Sunday, May 11, 2025
Blog Page 45

Grieving someone I never knew

0

Grief is usually tethered to memories: recalling the sound of someone’s laugh, the warmth of their hug, or mulling over their meaningful mantras. It is a process shaped by these intricacies – tiny, profound moments that form the deep bond that, with loss, becomes heartbreakingly intangible. How does, or perhaps how can, such grief manifest when this mosaic of memories are not truly yours? What happens when the bond you grieve is with someone you never actually managed to meet?

For me, the figure of the deceased becomes somewhat mythic – painted in the soft light of others’ nostalgia. My uncle, on whom this article focuses, passed unexpectedly the day before my birth over 21 years ago. For my family, this day represented an incredibly unique moment of simultaneous birth and loss. I was welcomed to the world eight hours after his exit, a moment that seemed to represent the circle of life in its most intimate form. Unlike losing a friend or close relative whom you’ve known, however, mourning someone who was already gone when you arrived has always served as a constant reminder of life’s finite nature. I’ve grown up feeling that loss, as if I occupy a hollowed-out place in the family’s shared history.

Growing up, my uncle’s legacy has seeped through every moment. His memory was ever-present in family gatherings, almost as if he simply stepped out of the room and could walk back in at any moment. At birthdays, at Christmas, on the anniversaries of his passing – my family keeps his memory alive. Each time, I listen to my family recount endless stories of his humour, his kindness, and his dreams, painting a vivid portrait of someone I could never know but was somehow deeply and intimately connected to.

In many ways, his presence shaped me. Family members would point out my laugh, saying it reminded them of him, or remark on how he loved Stevie Wonder’s music to the same extent as I do. Due to the unique meeting of my life and his death, I have found myself constantly searching for parts of him in myself, as though I could piece together his essence from my traits. This inheritance of character and memory became a way to feel connected to him, as if he lived on not only in their memories but also in me. Yet, it has always been a bittersweet connection – one filled with pride, but tinged with the sadness of knowing these traits are all I have of him.

Legitimising the grief of someone you never knew is important, though it’s rarely recognized in our culture’s understanding of loss. We often assume that mourning must be anchored to direct experiences and memories, but grief can be, and is for me just as real for someone whose life touched us indirectly. It’s a unique kind of sorrow – one that’s deeply tied to the legacy, love, and presence the person left behind, not the shared moments that traditional grief might rely on.

I want others to recognise that my grief deserves validation because it’s a real connection, even if it looks different from other forms of mourning. For me, there’s a longing not only for the person I never met but also for the relationship we could have had. It feels natural to carry sadness for the moments we missed, for the advice he might have shared, and for the unique kind of love that could have shaped my life. This grief reminds me that, even without my own memories, his presence still resonates deeply within me.

He’s part of who I am, woven into the story of my entrance into the world and importantly, my family’s story. Though I can’t reach back and touch shared experiences, his impact remains alive in me – in the stories, the traits I’m told I share with him, and the family’s love that keeps his memory close. This is a form of connection that feels meaningful, even if it isn’t one I can remember firsthand, and it deserves to be seen and understood.

I’m not a particularly spiritual or religious person, but a part of me holds onto my uncle’s spirit. This is because, last year my mum, on a bit of a whim, visited a psychic medium with a friend. During the session, the medium began to spell out my uncle’s name, letter by letter, to confirm his presence. She then told my mum that, because of the “shared story” between my uncle and me, he has always been watching over me and keeping me safe. 

Whether or not you believe in things like this is up to you, but for me, hearing that held a deep significance. It felt like an affirmation of our bond, a quiet reassurance that, even though we never met, he’s a constant presence in my life and I have a right to grieve with my family despite these unique circumstances.

Le pain: Living as a coeliac at Oxford

0

Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system mistakes gluten for a threat, attacking and causing damage to healthy tissue in the small intestine. There is no cure to coeliac; the only treatment is a strict gluten-free diet. Since gluten is the protein that gives structure to wheat, barley, and rye, you can imagine this is quite a challenge. Cross-contamination is also a major issue for people who suffer from the disease, with less than 20 parts per million, much less than a crumb, causing a reaction. Now to address some FAQs. Firstly: coeliac disease is not an allergy. Consequently, there is no EpiPen nor effective post-medication. Next: there is no immediate reaction or likelihood of death after consuming gluten. Rather, a host of insidious gut-related symptoms – the details of which I shall spare you, in case you’re reading this while eating – and other more general afflictions (think fatigue, brain fog, and mouth ulcers) gradually arise in the following days and weeks. This makes it difficult to identify the source of contamination in my diet, giving rise to a less-than-fun exercise in detective work.

Other than the obvious (i.e. breads, pastas, and baked goods), gluten manages to find its way into more surprising and rather annoying consumables like sausages, soy sauce, beer, and some flavourings. However, contrary to the concerns of some of my friends – who have swooped in to ‘save me’ on more than one occasion – potatoes and rice do not contain gluten, instead comprising a staple of my diet.

I was diagnosed with coeliac over eleven years ago, concurrently with my twin brother – but he doesn’t go to Oxford, so we won’t mention him again. This means I’ve had over a decade to master ‘the art of the coeliac’, as well as forget many of the pleasures and indulgences of my former life (e.g., bread with any semblance of structural integrity).

Let’s cut to today and address the elephants in the room. One of the most common questions I get is: “Can you still kiss someone after they’ve eaten gluten?”. The short answer is no, but it depends on how long ago they indulged. Usually, my kiss-ee would need to brush their teeth, which tends to kill the mood. However, owing to a recent decision out of my control, this issue no longer presents a problem in my day-to-day. The next most common question I get is, “Can you touch gluten?”. Here, the answer is yes. In fact, any anatomical surface is gluten-safe, so long as the gluten doesn’t reach my GI tract (from either direction).

As anyone with dietary restrictions will tell you, food-related conditions have many non-obvious effects on life at university – especially in relation to socialising. Dining with friends can often be a nightmare, especially without knowing the kitchen protocols of every establishment one’s group decides to visit (except Pho in the Westgate, which rumour has it I frequent weekly). Dietary restrictions also affect one’s ability to participate in certain JCR events, like bops. ‘Bop juice’ is a questionable concept for any student, but it’s even more of a risk to someone for whom cross-contamination is a concern.

The overall cost of living is also much higher for someone with coeliac. Coeliac-safe alternatives are often two or three times the cost of their gluten-containing counterparts; gone and fondly remembered are the days of sixty-pence Oaties from Tesco’s. Further, my coeliac existence complicates many living situations. The safest way to prevent possible cross-contamination is having separate cutlery, pots, pans, and work surfaces, as well as keeping ingredients like butter separate. This, obviously, makes cooking in other people’s kitchens overly complicated, with perpetual streams of washing up and stress. I have also heard some horror stories in relation to fellow coeliacs eating in college halls; this unfortunately disqualifies me from the experience of hall-swapping at most colleges. However, I must say: despite the lack of kitchen access for first-years, Jesus has always been outstanding in catering for me, and I can’t thank the kitchen team enough (big-up Bruno). 

  All in all, being a coeliac only adds one more dimension of anxiety to the already-stressful Oxford life. However, I don’t mean to sound too preachy, or to farm your sympathy. Mostly, I’ve written this article so I can send it to the next person who inevitably interrogates me when I respectfully decline their invitation to kiss. This doesn’t help me defend against the accusation that being coeliac is one of my only three personality traits, but it’s worth it for the time I’ll save. Anyway, it’s back to washing up for me.

Three wishes for Oxford

0

I am stood in a queue in the Waterstones book shop on Broad Street. Before me lies an interminable wait – and all I want to do is read my new copy of The Story of Hong Gildong. I am sure that similar experiences will be familiar to many of the Cherwell’s readers. In a way, being stuck in an interminable queue is as quintessentially ‘Oxford’ as gowns, the Radcliffe Camera, or a late-night visit to Hassan’s. Typically, I have an episode of The Rest Is History or an audiobook with the reassuring tones of Stephen Fry to lessen the aggravation. Today, my earphones are discharged. The poet William Blake once wrote of the ability “to see a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour”. Perhaps he would have been less enchanted with the ability to draw events out if he had been here with me. Two people in front of me chat inanely. I am reminded of Waiting for Godot. Still, as a PPEist, such potent boredom can and does eventually lead to only one thing: speculations about the likely consequences of my becoming omnipotent.

Leaving aside questions about the corrupting tendency of power, and the absolutely corrupting tendency of absolute power (would what I would change change if I were absolutely powerful?), here then are the three things I would change about Oxford if deified:

1. I am immediately struck that the first thing to go would be the weather. The famous opening of Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities might have been written about the average Oxford day: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us…” Just last week, I had left my accommodation in confident expectation of a ‘partly cloudy’ day, and was rudely confronted on my return journey with a downpour of truly diluvian proportions. Soaked and downtrodden, I made it back with a new sympathy for the Roman emperor Caligula, who reputedly declared war on the sea. Were I imbued with divine power, the atmosphere would shortly be abolished, or if this was not feasible for some reason, replaced with a more congenial state of affairs.

2. Second on the divine to-do list, a move towards faux-mediaeval and eccentric naming standards. If you are reading this in bafflement, simply imagine walking to lectures not in “Exam Schools”, but the “Doom Convocation”. Imagine attending a tutorial at the Saïd Business School under the “Magi of Marketing”. Imagine receiving on a marked essay not a “first” but “Boccræftig” (Bookcrafty). What a world that would be. Such a policy would markedly improve not only lecture turnout, but also student welfare.

3. Finally, the lack of canals throughout central Oxford is an oversight on the part of its planners which I would be quick to resolve. At present, punting is merely a fun pastime for the summer months – a curious historical hangover. Imagine, however, a Venice-style patchwork of waterways running through the centre of Oxford. We could punt from college to college, tutorial to tutorial, bookshop to bookshop. The manifold benefits of such a change are immediately apparent: such a transport mechanism would be environmentally friendly, biodiverse, and enormous fun, among other upsides. It would also prepare us for the possibility of a second Great Flood, which we oughtn’t to discount.

Plainly, reform would not stop here. I cannot imagine online college room-booking forms surviving long. I am, however, nearing the front of the queue. Further rumination will have to wait…

Commentary: Oxford Union debates rejoining the EU after students exit, rejoin the chamber

0

The Oxford Union debated “This House would rejoin the European Union” at 10 p.m. Thursday following a painful delay that prompted star speaker Lord Heseltine to walk out. 

The night started with Librarian Aryan Dhanwani’s resignation and motion to postpone the discussion of constitutional amendments. Yet the Union spent ten minutes discussing whether to have a discussion, with President-elect Israr Khan stating: “The Librarian is quite confused in his head – or should I say the ex-Librarian?”

A discussion was had, and a long one indeed. Attendees were treated to a parade of voting methods: Voice, counting membership cards, and a “Division of the House” that forced everyone to walk out of the chamber and rejoin – Lord Heseltine had enough. Despite the multitude of votes, nothing stuck, and the amendments remain uncertain pending a referendum.

Opening for the proposition at 10 p.m. was Director of Press Rosalie Chapman, who introduced the opposition speakers: Director of Research Daniyal Vemuri, Conservative MP Major Rt Hon Sir Desmond Swayne, former Brexit Party MEP The Rt Hon Baroness Fox of Buckley, and Conservative MP Sir Christopher Chope. Chapman remarked that Fox “founded the Academy of Ideas – I can only hope that one day she comes up with a good one”.

Chapman argued that “Brexit has become a national tragedy”, leaving the UK “isolated, diminished and weaker than before”. A strong and clear speaker, Chapman focused on the economic impact of Brexit on ordinary British people, before arguing that “Brexit has robbed a generation of its future”, preventing today’s youth from accessing the same rights to live, study and work in Europe as their parents had. She concluded her speech by admitting that the EU is not perfect, but that it is better for the UK to be part of it and that it is “not time to cling to the isolationist fantasies of small Britain” – perhaps taking a swing at those who might take the “Great” in Great Britain too literally.

Opening for the opposition, Daniyal Vemuri also introduced the planned proposition speakers: Chapman. Lord Liddle, and journalist Rachel Johnson. Whatever pun he might have prepared for Lord Heseltine unfortunately went to waste.

In an apparent parody of an isolationist Brexiteer, Vemuri began his speech waving a full-size UK flag in front of him and proclaiming that Brexit allowed Britain to be free from “bureaucrats in Brussels”, before quickly putting it to one side, arguing that such claims were “overblown”. Vemuri confessed that he was in fact a “die-hard Remainer” who viewed Brexit as akin to “cutting off your right arm” but still opposed the motion, believing that it was neither pragmatic nor politically desirable to attempt to rejoin the EU. In more dramatic terms, he compared rejoining to “putting your arm back on, but halfway through, Nigel Farage jumps out of a closet and slaps you” – a pity that this didn’t happen in time for Halloween last week.

In proposition, Lord Liddle began his speech by explaining that he had first joined the Union 59 years ago but had never spoken in a debate there, having been a state-educated, “shy, nervous lad” who felt out of place in the Union as a student, but who somehow “ended up in the House of Lords” – a statement that was met with applause from the chamber. This tendency towards nostalgia continued throughout his speech. Liddle argued that the “best moments in European history” after the two World Wars included the production of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the passing of the Schuman declaration, which helped to “build a common framework of democracy and human rights”. Liddle ended his speech by proclaiming that, after the re-election of Donald Trump, “the case for a united Europe is stronger today than it ever was”, adding that “Europe has to stand together to prove to the US that it’s an equal partner in the NATO alliance”.

Next up in opposition was Sir Desmond Swayne, a fiery and energetic speaker from the outset. He commenced his speech with a reference to J.R.R. Tolkien’s “most ancient and wisest creations”, the Ents, explaining that they should teach us to “not be so hasty” in making decisions – surely a familiar regret among students after attending one too many late-night college Entz. Swayne went on to argue that, having spent 40 years in the EU before deciding to leave, we had “barely given it three years” to assess the impact of Brexit and that rejoining required “much more mature thought”. Swayne concluded his speech by explaining that “flawed assumptions and incomplete data” were prevalent in economic forecasts cited by the proposition – neatly sidestepping the question of the actual economic consequences of Brexit.

Proposition’s third speaker was Rachel Johnson, who began by “roasting” opposition speaker Sir Christopher Chope on being the “sole objector to the government’s proposal to ban upskirting…which is why I wore trousers tonight”. She went on to recount her family’s move to Brussels in 1973, due to her father’s being “one of the first British civil servants to live and work in Europe”, and that his vision was for his children to become “des bons petits Européens” (good little Europeans). Returning to the theme of “generational unfairness”, Johnson quipped that those who voted to leave “have gone to the great Wetherspoons in the sky” – something many Oxford students would undoubtedly look forward to. She ended her speech with a rather touching mention of her brother, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, saying that despite their political differences, she was “immensely proud” of him as he “got Brexit done”, before joking that now, the country “has got Boris done”.

The third opposition speaker was Baroness Fox, who struck a very different tone to the other speakers, proclaiming that “this Union is obsessed with itself” and that “the British working-class delivered Brexit” rather than Oxford alumni. In contrast to the previous two opposition speakers, Fox explicitly argued that “the UK is in a better position after Brexit” and that Brexit was the “start of a democratic revolution” for “millions” of people who were “previously patronised and ignored”. She then outlined the “mounting problems” in the EU, from “European voters turning towards populist, Eurosceptic parties” to the loss of “millions of manufacturing jobs” in recent years, concluding that “the EU is a thoroughly antidemocratic and illiberal institution”.

Closing the proposition’s arguments was Union Secretary, Siddhant Nagrath, who admitted that he “had had 40 minutes to prepare” his speech after the departure of Lord Heseltine. Nagrath began by sounding the alarm that “Britain is an economic and political mess” and admitted that he himself would not stay in the UK after graduation due to its poor job market. In contrast, he claimed that without the EU, the UK “doesn’t have the ability to fix its economy on its own”, adding that “if this country had more spicy food, it would fix many problems”. A hot take indeed. Nagrath concluded by arguing that the EU was “not a dictatorial body” seeking to control countries, but rather “a very friendly place” – a description that would fit in any Oxford college prospectus.

The opposition’s closing arguments were made by Sir Christopher Chope, who began with a rebuttal of Nagrath’s conclusion, claiming that “Europe is a very friendly place, but not the EU”. Chope then drew on his experience as a barrister in divorce cases to draw an analogy between “controlling” spouses and the EU, arguing that the UK was “seduced” into joining the EU and that its veto ability was “taken away”, forcing it to put a Brexit referendum on the table. He called out the “snide remarks” made earlier by the proposition, which “attacked” him for “raising the issue of a referendum in the House of Commons”, and concluded his speech by proclaiming that we “need to have the self-confidence to believe in our great nation” and to “retain control over our own lives and destiny”.

Perhaps too consumed by its internal politics, the Union has not told Cherwell the final vote counts.

Editors’ note: Commentary herein represents the opinion of the reporter, not of Cherwell.

Review: Les Liaisons Dangereuses at the Oxford Playhouse – “Nic Rackow is revelatory” 

0

This new production of Les Liaisons Dangereuses, a glamorous, engrossing period drama, showing at the Oxford Playhouse, is elevated by its stars into one of the great shows of the year. 

So much of a production owes itself to the behind-the-scenes team, and so the vision for this one belongs to director Lucas Angeli and film-coordinator/co-producer Sonya Luchanskaya. It was a visionary move on their part to project a live film recording behind the onstage action – although the effort only doubtfully comes off. For chunks of the play the audience cannot even see the actors’ faces. The screen is dominant. The camera team obstructs the view. At one point a second screen comes down to distort the projection, with the distractingly psychedelic effect of a 3D film viewed without glasses.  

Still, the director is responsible for moulding the actors and for creating a sense of mood and scene. In that, Mr Angeli succeeds commendably. An orchestra plays vivid music completely in tune with the action onstage – the achievement of composer and musical director Lou Newton. Above all, the performers are a crop of immense talent. 

The lascivious hero, Valmont, played with dynamism and gusto by Mr Nic Rackow, is a cross between two types: the eighteenth-century picaresque adventurer a la Smollett, and the nineteenth-century young man on the rise a la Stendhal. (The play takes place just before the French Revolution). Like the great method actors, Mr Rackow succeeds in effacing his own personality and absorbs himself completely in the character. Valmont’s drawled quips are perfectly timed; his tenderer moments never sentimental; his seductions smooth and frightening; his yelled outbursts malicious with rage; his bestial leers in villainous scenes enough to warrant the trigger warning. His rendering of the character’s final scene presents a scalding view of human vulnerability which is worthy of Othello. Mr Rackow brings to this range of traits a portrayal which burns onstage and remains riveting throughout. He is revelatory. 

Valmont’s great onstage rival is played by Ms Susie Weidmann. Ms Weidmann tells me that this was her most challenging role to date. In fact, her signature expression of slightly resentful contempt is perfectly suited to the strong-willed and scheming Meteuil. Her early monologue about the position of women in French society, and her consistent underlying drive never to play the obedient woman, mark her out as a character of rare and great power. Her conflicts with Valmont are by turns cold, playful, and fierce. Ms Weidmann embodies them all excellently. 

Tourvel, the most passionate character in the play, is played by Ms Alice Wyles. Ms Wyles’s past experiences as a Shakesperean heroine, as Titania last May and Ophelia last November, have equipped her for the explosiveness and poetry of this character. Tourvel’s downfall, which in the original novel is a cliched one, is here presented as the inevitable outcome of the passions which Ms Wyles conveys with such verve, although at times, such as when she breaks down onstage, she acts overzealously.  

Ms Vita Hamilton, playing Volanges, another victim of Valmont, proves herself an immersive performer. She manages, through sheer control of expression and tone, to convince us that she is the mature, middle-aged woman of the play. This is harder than it sounds, and to disguise one’s age is a skill of which few actors are capable. Ms Hamilton possesses the skillset of a great cinematic actress, and it is worth keeping an eye on her future roles. 

Ms Catherine Claire brings to the role of Cecile the same subtle naivete, garrulity, and vulnerability which she mastered earlier this year in Arcadia, her greatest success. Her role here is less central than in the earlier production, and in some ways too similar. But her sensitivities, her fierce internal struggles after the abuses to which Mr Rackow’s character subjects her, are rendered with a befitting gentleness where it could so easily have grown melodramatic. This is especially true when she is in the bedroom with Valmont, the most disturbing scene in the play. Cecile is a minor character, but through Ms Claire’s efforts she becomes a great one. 

Ms Honor Thompson channels the rich, glamorous appeal of the Parisian courtesan Emilie. Such roles can often be reduced stock characters, but Ms Thompson possesses the quality of stardom. She could not have played even the most legendary Parisian courtesan, La Dame aux Camellias, more alluringly and convincingly than she manages here. Her scenes with Mr Rackow are intimate as only the performances of a practised actor can be. 

Mr Vasco Faria, though not onstage for long enough, plays the pivotal role of Danceny. He is charming and witty, his underhand lines and actions delivered with endearment. In his next performance he should be given more time to thrive. 

Mr Archie Johnston, a singer and saxophonist of some note, is given the bit part of Azolan. He has some amusing exchanges with Mr Rackow but, like Mr Faria, would benefit from more stage time.  

Les Liaisons Dangereuses is running from 7-9 November  at the Main Stage, Oxford Playhouse.

Reinventing the epistolary novel

0

Traditionally, the epistolary novel—a story told through an exchange of letters—may seem to be a dying genre. In the modern age, most people have traded in handwritten letters for text messages, emails, and DMs. But while letter-writing might veer towards obsolescence, epistolary novels aren’t following suit. Instead, they are finding footing in a reinvention.

It’s natural that authors would incorporate modern digital communication methods into their writing styles and novel formats—much like how movies now feature text message or email layovers. For example, The Appeal by Janice Hallett is a mystery novel primarily written in emails and text messages. Like the traditional epistolary form, this story is still told through correspondence—just a different kind.

Epistolary novels also seem uniquely suited to address our ever-diminishing attention spans. Chapters shortened into the length of an email are easier to digest, easier to rattle through, especially to the TikTok-adjusted brain. But do we lose anything in the transition from letter-writing to text-messaging? Does the contemporary epistolary novel still deliver on both plot and prose? Or should writers be returning to the epistolary form in its truest sense?

Whatever you may think of the attention economy, reading something short and snappy is inherently engaging and appealing. I could read a novel purely in YouTube comment section arguments. Contemporary epistolary novels definitely cater to our ever-diminishing attention spans. As such, they are a perfect vehicle for delivering a page-turning plot.

Mystery epistolary novels do particularly well. Jumping between text exchanges and email threads adds a unique level of reader involvement in deciphering clues. This works well when the author utilises multiple POVs, such as in The Appeal. Really, it’s just internet sleuthing in book format—and who doesn’t love a good internet sleuth?

Where the contemporary epistolary novel really struggles is prose. For instance, people tend to be much less lyrical in writing through text messages. I’d wager that few readers want to read a book filled with “My Dear Bestie” and “tho” (though if you do, more power to you). Detailed and creative prose is fitting for letter-writing, but not for modern forms of communication where the focus is more generally on brevity and efficiency.

There’s also a more general issue created by the speed at which internet vocabulary moves. Considering the amount of time it takes to get a novel published, creatives always seem to be one step behind when it comes to slang. Have you ever cringed at a movie’s use of strange, outdated phrases and emojis?

Imagine this same situation, but extended over 300 pages. I would suggest that writers can solve this issue by keeping it light on transient “internet vocab” that may quickly die out, and sticking mostly to “established” slang. In any case, it’s a tough line to toe between believable and cringey.

It looks like, then, the epistolary novel isn’t dying out completely—just reinventing itself. The contemporary epistolary novels also have a particular appeal to students who want to read more, but have waning attention spans. Isn’t it nice that, instead of a “quick phone break” from your half-hearted attempt at reading Utilitarianism, you could instead have a “quick book break”? And though reading three emails may not be the same as reading three chapters, it still—surely—beats watching three minutes of TikTok.

Review: Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice

0

With this sequel, Burton truly does justice to his eighties cult classic. Set over three decades after the events of Beetlejuice, this year’s release follows Lydia Deetz’s struggle to keep her family together as they mourn a loss. In the meantime, the demon Betelgeuse has returned to haunt her. The film not only sees several of the same iconic actors reprising their original roles (Catherine O’Hara as Delia Deetz, Winona Ryder as her daughter, Lydia, and Michael Keaton as the titular antagonist, a seedy ‘bio-exorcist’), but it features many new and memorable characters. Jenna Ortega stars as Astrid Deetz, Lydia’s apathetic daughter, and Monica Belluci joins the cast as Betelgeuse’s torn-up ex-wife, hell bent on revenge. 

This sequel’s success owes a lot to its casting. We are yet again gifted with a hilarious and formidable performance from Keaton as Betelgeuse. To see Ortega featured on a cast list is often to expect a dark and troubled teenage character, and Astrid is no different. The actress embodies the ennui and passivity of Gen Z with refreshing nuance, reminiscent of  young Ryder’s quintessential Lydia. She is her daughter, after all. Ortega’s dry comic style also blends seamlessly with the spirited humour and energy of the film. Equally, O’Hara never ceases to charm and Dafoe proves he is just as gifted in a comedic role as he is in anything else. Every cast member in this film is praiseworthy, and as an ensemble the actors bring Burton’s genius as a director and producer to life. Although DeVito’s character feels slightly pointless and Bellucci’s underused, neither of these directorial decisions have a significantly detrimental impact on the film’s magic. 

Burton’s famous gift for mixing the dark and eerie with the fun and satirical shines through once again. He captures the tone and spirit of his original, successfully manoeuvring away from the classic trap into which dozens of prequels and sequels alike fall: a failed, pointless rehash. He is well aware that, just because a formula has worked in the past, doesn’t mean you can simply remake the same film and reap the same rewards. With a piece of media as beloved and memorable as 1988’s Beetlejuice, such a blunder would have been unforgivable. 

Instead, the plot of Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice moves away from the first in a fun and unpredictable fashion. Burton even manages to work in a musical number featuring the demonic possession of several characters. While reminiscent of the iconic Day-O  sequence in the eighties iteration, this reference never feels forced. This is a feat more impressive than it sounds, and one cannot help but revel in the nostalgia of it all. 

The film makes for essential Halloween viewing. The costume design retains its originality and intricacy, enriching the film, and successfully maintaining the spooky atmosphere we have come to expect from Burton pictures. There is no shortage of laughs, either, from Keaton’s hilarious lead performance, to the Soul Train skit, to the relationship between Dafoe’s character and coffee. There are an infinite number of humorous details that generously intersperse this unique , sharp script.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice type of film you’ll find yourself rewatching as the leaves continue to fall. It has all the hallmarks of a new classic. One can only hope it has reignited in many appreciation for the 1988 picture.

Oxford Horror Soc, un-earthed

0

The Oxford Horror Soc, led by Izzy Reese as President and Honor Davies as Public Communications Officer, is Oxford’s first and only society dedicated to the on-screen horror genre. Since their founding, they have shown everything from silent film classics like The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari (1919) to television hits like Hannibal (2013) and modern genre staples like Saw (2004).  

How long has your society been around? Why did you decide to take on the role of President?

Izzy: Purely from looking back at the Instagram profile it looks like it’s been around from 2022 but I’m not entirely sure, it might have existed for a bit longer than that. But, I took it over simply because I was a huge fan of it last year. It was one of the only societies that I consistently went to in my first year and then when I found out that the committee members were all graduating that year, I thought I want to keep it going cause I want to continue my journey exploring horror films. I took it over for purely selfish reasons, just because I like it. 

What do you think is the importance of student film societies? 

Izzy: For me, specifically for Oxford, it’s a nice change of pace from what we are all doing most of the time. Because I study English and German, I can’t bring myself to read for fun anymore, especially during term time, so it’s nice to be able to explore art and creativity through a medium that is so different. To have a society that reminds you to keep going, to keep enjoying things that aren’t just work, it’s important for me, at least.

What differentiates you from other film societies is that you focus exclusively on horror. What do you think makes horror special enough to have an entire society just dedicated to it?

Izzy: That’s a tricky question but I think that it seems like a state of mind that you have to get into. I know that’s so annoying to say but to be in a sort of mood to have a spooky evening feels a bit different from just a film society where you come to see anything. Also I think we attract a particular crowd of goths and emo. I remember last year I’d sit down to watch a film and there would be so much eyeliner in one room. It’s good! It feels like a real community of people who like celebrating Halloween when it’s not Halloween. 

Horror tends to be divisive. It has always been caught up in debates surrounding gratuitous violence, graphic depictions of sexual acts and the appropriation of sacred symbols. However, at the same time it has always been a genre that is really effective at transgression. How do you manage these tensions when making a term card? Do you try to achieve a balance between the two ends of the spectrum?

Izzy: Absolutely! Because it’s a diverse genre in terms of what it means when you’re talking about horror films. It does feel important to have a wide range of what we are actually putting on. If I did seven slasher films in one term, it’s not even representative of horror films – that would be slasher society, that’s a different thing. I think it’s good because it means that more people can enjoy it: I know it’s one of those few genres where people have an actual limitation: some people just cannot do jumpscares, or really scary stuff so I want to open up the society to like people who don’t enjoy being terrified out of their minds. We do like to bring out quite a few different ones so that everyone can enjoy it.

You are a female-led society, the horror genre is notorious for its abuse of the male gaze. When you are picking films and filmmakers for your term card is this something that you have in consideration?

Izzy: I wouldn’t call myself an expert in horror films so a lot of the time I’m going into these films kind of blind or with received cultural knowledge. So, as much as sometimes we do try to focus on things that we want to see, which often end up being more female-led or less exploitative films, I think it’s unavoidable in the horror genre and part of our society is doing a little bit of discussion about that kind of thing. So, there’s an element with horror in which all the things that are happening, completely out-there deaths and things like that. You have to take a step back and sort of think about it as something you are watching, rather than something you are getting too involved in. That certainly helps me when I am trying to reckon with what can be a very misogynist genre. 

Do you find that horror fans drawn to your society are more permissive towards the genre than those less interested in it or are they more critical? And do you find that the films you select tend to spark a lot of debate between people attending?

Izzy: I think there is usually a general consensus that it was fun to watch it all together. We don’t really tend to have people coming who don’t like horror at all. I think they would be making a poor decision for themselves if they did that. But, definitely, there are people who come and don’t necessarily know what sort of genre or subgenre this one’s going to be and so have different opinions and maybe express like ‘Oh this one was made by a nepo-baby’ or ‘This one was boring, didn’t like it’. So, there is definitely a spread of opinions. Most of the time, it’s just enjoyable. Even watching a bad film can be enjoyable and we do have space for that sort of terrible, horrible horror film, you know?

Who are some of the formative horror filmmakers for you? And what do you think makes their horror different?

Izzy: Recently, I’ve been really getting into body horror stuff. So Cronenberg and Carpenter and just like they are really fun for me, just like outrageous. I think that is what I really enjoy most about the genre, it is just taking the films in these completely ridiculous directions and being allowed to do that, being able to play with completely upsetting people’s expectations and things. I really enjoyed The Substance (2024) recently, mostly because I brought my mum with me and she hated the last ten minutes of that film, just saw no point in it. It was so fun to me. So, yeah, I’d say anyone who is in the body horror genre.

Halloween is coming up and as the President of a horror soc you are the best person to ask this question. What are some spooky films that you think everyone should watch at least once – whether or not they are fans of horror?

Izzy: I keep answering questions about what my favourite films are, so I’m very sorry not to give nuances every time. I feel like I should. But I think I’d probably just recommend the Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether they enjoy horror or not. It’s just so perfect as like a fun Halloween film to me, especially to watch with a bunch of other people. And it’s one of those films where I’ve rewatched it a million times and it just gets better every time you watch it. I don’t know if I can recommend any of the more classic ones, of the more definitely scary ones, with broad appeal because many of my friends would never watch them, anything that has remotely a jumpscare. I’m trying to think of some more fun ones. I mean we put on Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988) last year. It was completely ridiculous, very camp, so much fun. Anything that just has a ridiculous title I would probably recommend giving a try this Halloween. 

If our readers want to come to one of your screenings, where can they get more information?

Izzy: So, at the moment we are based in Jesus College. Every Friday at 7.30pm, maybe 7.00pm, depends on when we are allowed into the room. Find us on our Instagram or our Facebook page. Search for @ouhorrorsoc on Instagram and I’m sure you’ll be able to find it on Facebook. We keep you updated on what we’re doing and at what times so just follow those!

Interview has been edited for clarity.

The com(m)e(n)t

0

Having written out the future in the pages of my book, 
you tear it out. Just before it’s distributed, 
officially bound and sealed. Scrunching it into a ball, 
you toss it atmospheric, out of sight. 
Burning up, it is a comet, a flaming talking point 
to those below. 
Swiftly falling to earth, a meteorite causing heavy damage.

Candles

0

The darkest winter sits within a kindly light,
A candle burning on the inside of a box of matches.

Dreams are made of candles, pinpricks of a deeper light.

The darkest winter is made up of kindly light,
Harsh reflections in the snow. Dreams of the warmest sun.