Student Life
What I learned from Tracey Emin about regeneration
CW: Abortion
I left the Tate Modern’s latest headline show, Tracey Emin: A Second Life, feeling unmoved by the artworks. I found the paintings somewhat derivative and the neon signs plain tacky, and lots of the text featured on her artworks struck me as faux-poetic and edgy. That is not to say I got nothing out of this exhibition: what moved me was not so much the individual works as the force of the exhibition as a whole – its conception and emotional reach – and I left with a far stronger respect for Tracey Emin than when I entered.
The first thing that struck me about Tracey Emin: A Second Life was how busy it was. The first room was filled with a constant beeping of alarms, as the crowds of people had no choice but to stand too close to the artworks due to a lack of space. Half of the screen showing her film, Why I Never Became a Dancer, was obscured by the audience’s silhouettes. A queue wrapped around the sides of her installation, Exorcism of the Last Painting I Ever Made. It is no surprise that this exhibition is a hit – Tracey Emin is one of the most famous British artists of our time. But the fact that the visitors were predominantly women of all ages, all eagerly and closely engaging with the many, many artworks on display, is something to be noted. People have claimed to leave teary-eyed, having had a visceral reaction to Emin’s work – clearly, her works resonate deeply with her audience.
Such an emotive response feels particularly significant because Emin’s work has so often been discussed in terms of scandal, confession, and spectacle. Yet in the exhibition, this sensationalism falls away, and what remains is an artist who has spent decades refusing to disguise pain, humiliation, desire, grief, and shame. Even though the work did not move me aesthetically, I could still feel the force of that refusal. There is something powerful about watching a woman’s emotional life, once dismissed as messy or excessive, being treated with tact and seriousness by an institution like Tate Modern, and by the crowds gathered inside it. For much of Emin’s career, that emotional exposure was treated as something embarrassing for its confessional and raw treatment of female experience. What feels different in A Second Life is that this abrasiveness is celebrated. In that sense, the exhibition measures a broader cultural shift in what kinds of feelings are acceptable as art. To see her work so positively received, then, is the culmination of a lifetime of scrutiny which came both from herself and from those around her.
The exhibition is clearly succeeding on its own terms. People are queuing up to see it, and, more importantly, responding to it with real emotional intensity. And it was precisely seeing Emin’s triumph which moved me, rather than the artworks themselves. If there is one thing clear from Emin’s work, it is that her life has been full of struggle, even after achieving fame as an artist. The centrepiece of the exhibition, the powerful film How it Feels, captures this well. In it, she discusses ‘how it feels’ to have an abortion in a sober, neutral, deeply moving way. She travels to the clinic at which the abortion happened, and discusses what went through her mind before, during, and following the procedure. It is the piece which stuck with me most, for the precise reason that Emin describes how her traumatic abortion changed her self-perception from a ‘failure’ of an artist, to a ‘failure’ of a human being. If there is one thing Tracey Emin is not, it is a ‘failure’.
It was, therefore, a strange feeling to see artworks so full of self-hatred become transformed into something victorious for Emin. She, who was once deemed the ‘enfant terrible’ of the Young British Artists, is now an inspiration, having achieved what any aspiring artist dreams of: a survey exhibition which is as vast and unfiltered as it is reverent and sincere. By the gift shop, there is a notebook where visitors can write about how the exhibition made them feel. The most recent entry stated: “Thank you Tracey, you’ve inspired me to finally start painting again”. A Second Life.
What this exhibition taught me is that what matters in Emin’s work is the permission it seems to give: to be ugly, exposed, excessive, wounded, honest – and to make something anyway. I did not leave the exhibition thinking Tracey Emin was my new favourite artist, but I left feeling proud of her, and grateful for the fact that an artist can remain difficult, even unappealing in places, and still resonate strongly with people. The exhibition is an example of what can happen when an artist survives long enough to outlive the versions of herself that others tried to fix in place. I left feeling that making art, and continuing to make it, can itself be a form of survival. That, more than any single work in the show, is what stayed with me.
On Thursday, the Oxford Union held a debate on the motion ‘This House Believes That Being British is a ‘Birthright’, Not a Choice’. Carl Benjamin, who had been scheduled to speak, was disinvited from the event shortly before it took place.
In a video posted on YouTube an hour after the debate was due to start, Benjamin said he had received an email “this [Thursday] morning” informing him that his invitation had been rescinded. A screenshot of the email, shown in the video, states that the decision followed concerns raised by a “partner organisation” to the Oxford Union regarding what the email described as a “direct threat of sexual violence against a woman in public office”. The email added that, while the Union is committed to free speech, “the right to free speech does not and has never extended to threatening sexual violence against others”.
In the video, Benjamin disputed this characterisation, stating that he had “never made a direct threat of sexual violence against anyone” and describing the allegations as “a lie”. He added that he did not consider the issue to be one of free speech, saying the Union “can invite or disinvite whoever they like” but that “they’ve made these allegations against me, which would consist of a crime, in order, I guess, to just blacken my name”.
Benjamin, who had been scheduled to speak for the proposition alongside Eric Kaufmann, had faced opposition from student groups in the lead-up to the debate. In a joint statement issued on Wednesday, It Happens Here Oxford and Oxford Feminist Society said they “firmly uphold the principles of freedom of speech” but expressed “strong reservations” about Benjamin’s invitation. The groups cited his past comments about sexual violence, including multiple remarks directed at Labour MP Jess Philips, as well as allegations of harassment of women online. They also raised concerns about previous racist, homophobic, and antisemitic remarks attributed to him. The statement argued that his presence would not be “conducive to the safety of Oxford students”, particularly women, LGBTQ+ students, and ethnic minorities, and called for the invitation to be withdrawn.
Despite the late change to the speakers, the debate proceeded with political scientist and author Professor Eric Kaufmann; and two student speakers. They were opposed by Sir Vince Cable, former leader of the Liberal Democrats; Albie Amankona, broadcaster and co-founder of Conservatives Against Racism for Equality; Sangita Mysa, journalist and radio presenter; and Chief of Staff at the Oxford Union, Charlotte Wild.
This follows a series of similar controversies, including the cancellation of an event hosting Namal Rajapaksa last term after backlash, as well as criticism over invitations to Kevin Spacey and Dizzee Rascal last year.
The Oxford Union has been approached for comment.
Additional reporting by Barnaby Carter, Ned Remington, and Hattie Simpson.
The Oxfordshire Patriots held a demonstration last Saturday in the city centre outside the Oxfordshire County Council offices. They were met by counter-protestors from Oxford Stand Up To Racism (OSUTR).
Speaking to Cherwell, Oxfordshire Patriots organiser Aiden Noble referred to the revelation in January that the County Council had spent £15,500 on removing illegally displayed Union Jack flags as a reason for the demonstration. He called on the Council to “work with us [those displaying flags]. Reach some compromise and allow us to at least fly our flag somewhere”.
The demonstration began at around 11am, with the last counter-protestors leaving at around 1.15pm and the Oxfordshire Patriots leaving soon after. The protestors stood on New Road facing the Council offices, with counter-protestors appearing on the other side. A couple of counter-protestors could be seen crossing the road to talk to individuals near the right-wing demonstration. Around seven police officers were on the scene, accompanied by two police vans.
Asked by Cherwell if they had had any interactions with members of the Oxfordshire Patriots, the OUSTR organiser said they “don’t debate with fascists”. In a comment to Cherwell after the demonstration, OUSTR told us they “do not accept fascism has a place in mainstream debate…history has shown that fascism has to be stopped at the earliest time”.
The organiser for Stand Up to Racism described the Oxfordshire Patriots as following “Tommy Robinson’s line most of the time”, referring to far-right anti-Islam activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, who co-founded the English Defence League under the name Tommy Robinson. The organiser linked the Oxfordshire Patriots to Yaxley-Lennon’s ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march in London in September 2025. In a comment after the protest, the Oxfordshire Patriots to Cherwell: “We do not work with any big-name organisations…we are an independent group with our own voice. While there may be others who share similar values and opinions, that does not mean we are affiliated or working together.”
Mr Noble accused those counterprotesting of “painting everyone with the same brush”. Referencing a post by an anti-fascist Instagram account, Oxford Resists, accusing Oxfordshire Patriots of working with neo-Nazis, Noble told Cherwell: “Everyone’s entitled to free speech, whatever you believe. I don’t believe Nazis seem very good, however, some of our views are the same…I don’t agree with everything they say.” Following the protest, the Oxfordshire Patriots told Cherwell: “We do not support harm towards anyone.”
Asked about a Reform UK logo displayed at the protest, Aiden Noble told Cherwell that whilst he personally supported Restore Britain, a party recently set up by former Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, Rupert Lowe, “the realistic option is Reform.” He added: “I don’t think [Nigel] Farage has got it in him if you want my God-honest truth, but it’s our only realistic option for the moment.” The OSUTR organiser said he was “not surprised” to see the logo, and said “Reform enables these people – the rhetoric of Reform”, even if the party “don’t want them” to join as party members. Reform UK Oxfordshire were contacted for comment.
Multiple Union Jack flags were also displayed by Oxfordshire Patriots, with Noble describing them as a symbol of “pride” and “unity” and urging the council to spend the money used for removing flags on tackling homelessness or repairing roads. However, speaking to Cherwell, an organiser for Stand Up to Racism claimed their movement was “nothing to do with flags” and was instead a “racist street movement where they can intimidate people”.
OUSTR recently organised a petition calling for those illegally displaying flags to be ordered to pay the cost of their replacement, which received almost 500 signatures. Their call was echoed by Liberal Democrat MP for Didcot and Wantage, Olly Glover, who said this weekend that “the cost of removing flags, or anything else, attached to public property without permission, should be paid by those responsible for putting them up – not the taxpayer”.
The demonstration followed a similar protest and counter-protest on Bonn Square a week earlier.
CW: Gun violence.
“What’s the worst thing you’ve ever done?” is the driving question of Kristoffer Borgli’s The Drama. The film centres around a couple whose otherwise perfect relationship is abruptly destabilised by the revelation of a shocking piece of information, mere days before their wedding. Simultaneously thoroughly thought-provoking, highly tense, and remarkably funny, it deals with issues of judgment and redemption, and has consequently fostered substantial debate and discussion.
It makes sense, then, that when I first heard about The Drama a few months ago, it was because my social media feed was suddenly flooded with discussion of the film’s ‘twist’, with people calling it shocking, controversial, and even problematic, although nowhere could I find exactly what this twist was. This mystery, aided by an innovative marketing campaign – most notably a wedding announcement in a real-life Boston newspaper – and the appeal of its A-list leads, had me curious and more than a little excited when I sat down to watch this film in my local cinema.
With the film labelled a romantic comedy, the opening scene certainly lives up to that. An awkward yet endearing meet-cute at a coffee shop sees Charlie (Robert Pattinson) approach Emma (Zendaya), pretending to have read the book she is engrossed in. He becomes increasingly more embarrassed as she appears to resolutely ignore him, but as it happens, she simply can’t hear him, being deaf in one ear and listening to music in the other. Once he succeeds in getting her attention, sparks begin to fly, and we’re presented with a short montage detailing the next stages of their love story. In these first few scenes, the film does an excellent job of getting you to connect with these characters in such a short space of time. You know you want to root for Charlie and Emma; yet at only the 15-minute mark, you do wonder where the story is taking them next. Where does the titular ‘drama’ come into this picture of expected marital happiness?
This is where the promised ‘twist’ comes in. Charlie and Emma are taste-testing wines while deciding on a wedding menu with their best man and maid of honour, when the four of them take it in turns to confess the worst thing they’ve ever done. The first three answers are a little disquieting, but none prompt any real moral outrage from the other characters. Finally, Emma confesses that, as a teenager, she planned and intended to carry out a school shooting. What’s more, her partial deafness stems not from birth, as she had previously claimed, but from holding a rifle too close to her ear when practising with it. The bulk of the film deals with the fallout, and indeed the drama, of this confession, finally exploding in a chaotic and messy wedding that perfectly demonstrates the aptness of the title.
For a film that grapples with morally complex ideas and centres around a particularly contentious topic, it may seem odd to point to comedy as one of its strengths. Nonetheless, what stood out most to me about The Drama was precisely its funny moments. The humour is most successful at its bleakest, one highlight being the exquisite dark comedy of an ebullient wedding photographer telling the couple – both clearly still reeling from the revelation – about the schedule for “shooting” photos. The line “shooting grandparents TBD” is hilarious in its absurdity. Likewise, the repeated anticlimax of a younger Emma trying to film a video manifesto with complete seriousness – not to mention decked out in all-black clothing and posing with her rifle – being persistently interrupted by mundane computer alerts makes for particularly comical, if also distinctly uncomfortable, viewing.
This is not to say that The Drama makes light of gun violence. Instead, it deals with relevant questions about morality in an intriguing and insightful way. It is a strikingly nuanced take on a familiar question: can people who have done bad things change? The decision to use a planned school shooting to interrogate this idea is interesting, since it is one of those acts that is often viewed in black-and-white terms. It is difficult to conceive of someone who has gone as far as to plan one out as a ‘good person’, no matter how much personal growth they have undergone since.
The film acknowledges the complexity of this issue, with Emma’s confession receiving much worse reactions than the others, despite the fact that she is the only one who has not actually carried out her ‘worst action’. Rachel (Alana Haim), for one, admits to locking a child with learning difficulties in a closet for at least a day. Regardless of which is actually morally worse, Emma’s planned act is viewed as inherently more appalling due to the greater significance school shootings have assumed, particularly in recent decades, within our moral landscape. Borgli further complicates the moral question by having Emma back out from her plan, not due to any virtuous change of heart, but simply because another shooting occurs before she can carry out her own. Her road-to-Damascus moment soon follows, yet we are given the impression that, if not for circumstances outside of her control, she would have done it, and we are forced to consider whether this is as bad as actually going through with it.
Above all, with Norwegian Borgli as director, The Drama offers a European perspective on what has come to be seen as a distinctly American problem. It is fundamental to the narrative that Charlie is English – having grown up in a country with strict gun laws, he struggles to understand Emma’s reasoning, attempting to rationalise her actions by blaming American society’s attitudes to guns, a perspective that I found myself readily able to sympathise with. At one point, Rachel scornfully asks him whether he thinks America is to blame for Emma’s planned shooting, and although he denies it, the answer the narrative gives is, at least in part, yes. This is hinted at later on in the film in a brief but unsettling moment, where Charlie off-handedly points out that there was a mass shooting the other day, simply to reassure Emma when she overhears two guests discussing shootings at the wedding. In just a few lines, Borgli is able to touch on a wider truth about American society – gun violence does occur nearly every day, to the point that it can be mentioned in such a casual manner. There is no overt pro-gun control argument in the film, and yet it makes a point of illustrating how gun violence is a problem that is not just individual but societal.
The Drama is a film defined by second chances. It opens with Emma giving Charlie the chance to re-introduce himself after a clumsy first attempt, and ends with both of them giving each other a second chance in a poignant scene reminiscent of the opening: they re-introduce themselves, signalling a fresh start, leaving both of their mistakes and wrongdoings firmly in the past. The questions raised about whether redemption is possible are answered staunchly in the affirmative by such an ending.
By no means a perfect film, The Drama is nonetheless a captivating watch that more than delivers on the promised drama, chaos, and mayhem throughout. It doesn’t always get the balance right – there are moments where the school shooting seems more a plot device than anything else – and yet its happy resolution makes a thought-provoking contribution to discussions around personal growth and morality.
The post In sickness, health, and wrongdoing: ‘The Drama’ in review appeared first on Cherwell.
-
Crime & Safety2 weeks agoBicester man denies sexually assaulting two young girls
-
Oxford News2 weeks agoBanbury cake company with 400 year history shut down
-
UK News2 weeks agoStarmer says it ‘beggars belief’ he wasn’t told about Mandelson vetting failure as he faces Commons – UK politics live | Politics
-
UK News1 week agoTV tonight: Shetland meets CSI in a new drama about a disgraced cop | Television
-
Crime & Safety3 weeks agoLorry overturns on Oxfordshire A43 roundabout with driver trapped
-
UK News2 weeks agoFears over rogue parking by sunrise-chasers at national park after overnight ban
-
Crime & Safety2 weeks ago‘A red kite stole my mother-in-law’s sausage rolls’
-
UK News4 weeks agoUkraine war briefing: Russian oil facilities burn as Zelenskyy tours Middle East | Ukraine