Wednesday, May 21, 2025
Blog Page 849

OxView: Best of Cannes

The Square

A satire on the world of high art, Ruben Ostlund’s The Square follows gallery director Christian (Claes Bang) as he readies his gallery for an exhibition (the titular Square) which intends to instil an altruistic disposition in the public. Meanwhile, Christian’s personal life collapses as he seeks to recover his possessions after an unorthodox mugging. While not originally tipped to be a winner, this satire promises to be, in the words of Guardian critic Peter Bradshaw, ‘thrillingly weird’.

You Were Never Really Here

Based on the novella of the same name by Jonathan Ames, You Were Never Really Here is a gripping yet deeply painful exploration of the morality of revenge. It follows veteran Joe (Joaquin Phoenix), a man paid by private clients to rescue children from sex rings. Director Lynne Ramsay (We Need to Talk About Kevin) delivers a film that doesn’t fetishize violence, but doesn’t shy away from it in connection to the depravity of revenge. Winning both best actor and best screenplay, You Were Never Really Here promises an emotional experience you’ll find hard to forget.

The Beguiled

Set during the American Civil War, Sofia Coppola’s The Beguiled follows the journey of John McBurney (Colin Farrell) an Irish Unionist soldier who finds himself a deserter and wounded in Confederate territory. Nursed back to health in a southern seminary home, John begins to draw the attentions of several of his female carers. Coppola, however, is careful to put a twist on the 1966 novel on which the film is based, adopting a feminist lens, and doing away with the sexualised fantasy of the original work. A feminist drama (which happens to feature a rather impromptu surgery with a hacksaw), The Beguiled is not to be missed.

Christ Church win Floorball Cuppers

0

On Saturday afternoon, an extremely close Floorball Cuppers tournament took place at the Iffley Road Sports Centre.

A little-known sport, floorball is a form of indoor hockey popularised in Scandinavia and Central Europe. As many beginners who turned up soon discovered, the game requires an amount of coordination and stamina.

Despite this, Luke Shore, a beginner competing for the Christ Church side, thought the sport was surprisingly easy to learn. “It’s great! I really improved as the day went along,” he told Cherwell.

Having beat a strong Queen’s College team after a penalty shootout in their semi-final, the favourites Christ Church, who improved steadily throughout the day despite some inexperienced members, were placed against the wiley Wolfson College.

Christ Church took an early lead in the final, only to be denied by a late Wolfson equaliser. In the ensuing penalty shoot-out, Christ Church hero Dan Zaitsev calmly dispatched the ball into the top corner, and victory celebrations followed for Christ Church.

Despite Christ Church’s relative inexperience, enthusiastic defender Jack Bara thought the secret to his team’s success was past experience of ALTS ice hockey, which requires similar stick-handling skills.

This marked to the end to a very successful day for Christ Church, who became Head of the River and also prevailed in Water Polo Cuppers.

Although competition for the Cuppers trophy was fierce, many had come to Iffley simply to try something new or to have a fun afternoon. Milan Fowkes, captain of the runner-up Wolfson side, was not only proud of his team’s performance, including nail-biting victory against Green Templeton in the other semi-final, but was also happy with how everyone played a part. “We all contributed along the way; it wasn’t an individual effort that stood out,” he told Cherwell.

Lucas Buzaglo, who played for Keble, emphasised the friendly atmosphere, but stressed his disappointment about the result. “Everyone was friendly with each other. That being said, all of us would have liked to take the Cuppers trophy home.”

How should you vote on the 8th of June?

Conservative

OUCA President William Rees-Mogg

It was tempting, on sitting down to write this article, to trot out a standardised collection of clichés. “Theresa May will provide strong and stable leadership”, “don’t risk a coalition of chaos”, etc. However, in the interests of the Cherwell readership, and of the unfortunate editor set to beat this prose into something readable, I will aim to avoid any such distressing buzzwords.

The case I’d like to lay out for voting Conservative is more subtle. It takes two forms. On the one hand, the concerns of students are obviously of greater relevance in a seat predominantly inhabited by students. On the other hand, there is the issue that this election, besides being an opportunity to select our local MP, is also an opportunity to set the direction of this country for the next five years (and arguably, given the divergence of all of the latest crop of party manifestos from the established political orthodoxy, the next 30).

One issue of particular importance to students is mental health. A YouGov Survey carried out in 2016 claims that over a quarter (27 per cent) of students suffer from a mental health issue. At Oxford, the figures are in all likelihood worse. This is why I’m delighted that our manifesto contains a promise to “break the stigma of mental illness” by introducing a new Mental Health Act (a full 35 years since it was last updated). This means that the system whereby treatment comes only grudgingly, either because of out of date guidelines or lack of resources, can finally be put right. Waiting lists can be brought down, and by training one million ordinary people in basic mental health awareness, we can ensure that people cease to suffer in silence, instead getting the help they need at the earliest possible juncture.

Another problem of great concern to students here in Oxford is the large size of the homeless population. Much is made of the cuts to homelessness provision in the city on the part of the County Council (although it is little mentioned that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats voted in favour of these cuts). This problem has been compounded by the City Council refusing to increase spending to compensate for this, despite possessing assets such as 900 acres of farmland which could be sold either for reinvestment for higher returns (and therefore greater resources to spend on the homeless) or to support directly the expansion of homelessness services. The Conservative Party will treat the cause, not the symptoms of homelessness by engaging in a house building programme on a scale reminiscent of the Harold Macmillan years, working to end homelessness by 2027 simply by providing more homes. Not only will this help some of the neediest people in our society, it will also in the long run save the government as much as £370 million a year. This will ensure that the homeless population does not become dependent on the funding whims of the city or county council, but can finally be given some dignity and security.

On a national level, the Conservative party will continue the good work it has done in the last six years. The deficit will continue to fall, but not at such a rate as to harm the economy even in the short term. A low rate of corporation tax will continue to attract businesses to set up in the UK, creating jobs and benefitting the economy.

Contrary to claims of a ‘hard Brexit’ we will seek to create a ‘deep and special relationship’ with the EU which benefits both us and our family across the channel. Increased expenditure on the military and intelligence services will help to keep us as safe as possible, despite the looming spectre of foreign hacking and terrorism. Most important of all, the creation of a shared prosperity fund will help to balance out the different regions and nations of the UK, ensuring that we remain one United Kingdom, despite the poisonous narrative of the Scottish National Party which seeks to tear us apart.

The tyranny of the word count prevents me from going into more detail on other matters, nor do I think it is necessary to sink to the level of attacking Jeremy Corbyn for his unfortunate links with nationalist and Islamist terrorists, or Dianne Abbott for her inability to grasp basic figures. Even if this has been a hallmark of election coverage for less reputable papers than Cherwell.

A vote for the Conservative Party is not a negative vote against Labour, it is a positive choice to support policies which are practical, and which will go a long way towards fixing problems which matter, directly or indirectly, to students.

Labour

OULC Co-chairs, Hannah Taylor & Tom Zagoria

Trinity term, exam season, and it’s very easy to get caught up in the student bubble. But let’s not pretend we can’t see out of it. Every day when we walk through Oxford we witness the effects of a government that has neglected, for the last seven years, addressing the problems of rising poverty and inequality, instead looking to the interests of a privileged few. Here, in one of the wealthiest places in the country, the effect of draconian centrally imposed cuts to public services and the highest house prices in the country has seen a dramatic rise in homelessness in the last few years.

Oxford is not unusual, as across the country there has been a catastrophic rise in the number of people reliant on food banks and a doubling in the number of rough sleepers since the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats took power in 2010. This is merely the tip of the iceberg—the most visible suffering caused by a government that has been intent on the ideological choice of austerity, regardless of the costs to our society.

Rising inequality and a country being run in the interests of the wealthiest will affect all of us. After we graduate (with thousands of pounds of debt), we will enter a workforce whose real wages have fallen by over ten per cent since the financial crisis, joint bottom of the OECD with Greece (by comparison, Germany’s has risen by 14 per cent and France’s by eleven per cent). One in six are in insecure work conditions. We will have to rely on public services which have been drastically cut across the country, and an NHS which no one can seriously deny is systematically underfunded: we spend significantly less per head on healthcare than Germany or France, or about half that spent in the United States. We will have to find a place to live in a country where housing affordability is on the decline. And, finally, we will have to live in a society where the rates of hate crime have increased by 41 per cent in the months after Brexit, and a world in which temperature rises and loss of natural resources will increase instability and migration, not to mention the threat caused by the dominance of nuclear-armed strongmen like Trump and Putin.

There is in this election a clear and viable alternative. Since Labour’s manifesto has been released, the massive narrowing in the polls has made it ever more clear that Labour can win. A Labour victory would not mean more of the same. Our manifesto offers hope with radical, costed solutions. In order to make sure everyone can go to uni, Labour will abolish tuition fees and bring back maintenance grants. A Labour government will ensure that no one is left sleeping on the streets, by earmarking housing association homes specifically for homeless people through the Rough Sleepers Initiative. We will ensure that everyone is paid at least a £10 an hour living wage, and we will end insecure and exploitative zero hours contracts for good.

The NHS may not last a further five years at the current rate of underfunding, so Labour will commit to over £30 billion in extra fund- ing over the next Parliament by increasing tax on the top five per cent of earners and on private medical insurance, as well as reverse recent moves toward privatisation. By building at least 100,000 new council homes per year and introducing rent controls we can ensure that everyone has the opportunity for a secure home. As rising national debt shows, austerity is a failed experiment, so Labour will invest in an environmentally and socially sustainable economy through a National Investment Bank.

Be under no illusions about this Tory government. Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage recently marveled at how Theresa May was running on “exactly the same ticket” as he had. Against a Tory party that prioritises scapegoating immigrants, fox hunting and a hard Brexit, there is only one possible alternative government.

So on the June 8, vote for a fair and inclusive society. Vote for wealth and power to be in the hands of the many, not the few. Vote for a cheeky nine grand saving off your next year at uni. There’s now a real chance for positive change, so seize it. Vote Labour.

Liberal Democrats

OULD President Lucasta Bath

The Liberal Democrat position on Brexit is often misunderstood or misrepresented by the media. To clarify: we are not seeking to simply stop Brexit in its tracks. Instead we want to oppose a hard Brexit which would see us withdrawing from numerous treaties and agreements with the EU, as well as most crucially the Single Market, a move which economists predict will cause damage to the UK economy in the region of £65 billion. If part of the next government, the Liberal Democrats will also push for a second referendum on whether or not to accept the final, negotiated terms of the Brexit deal. This will allow the public to make a decision with more substantial knowledge of what precisely they are voting for, rather than simply presenting them with the vague and often distorted facts and figures thrown around during the last referendum campaign.

An area in which the Liberal Democrats have a particularly strong record is mental health. In the coalition government, the Lib Dems invested over a billion pounds in young people’s mental health services, and also introduced the first ever waiting time standards. Now, we are proposing an immediate 1p rise on the basic, higher and additional rates of Income Tax to raise £6 billion additional revenue which would be ringfenced to be spent only on NHS and social care services. We want to further reduce waiting times for people of any age experiencing mental health issues, and we additionally want to see mental health being given the same level of funding and priority as physical health. We recognise that the NHS is experiencing severe funding issues, and we want to ensure that these issues are addressed properly without impacting quality or level of care in any way.

A third key issue for us is housing. For years, governments have failed to build enough houses to adequately meet demand across the country. The Liberal Democrats pledge to build 300,000 new homes a year, in order to curb the soaring costs of rent, and make home ownership an achievable goal for everyone. We are particularly aware of the issues faced by students and young people in this area, many of whom feel that they simply will not ever be able to afford a home. We will therefore crack down on unscrupulous landlords and ban letting fees, which disproportionately affect students. We will also stop the sale of council housing, which forces many young people into homelessness, and we will reverse the current cuts to housing benefit for 18-21 year olds.

Another main point of focus for the Liberal Democrats is the unequal distribution of wealth across the nations and regions of the UK. The loss of £8.9 billion of European Structural and Investment Funds is likely to hugely exacerbate this problem. In order to combat this the Lib Dems are planning to invest hugely in capital infrastructure in the North of England and Midlands. We see greater devolution to the regions, especially in fundamental economic areas such as housing, transport and skills education, as key to allowing higher rates of regional growth. We believe in providing special assistance to areas of the country that are disproportionately reliant on fossil fuels, such as the North East of Scotland, in order to allow them to diversify away from those industries, thus ensuring that the UK as a whole will be able to cut its carbon output.

To end on a more Oxford-specific note, the constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon is currently being held by Nicola Blackwood MP, who at the previous 2015 election had a majority of approximately 9000 votes over the Liberal Democrat candidate, Layla Moran. Labour meanwhile trailed in third place with around 19,000 fewer votes than the Conservatives. Clearly the constituency is a two-horse race between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—a vote for Labour will most likely result in the election of a Conservative MP. Significantly, the Green Party has recognised this and stood down in the constituency, expressly in favour of the Lib Dems.

Blackwood has been a consistently poor MP. Under her aegis, Sure Start centres across the constituency have been closed, she has frequently voted against bills to promote equality and equal rights, and she has failed to engage adequately with students in the area. I would therefore urge students, even those who are not habitual Liberal Democrat voters, to consider voting Layla Moran for the only real opposition to the Conservatives in Oxford West.

 

Cliché of the week: “Transfer saga of the summer”

0

After Arsenal’s victory in the FA Cup last weekend you may think the season has ended.

But for people like myself, the real excitement has only started.

That’s right, it’s transfer season.

Already we’ve had an amuse-bouche in the form of Bernardo Silva’s impending mega-money move to Manchester City, with the City board prudently wrapping up their first signing before the window even officially opened on 1 June.

But where’s the fun in that? Where’s the excruciatingly drawn-out string of back page gossip-column headlines? Where’s the incessant reels of Sky Sports News updates for every million pounds closer the desiring club get to the coveted player’s buy-out clause?

What I want is a transfer saga.

The transfer saga, as we all know, is the pinnacle of any transfer window. It’s what gets reporters’ pens flowing. It’s what gets devoted fans down to the gates of the club training complex to harass and harangue any pundit trying to cover the story.

Every summer has their defining saga: 2016’s was Paul Pogba’s long, sought-after return to Manchester United. 2014 saw football’s ravenous enfant-terrible Luis Suarez deliberate for months before making the incredibly difficult decision to swap Merseyside for sunny Catalonia. And no-one can forget 2013, the transfer saga to end all transfer sagas—Tottenham’s seemingly interminable negotiations with Real Madrid over Gareth Bale for a then-world record fee, which almost caused Jim White to wet himself with excitement in the studio.

Who will it be this year? Antoine Griezmann seems to be playing all the right mind games for a will-they-won’t-they nail-biter this summer, but we will have to wait for the mystical crystal-ball that is the Sky-Pad, the fount of transfer knowledge, to reveal everything come 31 August.

And for this writer, at least, that moment surely can’t come soon enough.

Old and new fuse in ‘Twin Peaks: The Return’

As the credits to the premiere of Twin Peaks: The Return rolled, the audience at Cannes arose to unanimous applause. It has been a long 25 years—the 1992 Cannes screening of Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me was met with boos and jeers.

In the second episode of the new Twin Peaks, the vengeful demon, MIKE, asks Dale Cooper “is this future or past?” While this may have a context within the plot, perhaps it is a more self-referential question. Where does the new season of Twin Peaks fit in the history of TV? Will it be a look back to what made the original series so great or will it strike out new and unknown territory?

Much of the new series does look back to the original series but not in a derivative sense. The premiere is sparse in story but this sparseness is filled by our anticipation. Uneventful scenes are given weight by the memories of the original series. The moments with Catherine Coulson (who plays ‘The Log Lady’) are particularly tender considering her passing. Each reveal of an old character is filled with emotion and nostalgia.

Furthermore, Lynch looks to his wider filmography for themes and imagery to reference. The howling soundscape is more similar to Eraserhead than the kitsch lounge music of old Twin Peaks. The Manhattan scenes echo Rabbits in their setting and Lost Highway in their obsession with surveillance. Curiously, actors and even supernatural beings from Mulholland Drive make reappearances.

However, the premiere doesn’t only look back but strikes new ground too. The decision to set much of the story outside of Twin Peaks, with new, seemingly unrelated characters, is a bold one but piques interest. Stark imagery of behemoth skyscrapers reminds viewers that what happens in Twin Peaks is part of a greater world.

The digital effects expand his imagery to new mind-bending levels while remaining as convincing and unsettling as his usual practical effects.

Lynch also gives nods to standout shows from today’s golden age. The goofy and colloquial conversations set in the Midwest seem cut straight out of Fargo. The use of smoke to conjure up spectres reminds one of Lost. The decision of the youths to watch a glass box to “see if anything appears inside” could be Lynch commenting on our generation’s paralysing love for TV boxsets. Lynch may simply be reclaiming the ideas that modern shows took from him, but it is more like he is paying tribute to those who kept the TV warm while he was gone.

Overall, Lynch succeeds in straddling the past and the future. He convincingly reminds us of the original series, giving us our dose of nostalgia and general Twin Peaks plot, whilst offering fans a glimpse into his other films.

Lynch sets out new ideas, stories and imagery without departing from the original themes and feelings too much. Reviving such an old show was always going to be tricky, but artistically Twin Peaks: The Return is a triumph.

An interview with Armando Iannucci

0

The creator of The Thick of It is probably used to being ushered through the corridors of power. We, however, are not. So when we sit down with Armando Ianucci in a secluded corner of the Union’s Gladstone Room, it’s fair to say we feel a little out of place.
Benn: Were you a member of the Union when you were here?
“Well I wasn’t a member of the Union when I was an undergraduate, but I came here when they had a comedy club down in the basement in what was then called the Jazz Cellar—I don’t know if it’s still called the Jazz Cellar.”
Benn: Now it’s called ‘Purple Turtle’
“Oh of course it is”
Benn: They made that obvious leap. It is notoriously the worst club in Oxford.
“Well I remember at the time it was a terrible room to play in—very long. So that’s where Herring used to perform, and Al Murray. It was interesting.”
John: Is there a reason why you think Cambridge seems to be the dominant force in comedy now?
“Actually, I felt that even then—in my year the Cambridge Footlights were taking off with Fry and Laurie, and here [in Oxford], it was Radioactive and Rowan Atkinson and some of Monty Python. And that was it. Maybe some Beyond the Fringe—I don’t remember.”
John: Do you think satire is dead or just slightly unwell?
“I don’t think it’s is unwell but I do think that it’s going through a bit of a rethink. As I’ve said many times Trump is his own joke. He distorts what he says and turns it into laughable exaggeration. So what do you do? And it’s interesting, it seems the people who seem to be getting through are people like John Oliver who have traditional journalistic resources—they’re saying, ‘Well, let’s look at the facts’. He’s doing all the fiction stuff, so let’s look at the facts.”
John: Do you think the scrutiny, or that level of coverage has actually helped him?
“I worry that the media haven’t quite realised that it has a kind of duty if it’s under attack. It has to abandon, ‘Well we mustn’t say anything too controversial’. Obviously you’ve got to be careful but I think the media has to start from a position of ‘Okay, let’s examine the truth, and if the truth is unpalatable: well I think we need to be able to broadcast that’. And at the moment I think they’re a bit nervous.”
John: So do you think there’s anything off limits in comedy?
“No, no, well obviously that doesn’t mean you can just say anything without having thought about it. Do you know what I mean? Just insulting or offending or swearing for the sake of it, I don’t think is funny. There has to be a kind of line of either thought or argument behind it.”
John: You must think swearing is a bit funny though?
“It is a bit funny—but in context. In context it’s fucking funny.”
Benn: Yes, of course. You said that you ‘think your comedy through’, but do you write for different audiences? So let’s say you’re writing for an American audience with Veep, versus a British one?
“No, no, you’ll never write your best stuff if you’re writing what you think someone else is going to laugh at. You’re already downplaying—limiting yourself. And I always say that especially to first time writers who want to write comedy, always write what makes you laugh, not what you think will make some 45 year old programme controller laugh. That’s not a guarantee of success, but it will at least mean that you’re writing your best stuff. And when we wrote stuff like Veep we just wrote what we thought would be funny—we went out and researched it, and found the characters. So you’re writing for those voices but fundamentally you’re writing for yourself. And also it ties into the idea that, well, comedy is universal—and if you find it funny then chances are someone else will find it funny.”
Benn: And do you build a particular character around a particular actor? So was Malcolm Tucker built around Peter Capaldi?
“No, well, it’s a two-way thing. With someone like Steve [Coogan], we evolved Alan Partridge having already started with Steve as it were. For Malcolm Tucker we wrote the character but he wasn’t Scottish in the first script. You audition people, you cast people. Peter came, he was great, suddenly Malcolm’s Scottish. And so you write for Peter, you write for him—for how he channels Malcolm.”
John: And do you think the world of comedy needs Malcolm Tucker more than ever, especially now that he can travel through time and things like that?
“Yes. I think maybe you’re confusing some different genres, characters.”
John: Yes, maybe. I’m an irregular viewer. Well, what about Alan, do you think Alan speaks to anything essential in human nature? Is that why he’s proved so enduring?
“It’s so funny—everyone knows an Alan. No one admits to being Alan themselves.”
John: But some of them are Alan, there are some out there…
“Yes, exactly… it’s like in Veep. There’s this character, Jonah, who’s the least ‘pleasant’. And everyone in Washington always says they ‘know a Jonah’, but again it’s not them, but someone else.”
Benn: And have you watched anything of The Trip? How do you think Steve the actor compares to that Steve?
“Well, these are exaggerations: I mean Steve can be a bit detached if he wants to be, and Rob, well, Rob can be a bit boisterous, too. But they know—I remember Steve telling me that when they do these improvised bits where they insult each other, and they actually say extremely true things about each other, and at the end of the tape they kind of look away all embarrassed.”
John: Would you describe yourself as misanthropic?
“I kind of, bizarrely, I’m a bit of an optimist really. Maybe it’s the British comedy tradition—you know, we like people who haven’t quite succeeded or we like flawed characters. Whereas in America most of the characters seem to be successful, good looking, but a bit wacky. Here we like people with ambition…but whose ambition is never quite met.”
John: And do you find your taste in comedy has changed as you’ve grown older, written more?
“I don’t know, I still like silly stuff—I still like Toast of London, and Amy Schumer’s funny. Bojack Horseman—”
John: BoJack’s so depressing!
“I know, I know.”
John: It’s too true to life—even though he’s a horse…
“Yes, he is a horse. I tend to watch a lot of drama now. Maybe it’s because I’m doing comedy during the day that I just want to not think about joke. “
John: Do you ever feel like you can’t muster ‘the funny’?
“Yeah, yeah, if you’ve been spending all day, especially watching on screen, if you’re editing. you want something else that’s different.”
Benn: Am I right in saying you started a DPhil in Milton? How did you make the leap from that?
“Well it wasn’t a leap. I mean I never finished it, because in those three years I did a lot of comedy”
John: You might have to return to it now that satire’s dead
Benn: Would you?
“No! I did a programme on BBC2 about Paradise Lost and I got a very nice note from my supervisor saying “consider the thesis complete”. But the truth was I stopped after three years because I thought, ‘I’m not doing it, and I’m doing the Oxford Revue and one-man shows and stuff like that’ and I thought, ‘Clearly this is the direction we’re going in and we’re not going in that direction’”
Benn: So you don’t think there’s anything of Milton’s Satan in Malcolm Tucker?
“No, although for this BBC2 documentary we suddenly realised that Milton himself was Oliver Cromwell’s spin-doctor. He was called ‘secretary for tongues’, and his job was to justify the republic to the European courts—the royal courts of Europe. He had to write in French or Latin or whatever, defenses of republicanism—so he was Milton’s spin-doctor. [thumps the table] So there you go, that’s interesting isn’t it?”
John: Do you think comedians are quite weird in general, not you, but others?
“No, obviously I’m very normal—but all of the rest of them are—definitely. No, some are and some aren’t. For some, that’s just how they are. That’s their personality.”
John: Is there anything compulsive about the need to make people laugh… a substitute for love?
“Well certainly standups—who do that kind of three or four gigs a night thing, you know, and then when they’re off they’re just reciting their lines to you and how well the laugh went. You just think “Stop that—I don’t read out my overnight ratings to you, so why are you telling me which part of the audience liked which line”…
John: Are you going to vote Lib Dem in the next election?
“If pushed I’d advocate that people try and stop Theresa May’s majority going into the billions by voting for whoever’s best placed to supplant her. So in my constituency that would be a Lib Dem, in other constituencies that would be Labour…”
Benn: Do you every wish you’d written a character like Jeremy Corbyn?
“I think that would get a bit bored. In fact, I’d probably start crying.”
John: Do you ever feel any kind of nostalgia for the New Labour days?
“Well the sad thing about Blair is that take away the whole Iraq thing and it was a pretty good record, do you know what I mean? It’s a shame it wasn’t a bit more daring, but it was pretty good—the health system, the education system was in pretty good nick. And then the Iraq thing just made you completely question how politics works—that people can do that without any sort of check in balance. And how much actually did we spend on that war? How much is the state of our economy not actually partly a product of how much we must have spent on propping up a government in Iraq as well as the invasion. It’s unquantifiable.”
John: Who do you think between Malcolm and Alan Partridge is more morally upstanding?
“That’s interesting.”
Benn: I was going to ask who’d win in a fight…
“Well I think Alan’s been taking some martial arts lessons. So you never know. Whereas Malcolm probably thinks he doesn’t have to practice—its an instinct thing. So Alan might surprise him, might take him down, with a sort of wrestling move. I think Alan watches a lot of wrestling, and practices at home.”
Benn: So we’re obviously a newspaper, a pretty rubbish one, but a newspaper nonetheless…
“It’s one of the oldest and finest!”
Benn: … but one of your The Thick Of It episodes focuses on a kind of mock Leveson inquiry—do you think that the way in which the media presents politicians has changed?
“No I think it’s kind of getting worse. I mean look at it now, Theresa May won’t debate but she will go on The One Show with her husband—that’s the debate—that’s the standoff: her and her husband and The One Show presenters. And Jeremy Corbyn’s events are very controlled as well. So this ‘let’s ask the people’—well, you haven’t really asked us anything yet, because you’ve only invited your own members, you know. Nothing, we’ve not been allowed to ask anything, and that’s what depresses me. And yet at the same time, I’m trying to encourage young and first-time voters to register to vote. It will only get worse, the fewer and fewer of us who vote, it will only get worse—because it means there’s fewer and fewer people for politicians to be scared of you know.”
John: Which living politician do you most admire?
“Roy Hattersley! Oh, living politician. You see I always a huge fan of Charles Kennedy, who sadly died. and you know, he was one of the only party leaders right from the word go to say no to the Iraq War, to say ‘No! What are we doing! This is madness—this will all end in tears’, and he was absolutely right. All the best ones have died… Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam—what’s going on? [Suspiciously] What’s going on there?”
John: They’re all dying! When you were young you harbored ambitions of becoming a Catholic priest. Where did it all go right?
“I went to university, and found that more interesting”
John: But it could have been different!
“… Could have been very different.”
Benn: I’ve met some very funny priests [stares into the distance]
“Yeah, funny ‘ha-ha’ or …”
Benn: Well I went to Catholic boarding school…

With that, our time was up. Benn bottled his nightmares back up, and we were kindly, if forcibly, ushered out of the Union’s inner rectum—I mean sanctum.

Polemic, platitudes, and empty rhetoric

0

The chance to see Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is one that cannot be passed up lightly. In the current political climate a politician that seems to explicitly understand the youth and issues facing the future, a man with genuine principles unhampered by the slickness that seems inherent in the worldwide political system, is incredibly hard to come by. However, the hour or so that he spoke for was unconvincing and depressing, a disappointing charge to level at the man described as “America’s most popular politician” by Baroness Helena Kennedy when introducing him.

Speaking to Oxford less than 24 hours after Trump withdrew from the Paris agreement, Sanders’ tone immediately snaps to one of anger, that which he has become famous for over the past couple of years. So far, so justified, and after thanking his brother Larry for introducing him to the stage he launches into a fluent and passionate diatribe about the issues facing the climate. By tapping into the fears that most rational and climate-aware people share regarding the future of the planet, he makes it clear that he is still the candidate of the youth. Candidate is the key term here, with much of his speech feeling as though he is trying to sell himself to the audience, rather than to capitalise on the momentum his presidential campaign created and throw himself into new future projects. While his words on the environment are up to date, they feel rather more like an addendum to provide some deviation from what subsequently veers dangerously into stump speech territory. The whole speech felt like a campaign rally rather than the launch of the paperback copy of his 2016-published book, Our Revolution: A future to Believe In.  

Trump is naturally given prominence in Sanders’ speech, a vast polemic that covers fake news and the media, the President’s pathological lies, this week’s disastrous budget proposals, and the state of healthcare in the United States. This first part is informative, and serves nicely as an introduction to the rest of the talk, which considers how America ended up in the position it is in now, post-2016 election. This is where Sanders’ populist rhetoric is most expanded. Inequality (which Sanders considers to be the biggest issue facing politics), massive poverty rates, as well as the flaws of the Electoral College, are used to explain why the Democrats lost last November. However, these arguments, while powerful in the sheer force of their anger, didn’t feel like the rallying cry Sanders clearly intended them to be, but rather a rehash of the same miserable politics we see every day on our Facebook news feeds, discussed between friends over dinner, or in the pages of broadsheet newspapers. His analysis of the causes of what Trump so ominously called “American carnage” was certainly interesting, but is so present in our current political discourse that it doesn’t need repeating— everyone is already painfully aware of them. The question of how to solve them was hardly touched on.

Sanders jokes that his wife tells him that people need tranquilisers at the end of his speeches. So, he attempts to end on a high note, addressing hope for the future and telling young people to get involved in politics. It is certainly rousing, but somehow falls flat at the same time. Given the long tirade coming before it, the juxtaposition of an attempt to inspire leaves a sour taste in the mouth. All in all, the speech feels somewhat incomplete, focused almost entirely on a depressing forecast for the coming years under Trump’s demagogy and very little on how to actually enact change and solve the problems of inequality in America. If this had been a campaign rally, the negativity would have been followed by an upswing—an imperative to vote for Sanders to solve the problems. Instead, the audience was left with few policy prescriptions beyond promises to break up the big banks, attempts to rebuild the Democratic Party to be one of the working class and of young people, and of a movement coming together against Trump. How are these lofty aims going to be achieved? Platitudes alone are insufficient for the kind of revolution that Sanders is trying to inspire.

An issue that is conspicuously absent until the very end, in a short question and answer round, is that of Hilary Clinton’s success over Sanders in the Democratic primaries. When asked whether he would have won in November, having been chosen as the Democratic candidate, it feels like the elephant in the room has finally been addressed. Diplomatically, he answered with a refusal to engage in counterfactuals—and rightly so. The fixation of the liberal left with the ‘what ifs’ of a Sanders candidacy is today still far too prominent in post-election rhetoric, rhetoric which is now stale, seven months on. Had Sanders come to beat Trump last year, I suspect many of the same problems that Trump is currently experiencing when trying to pass laws through the House and the Senate would be experienced by Sanders (albeit without insidious Russian interference).

It is easy to understand why Sanders’ populist doomsday tones captured the unrest felt in the American youth, particularly in the face of Clinton’s veneer of control and party-political machine behind her. Sanders felt real, and truly on the side of the people. But there were no coherent policy proposals and acknowledgements of an inefficient legislature in his speech, an attribute of Clinton’s that has sorely been overlooked. Politics is a game, and an institutionalised system, and a workhorse like Clinton would have ten times the positive gains in DC because of her intimate knowledge of the system, not despite of it. Clinton has emerged from her loss with plans for a new political action group ‘Onward Together’, with plans to fund groups that train women to run for representative positions and groups fighting for criminal justice reform. Sanders is still aiming at the same targets he has always done.

The Clinton comparisons serve to highlight what seems to me, as a cynical politics student, a large oversight in the dominant narrative of politics among my peers. Often the way to enact actual change is going within the system rather than against it. Populists like Sanders in the US, and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK can only create so much momentum until they tire out. Sanders’ liberally abrasive style, combined with his almost empty rhetoric, exposes the rational limits of populism. Political parties cannot be built around a populist, because things start to rapidly fall apart around them: the centre cannot hold. Even where populists do have policies (like the Labour Party manifesto), they are often idealistic rather than efficient and effective in reaching their stated aims—the promise of totally free higher education for all is one contemporary example. Those wanting to avoid the mistakes of 2016 in the upcoming June 8 general election should be wary of this when thinking about their vote.

America’s most popular politician? Perhaps. The audience seemed to think so, lavishing Sanders with applause and giving him a standing ovation at the end. But the rhetoric seemed to be stuck: the politics of progression ironically unable to move forward from the place of anger we are at right now. Anger is good, but it isn’t enough to actually change anything.

Oxford makes non-European history paper compulsory

0

The Oxford History Faculty has introduced a new requirement that students take at least one non-British or non-European paper. However, Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaigners have criticised the media coverage of the course change.

In a Facebook post the Rhodes Must Fall campaign registered their dissatisfaction with the move. Though RMF admitted that “the step is in the right direction”, they maintained that “the ways that [the change] has been exaggerated have given good press to an institution which still does not deserve any good press at all”.

The post also claimed the Oxford history degree remained too Eurocentric, writing that: “There is still only one fifth of one paper, (a paper on imperialism and globalisation), in which study of Sub Saharan Africa, 1/5 of the world’s land mass, is available.

“There are seven different options on the history of the British Isles alone. The real question is, why up until 2017 non-European history was not compulsory on the syllabus of the world’s supposedly best institution.”

The University has also refuted claims in the national press that the move was in response to any kind of campaign or pressure. In particular, while many have sought to link the change to the Rhodes Must Fall (RMF) campaign, the University has denied this, and pointed out that the curriculum review began a couple of years before RMF had even formed at Oxford.

The Oxford History Faculty released a statement, saying that the Faculty “regularly reviews and updates its course curriculum to reflect the latest developments in the subject. After a number of years of discussion and consultation among ourselves and with students, we have decided to make a number of changes to the curriculum.

“Among these is a requirement that students study one paper (from a wide range of such options) in non-British and non-European history, alongside two papers of British History and two papers of European History.

“Students take eleven papers in total during their history degree, and many of our students already take at least one paper of non-European/British history.

“We are pleased to be modernising and diversifying our curriculum in this way.”

History and Politics student Henry Sasse told Cherwell: “It’s not a huge change … many people seem to take American or Asian or Middle Eastern history at some point by default and they aren’t forcing [students to] take any course in particular.”

Sasse also expressed appreciation for the fact that the move was not an introduction of a specialized course, saying that: “In some ways I applaud them for not cobbling together a new module that wasn’t indicative of the specialities and interests of the faculty as well as allowing everyone to follow their own interests”.

Earlier this year Cherwell reported on the controversy over the disparity between the Oxford’s History dissertation prizes for British and African research pursuits. Billy Nuttall, a history student at Magdalen, launched a crowdfunding campaign to make up a difference of over £400 between the prizes.

At the time, Nuttall criticized the fact the history syllabus contained “two compulsory elements of British history, two compulsory elements of European history” but “no African no Latin American, no Asian [compulsory elements]”.

In response to the recent change, Nuttall told Cherwell: “I’m really happy the faculty is making these changes, they seem to be really ahead of the trend here in Oxford in terms of the diversity of subject matter that will be available.

“[The faculty] seem keen to work with students to work towards improving teaching and I would encourage anyone with concerns to voice them with the faculty via college subject reps and the like, they are really keen for feedback.”

Some have been disquieted by the change to the curriculum.

Historian and former Oxford Professor Niall Ferguson told The Times that universities ought “not to stop teaching crucial subjects like the rise of the West or the world wars in the effort to make courses more diverse.”

However, Sasse pointed out that “we are so far off from that being a concern. The majority of courses still discuss those sorts of things and the world wars are certainly not understudied by Oxford history students”.

Oxford West on election knife-edge

0

Oxford West and Abingdon constituency is hotly contested between the incumbent Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at the general election on 8 June, according to a shock new projection by pollster YouGov.

The projection, which predicts a hung parliament nationally, sees the Conservatives winning 40 per cent of the vote in the seat, with the Liberal Democrats ahead on 42 per cent. The Labour Party are significantly behind with a projected 17 per cent share of the vote, with the UK Independence Party, the only other party standing, projected to win just four per cent of the vote.

The seat has been represented by Conservative MP Nicola Blackwood since 2010, and has a Tory majority of 9,582 over the second-placed Liberal Democrats. Until recently, with the Conservatives riding high in the polls, a third term for Blackwood was considered highly likely.

Blackwood, who read Music at St Anne’s College, was criticised in a 2013 letter by 38 JCR presidents for voting against the legalisation of same-sex marriage despite intimating her support for the measure to students. She also garnered significant press attention in February after being moved to tears during a debate over alcoholism.

The Liberal Democrats, whose physics teacher candidate Layla Moran also stood in the constituency in 2015, aim to capture the seat with a strongly anti-Brexit message. Oxford as a whole voted by 70 per cent to 30 per cent in favour of remaining in the European Union in the referendum last June.

Lucasta Bath, President of the Oxford University Liberal Democrats, told Cherwell: We’re really thrilled by the results of this poll: they are a strong indictment of Nicola Blackwood’s poor record as a constituency MP, and a tribute to all our members and volunteers who have worked so hard in recent weeks.

“We would urge all students in Oxford West and Abingdon to consider voting Liberal Democrat on 8 June as the only viable opposition in this constituency, and the only way to help prevent a Tory majority government.”

William Rees-Mogg, President of the Oxford University Conservative Association, was more sceptical, telling Cherwell: “I’d start by noting that this is a poll from YouGov, whose predictions have been way out of line with all other pollsters—who knows how accurate this is? It’s a single poll carried out using an untested method.

Rees-Mogg continued: “Nevertheless it’s a real encouragement to students to get out and vote Conservative, ensuring that we have a voice in government to represent us, not just a voice on the opposition backbenches.

Speaking to Cherwell, the incumbent MP Nicola Blackwood said: “Of course we know every vote really does count in this constituency, it’s why I am standing on my record as constituency champion.”

The projection suggests that the race in Oxford East is much less close, with Labour projected to win 62 per cent of the vote ahead of the Conservatives at 22 per cent. Last week, Cherwell revealed that the Labour candidate, Anneliese Dodds, was fined £75 for “illicit canvassing” in her successful 1998 campaign for the OUSU presidency

A poll commissioned by Cherwell last week revealed that 40.8 per cent of students in the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency planned to vote for Moran, compared with just 18.3 per cent for the Conservatives. In the Oxford East constituency, 54.2 per cent of voters planned to back Labour.

Layla Moran was contacted for comment.

Rhetoric and realism in ‘Raphael: The Drawings’

Everything in this exhibition has so much to offer, you would be here for several days if I were to go through everything” laughed Dr Catherine Whistler apologetically as we neared the end of our whirlwind tour of the Ashmolean’s new exhibition. I think she’s right, for each of the 120 sketches in Raphael: The Drawings—which opened yesterday—presents us with something new.

The display showcases a phenomenally diverse range of styles, medium, and subject. Every individual drawing—be it a vibrant nude in red chalk, animated male figures in vintage brown ink, or a monochrome self-portrait in layered charcoal—is a treasure trove of artistic capability and (unexpected) wild imagination in its own right.

Raphael forms part of the Holy Trinity of Renaissance masters, alongside Michelangelo and Leonardo. Though whilst Michelangelo was held to be the great ‘creative genius’ of the era—lacking in formal restraint and pushing the limits of artistic boundaries—Raphael has long been believed to have been the ideal ‘balanced’ painter, who obeyed all the rules then supposed to govern the arts. His classical perfection and geometric purity appealed to the contemporary Renaissance Humanist audience for whom mannerism was simply too excessive, whilst his anatomical accuracy, perfect decorum, and rigid discipline meant he dominated the curriculum of the European Academies throughout the 18th century.

Yet The Drawings—which includes unedited frenzied brainstorms and thumbnail doodles— presents a different side of the master, leaving us with the lasting impression that Raphael was not simply a phenomenally talented artist, but also a highly gifted story-teller, with an exceptional imagination and immense flair for experimental expression. The Ashmolean’s curation convinces us Raphael was far more inventive than his famous frescoes let on.

Raphael’s figures are beautifully emotive, yet rhetoric often appears to take precedence over realism in many of them. As the curatorial team’s description of their ‘renaissance yoga’ antics let on, often, the portrayed positions are simply humanly unattainable. The limits of figural narration are pushed, as such, in ‘Study for a soldier in a Resurrection’ (c. 1511-14). The male figure, sketched in black chalk, cowers under the force of resurrection with arms raised protectively to shield his face. But his legs and torso don’t quite connect in this painfully contorted pose—as if they have been formed from two wholly separate studies. Raphael’s sketch may not be realistic, but it expressively captures the force of the moment. It narrates a story and showcases his talent for persuasion.

This underlying theme of persuasion pervades many works on display this summer—we can’t help but feel the artist wanted to affect us with his art. The overpowering, vermillion chalk marks in ‘Study for God the Father with Cherubs’ (c. 1515-16) exude a sense of awe. The Father figure, shrouded in this vibrant red mist, is deeply stirring—his hands raised in gesticulation and mouth hanging open, as if we can almost hear the booming voice projecting out. We find ourselves looking up at the character due to Raphael’s skilful use of angle, further adding to the might the piece manifests.

‘Study for Massacre of the Innocents’ (c. 1509-10) is similarly emotive. Frenzied ink marks portray a hollow, harrowing face as a lone woman desperately clutches her baby, hurtling towards us through the crowds engaged in violent slaughter. Much of this study’s narrative capacity finds itself in space and direction though. The crowds part, leaving a clear central channel through which our attention is focused.

Raphael’s gift for oration similarly manifests itself in masterful manipulation of space, rhythm, and direction throughout the exhibition. In the remarkable range of studies for Vatican frescoes presented—especially those for the stanza della segnatura—Raphael transforms abstract themes like theology and philosophy into compelling visual stories.

Gesticulating figures carve out indicative spaces: ‘Study for the lower left part of the Disputa’ (c. 1508-10) is marked with a diagonally upwards surge, heads and shoulders within the crowd amassed on the steps angled upwards towards a focal point, out of the frame. In a study for the upper part of this project, light is instead used astoundingly convincingly to orchestrate heavenly space. Two tiers of figures—occupying the heavenly zone of the fresco—are bathed in luminous white chalk, as if divinely illuminated.

No doubt Raphael was influenced by the Humanist education’s emphasis on oration, as it trickled down the ranks, using drawing instead of words to ‘marshal his visual arguments’ as such—but that does not go the whole way in explaining his inventiveness.

Within the series of sketches here, we are indulged with Raphael’s scribbles, doodles, and brainstorms, conjuring up the image of a hugely experimental young man. ‘Studies for figures in the Disputa with drafts of a sonnet’ holds poetic abstractions amongst the sketches of conversing papal figures. Vigorous revisions and cancellations highlight his efforts to forge fresh ideas, concurrently evidence of another artistic outlet and a testament to his creativity.

A rare insight into Raphael’s imagination also presents itself in ‘Sheet with inventive ideas’ (c. 1511-14). A flurry of figural activity gathers in the bottom right-hand-corner, before forms disperse upwards to heaven, like human wisps of smoke. Here is a frenzied brainstorm in which we witness the master’s rush to pencil his ideas down.

Evidently, Raphael was every bit as much the creative genius as Michelangelo, his drawings capturing imagination and projecting the inventiveness that is lost in his painting. Here, what the Ashmolean calls his ‘process of thinking, experimenting, recalling from memory, and revising’ comes alive. At the same time, exceptional skill pervades the collection—though that is almost a given. His human forms and cloth folds are tangibly realistic, his use of light in white chalk truly awe-inspiring. A deep understanding of humanity is harboured in his recurrent theme of mother and child, and sensuous depictions of the female form in drawings like ‘The Three Graces’.

Every drawing is so intriguingly different, though you’ll only truly understand if you visit The Drawings yourself. For every mark here provides a new, invaluable insight into the artist’s mind, a flurry of imagination far removed from the rigid formality so often associated with Raphael.