This is the time for students to be heard and compensated

Séamus O'Hanlon on 25 January 2021

University students across the nation have been seriously impacted, disappointed and politically shafted over the past year. At the start of the academic year, many were told that, on a case-by-case basis, students whose quality of learning had proven to be inadequate could perhaps be compensated – but only after going through a complaint procedure with unsure guidance. 

During the second lockdown, students in some areas were fenced in their accommodation, leaving them vulnerable and isolated with no in-person learning whatsoever. The third lockdown only means that the remaining months of university life will feel unrecognisable and incomplete. All universities in the UK have been substantially affected by the pandemic and all students therefore deserve and qualify for financial compensation. 

Students have turned down many opportunities out of their consciences and goodness of their own hearts. Understandably, the media has drawn attention to the few illegal parties and rule-breakers who threaten  this -hopefully- final stretch of national efforts before vaccinations are commonplace and effective. This requires sacrifice, grit and hardship, which are qualities that students have been tirelessly displaying since the first lockdown began last March. In order to do this, students have had to give up on their university experience twice already, and now for the foreseeable future, in order to protect the most vulnerable members of society and the NHS.

Students have made the most out of this difficult situation, but they are struggling. To go without the necessary downtime means we have become run down; to continue for so long with an intense, and sometimes gruelling academic workload has left them exhausted. Rent, living fees and a constantly increasing debt are some of the expenditures students are facing, which further strains them and leaves them both financially and economically weakened. More will always need to be done to support students with their mental health, and one issue which should be lifted from students’ minds is the pressure of keeping up with rent while the government advises everyone to stay at home.

Students deserve better during the pandemic. It was understandable at the time for people and universities to have been optimistic during the summer months, believing that blended learning was going to be a viable option for the 2020/2021 academic year. In retrospect, a lot of better decisions could have been made, impossible to see back then, but that does not mean we can’t have better policies and procedures now. Universities have shown resourcefulness and determination with their attempt to fully create an online learning experience. However, I think criticism, dismay and outrage at this lousy situation should not be bottled up: for many students, online learning has not been acceptable or to a high enough standard that warrants no complaints. It has been poor. It has certainly not been worth the money, and it does not reflect the announcements about the satisfaction of learning from home.

Attending university from home is not the same as working from home. Working from home to prevent infections should be applauded; the HMRC policy which enables workers to claim a £6 weekly allowance to compensate for incurred living costs should be expanded in order to encourage staying at home. The government needs to stop omitting the discussion on university students and must address the matter directly. There is no justification for the full tuition fees students are being currently charged. Reducing fees by half would be more than symbolic, as it would mean adjusting to the reality of this unfair situation. Students have welcomed the University of Leeds’ one-week blanket coursework assignment extension this January, but this again reveals the unprecedented amount of disruption faced by students this past year. Rent refunds, academic assistance and mental health issues need to be tackled this year. Pro-student policies help everyone, and the public should join in on this pledge in the same way that it has supported COVID-relief packages across all sections of society.

Having further education has never been more important than in this coronavirus economy. In the long-term, universities need to understand that young people who have been affected by the strains of the pandemic have incurred high debts but with a huge lack of personalised teaching. Even younger people who are currently studying their A-Levels will face changes, which means all students have seen their education negatively impacted. This really could be the required impetus for a much-needed reform of the tuition system.

Seamus O’Hanlon

Image source: Geograph

How Lewis Hamilton is racing against racism in F1

Rishi Shah on 22 January 2021

Sir Lewis Hamilton – by far the standout name on the recently published New Year’s Honours list. Following his recent Sports Personality of the Year (SPOTY) award, the accolades are stacking up for the British F1 driver.

The SPOTY award has long eluded a curiously unpopular Hamilton, despite the fact that before his record-equalling Formula One World Championship title in 2020, he already had six to his name. His recent dominance within the sport has become somewhat of a routine, so one might ask: what was the difference this year that propelled him towards these two glorious honours? The answer lies in an all too familiar issue – the work he has done in the fight against racism, striving for equality and diversity, in the sport and beyond.

So often leading races from the front (quite literally), Hamilton knew that it would be the most impactful if it was him who picked up the mantle that needed to be filled in the summer. George Floyd’s death on 25th May 2020 had invoked a Black Lives Matter movement with momentum unheard of for decades, and Hamilton used his influence as the only black F1 driver as directly as possible. Wearing masks and t-shirts drawing attention to police brutality and the unjust murder of Breonna Taylor highlights his refusal to simply be an F1 driver, alongside his active decision to take a knee and show solidarity with the oppressed before each race.

Hamilton’s motives are deep-rooted, with Mercedes Team Principal Toto Wolff describing his proactivity in previous years, starting conversations about internal diversity and explicitly flagging up issues surrounding the shortage of minority mechanics employed by the team. Hamilton’s world domination in the context of being the sport’s only black driver has no doubt motivated him to inspire other young fans into believing that anything is possible, no matter your background, as he emotionally re-iterated on the team’s radio following his World Championship victory in Turkey. However, the individuality of his actions has only exacerbated the sport’s clear lack of unity behind such an important cause.

Whilst Premier League football has normalised the gesture of taking a knee, seven F1 drives – which equates to 35% – have refused to join Hamilton in his pre-race demonstrations. Such a global sport, which involves personnel from over six continents, displaying this awkwardly detached sense of social awareness is not only damaging to its reputation, but also a sign of where the genuine problems lie. With an entirely male driver line-up, including many who have family connections in the F1 hierarchy, there are already enough reasons why the sport is inherently restrictive – and its failure to stand with its champion in solidarity with the Black Lives Matter cause only worsens its image. Within the context of social issues, perhaps unsurprisingly, F1’s infamous partnership with Bahrain has long come under fire for the sport’s hierarchy turning the blind eye to its dismal human rights violations. As F1 welcomes a new CEO in 2021, Stefano Domenicali, the man must surely look into these issues to reshape the sport into an inclusive, diverse environment in which anyone can succeed. 

Whilst there are many rumours that Hamilton’s retirement is on the horizon, it is perhaps more important than ever that he remains in the sport and continues to fight for equality. Hamilton admitted this year’s victory felt different, given the added motivation of his unerring desire to utilise his platform for good. These feelings no doubt leave him hungrier than ever to pursue his goal and ensure anyone can enter the sport – regardless of race or background – in any capacity, be it a mechanic, driver or CEO. His efforts in 2020 have sealed Lewis Hamilton’s legacy, not only in his records and titles but as a role model who leads by example by tackling systemic issues in a sport that needs it more than ever.

Studio Fiasco, Netflix Eclipse & Death to Popcorn – Interview with BAFTA Nominee, Mark Herman

Jack Denison on 22 January 2021

When the opportunity presented itself to interview British filmmaker, Mark Herman, it was too bountiful of an opportunity to not seize, considering he’s a successful BAFTA nominee and director/screenwriter behind British gems such as Brassed Off and Little Voice, but also the highly received The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.

With British cinema seeing new heights each year and playing an active role in the production of Hollywood blockbusters, I thought I’d ask Herman for his insights on the inner workings of the industry. He confessed that he feels “currently very embittered by it” and that “the only thing I know about for sure, personally, are some of the frustrations caused by the workings of the industry”.

His last film, The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, a powerful story centred on the relationship of a Nazi Officer’s son and his relationship with a Jewish boy in a concentration camp, was released twelve years ago. Herman remembers that the year after its release in 2008, “I seemed to get sent nothing but projects about The Holocaust, when in fact that would be the last thing I would want to be doing next”. He disapproves of Studios’ behaviour, saying “There is a lack of such financier bravery these days, nobody will stick their neck out and take a risk”. He voices how the industry has been on a creative downhill tumble for decades, saying that twenty years ago the “hoops and hurdles a director would have to go through and over were so much fewer. There was a trust in directors’ track records that is not so obvious today.” He punctuates his disenchantment saying “Nowadays it feels like everything has to be safe: either adaptation of successful novels, or sequels in big hit franchises”. Clearly, the industry has had its philosophies re-calibrated, particularly after the collaboration and selling-of-its-soul to Hollywood. Now, all that’s on the menu are micro-budget arthouse flicks that don’t get the circulation they deserve, or colossal budgeted, formulaic studio blockbusters that you can’t escape from.

As a spectator, he articulates how the industry has become numb and is in need of a wake-up call, saying “instead of having films that split opinion, that some people might hate but some just adore, what gets churned out are films that neither really offend nor really delight anybody.” Its systematic, cancerous values have cursed and swindled filmmakers with a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality. It has cranked up the dog-eat-dog intensity and has fundamentally strangled the life out of the creativity and arts the industry was founded on, that has now been morphed into a relentless business machine with the maximisation of money in its crosshairs and nothing else. Herman solidifies the toxically dysfunctional behaviour of the industry saying “The tail wags the dog in a way”. Cinema finds itself in a bleak dystopian world, having suffocated and neglected the other equally superior services of film; to make us feel, dream and escape our reality.

The industry is juggling several gruelling existential crises and it would be fair to say it’s being put through the wringer. With the recent news of juggernaut cinema chain, Cineworld, suddenly going into a long haul hibernation to save itself from bankruptcy and then mammoth Hollywood
conglomerate, Warner Bros, deciding to release its entire slate of films for 2021 online, it seems that the exhibition sector is lost in no mans land. Both of these strong footed companies haven’t just been outmuscled directly by Coronavirus, but also indirectly by celebrity assassin, Netflix (last victim, Blockbuster). The streaming service’s popularity has taken spectatorship by storm, revolutionising the game, also being catalysed by the orders of sedentarism from the pandemic. Herman argues that younger generations “have got very used to gobbling up ‘movies’ on smaller and smaller screens, and after this year of many people not even experiencing a trip to the movies, folk do get used to alternatives.” With the ball now being in the cinema’s court to win audiences back over, they “will need to make ‘going to the movies’ a little bit more special than it has been in the last decades. Popcorn is no longer enough (..thank God)”. Or will this be the final nail in the coffin?

This fruitful interview aroused many concerns regarding the fate of cinema and what’s in store for it next. Are we on the brink of an ice age, or gearing up for a renaissance? Whatever may be at the root of the disappointments from the industry; the churning out of lethargic, humdrum blockbusters or the ebbing away of the cinema-trip culture, we need to remind ourselves that the industry is founded on supply and demand. Thus, to save the industry, as audiences, we must act; the blood is on our hands.

Header image credit: Aesthetica Short Film Festival

‘Bridgerton’ Review: Why is it so popular and is it worth the hype?

Hannah Spruce on 21 January 2021

Despite only being released on 25th December 2020, Bridgerton became Netflix’s fifth most-watched original launch, with over 63 million households tuning in to watch the regency drama unfold. Based on the novels by American author Julia Quinn, the series follows the influential Bridgerton family during the eventful social season as they navigate the competitive world of love, status and expectation.

Broadcast amidst tighter lockdown restrictions in the UK, the series benefits from a nationwide desire for escapism. At the centre of the story, is the relationship between favoured debutanté Daphne Bridgerton (Phoebe Dyvenor) and bachelor Simon Bassett (Regé-Jean Page), whose connection is formed on the basis of a relationship ruse. The relationship between the two leads is convincing but also flawed, which adds a level of depth and relatability to the characters which is not always present in period dramas.

 However, it is the strength of the ensemble cast that secures the series’ longevity. The characters are likeable and engaging, with unique story arcs which are already being set up for the second series. Daphne and Simon’s story is largely concluded by the finale, but the audience is left with a desire to see the stories of the secondary characters develop.  The Lady Whistledown subplot, narrated by the revered Julie Andrews, ties the whole Bridgerton universe together and ensures that the drama is not only limited to the two lead characters.

Although largely lighthearted in tone, under the guise of bright costuming and elaborate balls the series also highlights some serious topics. The precarious position of women is explored through the competitive nature of the marriage market and it exposes many women’s lack of autonomy in their destiny. Similarly, although the younger women in Bridgerton are often strong-willed and passionate, they are also extremely vulnerable and largely ignorant of the society which awaits them.

Despite its clear popularity, the series has not been without criticism. There has been some questioning over the historical accuracy and diversity of the series, to which Julia Quinn responded ‘’I’ve been dinged by the accuracy police – but it’s fantasy!’ The beauty of the series is its ability to include and immerse a wide audience. It combines all the elements of successful period dramas; the ball sequences, the country houses and central love arc, without feeling restricted or stagnant. When adapting a Jane Austen novel, you are limited by the notoriety of the characters, the language and the story. An example being the 2020 version of Sanditon, Austen’s unfinished novel, which was met with backlash over its uncharacteristic ending. Therefore, unlike Austen, Quinn’s novels are more flexible, they maintain the regency appeal whilst successfully incorporating modern inspirations from other eras. Bridgerton isn’t afraid to push the boundaries of what is expected of a period drama with its polarising sex scenes quickly revealing to the audience that the series would be multifaceted and unimpeded by convention.

Bridgerton pays homage to the beloved elements of period dramas, whilst still feeling fresh and engaging. Its diverse and charming cast is complemented by the immersive and romantic setting, which appeals to both serial period drama lovers and new fans of the genre. Ultimately, the series temporarily distracts us from the bleak state of the world and reiterates the utter joy and importance of the arts in providing entertainment even in the darkest of times.

‘The Midnight Sky’ review: George Clooney fails to save humanity from lockdown boredom

Jack Denison on 21 January 2021

Netflix’s latest big-budget project, The Midnight Sky, is a sci-fi drama directed by and starring George Clooney. The film focuses on Augustine (Clooney), a modern-day mad scientist isolated with a young, mute girl at a research facility in the Artic, who must warn the crew of a spaceship about a recent global catastrophe.

The apocalypse that acts as the hotplate under the character’s motivations, is executed with delicacy. Instead of an all guns blazing, disaster cinematic spectacle, where the skies might as well be falling on the audience too, as seen in 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow, it’s charged by a subtle, lurking, eerie menace. It’s holstered in the unknown, its wrath left to the imagination of the audience, like a silent blanket slowly being drawn over the world. This allows Clooney to hit some chords pretty well, asking; if the world were to stop spinning and fall silent, entombed by darkness, how far would you go to make contact with your family?

The film flexes some stunning cinematography infused with strong post-production colour work, creating some vibrant stills of the world’s last twilight from the Artic, making us feel like we’re watching a planetarium show. Clooney’s acting reflects the deafening stillness of his environment skilfully and his narrative’s midpoint will certainly leave you with clammy hands.

Credit: Variety

However, this is the furthest the film goes in earning merit and is fully eclipsed by its strong flaws, particularly in its script. With dystopian space films being rife in today’s cinema catalogue, the ‘isolated astronaut/scientist’ trope has also been tackled several times and Midnight Sky falls last in the race by a long way. 

Typically, films, especially one of this calibre, need a threat or a force that not only drives the characters through their narrative but also keeps the audience engaged. This nexus to any project that wants a shot at being successful is ignored for ninety-five percent of the film. The finale’s twist, albeit rather bittersweet and tragically endearing, finally sprinkling motivation and meaning on the characters and the film, does not excuse the two hours of boredom and confusion. The film up to this point never finds its feet, never telling us what journey it’s going to take us on, what it’s about and sadly, why we should keep watching. The film in a way explores two narratives, an insight into Augustine’s lonely existence and also the tension and diplomacy of the crew of astronauts. By structuring the script like this, it exasperates the restless need to find out what the point of the film is. Consequently, we have two separate midpoints that don’t have any real significance, especially not one concerning the development of the overall, overarching narrative.

Screenwriter, Mark Smith (The Revenant), tries to capitalise on Augustine’s dynamic with the enigmatic young girl, Iris (Caoilinn Springall) in order to fabricate the film’s force and drive. Cross-generational pairs can perform very well in films, often pursuing the route of an entertaining dichotomy that symbiotically helps construct each other’s character and narrative arch. Here, their relationship doesn’t even come close to this very basic canon, but instead goes the other way and is quite frustrating and tedious, considering how Iris might as well have just as much screen time as Clooney, but doesn’t say a single word. Rather, this notion would’ve computed better if it had taken a step back as a sub-plot device, or if Iris’ character was embraced more.

The Midnight Sky’s disappointing reception was not helped by the drought of new content audiences are receiving, or with the entire country being in lockdown fighting our very own global crisis for that matter. Sadly, circumstantial or not, Clooney’s big white, bushy beard brought more Christmas entertainment to the season than the film itself.

Header image credit: NBC News

Mank Review: David Fincher’s Love Letter to Old Hollywood

Jack Denison on 6 January 2021

Mank marks the collaboration between heavy-weight Director David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven, The Social Network) and Netflix. It throws us into the action of Hollywood in the 1930’s from the perspective of the raging alcoholic screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz, as he writes Citizen Kane, one of the highest acclaimed films of all time. The film is rife with social commentary on the industry at the time, communicating the world’s political ambiguity with World War Two lurking just around the corner.

Fincher goes slightly off-piste in Mank, a black and white love-letter to 1930s Hollywood, much like La La Land was to 1950s Musicals. His romanticisation of the era roars. The punching of the type-writer for scene headings, strong orchestral scores, fuzzy gramophone-like dialogue quality, characters’ faces split up with light strips from drawn blinds and idling cigarettes delicately left balancing on the rim of an ashtray and still smoking. His brilliant direction brings these text-book pictures to life. We’re teleported back into the bustling streets of Hollywood with classic cars, retro poster ads, bellboys with funny hats, three piece suits and tie clips and filterless cigarettes. We are also given an insight into turmoil left behind by the Great Depression, the anticipation of the Golden Era and speculation about what this ‘Hitler’ guy is up to in Germany. Even though Mank is set some ninety years ago, the parallels in-between its financial crisis to ours today were too big to go unnoticed. 

The casting pays off, with the great Gary Oldman taking the reigns as the screenwriting protagonist and Amanda Seyfried filling the shoes of a femme fatale-like actress. Despite this, the script hampers his potential and doesn’t give him the space of delivering a game-changer we know he’s capable of. How much wiggle room can an actor have to impress if he’s cemented in a bed for half the film? With this being said, there is credit to be rewarded in the casting department, particularly for not giving in to pressures for mega marketable names unlike the Coen Brother’s Hail Caesar!, starring George Clooney, Scarlett Johnson and Jonah Hill. Going down this path would’ve tainted the artistic integrity and tone which Fincher boasts.

Not long into Mank, once the novelty of its beautiful lighting and striking costumes begins to settle, its serious flaws begin to materialise. Alarm bells start to ring early on, booming ‘style over substance’ and this is incredibly hard to shake off. The film’s runtime of nearly 2 1/2 hours proves to make it a downright tedious experience, boldly toying with audience’s patience levels. Equally, the film is peppered with meaning and conflict that just doesn’t appeal to the common man. The daily endeavours of Herman J. Mankiewicz and his navigation to making one of the best pieces of cinema is actually, quite a dull piece of cinema. Mank prioritises its indulgent commitment to the vintage aesthetic and consequently, neglects the most primitive service of cinema; to entertain.

This trap also has a knock on effect with the flow of the narrative, through the excessive usage of the slow, fade-to-black. Although this editing technique is also a motif from the Noir-era, it’s exhausted and as a result makes the entire film feel very segmented, like a collection of isolated scenes that don’t carry over smoothly on to the next. Middle man, John Houseman (played by Sam Troughton), pays a visit to Herman Mankiewicz, criticising his patient development on Citizen Kane, saying he’s “hardly out of the first act”. What’s amusing with this line is how the concept of plot structure is non-existent in the overarching film, resulting in a narrative that waffles through its generous run-time. Although validation can be given to the importance of flashbacks, it isn’t executed very well or clearly, resulting in a slightly messy narrative.

Mank offers something new in an age of humdrum films built on generic conventions and passive audiences. It packs a theoretically interesting premise, that delivers for a two-minute trailer, but over 135 minutes, it’s empty and falls flat on its face. Fincher won our trust in making biopics with an exciting, slick and intense execution in The Social Network. You’d be forgiven to assume that he copied and pasted his algorithmic approach here with Mank, but alas, as we all know, lightning doesn’t strike twice. Fincher has lost his charm in this project, but what has stayed is his slick dialogue, clever subtext and ‘cigarette burns’ (queue, Tyler Durden monologue). But ask yourself this – if a house can’t be built on sand, can a film stand on aesthetics and dialogue?

Header image credit: The Times