Sunday, 31 August 2025
Reading List: August.
Thursday, 21 August 2025
Sorry, Baby
In an interview with the Guardian, director and actor Eva Victor described the effect of trauma on life this way: “it’s like a stone gets shoved into the river of your life. There’s a lot of pain in trying to remove it and you can’t. […] You just have to find a way for the water to move around it. It’s so unfair that someone threw a stone into your life. It’s hard to wrap your head around any of it.” It’s a powerful image to describe the before and after when a caesura occurs. It makes the decision to follow Agnes through a few years of her life in a non-chronological way more powerful. A kind stranger she meets at a horrible moment, when she has a panic attack in her car following a revelation about a friend and enemy, tells her that three years are a long time but also not that much time. She talks about how being immersed in the memory of her rape is horrible, but sometimes it’s even more awful to find herself not thinking about it at all. Maybe these years unfold like memories, which people don’t access chronologically but randomly. Healing from trauma is not a straight line, a clear process with constant improvements.
The film begins with a visit from Agnes’ best friend Lydie (Naomi Ackie). Their closeness and intimacy shines through every scene they share. This is before the viewer knows much about either of these characters, and so much is communicated just through how they are around each other. There is quiet concern from Lydie about Agnes’ well-being, a question about how much she leaves the house. There is specifically horror about her now having an office at the University, where she is a full-time lecturer, that was previously occupied by someone who has done her harm.
A time jump returns us to before: Agnes and Lydie are working on their dissertations. Their advisor is Preston (Louis Cancelmi). He obviously favours Agnes over the other students and is over-complementary about her writing. She may have a crush on him. One day, he invites her over to his house. We don’t follow her into the house – we see her walk in, and then, after a period of time, leave in a rush, clearly distressed. She gets into her car and drives home to Lydie, where she haltingly talks about what happened.
What struck me about that distressed retelling of the rape, the individual and escalating steps of not accepting her refusals and seeing her as a person with agency over her body, is how difficult she finds it to make it into a coherent narrative: it’s filled with questions, with doubts. Lydie throughout is supportive and gentle. She doesn’t push or judge. It stands in contrast to what happens when they go to a doctor the next day and experience the horror that awaits rape survivors after the worst thing has happened. The doctor is pushy, aggressive in his questioning, abrupt. Calling it poor bedside manners doesn’t begin to describe how horrible the experience is, or how much worse it may have been if she didn’t have an advocate by her side who calls the doctor out for his clear inability to approach the situation appropriately. A similar thing happens later, when the panicked University administration tells Agnes that there is nothing they can do because Preston has resigned before she brought her accusation. There will be no accountability. The two women tell her that they understand what she is going through because “we are women”. It’s such an unbelievable statement after they’ve told her they will do nothing that Agnes has to ask them to repeat it before it sinks in.
In another scene from her life, Agnes is called up for jury duty and finds herself asked to recount having once been the victim of a crime when a lawyer asks her if that experience would impede her ability to be a juror. It’s a reminder of how surprisingly these moments of being pulled back into her worst memory can pop up, and she refuses to share what happened with these strangers because they have no right to her story. It’s also, in the broader sense, a judgement on the narrowness of procedures can never encompass the totality of the very personal experience, not unlike the way in which the narrowness of the gender categories on the form she has to fill in force her to pencil in a third option. “I don't want him to go to jail. I want him to stop being someone who does that. And if he went to jail, he'd just be someone who does that, who's now in jail.” she explains, before she’s excused.
Along with these deeply unpleasant encounters that showcase how difficult it is to find any kind of accountability or justice the film portrays some moments that are almost magical in nature. She finds a stray kitten just when she needs it, and it allows her to pick it up and adopt it on the spot. A neighbour the house over is haplessly lovely (one of the funniest scenes of the film is when she asks to borrow some lighter fluid, clearly intending to use it for something other than a barbecue) and becomes a companion when Lydie moves away. The film isn’t saccharine enough to promise instant healing, and even these moments of grace come with the realistic portrayal or pet ownership (the kitten brutally mauls a mouse that Agnes has to mercy-kill) and the possible mismatches of romantic relationships (Gavin in essence tells her that she will one day want children as a fact, having no idea how far off that kind of long-time planning is for Agnes at the moment).
The film provides such an interesting balance of comforting companionship (the kitten, Lydie, the kind stranger) and the human equivalent of irritating barbs – the only way I can describe the great Kelly McCormack’s (Killjoys, A League of Their Own) character Natasha is as a weaponised version of Anya in Buffy, a person unhindered by any traditional concepts of manners and politeness. Natasha is deeply jealous of everything that Agnes has and treats her like her worst enemy, and there is nothing that Agnes can do to change the fact. Natasha is terrible at a dinner party, and appears to regularly peek into her classroom furiously, resenting that she has attained the highly competitive full-time position. Finally, Natasha grudgingly accepts that Agnes may have, from her perspective, everything, including being likeable, but that she has so far not managed to win her over. Agnes has suffered a terrible trauma, but it’s almost like the presence of the constant, completely irrational irritation of Natasha is a reminder that life continues irrespectively.
One of my favourite moments in the film follows Agnes into her classroom, where she teaches contemporary literature. It’s clear that she deserves the position but there is a heartbreaking moment where the University tells her she received recommendations from former teachers, one of which echoed what Preston said about her dissertation – extraordinary. It’s an irrefutable reminder of how entangled the rape is with her current career, but then, in the classroom, the film captures how good she is at her job, how confident with the students and the material when they are reading, of all things, Nabokov’s Lolita, and she explains to them the conflict between the beauty of form and the horrors of the content.
The most moving moments of the film lie in Lydie’s concern for Agnes’ well-being, the precarious balance between her own life moving on excitingly – embracing her queerness, marrying her partner, having a baby – and returning to Agnes, who still lives in the same house and now occupies the office where her rapist once worked, and teaches in his former classrooms. Lydie recognises Agnes’ continued suffering – at one point she pleads with her not to die, and I think she means it literally and in terms of not making her life smaller and smaller. In the final scenes of the movie Lydie visits again, this time with her partner and baby, and Agnes looks after the baby while they go on a walk on their own. She has a moment where she talks to the baby about the future, about wanting to be the kind of person that she can talk to about everything, especially the scary things, without judgement or fear.
This is a beautiful debut film from Eva Victor, and one of the best films this year.
2025, directed by Eva Victor, starring Eva Victor, Naomi Ackie, Kelly McCormack, Lucas Hedges, Louis Cancelmi, Hettienne Park.
Monday, 18 August 2025
random mixtape - i'll steal your axe.
heavens to betsy | axemen. lois | wet eyes. torres | strange hellos. lucy dacus | big deal. clipping. |dominator. aminé feat. waxahatchee | history. kate tempest | i stand on the line. blonde redhead feat. brooklyn youth chorus | before (choir version).
Friday, 8 August 2025
28 Years Later
When I think about Danny Boyle’s original 28 Days Later, which came out in 2002, I think of it as a film released at a moment in time that now feels like the beginning of a historical arc. The emptied-out streets of London, the feeling of a man who had fallen into a coma in one world to wake up in a completely different one, resonates with the radical change in world politics after 9/11. In the world of the film, only 28 days have passed, but in that period, civilisation has broken down. The most shocking part of the film isn’t the zombies, but the soldiers who have been promised by their leader that civilisation will be restored through the violent acquisition of women – “I promised them women” is the ultimate statement to showcase that it matters how we survive, not just if. The least believable thing about it now is that this pandemic of the rage virus was contained to the UK, that a global quarantine on the island has limited the spread, so that history there has stopped while it continued elsewhere. In that sense, it’s hard not to take 28 Years Later as a film that chronicles the intervening years in our actual timeline as well.
It begins on day zero, with a scene that only makes sense of the end, with a young boy experiencing the initial outbreak of the plague: his whole family is slaughtered, and his father, a priest, welcomes it as if it is the fulfilment of something he has read in the Bible. As the violent herd consumes him, he is exulted, but his son escapes only to return at the end of the film as Spike’s saviour. I am guessing we will find out much more about this in the future films planned, and for now Jimmy’s identity and the community he has built with others is an enigma (all also named Jimmy, all copying the looks of Jimmy Savile, media personality and paedophile, but only revealed in 2012, years after the apocalypse of the film happened), so that whatever answers we gleam from it are speculation and interpretation. This second option of a chosen community the film presents is, from what we’ve seen so far, in contrast with the island’s, which is modelled on an (imaginary) ethnically homogeneous England of the 1950s. The men on the island fight with bows and arrows, like the historical film clips the film uses throughout the beginning – inspired by an imagined heroic past - whereas this group uses martial arts to fight zombies, conscious of individual flair. They wear tracksuits and jewellery, graffiti the walls where they have been, deliberately mimicking something that would have been seen as a cultural threat. Jimmy himself has inverted the cross that his father has given him. At the very least, there are two very different imaginations of England at play here, both boiled down to the essential core of caricature and performance.
The film takes place in a very limited geographic space. There’s Holy Island in Northumbria, a small island off the coast that is only connected with a narrow land bridge to the mainland in low tide. In terms of defensibility, it feels like an ideal spot for the community of survivors that have made a home there, but the striking thing about it is that it doesn’t look like a place that got stuck in 2002: instead, it’s as if the short journey across the water entails time travel to the 1950s, to an England of the distant past. The ethnically homogeneous group (it works as a weird echo to the opening scene with Jimmy’s many siblings, past and present, all incredibly blonde) gathers in a hall that features a portrait of Queen Elizabeth in the earliest years of her reign, and the more we see of their rituals, the eerier they become. There are odd, folkish masks, hinting at a newly emerged religion that isn’t further explained. There are alcohol-fuelled parties that are filmed in a way that makes the participants look and sound like a horde not unlike the zombies on the mainland. It creates a sense of threat and insecurity, a sense of alienation that feels as if much more than only 28 years have passed, or as if time has passed the wrong way, like the apocalypse and the loss of technology has reverted the community back to an earlier stage in English history. It isn’t a radically new idea that one of the results of a (zombie) apocalypse could lead to the emergence of new cults, but what makes this one so scary is that the viewer has to extrapolate so much from very little information, and that imagination has to fill the holes because Boyle isn’t interested in giving us an anthropological tour. Instead, along with the camera, we’re right in the middle of it with Spike (Alfie Williams), our 12-year-old protagonist, who has never known a different world than this one.
Spike is about to undergo what feels like it is a ritual in this community: he will cross the bridge to the mainland to “get his first kill” with his father. He is only twelve, but has been taught how to use a bow-and-arrow for this purpose, has been drilled in military manoeuvre. The existence of this ritual reveals much about what kind of society this is exactly, because it appears to have no greater purpose behind it except to prove that he is becoming a man: Spike’s father, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson, unrecognisable under a beard), gives him a tour of the great land beyond in which, unimaginably, you can walk so far that you stop seeing the sea, and the only hint that this land has any meaning to the people of the island at all is an area where all the trees have been cut for fuel (an image that is powerful in and of itself, as if the only purpose of this land is the extract resources in a manner that resembles past destruction of woodlands). The kill serves no purpose but to bloody Spike: they target what looks like a family of slow zombies who are grazing for worms in the soil, as far from the horrifying aggression and pace of the original threats of the first film as could be. They are not aggressive, they only fight back when targeted, their appearance is a reminder of the old zombie-film conundrum about how far removed something has to be from human before it can be identified as a monster and be regarded as something that can be killed without moral implications. The ritual is meant for Spike to prove that he is part of the community, but instead this whole journey functions for him as an awakening of sorts to reality: the first kill doesn’t feel heroic at all, and what follows is a very narrow escape from death that opens the question of why his own father should have pushed him to go in the first place, if it is so easy to die out there against the overwhelming odds of swarming zombies and the newly emerged, much smarter Alphas. He also spots a fire in the distance, proof of other human life out there, that Jamie is unwilling to explain to him.
Spike is in essence a character raised by a cult, limited in his knowledge about the world by an insular community. His mother (a great Jodie Comer) is suffering from a mysterious disease (mysterious, because none of the characters who were once alive in a whole different world are willing to explain it to him) that leaves her hallucinating, in agonising pain, unstuck in time. His father eventually does tell him that the fire he saw was the home of a doctor who lives on the mainland – there are, for some reason, only 28 years later, no doctors left in this community, and so this man becomes for Spike a final hope to save his mother, especially after he loses all trust in his father when he watches him have sex with another woman. It feeds into Spike’s suspicion that Jamie has limited care about what happens to Isla, that he is already planning for a life without her, especially after he finds out that there is a potential cure out there, so tantalisingly close. Instead of seeking out this help for his wife, Jamie is following the community’s taboo about Dr Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), who was once observed from a distance doing something inexplicable and therefore horrible with the bodies of the dead.
Alienated from his father, or thrown into a position of having to question everything he has taken for granted, Spike sets out with Isla to see Dr Kelson and find a cure. Spike’s transformation as portrayed in the film is powerful: he returns to celebrations of his bravery that his father plays into, telling the great story of their heroism, but it is at odds what he experienced out there. It feels like a lie, and that lie translates into questions about the community itself (I would ask why there has been no previous attempt to connect to the last remaining medical doctor, who would surely be essential for a community to have, why technology has disappeared so utterly and completely, what exactly the education and culture of this island is like, what exactly has been replaced by the hinted at folk religion). This second journey is radically different from the first, because now Spike is travelling with a woman who regularly falls out of time: seeing the Angel of the North reminds her of the past, of seeing the statue with her father, and she thinks about permanence and history, about the impossibility of nailing down time now that everything else is impermanent except what is in front of her. She mistakes Spike for her father. She is sometimes lucid, at one point lucid enough to save her son’s life, but as a character she feels like a personification of a story where time and memory (or history, as remembered and written by humans) are slippery. They meet a young Swedish soldier who has become stranded after his quarantine patrol ship has sunk off the coast and with his stories about the internet (and plastic surgery) he might as well be a mystical creature, a time-traveller from the future who only becomes truly real when he dies gruesomely at the hands of an Alpha. Before that, they all witness the birth of a human child from a zombie mother, an incredible reminder that zombies were once us. The baby, now named Isla after his mother, will be returned to the island, but Spike will never go back.
When Isla and Spike find Dr Kelson, the film flips again. Other critics have compared this journey to a search for the Holy Grail – Spike is trying to find a cure for his mother, and the Holy Grail promises healing powers and eternal youth. I was reminded of Hesse’s Narcissus und Goldmund, a tale about the search for meaning through a landscape ravaged by the plague, and how it tackles the importance of art and love even in times of great destruction.
What they find, once they enter Kelson’s domain, is almost overwhelming in scale and ambition, and one of the most memorable images I’ve seen committed to film in a long time. Kelson’s life-defining project of Memento Mori (an idea that emerged alongside the Black Death) is a monument to humanity as much as it is a reminder of death. He has taken the bodies of the dead – human and zombie alike – and boiled them down into bones, to create towering structures with them, built an awesome (in the original sense of the word) ossuary, by himself, driven only by the intention of remembrance. Each of the skulls once contained the thoughts of a person. Each one stands for an entire life lived. Most importantly, human and zombies look exactly the same once reduced to bones, which is a powerful statement to make in a film where zombies are killed – not just for survival, but also for ritual, as we’ve just witnessed – without hesitation, as if they were prey animals rather than like they once were human. The distinction falls away: there is barely any of the other great caveat of zombie movies here, where frequently characters must kill zombies who were once people they knew and loved. Kelson’s intent is to remember both equally, because both are part of humanity, and pretending otherwise dehumanises not just the zombies but also the remaining humans. Kelson, 28 years later, lives alongside zombies, has accepted them as an unavoidable reality, and he is grieving the dead through these burial rites, without even the comfort of a single other person ever having asked him about his project – until Alfie and Isla come along. It made me think about the impossibility of reckoning with death at scale, the unbearable task of thinking about the dead as individual lives when they are counted in casualty numbers, in war and natural disaster and plague. This is Kelson’s attempt to reckon with it, and therefore that of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland, the script writer. I can’t think of a more poignant image for this time.
Kelson can’t save Isla. He diagnoses her with the brain cancer that both we as the viewers and she herself as a person who was alive before the end of the world have already guessed as a diagnosis. He can save her in the sense of remembering her death, giving her meaning, immortalising her. Spike leaves her skull at the top of the tower, facing the sun. Kelson leaves him with Memento Amoris – remember you must love.
2025, directed by Danny Boyle, starring Alfie Williams, Jodie Comer, Ralph Fiennes, Aaron Taylor-Johnson.
Wednesday, 6 August 2025
“One has to take sides, if one is to remain human.”
“I can't believe in anything bigger than a home, or anything vaguer than a human being.”
I hadn’t read Graham Greene before. My only connection to his works was his script for The Third Man, set in post-WW2 Vienna, a work that in my mind has always been part of a trilogy of sorts about the place I grew up in in that captures the city as it was when my parents were born. I’ve walked through the city sewers on a tour, backlit by a projection of the shadow play from Carol Reed’s film. I think that it captures an essence of the place in a way that it can only be seen by someone who is an observant visitor, who picks up on a background vibration better than those who marinate in it every day, while at the same time remaining at enough of a remove that the actual people remain, to an extent, unknowable.
I think this is also true of both The Quiet American, published in 1955, a year after Vietnam gained independence from France, and Our Man in Havana, which came out the year before the Batista regime was overthrown by Fidel Castro. In the text of the first, Greene’s main character Fowler acknowledges that “one never knows another human being” when considering the inner life of his lover Phuong, a young Vietnamese woman whom he cannot marry because his Catholic wife won’t grant him a divorce: limited to his perspective, Phuong remains a cypher throughout the book, and Fowler’s admission is perhaps Greene’s own about his inability to inhabit her or imagine her thoughts. After publishing Our Man in Havana, Greene admitted that in writing a book about the absurdities of the British Secret Service, he had “minimized the terror of Batista's rule” – both books are about and by a white man and his blind spots, and yet they are also both eerily prescient about the future.
These two books have a lot in common in spite of the fact that they are tonally radically different. Our Man in Havana is a satire about the workings of the British Secret Service. Its main protagonist is a vacuum cleaner salesman named Wormold (played in the 1959 film adaptation by Alec Guinness, who wanted to make him more blundering but was told to just play him straight – not to act, but to be), a British expatriate in Havana who was left by his wife and has a a teenage daughter. His love and care for his daughter – who goes on elaborate shopping trips, her latest resulting in the purchase of a horse – is the reason for why he does what he does. One day, a mysterious man (played by legendary stage actor Noël Coward) recruits him to be a spy. After conversing with his good friend, a German doctor (who is, in very interesting ways, the moral centre of the story), he decides to simply feed his handler lies – about other spies he’s recruited, about secret weapon plans based on his newest vacuum model, with the money he is supposedly spending on his network going straight into his daughter’s horse (and future education at a Swiss private school). Instead of presenting this as pure opportunism, Hasselbacher (the doctor) suggests this is the moral option: by lying, he is doing the least amount of damage to actual people. It works out perfectly because the Secret Service is unbelievably gullible and eager to believe that their “man in Havana” is proving himself useful beyond expectation, until it works out too well, when his fake sub-spies turn up dead and Wormold’s own life becomes threatened. There’s a turning point to both Wormold as a character and the tone of the story when Hasselbacher is murdered: it’s a moment of radicalisation, when Wormold realises that his own actions have resulted in the death of his best friend, that much more is at stake then he knew. The film and book also provide a romantic foil: the Secret Service sends him a trained secretary, Beatrice (Maureen O’Hara), who is meant to professionalise his operation but is obviously also constantly on the verge of realising that it is all a sham. There isn’t much connection to actual history in this story: it is, as Greene says, mainly about the absurdity of spycraft, not about the particular place. The only real connection to Cuba is the presence of an infamous police officer, called the Red Vulture, who is rumoured to be a torturer and is carrying what might or might not be a walled made of human skin (it’s confirmed to be so in the book: made from the skin of a police officer who tortured his father, the film, perhaps less willing to shock its audience, leaves this detail out). One of the most chilling monologues of the film belongs to Captain Segura when he explains the concept of “torturable classes”, which works to both explain the reality of the place that Wormold has called his home for so long and yet marks him as an outsider to it, who lives cushioned by his British passport. As high as the stakes are, Our Man in Havana remains a satire and Wormold a privileged character. Even when he takes his revenge on the killer of his friend, he returns safely to London, protected by Segura’s care for his daughter, and is awarded a teaching position in the Service and an OBE (the lowness of the honours considered punishment enough) even after his deceit is discovered, to cover up the blunder of these suited and uniformed men when they believed his tall tales.
In contrast, The Quiet American is specifically a story about Vietnam, with a much more relevant and local sense of history. It feels like a story with more urgency than Our Man in Havana. Thomas Fowler (I watched the 2002 film, not the 1958 one with “input from the CIA”, because it is truer to the book – Fowler is played by Michael Caine), a reporter from London, has lived in Saigon for a considerable amount of time. He has acquired a local lover, Phuong, whom he depends on, an opium habit, he seems to have more or less stopped doing his work, as he has only submitted a limited amount of stories to the newspaper that employs him. He states, when he makes the acquaintance of a young and idealistic American Pyle (Brendan Fraser), that he is a reporter, not a correspondent: he takes no sides, and even having an opinion would be picking a side. His decision to remain at a remove from everything that happens is a deliberate one, and it echoes in an interesting way what Beatrice from Our Man in Havana says (only in the book, not in the film: that she can only believe in a home and in a human being). The political situation is escalating around him, but Fowler has no opinion on it, he only lives his languid life. Meeting Pyle changes that in various ways. Pyle takes an interest in Phuong and becomes his rival, because as an unmarried and well-situated American, he can offer her more than Fowler can (a fact that her opportunistic sister picks up on very quickly). Pyle also indirectly gives him a new passion for his work. Since London wants to recall him, he has to prove his usefulness, and so he begins chasing a story about a newly emerging force in Vietnam. He finds a massacre in the North that he figures out wasn’t committed by the communists, as the French attempt to claim, and realises that mysterious Americans, including Pyle, are attempting to build a “third force” under the command of a general, to counteract both the French and Ho Chi Minh. The story is built to create pressure on Fowler’s claim to uninvolved objectivity, and it puts in question the morality of Pyle’s opposite obsession about involving himself in a country that he only has the vaguest idea about, based on the ideological writings of a political scientist he admires (Fowler says about Pyle: “I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.” and that he is “impregnably armored by his good intentions and his ignorance”). Initially, he doesn’t take Pyle seriously because he comes across as naïve, both about Vietnam and about Phuong, who acts as a symbolic representation of the country (both in the book and to Pyle himself). Then things escalate and Fowler realises that Pyle is a lot more serious than he realised: he is involved in a false flag massacre against civilians, bombs in a heavily trafficked intersection. Even covered in the blood of the people he’s helped murder; he doesn’t realise that his obsession about deciding the political future of Vietnam is wrong. As in Our Man in Havana, it’s a turning point for Fowler, it rips him out of his inaction. He takes a side to remain human, and helps kill Pyle, which will not change anything in the long run. It’s as if Greene sees the writing on the wall about American involvement in Vietnam long before it happens – and it feels almost ironic that this second film adaptation was released in 2002. Greene presents an open-eyed portrait of the human consequences when ideology overrides concern about actual lives, but also, in both stories, captures a moment where characters that were previously eager to remain uninvolved and distant find moral reason to act.
The Quiet American (2002), directed by Phillip Noyce, starring Michael Caine, Brendan Fraser, Do Thi Hai Yen, Rade Serbedzija, Tzi Ma.
Our Man in Havana (1959), directed by Carol Reed, starring Alec Guinness, Burl Ives, Maureen O'Hara, Ernie Kovacs, Noël Coward.


.mkv_snapshot_01.35.57_%5B2025.08.07_10.55.33%5D.jpg)
