic discipline is itself a Western invention.

Civilisations rarely offers the opportunity for non-Western art, and more broadly non-Western culture, to be seen on its own terms, and treated in its own right. Civilisations pitches itself as a ground-breaking reimagining of art history documentaries. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for such a renaissance.