‘Nowadays all cats appreciate are coloratura,’ Salieri says gravely ‘like the rest of the Public’. This sums up Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus (which is currently playing at the Keble O’Reilly); there is the distinction between what the ‘Public’ appreciates, the musical genius of Mozart and Salieri’s unfortunate ability to recognise and be destroyed by knowing the distinction between the two.
Salieri is doomed to understand that Mozart’s work is better than his own in a world devoid of proper musical appreciation. He is gripped by guilt – The play is about the bitter rivalry between Salieri and Mozart, or, at least, the resentful rivalry Salieri had with Mozart and Mozart inadvertently suffering its consequences. The former is destroyed mentally by inconsolable malice and the latter economically and physically.
A play filled with death, self-destruction and violence cannot always be humorous. Amadeus has the appropriate amount of humour; when it is done it is done well and properly. We begin with the dynamic venticelli (Susie Weidmann and Joe Rachman) who sustain their wonderful energy throughout the show. Salieri’s ‘little winds’ are cheeky, unemotional and impish, the ideal addition to his lamentations. The emperor (Nicolas Rackow) and courtiers (Matilda Piovella, Will Shackleton, and Clement Marshall) also provide effective comedic relief. Highlights included a singing cat opening the second act, slut-drops and gyrating in time to the Queen of the Night aria and dancing done to no music.
Jo Rich’s Salieri is perfectly chameleonic. At the start of the play, Salieri is dramatically illuminated in a chair, he is old and dying and has the air of a traditional storyteller, severe but to an extent, affable. This continues in the first act and Salieri’s asides to the audience make us sympathetic to his rage against Mozart. It is in the second act that Salieri is transformed into someone irredeemable, filled with insatiable jealousy and a single desire to destroy Mozart’s life. Salieri’s compositions may have played second-fiddle to Mozart’s pieces, but Rich stole the show. With heart wrenching calls to God and a transition from honest worker to sleazy scoundrel, Rich’s standing ovation was well deserved.
Mozart (Poddy Wilson) is every bit the ‘giggling child’ Salieri condemns him to be. Wilson’s Mozart is the petulant genius who sees the world in an extraordinary way. Mozart and his wife’s, Constanze Weber (Molly Jones), absurd games that include spanking and crawling around on their hands and news are done convincingly and both have the lightness of children. Both Wilson and Jones are able to change from ridiculous scenes to powerful, emotional ones. Indeed, Amadeus demands breadth.
With imaginative music and Shaffer’s caricatures of historical figures, there is no need, and perhaps no room, for an overly elaborate set. Elspeth Roger’s set was simple and effective,with old chairs and tables that evoked the eighteenth century without distracting away from the plot. When coupled with Andrew Raynes’ lightning, the production’s landscape makes the intention of the characters clear. Effie Halstead’s costumes are decadent amazing; Notable pieces include Constanza’s white and blue pinstriped dress and Mozart’s many exciting coats.
When Salieri speaks about the surprising and incandescent oboe rising above the melody, we can hear it in the orchestra and while this is in part due to Mozart’s genius, it is also greatly helped by the robust, bright tone of the oboe. Indeed, the play would not be nearly as compelling if not accompanied by Mozart’s music, and the orchestra was delightful. Katherina Cavalieri (Lois Heslop) is fantastic, each snippet of the soprano leaves you wanting more.
Amadeus was true to Mozart’s genius and Salieri’s jealousy. It was often chaotic, ardent and sudden. It boasts a wonderful cast and is sure to keep you on your toes.
The final night of Amadeus will play at the Keble O’Reilly on Saturday, 25th November at 7.30pm. Tickets are available here.
Leo Buckley has been elected Union President for Trinity Term 2023, narrowly edging-out opponent Julia Maranhao-Wong by three votes. The election saw a significantly higher voter turnout in recent memory but came with more uncontested positions for the second term in a row.
The two candidates for the presidency ran significantly different campaigns. Maranhao-Wong, as part of her #Challenge slate, ran a campaign of “under-promising and over-performing”, previously telling Cherwell that she was “the only candidate that actually fulfilled any pledges made at Trinity”. Buckley, on the other hand, was an independent candidate emphasising professional experience in various areas and roles.
After his victory, he told Cherwell: “I’m humbled by the trust the members have placed in me to steer the Oxford Union, and am grateful for this opportunity to lead an institution I adore. I look forward to serving the members in Trinity Term 2024.”
Louis Wilson, Izzy Horrocks-Taylor, and Chris Collins won their uncontested elections for Librarian, Treasurer, and Secretary respectively, running as part of the #Challenge slate. All officer positions also received on average 236 RON votes, with a total of 709 such votes cast.
The following candidates for Standing Committee positions were elected: Mikeel Toosy, Lyle Hopkins, Aryan Dhanwani, Peter Chen, Amy Gilbride, and Robert McGlone. James MacKenzie, Saharsh Anand, Hamza Hussain, Shreya Bothra, Rachel Haddad, Anya Trofimova, Jenny Wright, Ashling Aisulu Sugrue, Yassin Hachi, Siddhant Nagrath, and Olivia Knight-Catalinete have been elected to Secretary’s committee.
This term’s election saw 987 votes cast, a notable increase from the 590 cast last term, with turnout dwindling in previous elections.
Two Corpus Christi undergraduates were stalked by a fellow student for over two years, despite frequent appeals to college authorities. The college procedure led to a confusing and frustrating process for the victims.
Mary and Sophie* were in their first year at Corpus Christi College, Oxford when a fellow student, Joe*, began giving them unwanted attention. By Trinity term of 2019, the situation had escalated. He made frequent advances, left many letters in their pidges and offered mysterious gifts, persistently following, messaging and staring at them. At times, he prevented them from leaving the college library by blocking them in the pews. He continued to confront and corner the women, attempting to see them multiple times each day and refusing to leave when asked. After the women appealed to the college for support, the Dean of Corpus Christi told Joe to cease contact with both women.
Over the summer and into Michaelmas of 2019, Joe continued to interact with both women, in person and online. Following continued conversations with Corpus administration, Joe was banned from the college site for two weeks at the end of Michaelmas and warned again to stop contacting Mary and Sophie. In Hilary term 2020, the ban was lifted and Joe resumed contact with the women. Reports of him persistently following Mary and Sophie around the college library ultimately spurred Corpus to hold a harassment panel.
One university, many procedures
Following Mary’s official harassment complaint, the Corpus Disciplinary Committee held a panel to discuss Joe’s behaviour and recommend further actions. Neither Mary nor Sophie were informed of the precise timings of the panel. Mary only discovered the panel had occurred when she wrote to the Dean with concerns about Joe discussing her harassment complaint publicly, even though she had been told to keep this matter strictly confidential. The Dean responded by stating that he could not control Joe’s actions, the panel had happened the day before and the outcome had not been determined yet.
The two women were eventually notified in person that the Committee had banned the accused from the Corpus campus and activities “indefinitely”. If Joe ever contacted them again, he could no longer remain a member of the university. Mary and Sophie were not given the verdict in writing. Corpus policy at the time, as detailed in the 2021 non-academic disciplinary procedure (NADP), stated that a “verbal report” is all that needed to be given to the student who brought forward the complaint. The University of Oxford Harassment Policy by contrast and the majority of Oxford colleges stipulate that the outcome of investigations and disciplinary panels should be provided to the reporter and the accused, including in some cases in writing.
The central University Policy includes a detailed procedure for dealing with harassment issues between students. Last updated in March 2019, the procedure stresses the importance of a timely process, continued communication and support for the accuser and the accused. The procedure also suggests strict penalties for non-compliance with penalties imposed under this procedure.
However, Oxford colleges are not required to follow the exact University policy. Instead, the University encourages the resolution and punishment of harassment cases “under appropriate college procedures while reflecting the principles of this Policy”. A university spokesperson told Cherwell that the University “has no role in advising colleges on complaint handling procedures”. The University as a whole addresses reports of sexual misconduct under Statute XI and the Student Disciplinary Procedure, and is also undertaking a review this academic year “to identify scope to improve its processes”.
Whilst many Oxford colleges have similar procedures dedicated solely to issues of harassment, Corpus Christi is amongst the minority of colleges which group all non-academic disciplinary offences under one common procedure. The college has guidelines for the treatment of harassment cases, but ultimately formal action is taken under the standard complaints procedure and NADP. The Corpus NADP, contained in the Junior Members Handbook at the time, states that a student can be summoned to the panel for offences ranging from “contravention of the College’s Information Technology Regulations” and interference with fire alarms to criminal conduct and violence.
“Appropriate action has been taken”
In Michaelmas 2020, Mary and Sophie complained to the college again. Joe was still involved in college football and had begun to harass Sophie’s boyfriend. In a subsequent meeting with the Dean and Dean of Welfare, the two women were told that Joe’s activities were not in violation of the rules, as football occurred off Corpus’ campus and Joe was targeting Sophie’s boyfriend, not Sophie herself. Mary and Sophie added in the meeting that the disciplinary verdict they had been verbally informed of barred Joe from participating in any college activities.
However, Mary told Cherwell that since “we had nothing in writing when questioned on this, [the Deans] just said that we misunderstood and that was never said”. The women were frustrated by this lack of clarity and believed that “the point of the harassment panel outcome was to not just separate us, but also to provide punishment”. No action was taken by Corpus against Joe at that point. The women heard nothing from Joe for months during pandemic lockdowns.
When Joe resumed contact with Mary in the autumn of 2021, following her through the streets of Oxford, she notified Corpus Christi, worried about his behaviour. Mary had since moved colleges, as she had been “feeling unsafe at Corpus”, due to the continued harassment and the college’s handling of the case. The Corpus Dean initially recommended she utilise the resources of the welfare team at her new college. Mary sent multiple emails, pleading to hear what steps had been taken, as she believed Joe had clearly breached the disciplinary panel’s ruling. After over a week of emails, the Corpus Dean responded to Mary. He stated that Joe had been “dealt with under the college disciplinary process” and “appropriate action” had been taken. When Mary pushed for clarification, Corpus officials informed her that Joe had been warned that further contact with her or Sophie was banned and repeat offences could lead to him being sent back to the Disciplinary Committee, effectively returning to the beginning of the disciplinary process.
Mary told Cherwell that this experience was frustrating. This new warning negated “the whole point of the harassment panel in the first place”. She reiterated that she and Sophie were under the impression that “if he contacted us again that was it – no more warning, he was kicked out”.
Following the Dean’s response, Mary wrote to the Corpus Academic Registrar to obtain the results of the Hilary 2020 disciplinary panel in writing. In the November 2021 email she wrote that without the “exact terms” of the disciplinary findings, she couldn’t be sure of what behaviour “constitutes a breach”. The Academic Registrar quickly responded with some of the outcomes from the panel, which included that the accused could not “make any contact by whatever means with either of the female students” nor be in the same “non-teaching environment, room or social space with either female student”. The college did not specify restrictions in teaching settings and Sophie had to talk to instructors herself to ensure that she could be separated from Joe in teaching spaces. The Academic Registrar added that the Dean had “reminded” Joe of these stipulations and stated that further breaches would send him back to the Disciplinary Committee. This email was the first time in nearly two years that either Mary or Sophie had received any part of the terms of the panel in writing. Mary wrote in a reply to the Academic Registrar that she was “utterly dejected” that the terms of this panel had not been maintained.
Those invited to the Scholar’s Dinner
A few days later, Corpus held a Scholar’s Dinner to celebrate all leavers who had achieved a First in Finals. Mary was amongst this group, but due to “space issues” linked to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, was uninvited from the dinner about a week beforehand. The college later told the women that “no invitations were revoked”. Mary had also been told that since she had switched colleges it was “no longer appropriate” for the Corpus to “enter into correspondence” with her about the dinner since it was a “College event”.
She and Sophie learned from friends in attendance at the dinner, however, that Joe was present, despite his college site ban being extended, as per the Academic Registrar’s most recent email. A friend at the event immediately expressed their discomfort to the Dean at the event but was told that this was not an appropriate time to have this discussion. When Sophie’s boyfriend wrote to the Vice-Principal that he was uncomfortable to have been at the same event as Joe, given his past actions, the Vice-Principal responded that this was a “large gathering” with “varying levels of personal relations between attendees”. He insisted that this was “after all an academic function”.
Sophie wrote in an email that night that she was “alarmed” and alleged the college displayed “apathy” towards vulnerable members. She and Mary persistently emailed Corpus to request to speak to the Dean regarding these infringements of the Disciplinary Committee. The women were informed that college administration was discussing the matter and would be in touch soon, as “the number and tone of emails exchanged on this subject over the last week suggests that there is a need for further clarification and closure on this matter.”
Sophie, who was still a member of Corpus Christi College, was informed that she should not contact the Dean without communication from him first, despite having effectively “no one else to turn to”. She also later received an email stating that her tone to the Dean had been unacceptable, as he has “worked hard to ensure that the disciplinary procedure has been followed and all students are treated fairly”.
Help beyond the college
Concerned that college and university measures were not substantive, Mary filed an official criminal complaint against Joe in late 2021. It was however dropped due to an administrative error on the police’s side which led the force to suspend the investigation to the 6-month time limit between filing and ruling. Moreover, Joe’s contact within the statutory time limit for stalking offences of 6 months was sporadic. Police have since apologised to Mary for the delay and errors made in the handling of the case. An inspector added that the initial instances of stalking in 2019/20 “could have been considered and investigated as a stalking/harassment offence,”, however since these actions were not reported within six months, they could not be prosecuted. Sophie and Mary were advised that if they had been directed to the police sooner, the case could have likely been dealt with within the six-month limit for evidence.
Mary states that before she switched colleges, she was not made aware of the harassment supports that existed outside of the collegiate system, including the Oxford Student Sexual Harassment Support Service, nor was she encouraged to speak to the police by Corpus Christi. Sophie told Cherwell that they were “given the impression that the college procedure would give a similar result to a police report, like a no-contact order” and had thus not wanted to endure the further emotional upheaval and lengthy process of a criminal filing. Mary added that her new college’s disciplinary proceedings encourage severe cases of sexual harassment and assault to be referred to the police.
Indeed, details of individual college harassment procedures vary greatly. In Trinity 2022, the Conference of Colleges provided colleges with a Non-Academic Discipline Procedure Template which “had been tested as to compliance with law, regulatory obligations/guidance and good practice”. This new model allowed “for colleges to adopt/adapt to their own particular constitutional arrangements and circumstances as they see fit.” Implementation was thus varied.
The majority of colleges have a specific procedure for dealing with harassment complaints and ensure written communication with all relevant parties, with over a dozen including nearly identical procedures specific to harassment investigations and discipline between students. These colleges also included stipulations that the complainant can directly appeal the case if they are not satisfied with its treatment. Only Corpus and five other Oxford colleges admitting undergraduates do not require both the complainant and the accused to be informed in writing of the verdict of their NADP or dedicated harassment proceedings.
Sourced from publicly available college files and the OUR SPACE survey
A not-so-new NADP
In Hillary 2022, Mary and Sophie sent a formal complaint to Corpus describing their displeasure with Corpus’ conduct and the NADP as it stood at the time. The Corpus President answered them in April, acknowledging “the distress that [their] experiences in relation to this case caused, both at the time and since the complaint and hearing”. The President added that issues concerning sexual harassment were “under active review in committees and bodies of the University, Conference of Colleges, and individual Colleges,” and that it “is obviously important to keep procedures and good practice up to date”.
She concluded that Corpus Christi Oxford was revising their own NADP and thanked them for Mary and Sophie’s own “valuable input and perspective”. In particular, she highlighted their concern for complainant support and “communication of the outcome of a complaint and any associated investigation to the complainant(s), in particular the details of any penalty imposed”.
Two months after the Corpus President’s official reply, however, a “leaver’s drinks” was held at Corpus and Joe was invited. Sophie was informed of his presence with 2 hours’ notice “as a courtesy”, despite the existence of the continuing college ban.
Since 2022, the Corpus administration has revised aspects of its NADP and Harassment Procedure. The new procedure for 2023-24 puts greater emphasis on involving police authorities early in the process and notes that “[i]n deciding whether to do so, the Dean should take into account the wishes of the reporter.” The procedure also includes new ways to appeal disciplinary proceedings and breaches and provides means for the reporter to complain about the proceedings.
Whilst the Corpus Christi NADP no longer stipulates that reporters can only receive word of the completion of disciplinary proceedings verbally, they are still not guaranteed to receive the verdict in writing. Now 2023-2024 Corpus Handbook policy states that in cases of major breaches of discipline “the reporter will be informed of the completion of the proceedings, and any outcomes that the Vice-President deems it necessary for them to know”.
Mary had hoped for a substantial reform of Corpus procedures and is thoroughly discouraged by her experience: “it sickens me that Corpus can treat victims like this and I wouldn’t want anyone to go through what I did”. She adds that “the stalking was a horrific thing to go through alone, but the way we were dismissed by college authority whose job it is to safeguard us for these issues had an immense impact on me, leaving more lasting emotional trauma than the stalking by the end of it all”.
Corpus Christi College has not responded to Cherwell’s requests for comment.
Toad of Toad Hall A.A Milne’s adaptation of Kenneth Grahame’s 1908 beloved classic The Wind in the Willows, is a testament to throwing responsibilities away. It begins, rather excitingly, by Mr. Mole saying ‘Hang spring cleaning!’ which, honestly, sounds like a wonderful idea.
This irresponsibility is, of course, expanded on by Mr. Toad who learns nothing and continues being insensible to the world around, with little remorse and even less sense. The play centres around Mr. Toad’s latest craze – an obsession with motorcars, even though he can barely drive – and his friends’ attempts to rehabilitate him. It is ultimately a play that is a little bit about friendship, but mostly about the madness you would expect in a child’s imagination. There features ‘a different kind of rabbit’- not to be confused with a ‘normal rabbit’, eight car crashes, a ditty primarily about ducks and a scene of creepy ‘Wilwood animals’ prowling about the stage in jumpers and sports jerseys, headed by the angry Chief Weasel (Elliott Wood)..
Toad of Toad Hall starts with Marigold (Cathy Scoon) and her Nurse (Kat Surgay) lounging on a picnic blanket (set by Keira Cumming). Green light streaming (by lighting designer Tilly Jackson Long), the scene mirrors a perfect summer day, a gentle reprieve from the tragic beginnings of winter outside Michael Pilch theatre. Marigold is spirited, and it is through her imagination that the world of Mr. Toad and his friends and many enemies are realised. Scoon’s Marigold is delightful; you are convinced not only that she is a child, but one of the select few that are able to elicit the adoration of all around.
‘The world has held great heroes’, the titular Mr. Toad sings,’ but never a name to go down to fame […] [like that] of Toad’. This is the marvellous myth that Mr. Toad in Toad of Toad Hall, directed by Niamh Jones, tries to perpetuate, convincing no one.
Mr. Toad (Beth “Fitz” Fitzpatrick) is truly conceited, oblivious and magnificent. Fitzpatrick’s portrayal is nothing short of phenomenal; everything from their walk and song leaves no doubt that this Mr. Toad is revelling in chaos. A sight that would make Grahame, and even his friend Oscar Wilde, proud. In particular, Fitzpatrick’s use of physical theatre when they imitate driving a car is both humorous and quite convincing. Although the play was interrupted by a fire alarm part way through the first act, Fitzpatrick and the other members of the cast firmly remained in character.
The play was as comforting as the novel in part due to its charming characters. The main cast included Mr. Badger (Antonia Anstatt), who was effectively repetitive, hilarious and who had known Mr. Toad’s father, grandfather and, notably, ‘his uncle the archdeacon’. Besides Mr. Badger are the affable and universally beloved Mr. Rat (Matt Sheldon) and the endearing, sweet-tempered Mr. Mole (Wren Talbot Ponsoby). All three make for characters that are not only distinctive, but are also enviable friends. Anyone that can deal with Mr. Toad is sure to be exceptional- and in Milne’s play, we find three.
Overall, Toad of Toad Hall is a romp through the adventures of trying to manage that one mad friend that also features cosy moments of friendship, carols and luncheons. It is a production with a fiercely talented cast and is a lovely way to demolish any lingering bits of fifth week blues.
The youngest member of the Kardashian-Jenner clan recently came out with a new clothing line under the name of ‘khy’ towards the end of October. However, for Kylie Jenner, this is far from a venture into unfamiliar territory, especially given the prior success of her makeup and skincare brands Kylie Cosmetics and Kylie Skin. Following the lead of her older sisters Khloé and Kim, who own and design for Good American and SKIMS respectively, khy will then be Jenner’s first mature contribution to fashion since 2012, when she collaborated with her sister Kendall on a clothing line for American brand PacSun.
According to the website, khy hopes to pioneer the modern wardrobe with pieces and collections ‘that seamlessly blends luxury with everyday style’ and promises to achieve this through versatility of style. This statement is also transparent about the creative process, declaring that the collections for khy will be curated in collaboration with ‘iconic brands and global designers’. For the inaugural drop, Jenner collaborates with Namilia, the brainchild of Berlin-based Nan Li and Emilia Pfohl with a reputation for embracing the provocative. Though a relatively young brand, having been founded in 2015, Namilia has featured in NYFW for five collections, and have gone viral online for their most recent SS24 show titled ‘In Loving Memory of My Sugar Daddy’. Here, Li and Pfohl sought to reclaim the cliché of the gold digger stereotype in a subversive act of celebrating women who take advantage of their hyperfemininity to achieve their ends and make the most of a society that perpetually objectifies them. The designs are equally as controversial as the ethos behind them; characterised by trashy slogans, outrageously-low waistlines, religious imagery, Birkin tops and PU leather, Namilia has a clear desire to stand out. Such is the style of khy’s first collaborator. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Kylie Jenner’s first collection consists mainly of ‘faux leather + base layers’ as described by the brand on their Instagram page. The overall look of the drop might not have derived sole influence from Namilia, however – Jenner’s recent campaign for Acne Studios FW23 anticipates the businesswoman’s interest in grungier, edgier looks, even if this description fails to encapsulate her personal style in its entirety. That being said, when considering the subversive nature of these two established fashion houses, khy’s collection is extremely watered down.
Its capsule collection consists of three dresses made from PU leather in a bodycon silhouette, standard base layers that you could buy from SKIMS if you were obsessed with adding to Kardashian profits, amidst some oversized Matrix-esque jackets and trousers. Perhaps Jenner’s aim was to play it safe with her launch, and it does seem to be working, with certain sizes having sold out only a week after they were put on sale. The prices are not as awful as expected for a celebrity brand, either. I would personally refuse to spend £20, let alone £51 on a nylon baby tee, but it honestly could be worse. Furthermore, Jenner is a billionaire working with an established brand, so the choice of fabrics used in her non vegan leather pieces is rather disappointing. Though I appreciate that the collection is small, nylon and spandex are not biodegradable, and she can definitely afford to source better materials ethically. That being said, I presume Jenner’s concern with designs would have been to achieve a sleek, form-fitting look, which would be attained easier with the composition of materials used in these pieces.
After the rise of celebrity makeup brands a few years ago, more and more are turning to fashion to expand their empires. I look forward to seeing what Kylie’s successive launches will hold, but the launch of khy is lacklustre at best. Indeed, she knows what styles are in, and the design team have a clear impression of how to capitalise on this. However, she could have collaborated with a high street designer or brand to get a similar look. Considering Namilia’s reputation and the plethora of connections that Kylie Jenner has to a diverse set designers and stylists, she could have definitely offered more.
It has been a spectacular fall from grace for the Home Secretary, Suella Braverman. After being unceremoniously sacked from her position, her divisive reign as one of the highest-ranking ministers in this country has come to an end. She has had her fair share of controversy, to put it mildly. She gained notoriety for commandeering the UK Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda – a plan which has just been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. She has since compared migrants to a ‘hurricane’, argued that homelessness is a ‘lifestyle choice’, and accused the Metropolitan Police of left-wing bias for allowing a march in support of Palestine to take place on Armistice Weekend.
Many believe these statements to have been part of a meticulously crafted strategy to secure Braverman’s victory in the next Tory leadership election, rather than reflecting her real views. As Owen Jones shrewdly points out, ‘Her demagoguery was always contrived, like she was rattling through a checklist of clichés for any hard-right chancer who aspires to be prime minister.’ With her attacks on the ‘tofu-eating wokerati’, gender pronouns, and even cannabis (which she wanted to upgrade to a class A drug), it is hard to find a culture war box she hasn’t ticked. This has won her infamy even across the Atlantic; CNN characterised her as a ‘Trump tribute act’ and ‘commander-in-chief of Britain’s culture wars’. However, it is hard to believe that these are her sincere views. With her background as a human rights barrister, Braverman must have known that her Rwandan deportation plan would be unlawful; and given that both of her parents were immigrants to the United Kingdom, Braverman’s extreme views on immigration are certainly questionable. It seems as though she simply wants her soundbites and incendiary rhetoric splashed across the headlines, giving her free publicity and shoring her up to become the next leader of the Tory party.
But one must further question why Braverman has chosen to take such extreme, right-wing stances. I suspect it may have something to do with her gender.
It is hardly controversial to argue that women tend to have it harder than men in politics. Data from the United Nations shows that just 15 countries have a woman Head of State and 16 a woman Head of Government, with women making up only 26.5 per cent of parliamentarians. This is due to a variety of factors. For one, despite quotas for credentials and background, accomplished women are less likely than their male counterparts to perceive themselves as qualified to seek office. But more importantly, stereotypes about women and their roles mean that voters and parties are less likely to support female candidates. An influential study in 2003 showed that views about ‘women’s emotionality or competence’ affect voter support, and that party elites’ decisions to support female candidates may be ‘shaped by their perception of voters’ preferences’. This suggests not only that some voters are sexist, but that political parties may choose to de-prioritise women because they fear that voters simply do not like them.
This may be why Braverman has chosen to do what she has done. Women in politics cannot rely on being ‘quietly competent’ – the game both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer have been playing. Instead, they must adopt loud, firm and clear stances, all whilst avoiding a perception of ‘softness’. Just look at the previous line-up of female Prime Ministers – Liz Truss, Theresa May, and Margaret Thatcher. Truss was in office for too short a time to be fully discussed, though she certainly did not help to fight the stereotype of women as ‘incompetent’. May was criticised for being ‘profoundly weak’, with many joking that she embodied the opposite of ‘strong and stable’ – her mantra during the 2017 general election campaign. Thatcher was the only female Prime Minister to have been viewed relatively favourably, but only because she supported policies to the right of her party, earning her the title of the ‘Iron Lady’. In the Labour Party too, many notable female politicians have assumed strong, uncompromising positions. Angela Rayner publicly criticised Jeremy Corbyn when he was leader. Rebecca Long-Bailey vowed to back all strikes, ‘no questions asked’, when running for Labour Party leader in 2020. In a notable recent case, Jess Philips publicly resigned from her post as a Shadow Cabinet Minister after voting against the party whip in support of a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine war. It seems that across the political spectrum in the UK, female politicians have adopted stronger stances than most men in their parties. This is unsurprising in a world where women are still underestimated and viewed as weak, and where women in positions of power have to work harder to prove that they deserve a place in the room.
In this context, I wonder whether there may be more structural reasons for Braverman’s right-wing stances. In particular, her identity as a woman of colour may have compounded the problem, making her adopt an even harsher stance on immigration, lest she be labelled as soft. I do not seek to excuse the horrendous things Braverman has said and done – she embodies the very worst of right-wing British politics, having used ugly, divisive rhetoric to further her own agenda. As a Labour supporter, I disagree with every single policy she has proposed. However, I do wonder whether she would have adopted the same stances, or whether she would have been nearly as vilified, were she a man. I can admit that I have felt less upset and less betrayed when Nigel Farage, a man, has made similarly vile comments on immigration. I am therefore unsure whether or not I subconsciously hold double standards for male and female politicians.
All this hypothesising may be wrong. But if it is true that she has adopted a more radical position because she is a woman in politics, I might be able to find just a tiny amount of sympathy for Suella Braverman.
Image Credit: ukhouseoflords, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
With Oxford Union elections right around the corner, Cherwell decided to sit down with the two candidates hoping to become Union President in Trinity 2024. They discussed their qualifications, reasons for running, and exciting visions for the Union’s future.
Julia Maranhao-Wong
Briefly introduce yourself. Who are you? Which college are you at and what do you study?
I’m Julia Maranhao-Wong, St. Anne’s College, second-year PPE.
Why are you running for president?
A fun fact about me is that pretty much since week two of Michaelmas I’ve always kind of been running an election – it’s always been a really really massive part of my time in Oxford. And I guess I made a lot of my really really close friends there and that was why I originally started.
When I actually joined, I got really interested in the committee side. And then I realised – some people across the University have a massive issue with the Union. And I was so confused! I realised that obviously a lot of them take issue with the controversial speakers we host – so I want to emphasise that the Union’s not trying to platform people like Kathleen Stock for instance, or any kind of extremely conservative or liberal politicians. The whole point is to bring them in to challenge them.
You can find celebrity and politician interviews on YouTube or anywhere, right? If I wanted to see someone chat with like Tucker Carlson, I can find them on YouTube. But the whole point is that people are actually supposed to be able to get new things out of them and I really want to sort of recenter on that.
If you could highlight two points in your manifesto, what would they be?
I’m the only candidate that actually fulfilled any pledges made at Trinity. I filled every single pledge that I made internally. That’s probably my biggest thing. I think that when you want to take a position, responsibility and organisation is really important for your work. I think that’s what makes me very, very different from any candidate is that I’m the only one to have done that. I also believe in under-promising and over-performing. I pledged three socials and then I was responsible for eight. I’ve also worked more vacation days.
And then one programme I’m really really passionate about is Union scholarships. I think that there is a real possibility of getting funding for a living scholarship program, which would give away membership to somebody who was interested and qualified. The other thing that I think I want to focus more on is grant applications, because I think one of the biggest issues seen in accessibility is just the price like it is. And the way that we make that better is by doing better fundraising on committee.
What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?
I do think committee culture matters a lot to me. And this isn’t to necessarily say that we have a bad committee culture, because I quite like committee culture as it is. But I want to make it something that works for everyone because I think that when a committee has a really good vibe going, that expands membership.
So one of the things that I was actually very, very passionate about is mandated welfare reporting for officers. I’ve been very lucky in that I’ve always felt very, very comfortable in the Union. But I think that it’s really important that we do have mechanisms in place where people actually know who to go to. And I think it’s important that specifically the officers take more responsibility for that.
You’re American. How do you feel about potentially leading a historic British institution?
I’m somebody who probably traditionally should have felt on the outside [of the Union]. My mom is half Brazilian and half French, and my dad is Chinese. So I’m Latino-Asian. And I’m also not from this country. And I’m a woman.
And I think it’s one of those things where, yes, they will absolutely make jokes about me being American. And I do think that sometimes I do feel like I have to work a little bit harder to show that I’m competent. I feel like you see that in my manifesto: I’m like, I swear I’m competent, guys, I’ve done it all. And I have been lucky to have some very, very British people backing me!
How do you feel about the limited competition in Union elections?
I mean I’m very very happy to be contested. I do think that I am the most competent candidate. But I would say that I’m definitely happy that people have a choice [this time]. I think you get better at every level when it’s contested.
If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?
Kendrick Lamar or A$AP Rocky. One of the two
Taylor Swift – she’ll be on tour in the U.K. in Trinity
Kamala Harris
What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?
Something on gender self-identification in the Olympics, because we have this summer 2024 Olympics coming. And I also think something on Taiwan would be really very relevant because a lot of people are wondering how far the West is going to be willing to go to defend Taiwan.
How are you feeling about the election?
Have you ever been in a locker room before the game? It’s very much that kind of energy. Everyone’s getting really really excited.
Anything else to add?
Can I give you my slogan? Challenge ideas, challenge speakers, challenge the status quo.
Leo Buckley
Briefly introduce yourself. Who are you? Which college are you at and what do you study?
I’m Leo Buckley, Trinity College, third-year history.
Why are you running for president?
I think I’m the best person for the job. I love the Union. It’s where I spend far too much of my time. I’ve been part of it for seven terms. I’ve been on committee for four terms. I’ve been on the governing body for two terms. I know the best parts about it. And I know the areas that I think it could improve. And I think I’m well placed to do that.
If you could highlight two points in your manifesto, what would they be?
I think that the professional experience that I have is really worth highlighting. I’ve scrutinised multi-million-pound budgets before as a member of the governing body of my sixth form. I’ve also worked as a documentary producer and director of a consultancy, which gives me a lot of experience outside of purely the Union committee meetings. I think that professional experience is pretty unique and I think that’s definitely worth highlighting. It gives me a way of understanding how finances work that you wouldn’t necessarily get if you came into the Union straight out of high school or only served on a couple of committees.
The second part I’d highlight are the pledges. The President is in a pretty unique position where they are the only person that can make very senior-level decisions and that’s why rather than pledging a debate, or a particular event, I’ve focused my pledges on changes only presidents can make. For example, opening on Sundays or opening until 2 am, which we have a licence to do, are senior decisions that only the President has the ability to do.
What issues do you think face the Union in the future? How would you try to fix them?
The Union has faced a couple of problems in terms of governance and finances. I think we are well on the way to fixing those with a governance review process, finding more trustees and raising money to fix the roof which we are well on the way to do. As President, I would continue to be a steady hand on the tiller for both of these processes.
I think there’s also a slight image from the Union where people see it as just a place where you go to see interesting or controversial speakers, and that’s why a lot of my manifesto is focused around highlighting the social aspects of the Union as a place to study or as a place to see friends and drink late into the night.
Why do you think the Union has been having uncompetitive elections for two terms in a row?
Well, I think there are a lot of reasons – sometimes it can be because candidates are very competent and very good. A couple of decades ago, there was a nearly ten-year-long period where there were uncontested elections term after term after term, which was widely considered a pretty bad time in the Union’s governance.
I think that sometimes as well, people can consolidate behind a candidate that gets a lot of momentum and then people don’t necessarily feel like they can engage against that sort of monolith. Ultimately, it’s a sensitive matter as well; I don’t think a prospective presidential candidate is the right person to give you the right answer.
Is there a reason that you’re running independently? Do you think that puts you at a disadvantage electorally?
Of course, I mean, the Secretary from St Anne’s College has got a really impressive team. She has Chris Collins, the top elected member of the standing committee who is also our RO, as her secretary. He’s an incredible figure. She’s got a terrific team of some really compelling standing candidates, like Robert McGlone and her seccies. So of course, I’m up against that.
But at the same time, I think that people respond well to choice and democracy, if you remember last term over a third of votes were for reopening nominations, which I think speaks to a discontent of not being able to have a choice. The electorate doesn’t like that. Plus I’m a pretty well-liked candidate electorally, I’ve got quite a reputation for running independently. I’ve done very well for that being one of the top elected seccies and standing members.
I think that for a long time, the Union didn’t have slates, and I probably think the Union shouldn’t have slates. And so you can say disadvantage, you can say, underdog. That’s my preferred way of phrasing it, everyone loves an underdog.
Julia said that she’s the only presidential candidate to fulfil any pledges over this term. What do you make of that claim?
I believe it to be false. In fact, I believe quite a few of her unscrutinised pledges might be false, but that’s for the RO’s to decide and not me. I believe myself to have fulfilled pledges in the past, which would render that statement false.
If you could invite three speakers, who would they be?
Martin Scorsese
Tony Blair
Jeremy Irons
What’s one particular debate you’d like to see?
Easy question. Brexit. Was Brexit a good idea, was it not? I think specifically it would be: “This house regrets leaving the European Union.” See my lock screen is the EU flag, if that gives you any indication of where I’d be on that one.
Anything else you’d like to say?
In my manifesto, I say that elections are about choice. I don’t think democracy can properly function at work without people having a real choice. So all I can say is that I hope that people come out to vote on Friday. Doesn’t matter who you vote for. But please engage. The Union can have some rough spots, but also, it can be one of the most amazing and impressive places. It’s 200 years old and it’s brought me such joy. I think people should contribute in the way that they can on Friday and play a part in that history. Vote Buckley.
Voting will happen tomorrow, on the 24 November, from 9:30 to 20:30.
Kenneth Branagh has taken on a new project: directing and starring in the Shakespearean classic ‘King Lear’ this winter at the Wyndham Theatre in London. Having found out about this play earlier this year – and then proceeding to make my father sit patiently on the website on ticket release day to snap us a front row seat to the action, with a fervour only comparable to trying to book taylor swift tickets (been there, done that…) – my anticipation and excitement for this play has been slowly building over the past few months. It’s safe to say I was not disappointed, from the set design to the acting and direction choices, everything was perfectly pieced together to create a stunning piece of traditional Shakespearean theatre with a twist.
What immediately struck me about this play was Jon Bausor’s set design. Basour has never failed to impress: his set designs frequently adorn London theatres and opera houses, even the opening ceremony of the 2012 Paralympic Games in London, and now many are on exhibition in the V&A museum – he is undeniably a master in his field. For King Lear he employed a concave ceiling with a gaping hole in the middle as a space to project the turbulent weather scenes, a rotating floor with a rising ramp from the centre, and several giant moving stones that were also used as screens for projections at particular moments of the play (imagine Stonehenge built to fit a proscenium arch and you have it!). It was a dynamic and expansive set which allowed for added intensity in its suffocating enclosure-style scope, wrapping up the audience within it.
The storm scene allowed the set to really shine. The storm is a pivotal moment in a script full of pathetic fallacy, where we see Lear begin to truly decline having declared his intent to go mad as a punishment for his disobedient daughters in the preceding scene. That a separate role of projection designer was chosen for this production demonstrates the level of importance the projections were given by Branagh as director. Nina Dunn’s projections of thunder clouds and murky shades of blue and grey splattered across the screen were enthralling. This and the accompanying soundscape made the entire experience feel real and immersive. The tech was incredible and well executed throughout. During the battle scenes – which contained some incredible examples of well-choreographed physical theatre – they had pre-filmed close ups of warriors’ faces and snapshots of fighting displayed across the back.
A moment of simple directorial genius came when following a grotesque form of torture – the moment at which Gloucester’s (played by Joseph Kloska) eyes are gouged out and the bloody remains flicked onto the floor – the theatre was bathed in a blackout, emulating the new experience of Gloucester’s blindness. It was maintained for a few minutes before the light slowly flooded back. There was an opportunity here for this effect to persist for too long, or equally not long enough, but Paul Keogan (Lighting Designer) managed to tread that fine line well.
The actors’ performances were all impeccable and, thanks to their astounding diction and projection, every single word was caught by the audience – a difficult task when speaking Shakespearean english. Kenneth Branagh, of course, was impeccable in his portrayal of Lear, maintaining a good mix of regal authority alongside soft intimacy as his mental state decays over the course of the play. His relationship with Jessica Revell as Cordelia was heartwrenching. Upon her death we see a tipping point being reached as Lear takes his own life whilst cradling his deceased daughter’s body, his hamartia – being his arrogance – being realised in an epiphany in the final moments and thus he ends his suffering in this tragic manner.
The fighting scenes were expertly choreographed, though I do think the use of slow motion and freeze frames in these scenes is slightly overdone and very typical of this style of physical theatre: these elements were hardly astounding. However, the acting was still exciting and kept me on my toes and watching with apprehension. The lighting and tech, red harsh lighting and battle sound effects, kept it feeling real and raw.
However, with a straight two hour run time, there is no place for pause or contemplation – and I can safely say the time flew by. The production could gain a lot from a 20-30 minute increase in running time, just enough to allow the audience to sink into the action and dialogue (of which the production offers plenty). Though the merit to this fast paced style did mean my attention was kept throughout such a dense play and my eyes were never drawn away from the stage.
Branagh brought emotional depth, rawness, and advanced modern lighting, set, and sound to this age old classic. And though perhaps not yet his major career defining triumph, it was undoubtedly one of the most immersive and interesting Shakespeare productions I have seen in a while.
King Lear will continue its run at the Wyndham Theatre, London until 9th December.
That Isaac Asimov’s retelling of a bemused reader’s response to Hamlet – ‘I don’t see why people admire that play so. It is nothing but a bunch of quotations strung together’ – has itself become a well-worn anecdote is only a testament to the challenges faced by those daring to stage the play today: acknowledging Hamlet’s canonical status has become clichéd, it is already canon. What can a new production do now when confronted with all that has already been done? There’s only so many different ways you can inflect ‘To be or not to be’. The play itself is haunted by Old Hamlet’s ghost, and today the play’s past versions haunt all those who dare to take it on.
Carys Howell seems to recognise this in her Hamlet, which played at the Keble O’Reilly. In Act 2 Scene 2, she has Claudius, bored and hungover, flick through a programme while Polonius pontificates in front of him. The programme used turns out to be for The Motive and the Cue, Jack Thorne’s new play about John Gielgud’s 1964 production of, you guessed it, Hamlet. Recognising a difficulty, though, is not the same as overcoming it.
This production’s new, present-day, concept was advertised quite explicitly. The marketing team of Nicole Gibbons and Evie Holloway promised a ‘press angle’, as Howell described it in a Cherwell interview. Professedly inspired by recent media coverage of the Royal Family, this production promised to explore the impact of newly emerging forms of media, both social and otherwise on public life. Occasionally, we see Howell’s production live up to this. Between some scenes we hear talk radio-style discussions of Elsinore’s ongoings. In a tone more combative than anything we could hope for from the British media, these additions bring the political infighting of the Danish court into the present day. The new media angle also feels meaningful in Hamlet’s mockery of Polonius. Scrolling on his phone, Josh Sneddon claims to read ‘words, words, words’ and, later, ‘slanders’ from ‘satirical rogues’.
Apart from this, though, the references to new media are quite rare, and feel tacked on. Entering the theatre, we see two actors lying on stage engrossed in their phones, but nothing comes of this. Occasionally, a stage manager comes onstage with a video camera, but the actors never give it any attention, nor does it seem to lead anywhere. There is another problem, though, that first becomes noticeable with the entrance of the video camera. The direction too often follows Robert Icke’s direction in his 2017 version with Andrew Scott. Sneddon’s Hamlet hides behind a sofa in Act 1 Scene 3 just as Scott’s does, and this is not the only instance of copying. Like in Icke’s, the search for Polonius’s body is stylised with torchlight. This continues to the play’s end, when each of the dead characters in the play’s final scene stand up during Hamlet’s monologue and pass him to exit upstage, while Old Hamlet’s Ghost returns once more. The second biggest laugh of the night comes when Claudius mistakes Rosencrantz for Guildenstern and vice versa, only for Gertrude to correct him. This is a joke straight from Icke’s production. Influence is one thing (Howell cites the set design from Icke’s version in her Cherwell interview), but this much results in a production that just feels like a pale imitation.
As for the acting, the standout performer is Joe Bangbala as Old Hamlet’s Ghost and the First Player, who brings an intensity of presence and clarity of speech that sets him apart. Meg Bruton as Horatio brings an endearing quality that justifies Hamlet’s fondness of her, and Nic Rackow’s delivery of Claudius’ public pronouncements is assured. Josh Sneddon plays Hamlet well in parts. He has a habit of pausing in places that loses the meaning of the lines, so that, for example, ‘I do not know why/ Yet I live to say “This thing’s to do”’ turns ‘I do not know why yet I live’ and ‘This thing’s to do’ into separate impulses, with ‘to say’ stranded in between. Perhaps he wants to imply that Hamlet is coming up with his speech in real time, but this comes across as formulaic, especially when combined with his persistently ironic tone. He would do well to follow Hamlet’s own advice to the players: ‘Speak the speech, I pray you, as I pronounced it to you, trippingly on the tongue.’
It is also regrettable that Sneddon fluffs some of his lines. We lose even some lines that Asimov might claim as part of the string of famous quotations, ‘What’s Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba,/ That he should weep for her’ being one of the most noticeable. It is not an easy task to learn all the lines for the title character of Shakespeare’s longest play, especially when combined with the demands of a degree, but that is what Sneddon signed up for, and he falls short of it too often. That said, his performance grows stronger in later scenes, and he has a good rapport with the more minor characters, especially in scenes in prose.
As a whole, though, the production’s most successful moments are additions that don’t come from the text. When Claudius video calls his emissary, Voltimand, he tells him, deadpan, ‘I think you’re on mute’. All the major laughs come from these sorts of extras. Humour already in the script, like The Gravedigger’s claim that in England ‘the men are as mad as’ Hamlet, tends to fall flat. Similarly, the design team seems to be at odds with the text used. Old Hamlet’s Ghost is dressed well in a dark military suit, and yet he is still described as ‘in complete steel’. The fencing foils in the final scene both have obvious rubber tips on the end, despite Laertes admitting to using an ‘unbated’ sword. Howell is clearly not opposed to minor alterations to the text (she changes the word ‘hugger-mugger’ to ‘speedily’, presumably to make the dialogue easier to understand), so in this vein we ought to have consistent alteration carried throughout.
When Hamlet can finally tell us ‘Now I am alone’, his moment to speak uninterrupted with the audience is barged in on by a soundtrack that seems intended to convey intrigue. Yet, near the end of that same soliloquy, when some intrigue actually presents itself in his plans for the play within the play, the track cuts and Sneddon mutters ‘the plays the thing/ Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king’ as he rushes off stage with a blackout coming halfway through the line. This, to me, is symptomatic of the main problems with this production. In parts, the production is interestingly original, but, for the rest, we are left with a production that hasn’t spent enough time thinking about the play as a whole and its specific details. It is all just slightly ‘out of joint’.
I sit in my room on a sunny Tuesday afternoon, scrutinising my face on Zoom as I wait for Kacie to join the call. I have followed Kacie’s instagram for months. While I was studying Italian in Florence over the summer, my feed flooded with restaurant recommendations and ‘La Dolce Vita’ captioned videos. Kacie’s skits stood out to me the most. Her funny and relatable ‘culture shock’ series on TikTok are what brought her social media stardom, but she is adamant that navigating her new online presence was not effortless. “Nobody writes a guidebook of what to do when you go from having zero eyes on you to millions. It’s so beautiful in one way. I was suddenly connecting with people all over the world … but after the culture shock series, I was getting 50,000 followers overnight.” Hate comments were overwhelming. “I cried everyday for a week.”
Kacie was a stranger to social media stardom until moving to Italy in 2021. Having grown up in Michigan, she moved to New York City at age seventeen with the dream of dancing professionally. “The midwest is known for its innate kindness, in the sense that people are very humble. Then you get to New York and people are very blunt and direct.” I ask which region had more influence on her. Launched head-first into a new pace of life, Kacie thrived off NYC’s multicultural bustle. Her adventurous online presence comes from a decade of building a career for herself in one of the world’s most frenetic cities. “New York is a city where anything can happen, and it’s beautiful in that way. You go from zero to a hundred very quickly.” This intensity, however, coupled with the toxicity of the performing arts industry, pushed Kacie to the edge. Marketability can compromise creative expression. As Kacie says, “an industry run by those with numbers in mind.” Enveloped in dance and five other jobs to support herself, Kacie was burnt out: “I’d grown to hate the industry so much that I was starting to lose my love of dance.”
COVID-19 was the silver lining. With theatres shut down and audition rooms empty, it was a time of re-evaluation. Having met her boyfriend Dario whilst travelling in Italy, moving to another country was on the cards. She is passionate about taking on challenges and taking yourself outside your comfort zone. “I believe in myself that I can do hard things. Life is too short not to do scary shit.” It was within her first week of living in Italy that Kacie picked up TikTok. What started as a fun pastime in mandatory quarantine grew overnight into an influential platform, sharing cultural differences and travel tips. Yet online hate is inevitable. Many comments attacked Kacie’s intelligence because she was American. “I made a promise to myself early on that I didn’t want to curate anything. I gradually realised that I was never going to please everybody.”
Kacie describes moving abroad as learning how to ‘do’ life all over again. Simple things that you wouldn’t think twice about doing in your own country, suddenly become overly complicated. “I didn’t know how to schedule a doctor’s appointment or where to buy a birthday card.” Transparent with these struggles on social media, Kacie makes them opportunities for humour. Living abroad is not all excitement and novelty. Homesickness often comes with a good dose of guilt. There looms an expectation that one should always be ‘grateful’, Kacie tells me, which is unrealistic.
‘Do the shit that scares you’ is now the catchphrase of Kacie’s travel business, Kacie Rose Travel. A far cry from the Broadway stage, Kacie now hosts group trips, taking people from all over the world through various regions of Italy. I ask which trip has been the most memorable. “My first ever group trip. I was so nervous, I felt so much anxiety. I thought it was a mistake. They knew it was my first group trip and they embraced it, they ran with problems and they were so kind and supportive. At the end of that week everyone was standing in the hotel lobby crying whilst saying goodbye to each other. I was shown such beautiful support by people I didn’t know a week beforehand.”
I was interested to ask Kacie how she feels her brand combats negative stereotypes of Americans being insular and untravelled. “If you live in the middle of America, to get to the East coast it can cost $400. Let alone travelling overseas. Most Europeans don’t understand what life is like for the average American. What I aim to do is open up those doors and share another perspective. Understanding and appreciating those of other cultures is the number one tool we have to respect.”
Kacie’s career versatility is a perfect example of embracing the unexpected. I ask her for any advice she may have for students wanting to expand their circles and discover life in other countries. She says that we shouldn’t become wrapped up in one sole ‘purpose’. The world is too wide to settle in one place with the same job your whole life. “You’re allowed to have other hobbies and interests. It’s ok to pursue multiple things. As humans, we all want the same things, we just achieve them in different ways. And you will never understand that until you travel.”
Kacie Rose is online on Tiktok at kacierose4, and on Instagram at @kacierose_. To find out more about Kacie Rose, visit her website.
