Debate

Crossing the two hour mark: risky or revolutionary?

Sep 15, 2019 – by Harry Caton

Online Editor, Harry Caton, weighs up the pros and cons of films that push the boundaries of typical running times.

Any long movie is a hard sell. If you’re seeing it in a cinema, it’s highly likely that all feeling will have drained from your underside long before the credits roll. Perhaps you also fidget, get tired, or need a toilet-break. The announcement that Martin Scorsese’s The Irishman will have runtime of three-and-a-half hours hails a revival of the debate surrounding the ends and means of that particularly cinematic sensation of numbness. There’s a case to be made for the film that goes beyond a rough average of two-and-a-half hours, but it’s one that needs to take into account both the artistic and personal weight that length brings.

This article will look at all angles of the long movie – what might push productions towards a longer film, how that length might be used to its best effect, and the conditions such a runtime needs in the first place. Movies needn’t necessarily be pleasurable, but they should have a reason for whatever choice they make. Runtime is much a part of this.

The Bad

Length itself doesn’t equal worth. This much should be obvious, but amidst a general furore around Director’s Cuts and TV’s ‘10-hour movies’, it’s a point that perhaps needs restating. The concept is something of a ‘value for money’-inflected hang-up. Francis Ford Coppola’s 2001 Redux edition of Apocalypse Now, adding around 49 minutes of unreleased footage to the 1979 movie, is hardly a better film. The desire to add in most all of what was originally left on the cutting room floor certainly highlights some gorgeous and expensive production design – but often produces sheer narrative cul-de-sacs. Quentin Tarantino’s teasings as to a 4-hour cut of Django Unchained, or a 5-hour Kill Bill movie that collates Volumes 1 and 2, come from a similar place. Would these films be improved by the addition of more? Perhaps. Is it a certainty? Certainly not. Length can lead to something ungainly, a desire for more ‘content’ upsetting the whole. Coppola himself seems to acknowledge this; his most recent (and Final) 2019 cut is around 20 minutes trimmer.

What can be taken from these dalliances – whether the thirst for content or directorial indulgence – is that a long runtime is not something to be taken lightly.

It’s hardly uncommon for a movie to devolve into something that needlessly overruns in its original form. Look only to The Revenant, a movie that dedicates much of its runtime to expiating the same basic conceits – DiCaprio’s Hugh Glass is trammelled by a bear, thrown over a cliff, half-drowned, and stabbed. It sets into exhaustion by the identical second half. The grand length would seem to match the grandeur of the scenery, and yet there’s no vastness of thematic scope to make up for it. Likewise, the baffling 90s romantic drama Meet Joe Black – starring Brad Pitt as a naïve, charming (?) personification of death – goes on for 174 minutes. So much feels indulgent, the film playing over endless conversations, charmless chemistry, and, in a popular trope of overlong indulgence, a third act comprised of false endings. The two movies come together in saying not much with quite a lot. In each case, their length is an artistic indulgence designed to signify importance, with little more to say.

Scorsese’s own movies have gradually crept up in length. Where the early-career Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull kept around the 2-hour mark, his mid-career period regularly topped that, weighing in at The Last Temptation of Christ’s 164 minutes, and Casino’s 178. The Irishman seems part of a trend. It’s telling that, in his later career, the comparatively small-scale thrillers Shutter Island and The Departed handily top the 2-hour mark, and are still modest in comparison with Gangs of New York’s 168 minutes, or The Aviator’s 170. This exercise isn’t so much to diminish the qualities of these individual movies, but to indicate how length seems an afterthought, an incidental fact of an over-budgeted, indulgent production. Many could have had their wings clipped, and yet still flown. Length here seems less a factor of story than a tendency of production, a snowball of the ‘auteur’ director’s ambition.

These are undeniably harsh judgements to make. They’re connected, however, in how they show misuse of the form. What can be taken from these dalliances – whether the thirst for content or directorial indulgence – is that a long runtime is not something to be taken lightly. More than this, it represents a form of its own. When a film breaches that two-and-a-half hour mark, it becomes something else. Much like how a 500 page-plus novel is a tacitly different prospect to what’s under that number, the long film is an aesthetic choice. What does it mean to augment the medium with length? The act of watching a film is already the act of sitting in relative isolation and concentration for a while; what happens when that while is extended even further?

Like most all filmmaking, length should be a part of the movie’s fabric. These shouldn’t just be ordinary films that happen to be extra-long.

The Good

Like most all filmmaking, length should be a part of the movie’s fabric. These shouldn’t just be ordinary films that happen to be extra-long. The 202 minute Malcolm X (1992) uses its length to reflect its protagonist’s very tangible shifts in conscience, culture, and time. The movie hops through its periods with ease, director Spike Lee’s peppy style gently obscuring the segmentation into three semi-distinct acts. The necessity of a biopic that covers all bases is to give those bases time to develop. Each incarnation of Malcolm – gangster, prisoner, preacher – seems a distinct character. The biopic is a good match for the form. Mr. Turner (2014) likewise uses its 152 minutes as a canvas upon which to explore the eponymous Georgian painter. The size of it is reflects the artist’s own works, its mumbling, small, and mortal characters often giving way to the grandeur of the visuals and length of the piece.

Martin Scorsese at the premier of Shutter Island.
Image: Siebbe, Wikimedia Commons

On an entirely different tack, take Scorsese’s Silence (2016). While this article has just lambasted the director for overindulging his runtimes, the 161 minute Silence somehow manages to do the exact opposite. It’s a sparse tale that, unlike The Revenant, knows its own sparsity. While the latter naturally assumes that its protagonist’s endless prostration before the viewer confers meaning, Silence is wise enough to make questioning that assumption its core. In the vastness of its characters’ journey, there’s only debatable meaning to be found in ordinary suffering. The viewing experience reflects this. The movie is long, and fairly static, as each prostrating viewer that scrabbles for a point. So much of the film involves the viewer waiting; yet like any good Beckett play, the characters know it too. In each of these examples, there’s a consistency in approach. That length means something, and has a point beyond existing for itself.

At the same time, it’s worth considering the circumstances of these viewings. The early cinematic tradition of the intermission has faded. Paired with the 20^th century necessity for changing out a film’s reels, the audience could take a break in the middle of the action. In accordance with technological advances, and perhaps a more time-sensitive culture, the 21^st century saw them phased out. The long film is a more contestable topic now than it used to be. While the experience of art for art’s sake is all well and good, even the most tortuously long films are only conceivable in contexts of relevant comfort. One might wonder whether Silence is worth it. Does it really earn its runtime, such as to justify the pain of its viewing? At the very least, it makes a point with it.

You’d assume that the medium can survive the viewer taking a break. However, long films in uncomfortable settings represent a genuine disjuncture of art and viewer.

The Future

We’ll have to wait and see if The Irishman can work with such a length. On another level, however, the decision makes sense. The Irishman can afford this because it’s a Netflix production – it’s a movie for couch potatoes. Per the news that a full cinema-release run has fallen through, much of the general public will consume it as any other thing on the platform. Strangely, the production now seems, if only on a distribution level, to be intended for TV. This entails something that was always made for whatever viewing conditions the viewer so deigns, a play/pause button, and the ability to stop and pick up the whole thing another day. It’s arguably a more clumsy viewing experience, and a capitulation to the modernity-induced hurries of everyday life. But it’s also the starkest possible example of how the long movie is a different beast.

A director may have enough clout to sell a producer something of The Irishman’s length – see The Hateful Eight (2015), with its roadshow intermission – but such a runtime has grown uncommon. The home theatre, however, now provides a more welcome environment. Intermissions in the action are hardly new for the exhausted audience. Their existence acknowledges the fact that it’s always been hard to sit through these gargantuan runtimes. You’d assume that the medium can survive the viewer taking a break. However, long films in uncomfortable settings represent a genuine disjuncture of art and viewer. Adaptations within the form are both needed and inevitable for its survival. We might be more mindful of platforms like Netflix in the future.

There are countless more examples that could be run through. The issues raised here – that it is not an end in and of itself, that it must be treated as a fundamental part of the aesthetic, and that the conditions of long runtimes must themselves be considered – are only partially linked. However, they are all inherent to the discussion of the form. We may pay closer attention to the realities of watching a long movie, and how the medium might best represent itself: perhaps through reintroducing intermissions, or simply on the TV. Even the best movies mentioned in the past paragraphs may suffer for the cinema simply numbing the experience. In turn, it’s also worth remembering that long movies are a delicate thing. Great commitment is made by the viewer towards an unclear end. That The Irishman will have the length it does makes sense in its release context; however, length doesn’t confer artistic gravity on its own. One would hope that it knows itself enough to make that time worth it. Within Scorsese’s oeuvre of ever-proliferating runtime, it’s hard to be sure.

And so it goes for the form. A future in which long films come from mere purpose, and neither directorial nor commercial bloviating, seems a good one. You’d hope that a piece this long would live up to that.

The Democratic Party presidential primaries

Sep 3, 2019 – by Nick Greenwood

The world has to wait until 3 November 2020 to see if Americans will elect Donald Trump to a second term, but his opponent is in the process of being chosen. The Democrats are yet to decide who they’ll rally behind, and with just five months to go until the first primary contests, candidates are jockeying for position. On 12 September, ten of the twenty remaining candidates will assemble in Houston for the third primary debate. Who is running? What’s at stake? What on earth is going on?

So far in the campaign there have been two series of debates, in June and July, with attending candidates needing to pass one of two criteria. Either their candidacy achieved 2% in four different polls accepted by the Democratic National Committee, be it nationally or in the first four contest states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina), or they pass a fundraising criterion: 130,000 unique donors, with at least four hundred donors per state in at least twenty states. To qualify for the Houston debate, you needed to satisfy bothcriteria. The winnowing of the field began, and only ten qualified.

With that in mind, let’s look at the debating candidates. There’s a former vice president (Joe Biden), five senators (Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren), a former congressman (Beto O’Rourke), a mayor (Pete Buttigieg), a former Cabinet secretary (Julián Castro), and a businessman (Andrew Yang).

It’s probably safe to say that one of these ten will be the Democratic nominee; in fact, it’s probably safe to say that outside of a miracle, there are only five real contenders: Biden, Buttigieg, Harris, Sanders, and Warren. The other five are, as less-kind pundits have suggested, running for the vice presidency or a Cabinet job. Biden is the undisputed front-runner, polling just shy of 30% nationally and ahead in the first contests. Sanders and Warren, the progressive firebrands, are fighting for second with around 16-17% each, and yet in recent weeks polling has shown Warren to be nipping at Biden’s heels in Iowa and New Hampshire. Harris and Buttigieg had surges in support earlier this year: Harris performed well in the first debate, and Buttigieg’s status as the first gay candidate for the presidency and, at 37, by far the youngest, gives him wider appeal. Both, however, lag behind at 5-8% nationally, performing only marginally better in early states.

Elizabeth Warren [Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore]

The early states are important, as they set the narrative. While Biden leads nationally, for example, early Warren victories would, as Politicorecently put it, set Warren’s ‘rock star’ appeal on a collision course with Biden, the ‘rock’ of the race. That’s why the debate on 12 September is so critical. It is not in Biden’s interests as the front-runner to attend; the debate gives other candidates a chance to shine, present their case, and potentially go viral. Harris’ humiliation of Biden over busing in June, or Sanders’ spirited defence of universal healthcare in July (memorably declaring that he knew how it would work because “[he] wrote the damn bill!”), went viral and boosted both campaigns. For candidates with lower name-recognition, the debates also provide an opportunity for the electorate and the news cycle to familiarise themselves with their candidacy.

The debates are an opportunity to reassess their impressions

It is also necessary to talk about the lower-tier five on the stage. It can’t be nice to put everything on the field and run for president, only for some postgrad on the other side of the world to label you ‘lower-tier’, but sometimes the truth hurts. In the latest DNC-approved national poll, Biden took 32%; Castro, also on stage, polled below 1%. To qualify for the debate ten, however, also raises points of expectation. It is remarkable that Andrew Yang stands on stage alongside other candidates. He is feasibly a fringe candidate, possessing no political experience and running entirely on the issue of a universal basic income. That he has qualified for what is likely to be the final ten is a great achievement. On the other side of the expectations game, you have Beto O’Rourke. The former congressman became a Democratic rock-star last autumn after running a spirited, if unsuccessful, bid to unseat Republican senator Ted Cruz in Texas. With poll numbers surging, he declared his candidacy soon after; a close second in Iowa polling in December, the latest polls show him under 1%. That he is underperforming is perhaps an understatement.

Democrat Contender: Andrew Yang [Photo credit: Gage Skidmore]

Yang and O’Rourke reinforce the importance of next month’s debate. For both it is an opportunity to, for a night at least, claim an equal platform with the frontrunners. For the audience, the debates are an opportunity to reassess their impressions. Biden’s reputation as a political titan, and his poll numbers, took a sizeable hit after poor performances in the last debates. Warren has the reverse case. Announcing her candidacy with relatively-low polling numbers and amidst a scandal about Native American heritage, her detailed policy proposals and strident defence of progressivism have given her second wings. Having stood on different stages during the June and July debates, all eyes are on how Biden and Warren interact in Houston.

If Beto O’Rourke scores a landslide win in Iowa on the back of inspirational debate performances, and Andrew Yang takes South Carolina after his UBI proposal surges in popularity, don’t say I didn’t warn you that debates can matter.

Just don’t put any money on it either.

Should we question political correctness in Christmas songs?

The words “peace and joy” have always been closely linked with Christmas time as a period of love and laughter. Certain questionable remarks made around the dinner table are shrugged off in favour of not ruining Christmas Day and keeping the family peace. There’s a reason the holiday season often comes with a high dose of gingerbread, cinnamon and saccharine. As a result, recent debates surrounding problematic and outdated lyrics in classic Christmas songs have been classed as “overly PC” and “ruining the fun”. Assertions about “snowflake millennials” finding anything to be offended by has been used as a defence against some very valid and important arguments as to not spoil Christmas. It goes without saying that the lyrics in question are the sexism in the Christmas classic ‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ and the use of the homophobic slur “f*****” in The Pogues’ ‘Fairytale of New York’.

‘Baby, It’s Cold Outside’ has been covered by everyone from Dolly Parton to Michael Buble since its release in 1944. Whilst the singing couple may have changed, the lyrical message of a man really wanting the subject of his affection to stay has persisted. The song’s lyrics are misogynistic and allude to sexual assault and its original performance in the 1949 film ‘Neptune’s Daughter’ supports this. If the man’s removal of the woman’s coat and pulling her back down onto the sofa aren’t enough, then the reference to an unknown substance in her drink and repeated ‘no’ definitely should be. These attitudes are unfortunately fitting in the 1940s system of male sexual domination but in post-Me Too movement 2018, these actions are chilling. In the past few years, the song has been the topic of various polls and petitions to get it removed and then added back to radio stations’ playlists. However, the man’s efforts to persuade the woman to stay and combating each of her reasons head on is exactly why the song doesn’t really belong on radio anymore. The subtlety of each of his lines contribute to a larger picture of why misogynistic attitudes still exist – it isn’t sustained by the blatant statements, it’s in the underlying meanings which are just accepted in society.

These attitudes are unfortunately fitting in the 1940s system of male sexual domination but in post-Me Too 2018, these actions are chilling

The Pogues’ ‘Fairytale of New York’ has been the subject of more recent discussion following an article in ‘The Tab’ which was then unfortunately picked up in the ‘Daily Mail’. The crux of the article was that the word “f*****” in what has been described as the anti-Christmas song is homophobic and distasteful. For decades, the word has been used as a weapon against the LGBTQ+ community just like the ‘n’ word for people of colour, and arguably should be censored on radio in the same way.

For decades, the word has been used as a weapon against the LGBTQ+ community

In my experience of trying to explain this point of view to defenders of the song, the same arguments have come suggesting that the word actually refers to the Irish slang word for a lazy person, a waster. (I tend to ignore those who think that Kirsty MacColl is in fact singing about a Welsh meatball). Whilst this may be true, the larger problem is the intent by which straight people intend on screaming the infamous line in clubs and bars during the festive season. I highly doubt that when the fifth verse comes around, people are more excited to scream a piece of Irish slang, than they are a word which is taboo and socially unacceptable. Even MacColl herself altered the lyrics soon after the song’s release as to not offend those who have been on the receiving end of the word’s aggressively homophobic meaning. I’m not calling for an all-out blacklisting of the song, just the tiniest bleep of one word. Just one.

I tend to ignore those who think that Kirsty MacColl is in fact singing about a Welsh meatball

Whilst these conversations may disrupt the peace this Christmas season, they can help bring joy to those who are actually offended by the words and meanings of these songs. Not offended for the sake of it but instead because of the history of these words and the social repercussions that their casual use can have.

Regev’s claims put in context

I came from a small city called Gaza. It’s just 360 square kilometres. For 22 years, I saw nothing beyond this area. The only interaction I had with outsiders was with the Israelis. They launched one war after another, dropping bombs, firing missiles and targeting us with artillery from the sea and the ground. Even when there is no actual war going on, the Israeli drones do not leave the sky and become part of our daily lives.

I am from the generation who grew up under what is called the “peace process” between the Palestinians and Israelis but, as I grew up, I became more pessimist every time a “peace” meeting occurred, because at the same time Israeli settlements on Palestinian land continued to expand. As I left the besieged Gaza Strip to Egypt by something of a miracle, the first place I saw on the way from Gaza to Cairo Airport was a desert. This deserted, empty place shocked me, and I couldn’t stop taking pictures. I had lived in Gaza traumatised by one war after another. Now I could see the results.

Even when there is no actual war going on, the Israeli drones do not leave the sky and become part of our daily lives

A year after I left, another war took place, the most horrible of them all, leaving 2,251 dead. It included a massacre in my birthplace, Shujaia, eastern Gaza. Imagine being away from home and reading in the news about the death of your neighbours and friends. It was probably the most difficult moment of my life. I could not reach my family easily, but I knew that corpses were in the streets of my home. The loss was huge: more than words can describe or I could face. It was beyond me. I could not go back to give them a last hug. The Israeli government continued their war. A neighbouring family stayed under the rubble for two days while the Israeli forces prevented the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from pulling them out. The spokesperson of the Israeli Prime Minister, Mark Regev, appeared on several programmes, defending the Israeli army. I don’t understand how the killing of 315 children and wounding 3,374 others– of whom 1,000 were left permanently disabled– is excusable.

I chose to protest Regev’s presence here because he is a representative of a settler-colonial state that continues to oppress and suppress my people, ignoring UN resolutions and international law. Regev is, of course, an ambassador, but it is worth noting the extensive security put in place for his appearance at Exeter. Some security would be predictable, but the amount deployed in this case for a basically private event suggests an excessive fear of protests and debate.

Regev’s response to our protest was not unexpected. To claim that our protest is hurting the Palestinians was yet another level of supremacy, based on blaming the victims. He didn’t realise that some of us are Palestinians. How would he know the extent to which his government is restricting our freedom of movement? I have not seen my family since I left Gaza in 2013. Human Rights Watch documented 54 cases of patients in Gaza who lost their lives last year as they were denied exit for treatment by Israel. Travel out of Gaza is currently 1% of what it was in September 2000.

I chose to protest Regev’s presence here because he is a representative of a settler-colonial state that continues to oppress and suppress my people

The reality on the ground is dire. But we can make a change. Only when this colonial state that Regev represents is put under international pressure will a solution be achieved. This pressure will not come from Regev’s PR missions but from people who are committed to peace, justice and equality in Palestine – as exemplified, for instance, by the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

The CDU and Who: Is The Search For a German Coalition Over?

On the same day it was announced in December that Brexit talks were ready to move into the second phase, German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed her party allies at a Brussels summit and spoke of Europe needing a strong German government, more than ever before. Seven months since the Merkel-led Christian Democratic Union (CDU) failed to gain the necessary 50% of seats in its autumn general election, the gruelling bid to form a coalition appears to have reached its conclusion as the European Union undergoes a series of historic events which will shape its future and see the first ever departure of a member.

Globally recognised as one of the crucial components of central Europe’s political makeup, Germany faced the intricate and slow process of forming the coalition it needed to create the government to lead the country until the next election. Whilst the conservative CDU have gradually moved closer to the centre of Germany’s political spectrum, its hope to form a coalition with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) took several months to negotiate after the SPD stated it wanted to have the casting vote on the decision forming the partnership, known as a ‘grand coalition’, which at times may have looked unlikely to happen at all.

Germany’s firm government…viewed around the world as ‘a parliamentary system that worked just as reliably as its cars and industrial machinery’.

Whilst there have been relatively few consequences of the issue of not having a government set in stone so far, one obvious concern for Germany’s key figures is bound to be the prospect of its reputation as a solid political structure beginning to fade. Of course, the longer these negotiations took and continue to take, the longer the worries of the nation’s voters will take to be resolved, such as the rising dissatisfaction with the far-right (now Merkel’s greatest opposition), which was visible in the outcome of the polls as the Eurosceptic Alternativ für Deutschland closed the election with the third-largest amount of votes. Germany’s Spiegel Online likened Germany’s firm government previously viewed around the world as ‘a parliamentary system that worked just as reliably as its cars and industrial machinery’.

Perhaps this revering mind-set has been dented in the months since the election’s outcome. From Merkel’s point of view, the difficulties lay not only with convincing members of the SPD. Members of her own party have voiced their criticism, alongside the inhabitants of country itself, for whom the familiar comfort of ‘wir schaffen das!’ (we can do it!) may have begun to sound a little distant in the recent uncertainty. After the first round of coalition attempts with the CDU, the Greens and the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) – commonly referred to as the ‘Jamaica coalition’ – failed, this led to the latest attempts to form another grand-coalition to follow the previous government’s methods.

Martin Schulz, leader of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Now into February, following the search to form a coalition, which sprung up as a consequence of September‘s elections, an announcement was made this week stating that the CDU have successfully reached a deal to form a coalition with former governmental partners, the SPD, one likely to have evoked some relief in the German Chancellor. It does, at least, seem to be the move with the smoothest possible way out – a minority CDU government could be branded as weak, and more elections would only lead to more instability at a time when Germany’s government needs to be stronger more than ever, echoing the words of Merkel herself.

Whilst this may seem like a triumph after the months of talks over forming a coalition, a few fairly crucial points must be looked after first, with even a few examples of these recognised as seismic challenges for those involved. SPD leader Martin Schulz must now convince his party that this is a good decision, as many may view his agreement to join the CDU government as a step away from his left-wing views; many significant ministries of the government have also been handed into the care of the SPD. Arguably the greatest hurdle to overcome firstly is that approximately 500,000 SPD members must vote on the deal. Should the majority vote against it, then the deal will collapse and this could lead to new elections in the autumn, which would be twelve months following the vote which led to this situation in the first place, undoubtedly increasing the uncertainty of those who headed to the polls nearly half a year ago.

The Name Game: Understanding the Macedonian Issue

Amidst a world climate wracked with political uncertainties, exacerbated by the ever-present Donald Trump and his adversary Kim Jon-un, a twenty-five-year dispute over something as trivial as a name should be low on the to-do list of the current Greek government and yet it remains at the top of Parliament’s agenda. In the same week that negotiations are supposed to begin about the Macedonian dispute it was announced that Greece comes second, only to Venezuela, at the top of the wealth loss list, a much greater crisis which government resources should be designated towards and yet the government’s current priorities are clearly misplaced.

Greece…intensified bilateral tensions on the premise that using the term ‘Macedonia’ robs Greeks of their ethnicity, language and identity.

Although the diplomatic issue began in 1991, with the breakup of Yugoslavia, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to as far as the early 20^th century during the Balkan Wars. In antiquity, there was ancient Macedonia (which corresponds with the modern Greek region of Macedonia) and the kingdom of Paeonia, which constitutes the present-day Republic of Macedonia. Following the Roman invasion in 168 BC, the empire combined numerous regions and named the larger province Macedonia.

Interestingly, the basis for the conflict is identity politics. Greece opposes the name Macedonia and the identifier of being ‘Macedonian’ because millions of ethnic Greeks perceive themselves as Macedonians, distinct from the Slavic people residing in the Republic of Macedonia. Theories, which unpack nations and nationalism as well as the movements they inspire, focus on various themes which most nationalist narratives hold true. One of which is the motif of cultural superiority. This is evidently manifested in the case of Greece who intensified bilateral tensions on the premise that using the term ‘Macedonia’ robs Greeks of their ethnicity, language and identity.

Alexander the Great’s Emblem, the ‘Star of Vergina’ (Source: WikiCommons)

The Greek region of Macedonia not only houses Thessaloniki, the second largest Greek city, but is associated with the legacy of Alexander the Great. Alexander played a pivotal role as a national hero, leading the Greeks in their conquest of Persia and his relationship as tutee under Aristotle, arguably the greatest Greek philosopher, is a source of Hellenistic pride. Therefore, the issue of Macedonia seemingly threatens this rich history of the Greek empire. In particular, the former flag of the Republic of Macedonia housed the ‘star of Vergina’, which was the symbol of Alexander the Great and his accomplishments. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu stresses the power behind naming, as to name something seemingly brings it into existence. Thus, the Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures associated with the Greek culture as part of a greater political goal to place territorial claims on Balkan states.

However, unpacking the height of the conflict during the early-1990s, nationalist sentiments concerning the Greek identity as being tied to Macedonia were merely manipulated. The purpose of this was so competing political parties within Greece could maximise their parliamentary power. This was evident in the case of Mitsotakis’ leadership in Nea Demokratia, whose use of nationalist propaganda strengthened its electoral appeal.

Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Although this dispute appears trivial, for the Republic of Macedonia, it has thwarted their ambitions of joining NATO and the European Union. Thus, following this weeks debate they hope to put a relative end to the conflict. Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias who is engaged in the debates has dubbed these talks as merely “linguistic acrobatics”. The negotiations include a referendum within the Republic of Macedonia where the name options merely include geographical qualifiers such as the Republic of Upper Macedonia and Northern Macedonia.

This begs the question whether these negotiations will have an impact. On January 21^st hundreds of thousands of Greeks participated in a demonstration, spearheaded by the Greek Orthodox Church, against any use by the neighboring state of the name Macedonia. The number of protestors was unparalleled, even when contrasted against the numerous anti-austerity protests seen in Greece over the past eight years. Thus, evidencing the potency of Hellenic nationalist sentiments but perhaps also highlights the misplaced Greek priorities.

One has to wonder what kind of government, industry and country the European Union and the Syriza government have left Greece with?

What these protests and complacent diplomatic talks of the Greek government appear to be is a mere distraction from the significant amount of reforms, which need to be imposed in order to successfully fulfill Syriza’s €86bn bailout. Although the economy is seeing growth, with the predicted exit date from foreign aid being August 2018, the citizen trust in the government is at an all-time low. One has to wonder what kind of government, industry and country the European Union and the Syriza government have left Greece with?

TEF and Tuition Fees Debate

The University will be hosting a debate between Amatey Doku, NUS Vice President, and Exeter Vice-Chancellor Professor Sir Steve Smith. The two will debate the new Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and tuition fees.

A new government developed scheme, the TEF was published earlier this year and aims to provide information to help prospective students choose where to study by grading the excellence of teaching.

The University of Exeter achieved a Gold Award along with the likes of the University of Cambridge, the University of Bath and the University of Oxford. However, many leading universities were disappointed with the results with the University of Durham and UCL achieving Silver status and LSE receiving a Bronze award. Out of the 21 Russell Group universities only eight achieved gold. The controversial nature of these results has caused much discussion over the utility of the scheme.

The introduction of TEF has also caused concern as the government indicated that those universities with a TEF award will be able to increase their tuition fees in line with inflation.

Whilst a date has not yet been released the subjects of discussion promise an interesting and relevant event for Exeter students.

Sabb Week: Guild President Debate roundup

The candidates for Guild President concluded this series of debates with some of the most electric performances seen throughout the week. Coupled with a Chair whose methods mixed precision with ferocity, and a series of revealing questions, this was the clear highlight of the five debates.

Beginning, as is now tradition, with the one-minute speech, Will Vasey kicked off by declaring his commitment to making Exeter as affordable as possible. Soma Pirityi cited his desire to protect student democracy and step up when making choices, whilst Peter Gillibrand called for the representation of students both nationally and locally, alongside greater transparency. Meanwhile, Helena Brenner cited her manifesto as carrying the ‘changes people wanted’, which was echoed by Luke Avery in his speech. Ed Mudd, meanwhile, had lost odds-on and had been forced to run for the position, and lost it again and was thus forced to turn up. He therefore decided to parody Donald Trump and expressed his desire to ‘Make Exeter Great Again’, whilst decked out in a hat parodying the one’s used by the current President. Shraddha ‘Shades’ Chaudhary, meanwhile, cited her experience with societies and her desire to make people smile.

Kane Davis was unfortunately absent from the debate, owing personal matters. However, he had sent along an introduction to his manifesto, which was read out by the Chair, and one that expressed his belief that students at Exeter were multitalented, and affirmed his view that he possessed the strongest understanding of the Guild.

These speeches were swiftly followed by a buzzer round, which saw Gillibrand take both an early lead and overall victory through his knowledge of the various components of the Guild, although strong performances were also seen from the rest of the field.

Following on from this, the Chair turned to scrutinise each individual, beginning with Vasey. Having been defeated in the Welfare & Diversity last year he was immediately asked why he was running for President. This was retorted by Vasey declaring how much he had learnt over the past year, and that he wanted to put what he had done and learnt int practice.

The next point of scrutiny was his plan for ‘Guild Trips’, which Will defended by stating that they promoted inclusivity, whilst his proposition of creating a Night Bus was also placed under the microscope, with his defence being that ‘there is no price that you can put on student safety’. Save, of course, for the pound you would have to pay to use it.

Pirityi was up next, and was required to defend his accusations of financial misconduct amongst societies, as well as his attack on the Guild’s IT department, where he cited the possibility that they were either lazy of incompetent, comments which were quickly met with vigorous scrutiny from the Chair.

Avery followed, and was asked to defend his comments that 1 in 5 graduates from Exeter were unemployed, as well as his desire to modify CareerZone, in order to help students fulfil their dreams. He further called for students to be ‘part of something bigger’, in essence, to make Exeter better together.

Gillibrand was required to defend his policy of installing sensors on campus for various requirements, stating that they would ‘pay for themselves’, whilst calling for the University stop running like a business and recognise students, and for the University to better advertise what students were doing in their spare time, such as volunteering and undertaking personal projects. His final question came in the form of a query over his resignation as a Student Trustee the previous year, which he stated he gave up to focus on other areas, whilst pledging to ‘commit 100%’ if elected.

Mudd called to block students from the North, because apparently he didn’t like them. Apparently he was running as a joke candidate.

Shades was interrogated over career-focused modules, and the apathy which surrounded ExFactor, which was defended by her citing that it would form a greater part of their experience, whilst also stating that A&V finance had not met up with most societies and student groups, and that this needed to change.

Brenner cited her experience working in the Guild Shop for the past two years, and, when asked about her knowledge of the Guild, stated the need to make people aware of what exists. She was also tasked with defending her claim that Wellbeing was less efficient than it could be, and her wish to expand the CareerZone, which was retorted by he statement that she would lobby the University to do more.

With this, the one-on-one scrutiny came to a close, and the debate turned to questions submitted by the current Guild President, Toby Gladwin. When asked about the biggest issue on campus, and the ways to fix it, Mudd once again ranted about the North, whilst Brenner called for an improvement to the revolving doors and for food waste collection in houses around campus. Gillibrand cited disability and accessibility, and promised to stick up for those in need if elected. Avery meanwhile called for a greater use of resources such as Student Ideas, and called for more students to get involved. Pirityi cited that the biggest problem was that students weren’t saying what they wanted. Vasey cited the lack of of affordable accommodation on campus. Shades cited a ‘double-ended’ lack of awareness, and the lack of study space.

The second concerned where the money should go from increased fees. Gillibrand demanded transparency, whilst Vasey called for caution, but added that he wanted more to be done for mental health support. Pirityi confessed uncertainty over answering, but called for a referendum on whether students wanted to pay more. Mudd demanded a water fountain on the second floor of Harrison. Avery called for the money to be spent on raising the quality of teaching in order to keep in line with TEF. Shades echoed the point about mental health support, as did brenner.

The final question asked for the candidates to confront the recent antisemitic events which had been reported in Exeter, and how they would combat them. Pirityi called for proper communication and a university investigation. Mudd continued to talk about the North. Gillibrand called for the ‘Never Ok’ campaign to be expanded to cover racism and discrimination, whilst Shades called for sensitivity training. Brenner, meanwhile, called for the #WeAreAllExeter campaign to take the forefront, whilst Vasey cited the need to work with DVP’s and Wellbeing to help deal with these events.

Questions from the audience and Twitter came next, with the first asking them whether they were all feminists, and how they would tackle racism, sexism and classism at University. Brenner affirmed her position as a feminist and called for equal treatment, and that people had to be the ‘best we can’. Pirityi echoed this, and praised FemSoc’s events. Shades, meanwhile, called herself an Equalist , stating that Feminism has a bad reputation. Vasey stated that he recognised his privilege, was absolutely a feminist, and promised to work with Women in Business, the DVPs and other groups. Mudd also affirmed this, and called for equality, a point echoed by Avery and Gillibrand, who again called for an expansion of ‘Never Ok’.

Another question followed, which asked the candidates how they would deal with disengaged students. Gillibrand called for the implementation of a points system to encourage participation, whilst Avery highlighted innovation as being the key. Vasey called for the University to learn from practices at Falmouth’s FXU, whilst Brenner called for more emails. Shades called for a move to a more image-based method of communication, whilst Pirityi reiterated his belief in student democracy and cited the method the University used to talk to students about the Amory Hub as being an example of this.

The next query concerned the NUS’s Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions motion, passed in June 2015, and each candidate was asked what they would each to do uphold BDS. Vasey stated that he had not looked into the issue enough, and was thus unable to answer until he had looked into it properly. Mudd talked about walls. Shades called for Palestinian freedom and praised the sanctions. Pirityi confessed a position akin to Vasey’s, and called for students to be better informed. Gillibrand spoke of his opposition to the NUS as a political being, and stated that the issue was a difficult one. Brenner asked for them to reach a conclusion on the matter.

The next question concerned the data used by Avery’s manifesto to claim that 1 in 5 grads are unemployed, and asked if he accepted that it was misleading. Avery conceded, and stated that he was limited in manifesto space, whilst calling for an improvement to the CareerZone, a call echoed by Gillibrand and Pirityi. Rudd wanted to created jobs, whilst Shades stated that the employability module she wished to pursue would aid with this. Vasey praised the CareerZone’s ‘smashing’ work, and called for the establishment of a careers fair for the arts and charitable sectors. Brenner stated her support for CareerZone to focus upon different careers.

The penultimate question concerned whether any of the candidates believed that Exeposé was problematic, one that was denied by all candidates, with the candidates stating their satisfaction with a satisfactory amount of the content published. Mudd, meanwhile, stated that Exeposé were in fact peddling fake news and alternative facts.

The final question came once again came from Gladwin, who asked them why each thought that they should be President. Vasey cited his experience at University, his leadership at Nightline, and his part in the Housing Co-Op. Gillibrand affirmed his passion for representing people, especially those with disabilities, whilst Pirityi stated that he was the best candidate to fight for Student Democracy and fight problems. Shades stated that the work she had already done was reflective of her quality, whilst Avery stated that he didn’t ‘just want to represent you, I am one of you’. Mudd wanted a wall.

Overall, the debate had moments of sheer electricity between Chair and candidates, and proved both revealing and informative, thanks to nuanced and thoughtful questions from both the Guild President and the Audience. It’s a tough crowd, this one.

Is the ‘Free Speech’ Issue getting out of hand?

F ree speech is apparently under fire from the left. As a member of the left I have to ask how?
I repeatedly see the narrative that free speech is being limited by No Platforming, denying the right to speak is a limit on freedom of speech. However, this is a severe misunderstanding of what free speech and what No Platforming is. I’ve never actually met someone who’s against No Platforming. Even the most outspoken opponents of it when pushed will always concede there are cases where it is needed. For example inviting fascists to the campus is an issue where almost everyone I’ve spoken to has said “they shouldn’t be allowed, they’d incite violence”. Congratulations, that’s No Platforming! I’d also like to point out that transphobic speakers also incite violence, the brutal violence of systematic transphobia is solidified whenever they speak. People like Germaine Greer feed into the violent transphobic hate machine and I have no issue with people like her being silenced if it guarantees the safety of my comrades.

This paranoia over No Platforming has lead to things like Right2Debate being pushed through the guild system.

flickr.com

The motion is supposed to enforce freedom of speech and allow contested speakers to be debated rather than just cancelled. However refusal to comply will lead to the event being cancelled, in other words it forces societies to comply or be no platformed. This policy is however hopefully being changed facing further scrutiny.
I myself have been accused of being anti-free speech. When Socialist Students, Islamic Society, Friends of Palestine, and Feminist Society hosted the NUS backed Students Not Suspects we met large amounts of criticism. Certain individuals protested, and demanded we have a pro Prevent speaker. I was accused of silencing and mocking the audience, once for asking how to better transcribe a question an audience member asked, and once for failure to let someone ask a question. The latter of which was caused by the fact the student heckled his question moments before I was going to pick him to ask it. I spoke to him after the event to clear it up, and he told me himself that not only did he understand but also that my choice of questions for the night was very balanced. However the rumour that I tried to silence him remains.

The real irony of me being accused of restricting free speech is that the people and groups accusing me of being regressive have stopped me exercising my freedoms in the past. The very people who picketed StudentsNotSuspects tried very hard to stop me and my comrades picketing Quilliam’s event in term 1.
I’m a big believe in the freedom of speech, but few recognise freedom of speech comes hand in hand with freedom to protest and the freedom to affiliation. An institution has the right to affiliate and host groups of its choice. Thus is in its freedom of speech and affiliation. No Platforming is also within its right, it has a right to affiliate and not affiliate itself with any speaker or group. Freedom to protest is also an inalienable right, injustices should be challenged and protests and the like are a direct way of expressing political sentiments. The fact that these concepts are viewed as against freedom of speech is nonsensical. One should be free to contest, but it seems freedom of speech is increasingly coming to mean “let people with problematic views speak, and only challenge it when we allow you to”.

There’s a real danger of this free speech rhetoric, it’s a good narrative. It’s really easy to believe that the left are silencing events. Free speech is such an enshrined topic in western culture that any challenge to it is heresy of the upmost degree. So the minute something is done that “challenges” it the topic becomes sensationalised. What happens in reality however is often problematic behaviour is challenged, and the regressive right turns to polemic to condemn the left.

Why no-platforming has no place on the university campus

There is growing ideological crisis within universities involving the introduction and application of policies deemed ‘political correctness’, and the legitimisation of no-platforming is seen as yet another step along a path that may lead us to a flashpoint. Recent surveys held by ComRes suggests that 63% of students agree with the official NUS stance on no-platforming – that is, that no-platforming has a place in university institutions. Indeed, the question does not appear to be whether this tactic is legal (although a recent 37-page document written by a lawyer suggests that it may not be), but how far it should be taken, with past no-platformed individuals including Peter Tatchell, Julie Bindel, Germaine Greer, and Milo Yiannopoulos. The latest victim of this censorship is Boris Johnson, who has been banned from taking part in upcoming EU debates on the King’s College London campus. This refusal to allow the current Mayor of London speak on a key issue is worrying, and I would argue that beyond proscribed groups and active threats to university students, the policy has no place on our campuses.

Universities are primarily institutions for the further education of over two million students every year (based on 2015 statistics provided by HESA), and this function must not be lost in the confusion caused by clashing ideologies. I would agree that precautions are necessary to protect the core rights of every student, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, or any such demographic, but there must be a balance between making universities a space for academic values, and making them a ‘home’ for the students there. The years spent studying undergraduate or postgraduate degrees are, for the vast majority, formative years, and the values espoused on and around campus are often the ones entrenched in an individual’s personality. Universities must acknowledge this by allowing constant challenges to each and every held value; through this students can either reaffirm their own beliefs through developing logical skills, or can re-evaluate their preconceived notions by engaging in debate. Coddling students by protecting their sensibilities leads to a stagnation both intellectually and socially – no learning can take place in an echo chamber.

The notion that a visitor or guest speaker may upset the fabric of that university is to say that little faith can be placed in the logical and social skills of the students present; both to rebut the points made by the speaker, and to refuse any part in what the speaker advocates. Simply put, to no-platform someone is to say you believe your students are either weak-willed enough to be swayed by anyone who is allowed to talk, or to say that their arguments hold enough validity that you fear their words will have an effect on the students; if that is the case, perhaps we must look at the arguments they are putting forth, to see why they might hold such sway amongst the population. Allowing a speaker to express their opinions does not reflect on the university, the student union, or the students themselves; listening to a speaker deemed racist or sexist does not make the listener a racist or sexist, but censoring the speaker does make the listener seem scared and intolerant.

As hackneyed as it may seem to appeal to one of the core liberal values that forms the foundation of Western society, the concept of freedom – both of speech and of expression – is an unavoidable barrier to no-platforming.

To express your opinions is such a fundamental right that there is a natural backlash to policies attempting to restrict this, and for good reason.

In recent years freedom of speech has been relatively unrestricted, with key exceptions primarily laid out in the 1998 Human Rights Act including threats, abuse, and incitement to hatred among others. The NUS no-platforming policy attempts to take this further, blocking speakers deemed racist, sexist, xenophobic, and more. This not only contradicts the concept of free speech, but also contradicts current laws, particularly the Education Act 1986, Section 43 of which guarantees the freedom to express your beliefs in universities.

We must be free to challenge controversial and illogical ideas within a space of academic rigour and intellectual honesty; suppressing views we deem toxic or harmful does not eradicate them, it merely confines them to the shadows where they can grow in potency and popularity. Whilst no-platforming may have genuine benefits in situations where the speaker advocates illegal activities such as violence or active discrimination against minorities, we must not use the power as a method to tactically remove any and all speakers who refuse to toe the line.