Latest News

Arts & Entertainment, Music

Banks speaks to all the senses at Le Metropolis

by Audrey Carleton on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

It didn’t take long for listeners to latch onto Jillian Banks, better known simply by her last name: Banks. Her sound is an amalgamation of pop and R&B with a spooky techno-alternative twist; her visuals are dark and laden with metaphors; her style is sleek, seductive, and minimalist. After releasing her first album, Goddess, in 2014, touring with The Weeknd, and collaborating on singles with a diverse range of artists including Chet Faker, Banks released her second album, The Altar, in October 2016. While Goddess read like a diary of hate poems to an abusive ex, The Altar beamed with the confidence of a grown woman newly in love with herself.

On the most recent stretch of The Altar tour, Banks made her way up the East Coast of North America, reaching Montreal on June 5. She was greeted by a buzzing crowd at Le Metropolis. Her opener, Toulouse, a techno-R&B singer-songwriter best known for his song, "No Running From Me", featured in the film Fifty Shades Darker, set the stage for her performance with a short, but soulful set of songs. His seductive dance moves and smooth voice was a fitting prelude to the hour of Banks that followed.  

The show was scattered with theatrics from beginning to end. When the lights dimmed to signal the start of her act, Banks waited to play a short recording of her stoically reciting a poem before emerging through grey smoke onto the stage. As the instrumental introduction to "Poltergeist" played, she stepped slowly and deliberately toward center stage, her body veiled by a black gauze sheath, followed by two dancers on either side of her stepping to the same beat. Her entrance was a reference to the name of her album and tour as it bore resemblance to a bride walking towards the altar—yet much darker in tone.

Her energy did not remain calm for long, however. When she began to sing, it was clear that the audience was in for a high-energy performance. Banks’ vocals were powerful and passionate, assisted by two microphones: One for amplification alone, and another for distorting her voice to sound low-pitched and ghoulish. The emotional range of her setlist was inspiring. Switching from self-love anthems like "Trainwreck" to rawer, more vulnerable hymns like "Waiting Game" reminded audience members of the journey Banks has taken throughout her musical career and her ability to recover after hardship.

[metaslider id=330853]

Though powerful, her setlist was noticeably missing some of her biggest hits over the years, including "Brain and”Goddess"—tunes off her first album that were ranked number one on Spotify for periods of time in 2014 and 2015. Also—and arguably more surprisingly—neglected from the show was her newest single, "Crowded Places," which currently ranks number one on Spotify, and was featured in the penultimate episode of HBO’s hit show Girls.

Despite the omission of some of her most popular songs, the audience remained engaged. Every number was met by a chorus of fans loyally reciting the lyrics. Perhaps the impassioned nature of the songs she chose, like "Drowning" and "Judas"—two of her angriest post-break-up songs—required their full energy. Or perhaps the silence Banks commanded while reciting a poem in sign language before taking the stage solo for "Mother Earth"  kept fans’ eyes glued to her every move. Whatever it was, Banks maintained a visibly engrossed audience—seldom breaking from dancing and singing along—throughout the entire show.

The dancers at Banks’ sides appeared on stage every other song for the duration of the show, each time wearing grey gauze in a different way. Jerking and contorting their bodies left and right, they mirrored Banks’ own movements, in a performance style that toed the line between creepy and seductive. This line is one that Banks—who often refers to herself fondly as "creepy"—treads often. Yet, there is something empowering about Banks’ ownership over her body. Her moves, at times provocative—squatting low at the edge of the stage, or holding the mic stand between her legs—were signs of her sexual bravado.

Though the ex-lovers she writes about may not have recognized her beauty and wit, the audience at Le Metropolis did. Complemented by dark, seductive visuals and dance, Banks’ performance was a stunning roller-coaster of emotions.

Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

The Lost City of Z – Review

by Ryan Canon on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

True historical epics have been lacking in recent years, as many of the latest film attempts have fallen flat (Ben Hur, King Arthur). Director James Gray’s breathtaking new film The Lost City of Z, however, proves that the genre still has much potential.  

The story, which spans more than 20 years, begins at the turn of the 19th century as we first meet Percival Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam), an ambitious young officer in the British military.  Despite his best efforts, Fawcett continues to be held back from achieving his potential due to a familial line that is viewed as unfavorable, causing his impressive achievements as a military officer to often go ignored. He then jumps at a chance to go on an expedition to the Amazon, hoping to increase his family’s standing, which proves far more consequential than he could have imagined. The story spans from the imposing jungles of the unexplored Amazon, to the English countryside, to the war torn battlefields of World War I and proves to both be epic and personal in its portrayal of its characters.

The film touts a stellar cast, from its main characters down to the minor roles. Hunnam, who rose to fame through the FX show Sons of Anarchy, gives the best performance of his career in a very nuanced yet dynamic role. Even more shocking is the performance by Robert Pattinson, who plays Fawcett’s right hand man—a drunk who is soft-spoken yet experienced and driven.  Sienna Miller, who plays Fawcett’s wife, is also fantastic in portraying how his spouse changes during the large swaths of time that he is absent, raising their children alone. Tom Holland, now famous for being the new Spiderman, gives a layered performance as Fawcett’s eldest son who both resents and respects his father for his absences, and has been forced to mature without him. Also noteworthy are some of the character actors who make appearances, particularly Ian McDiarmid, who in many ways is the closest thing that the film has to a true antagonist, playing the president of the Royal Geographical Society Sir George Goldie.

The cinematography stands out from the first shot of the movie. Director of Photography Darius Khondji, whose credits include Seven and Midnight in Paris, has pulled off an incredible feat with this film. Shooting in 35mm, gives a mixture of lush colors and film grain. He fills the screen with spectacular visuals. There is less of an emphasis on flashy camerawork and more reliance on stellar shot composition, highlighted by the opening shot of the film which also acts as the title sequence. The shots range from mysterious and enchanting, to haunting and disturbing. From images of lush jungle, to the dimly lit title sequence, to wide sweeping shots of battle, the camerawork is impressive. Much of the cinematography is evocative of Apocalypse Now.

The Lost City of Z is one of the best films of the year thus far. It manages to have moments that are breathtakingly epic, yet remain very personal and character driven. James Gray’s film does justice to its material in portraying the wonder of exploration, as well as the sacrifices made in the undertakings. The combination of great technical filmmaking, with its fantastic cinematography, and impressive performances from its cast comes together to make a special experience that should be seen on the big screen.

Off the Board, Opinion

Why it pays to slow down this summer

by Jackie Houston on

More in Off the Board:

Remember your elementary school summers? When school was out and the living was easy? Goodbye, long division–hello ice cream sandwiches, sleepover camp, and Saturday morning swimming lessons.

As an undergraduate student, summers are sort of like those swimming lessons. Except instead of learning to float on your back, someone just throws you into the deep end. Instead of water wings, you’re equipped with half a degree and a CV that’s more spin than substance.

It kind of makes you miss long division.

Make no mistake: On campus, the once innocuous, “What are your summer plans?” becomes code for, “What are your career and life prospects for the next three years or so?” Each May through August, students get their annual, bracing taste of post-graduation life and–if they play their cards right–a new LinkedIn profile update. It’s not nearly as fun as camp. But then, students don’t apply to 13 unpaid summer internships because it’s fun.

However, even if you have eight sparkling, degree-relevant references to show for it, something’s lost when students treat summers only as stepping stones to life after McGill. The urgent, ever-forward-looking way that undergraduates cram summers with extra credits, internships, and part-time jobs certainly amounts to an impressive resume, but it can also eclipse those experiences themselves.

I say this as an Arts student who, thus far, has viewed her summers as periods designated for ticking off Generically Successful Young Adult milestones. I’ve waitressed, I’ve taken summer courses and studied for my LSAT, I’ve worked for pay in a field not remotely pertaining to my career interests, and, this summer, I’m interning for free in a field that might be related to my career interests–check, check, check, check.

For better or for worse, summers are the spaces between working on a degree, wherein the resourceful student tries to figure out what exactly they’re going to do with said degree. That’s not a bad thing per se–to some extent it’s a necessity, if you want to be employed at some point down the line.

The problem is when students start seeing those spaces only as means to the end of post-graduation success–whatever that looks like. Four months may seem dispensable in the span of a year at McGill, but across four or five years, those Julys and Augusts add up. If you spend them only thinking about what comes next, you can miss a lot.

Last summer, while waitressing at a Mexican restaurant, I knew the difference between a tequila and a mezcal. My dad asked me about it the other night. I drew a blank. My knowledge of tequila has, understandably, been filed away with the likes of long division and whatever I learned in Intro to Deductive Logic in first year.

Like the staleness of realizing you’ve retained next to nothing from a course post-final exam, it was sad to think that the only thing I’d gained from those months waitressing was another reference on my CV. Because it wasn’t–I’d also met some wonderful people, learned how to properly wield a corkscrew, and eaten more burritos than ever before in my life. Yet, at the time, that all seemed secondary to the seemingly depressing fact that I was working at a Mexican restaurant the summer before my penultimate year at McGill. Who cared about the finer points of tequila, when real life was coming up?

It’s June now, around the time when I find myself most susceptible to fantasies of Montreal reunions and OAP afternoons–and the dread of applying to graduate shortly after. Meanwhile, my current internship becomes more time-killing and less self-starting.

This year, however, I propose a different approach: A reclaiming of summer, if you will. It doesn’t have to be just an exercise in goal-setting and chronic stress management. I accept that the days of blue raspberry-popsicle innocence are behind adults-in-training. The future matters–but so does the present. So, whether you’re making bagels every morning at 5 a.m., or trying on a nine-to-five workday, or just having a really, really good time, let’s go back to treating summers as worthwhile experiences in themselves.

As lackluster as serving margaritas may seem in the larger blueprint of What I’m Doing With My Life, it’s in the spaces between “what I’ve done” and “what’s next” where real life occurs. Those formative spaces are lost when students–or functioning adults, for that matter–only pay attention to the checkpoints.

Basketball, Point-Counterpoint, Sports

Point-Counterpoint: Is LaVar Ball helping or hurting his sons’ careers?

by Alec Regino & Wasif Husain on

More in Basketball:

LaVar Ball’s behaviour has compromised his sons’ basketball careers

Alec Regino

Lonzo Ball will probably be the Los Angeles Lakers’ first round pick in the 2017 NBA Draft, but his father, LaVar Ball, is the one dominating headlines. So far, LaVar has broken new ground in the game of sports parenting—single-handedly orchestrating the rise of sons Lonzo, LaMelo, and LiAngelo to basketball notoriety before any of them even go pro. The results of his dedication to creating a basketball family are unmistakable, with Lonzo projected to be an NBA superstar and his brothers set to follow the same path. However, LaVar’s unique rearing methods will only hinder his children’s careers as they progress.  

Want to hear a joke? Two men walk into a bar. One is the self-proclaimed Greatest of All Time in the sport of basketball, and the other is Michael Jordan. Here’s another one: What’s the difference between a two-time MVP and a 19year-old who has never played professional basketball? The two-time MVP only “made some shots at the right time.” LaVar Ball made both of these preposterous comparisons.

LaVar touts Lonzo as the “best player in the world.” Not LeBron James. Not Kawhi Leonard. Not Kevin Durant. Despite leading the UCLA Bruins to a disappointing early exit in the NCAA tournament in March and exactly zero NBA minutes to his name, Lonzo Ball has already risen to the top of the basketball world, according to his father. Naturally, such ridiculous claims will draw attention across the league.

Thanks to his father’s infamy across the basketball scene, many NBA players and their associates already want to see Lonzo collapse. James is reportedly not a fan. Durant openly mocked one of LaVar’s many zany comments. Shaquille O’Neal called out the Ball family for their absurdly expensive shoes.

All of this leads to the ever-growing target on Lonzo’s back—any player who faces him has a multitude of reasons to hate him. In the hyper-competitive NBA, Lonzo should gain respect from his superiors through his game and learn from what the actual best in the world have to offer. LaVar disagrees, however, and believes that his beloved child doesn’t need guidance or advice—even if it’s from Lakers legend Kobe Bryant.

This is the problem throughout the Ball saga: Lonzo’s voice—and more importantly, his play—is drowned out when LaVar opens his outrageous mouth. His constant presence in popular culture is an unnecessary distraction from Lonzo’s play. Shortly after the UCLA basketball season ended with a loss to the Kentucky Wildcats, LaVar threw Lonzo’s teammates under the bus.

“Realistically, you can’t win no championship with three white guys,” LaVar pronounced. “Because the foot speed is too slow.”

LaVar’s actions display a questionable pattern of placing blame on anyone besides himself and his family. If this behaviour follows into his children’s professional careers, there will be trouble: Considering how NBA veterans feel about LaVar from afar, Lonzo will have to overcome myriad team chemistry issues that his father creates. Like any rookie, Lonzo will also need time to develop and adjust to professional basketball, but that transition will prove much more difficult surrounded by negativity over LaVar’s antics.

Furthermore, the Ball family is risking a lot of money to pursue their dream of owning a shoe brand. None of the top shoe companies in Nike, Adidas, and Under Armour have any interest in signing Lonzo to any sort of endorsement deal. LaVar wants co-branding for his sons, an unprecedented request that could turn endorsers off from the Ball brothers. Only time will tell if these risks are worth it, but with only 263 pairs of Lonzo’s ZO2 Prime sold in the shoe’s first 24 hours on the market, LaVar’s strategy seems to have fallen flat.

LaVar Ball, with all of his controversial statements, unsavoury behavior, and $500 shoes, is hurting his sons’ careers. His loud mouth has created unnecessary disdain for his children. His business acumen—or lack thereof—is making his family miss out on millions of dollars. Ultimately, his unwillingness to take a backseat and let his sons’ gameplay do the talking will lead to their collective downfall. He is just too self-absorbed to see it.

 

LaVar Ball’s actions have benefitted his sons’ basketball careers

Wasif Husain

LaVar Ball is, undeniably, an outlandish and controversial figure. He once bragged that, in his prime, he could have beaten Michael Jordan one-on-one. He has asserted that his son Lonzo—who will only workout for the Lakers—is better than Steph Curry. Still, despite his ridiculous statements, all three of his sons are actually fantastic basketball players and he has played an essential part in laying the groundwork for their basketball careers.

He has been criticized for exploiting his children by using their fame in order to promote a brand. These criticisms are overblown; he can’t be faulted for using their exposure to make money and secure a stable financial future for his children. He has used this era of social media to establish a brand that benefits the entire family. Lonzo recently released his own shoe. Regardless of its price, that is an impressive feat in an industry dominated by Nike, Under Armour, and Adidas. The only group truly exploiting Lonzo is the NCAA, which makes billions from performances by unpaid players like him.

LaVar has caught flak for comments about his son’s teammates and coaching, but those statements have merely provided headlines. Lonzo’s coach at UCLA asserted that LaVar never entered the locker room or attended practices. He is not creating bad blood with coaches or teammates. In fact, both of LaVar’s younger sons have verbal commitments to play at UCLA, clearly indicating that the program is interested in a continued relationship with the family. For all of his statements to the media, it is ridiculous to believe that he would ever try to follow his sons into the locker room and live their lives for them.

LaVar completely backs each of his sons’ efforts to be great. He is invested in their lives because they are a reflection and recognition of his sacrifices—he’s spent considerable amounts of time and money coaching his sons and sending them through premier basketball tournaments. Although LiAngelo and LaMelo are several years away from signing professional contracts, LaVar’s efforts have clearly paid off with Lonzo soon to be a top NBA draft pick. Perhaps LaVar can be knocked for his brash behaviour in the public eye, but it’s clear that his inexhaustible dedication has allowed his sons to recognize their potential.

Despite LaVar’s great investment in his children, he exerts no pressure on them. He has said that sports are just entertainment and that at the end of the day, the only burden on his kids comes from their own expectations. He has been remarkably supportive of each of the Ball brothers’ basketball careers and should be respected for standing behind his children’s dreams.

He may be brash, unconventional, and  exasperating, but LaVar hasn’t negatively affected any of his sons’ playing styles or abilities. Lonzo is regularly praised for selfless play and will likely be the second pick in the 2017 NBA Draft by the Los Angeles Lakers. LiAngelo is committed to UCLA, and LaMelo will join him once he’s done dominating the California high school league. All three of his children are poised to become successful pro basketball players and it’s due—in part—to LaVar’s parenting.  

Much can be said about LaVar Ball, but it would be wrong to say that he has hurt his sons’ careers. He may be outlandish—and a fantastic source of entertaining sound bites—but ultimately, he is just one dad in a long line of outspoken sporting fathers. His sons can clearly tolerate his antics enough to follow through with his master plan. They will certainly have an abundance of pundits and fans to tear apart their game, but LaVar will always continue to advocate for them. Like any adoring dad, he’s simply supporting and believing in his children unconditionally.

 

Editor’s pick: LaVar Ball’s actions have benefitted his sons’ basketball careers

LaVar’s antics have certainly enticed the ravenous basketball community, but he has not seriously harmed Lonzo, LaMelo, or LiAngelo’s career prospects. Ultimately, he played a big role in raising three talented athletes, and the positive impact of his presence far outweighs the negative attention he draws to his family.

Hockey, Sports

NHL Expansion Draft Preview

by Tanveer Ahmed on

More in Hockey:

The 2017 NHL Expansion Draft, taking place June 18-20, will mark the addition of a 31st team to the National Hockey League: The newly-minted Las Vegas Golden Knights. The NHL has drafted a set of rules that aim to create a competitive, brand-new team by selecting from existing NHL teams. The McGill Tribune previews the rules of the expansion draft and the best- and worst-placed teams:

 

Rules

The Golden Knights must pick at least 14 forwards, nine defencemen, and three goaltenders as part of their 30 selections. They must select one player from each of the other 30 franchises. To prevent them from being selected by the Golden Knights, teams may protect one goalie, as well as either seven forwards and three defencemen or eight total skaters. Players who have less than two years of professional experience are exempt from being selected and will not need to be protected, while players with no movement clauses must be protected by their teams.

 

Best Placed Teams

The Toronto Maple Leafs were carried by their incredible young talent to a breakout season in 2016-17, qualifying for the postseason for the first time since 2013. The rules of the expansion draft automatically exempt rookie and sophomore players from Las Vegas’ selection pool, allowing the Leafs to comfortably protect the rest of their roster’s core. The only forwards who will be exposed are fourth liners and minor league players, while their best defencemen are either exempt (Nikita Zaitsev) or can be protected with the three protection spots. Toronto will only expose older players, fringe defencemen, or backup goalies—none of whom are key to the Leafs’ promising future anyway.

 

The Carolina Hurricanes have one of the more impressive blue lines in the league with most of these defenders exempt from the draft because of their youth. Three protected spots will be more than enough to keep their defensive core intact. Meanwhile, they lack standout offensive talent, which gives them flexibility in selecting their seven protected forwards. They also have some security with their goaltenders: After signing Scott Darling, they can carry on with either Cam Ward or Eddie Lack as the backup next season without the draft hurting them.

 

The New Jersey Devils are in a rebuilding phase, so they don’t have to worry about losing any valuable players. While that may not be ideal for the team’s results next season, it gives them plenty of spots to protect future stars like Taylor Hall and Adam Henrique. Any Devil that Las Vegas snags in the draft will not be of great consequence to New Jersey. Compared to the possible availability of talented players from other teams, the Devils don’t have much to offer and will benefit from the league-wide talent dilution.

 

Worst Placed Teams

With blue-liners like Cam Fowler, Sami Vatanen, and Hampus Lindholm, the Anaheim Ducks arguably boast the NHL’s second-best collection of defencemen after Nashville. Unlike the Hurricanes, however, most of these defenders must be protected if the Ducks intend to keep them. On top of that, Kevin Bieksa and three forwards have no-movement clauses. With a defence-heavy talent pool, Anaheim will be one of the teams leaning towards protecting eight skaters—rather than the standard seven forwards and three defencemen. This means they will have to expose playoff hero Jakob Silfverberg or 33-goal scorer Rickard Rakell. Either would be a big loss to a team with aging forwards.

The New York Rangers face a serious predicament between the pipes. Goaltender Henrik Lundqvist, 35, has a no-movement clause that forces the exposure of up-and-comer Antti Raanta. The Rangers could move Lundqvist before the draft or make a deal with the Knights, but both options still result in the exposure of other assets, such as 27-goal scorer Michael Grabner or young forward Mika Zibanejad.

The Nashville Predators, as previously mentioned, have the best defensive corps in the league. Like Anaheim, Nashville will likely choose the eight skater option and protect P.K. Subban, Ryan Ellis, Mattias Ekholm, and Roman Josi. However, with only four possible protected spots for their forwards, they will have to expose their limited selection of centremen. Nashville’s offensive talent pool is already stretched thin; losing a player like Colin Wilson, Craig Smith, or playoff standout Calle Jarnkrok could critically damage their forward combinations.

Roger Waldinger
News

CSDC hosts acclaimed sociologist Roger Waldinger

by Ryan Canon on

More in News:

Both in the United States and in Europe, the rise of populist political movements and candidates has brought the issue of immigration to the forefront of politics. Seeing as the topic is one of importance to students, the Centre for the Study of Democratic Citizenship (CSDC) hosted, on May 26, UCLA sociology professor Roger Waldinger at McGill to give a talk on the politics of immigration in the United States. His talk consisted of an overview of immigration politics, starting in the Ronald Reagan era of the 1980s, up through the present. Before the talk, Waldinger spoke to The McGill Tribune and explained what compelled him to share his perspective on the politics of immigration.

“It seems to me that this was an occasion when my own area of expertise is actually at the center of the news,” Waldinger said. “In a way I wanted to challenge myself. Do I have something important to say about this political issue? And I think I do.”

During the talk, Waldinger explained that after the 2012 presidential election, the Republican National Committee released a report to address why they believed they had lost, and concluded they needed more support from immigrant voters.

“[The need for more support from immigrant voters] was the assumption going into [the election],” Waldinger said. “And of course, right from the beginning, Trump breaks with it, and shortly thereafter he goes into how he will implement his plan with his notorious claim that he would build a wall.”

Waldinger outlined the sociology of migration along with the cyclical nature of immigration policy, and categorized voters and politicians into two broad groups: Restrictionists and immigrationists. While the former group would rather see strict limitation of immigration, the latter group support an increase in immigration. Both of these groups, Waldinger explained, have left-wing and right-wing elements with different sets of interests.

“[Immigrationists and restrictionists] are coalitions that bring together the right and the left […] and what we see here are two very different types of mobilized interest groups,” Waldinger said. “On the one hand, business […] is not particularly concerned with the conditions or the rights that those workers from elsewhere might enjoy […while] the left wing of the coalition is concerned about family reunification and admissions for refugees.”

According to Waldinger, the National Academy of Sciences overlooked how the attitudes of the native population in the US changes in response to immigration. This conflict between immigrationists and restrictionists is now in the spotlight in American politics.

“Immigration produced international integration, but international integration is exactly what a large portion of the native-born population did not want,” Waldinger said. “That conflict between international integration on one hand, and a preference for migration control policies that would disintegrate the US from the broader global economy made immigration, in effect, a source of national disintegration, and put it at the center of American politics.”

After the talk concluded, Dietlind Stolle, director of CSDC and professor of Political Science at McGill, emphasized that immigration is not the only reason President Trump was elected.

“The rise of populism also […] is related to the state of the economy and how generations do compared to previous generations,” Stolle said. “[….] It is related to a general dissatisfaction when you are not doing well and you see people with certain privileges in society.”

The talk was met with satisfaction by attendees, including Matvey Lamonosov, a PhD candidate in the department of Sociology.

“Roger Waldinger is a recognized and very well known authority on immigration, on the theory and especially the political aspects,” Lomonosov said. “[It] would be very interesting to have more of these events […] so I definitely we need to talk about these issues. They are important not only theoretically and politically but in our everyday lives.”

 

Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV, Private

A roundtable discussion on the Girls finale

by Audrey Carleton, Selin Altuntur, Sophie Brzozowski, Sara Cullen, Daniel Lutes, Ariana Kaye, Mingye Chen on

More in Arts & Entertainment:

HBO’s Girls aired for the last time on April 16. The series finale, titled “Latching” which garnered a wide array of reactions from film and TV critics, featured main character Hannah Horvath (Lena Dunham) in the early stages of motherhood, assisted by her best friend Marnie Michaels (Allison Williams). In what many have considered to be an epilogue to the true series finale one episode prior, viewers catch a glimpse of the harsh reality of Horvath’s new life in upstate New York. A month after the show’s ending, The McGill Tribune writers, editors, and contributors sat down to reflect upon the final episode and season as a whole.

 

(Note: This conversation has been edited for duration and clarity, and contains spoilers.)

 

Audrey Carleton (AC): What did everybody think of the finale? And this season in general? Was it what you expected, was it what you wanted to see?

 

Selin Altuntur (SA): I liked it. I thought it was just as filled with weird absurd non-sequiturs as the rest of the show, which made sense. And it wasn’t like, ‘Bam, this is a finale! Everything is going nuts!’ It was very subdued and slow, which I thought was appropriate. I guess it’s not expected of a finale for any show, but for this show it probably made a bit more sense.

Sophie Brzozowski (SB): I wasn’t sure if we’d get to see her have the baby, I thought maybe it would be like, she’d deliver, and it would end, and it’s like, ‘This is a new chapter,’ but I’m glad, you know, we had to see her be a new mom, and thus, a kind of bad, incompetent mom.

AC: Yeah, because Season 6 was so unrealistic in the whole, just her maturing, and viewing herself as a mature person was very un-self aware, and then her getting that job too, which I completely agree with that article [Hannah on ‘Girls Could Not Have Gotten That Job…], but it was just very,  ‘Wow, maybe Hannah’s like a grown adult now!’ but then we see in this episode that, no she’s really not.

Daniel Lutes (DL): But isn’t that better though? Wouldn’t it be kind of weird if she just randomly, out of nowhere, just becomes a grown-up? I think the point is that she’s always going to be a little bit of a fuck up. Just because that’s who she is as a character.

Ariana Kaye (AK): I so didn’t expect the move to upstate and her having the baby, because it’s just so not her as a person, like even the way she is as a public figure.

AC: It was unexpected the baby thing, but then, it makes sense for her to think that she’s mature enough to do this, I feel like she just lacks this self-awareness.

SA: It’s true, because I think that so much of watching the show I just get frustrated because of how not self-aware she was–and, all of [the characters] And then there was just, moments of, ‘Oh wait! They may actually kind of understand themselves, but only like, 25 per cent.’ So yeah, that’s a good point.

AK: But also the whole relationship between Hannah and Adam, like the one episode in Season 6, I didn’t really get what happened, it was kind of confusing because it seemed like they were going to get together and then raise the baby and then, he was just like, ‘Ok I gotta go now! Bye.’

Sara Cullen (SC): That’s how I felt about it too and at first I was annoyed, but at the same time I kind of appreciated it in a way too, because I was like, that’s almost, it’s not what’s important, you know? She keeps the focus on the growth of just the four women, as opposed to branching off and seeing what every other dude is like doing after they fuck their shit up.

SB: I like that he just fell off the face of the earth and you didn’t hear from Adam or see him for the last two [episodes….] That’s what happens to your ex boyfriend right? He just falls off the face of the earth.

AC: What do you think of the way that Shoshana ended that whole friend group?

SC: On the one hand I see Shoshana as the most level-headed, but then on the other hand I don’t see her motivations for actually making those decisions being honest, in a way, or genuine […] Shoshana is kind of  going along with what “successful people” do, and then met this cookie cutter husband.

AK: When I saw that scene I was very confused, just because the show is about these four women and, just to suddenly be like, ‘Ok no, like it’s over,’ was kind of shocking.

SA: That’s a thing that the show does a lot. You’ll be expecting something, and then it’ll do something much [more uncomfortable] to watch, but it’ll make sense in the context of like, these are all people that have serious flaws, and haven’t worked out their issues. I feel like that’s part of why some people who write reviews about it maybe don’t like it. It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea that you’re not supposed to like the people that you’re watching, or that you’re supposed to question what they’re doing.

SC: Each character, they each have a very specific vibe, that you recognize as flawed, but then you’re also like, ‘I’m kind of like that sometimes too,’ not to the extent that they are, because they’re all extremes, but it’s weird because you would recognize qualities that you see in yourself or other people that they’re very human, but it’s so exaggerated.

AK: There are some people that are really offended by the lack of representation, are you guys offended?

AC: I mean, I think she depicts her life, I think she was only friends with white people.

Mingye Chen (MC): You know it’s interesting because as [a person] of colour who lives in Canada, I still work with predominantly white people […], so I don’t necessarily think it’s totally misrepresentative.

SB: And if she were to write a character of colour who had the struggles or dealt with the situations that people of colour in the real world do deal with then we would’ve just said, ‘You’re not qualified to write about this.’

MC: Exactly, our backgrounds are so different, so I don’t think she’s necessarily qualified to write characters like that, in that sense. I’ve watched a little bit of the show, and like, I can’t necessarily relate that much to the girls, but I think that if she tried to write someone of colour into her show, I would be like, ‘That’s not [accurate],’ or you know at least that’s just not the surface. She’s not really got a good grasp of like, what people of colour deal with. I almost prefer that she doesn’t, because then she’s not trying to speak for us, or she’s not trying to misrepresent us in that sense.

AC: Are there any other things that people noticed about the episode? Did you like the ending on just focusing on those two characters, or did you want to see more characters in the finale?

DL: I’m glad it was just those two characters, because they could’ve done like, a really really dumb thing in the end where they like, shot like, 15 years in the future, and it’s like, Adam’s now the CEO of a company, and like, Lena’s like, a successful professor, and I don’t know, it’s just like–

SB: That’s a funny thing! Like, what does happen to them all? Like where does Adam end up? I’m glad we didn’t find out, I’d like him to be immortalized as this weird 26 year old guy.

AC: I guess after episode nine happened, it sort of felt like a finale. I guess I fell into the trap of [thinking], ‘Episode 9 was so good, like, they wrapped everybody, wonder what’s gonna happen next, like, they’ll just wrap everybody again, even more, and have it be like, even grander of a finale,’ and then it was the exact opposite, and I was just very frustrated. Like, I was angry when I watched it. It was very unsatisfying.

SB: I feel like she’s unsatisfied with her life and motherhood and that’s the point right? And her life is now boring and she doesn’t get to be crazy and eccentric and in New York City.

AC: Because it was sort of a beautiful moment when they’re playing that Banks song and she’s  driving and moving into her house and everything is beautiful and nice and you’re like, ‘Aw oh my god, that could be so great,’ but like no, her life is really bad.

To listen to the full Girls roundtable discussion, click here.

News, PGSS

PGSS hosts panel on emotional labour

by Ryan Canon on

More in News:

On May 23, the Post-Graduate Student Society (PGSS) hosted a panel on emotional labour and emotional abuse and how these ideas function within the broader systems of violence. Panel members included Equity Educational advisor (Anti-Racism and Cultural Diversity) Shanice Yarde, Montreal-based writer Malek Yalaoui, and PhD candidate in the Department of Integrated Studies in Education (DISE) Rachel Zellars.

At the beginning of the panel, Yalaoui discussed how, despite its usage in the service industry, the term ‘emotional labour’ extends far from the workplace and is often distributed along gendered and racial lines.

“Women are well versed in the art of navigating and managing the emotions of others, often the men in our lives,” Yalaoui said. “‘Boys will be boys,’ whatever that means, but girls can only be one thing, nice.”

Yalaoui spoke to the importance of the equitable sharing of emotional labour, expressing his view that that everyone deserves to  rest and care for themselves when they need to.

“Whether at home, school, or work, we should have the right to take a break sometimes, and that means that the people around us need to be able to take up the work when we can’t,” Yalaoui said. “We are all responsible for ourselves, emotions and all, and we are all responsible to one another.”

According to Zellars, consulting support groups is the best method for managing emotional labour.

“I have found that the ability of women, both on and off campus, to deal with the great trauma of sexual violence often depends on how much of an environment of care […] has already been shaped around that woman,” Zellars said. “This is one of the reasons that I also deeply believe in the work of community accountability and the principles of transformative justice.”

She also spoke about the daily challenges that women of colour face in navigating campuses and classrooms and dealing with white supremacy, a term Zellars says that she uses intentionally.

“White supremacy is that thing that twists emotional labour into emotional trauma,” Zellars said. “When a black woman is speaking up in my classroom and is responded to with things like […] ‘I’m not racist, some of my best friends are black, or […] ‘let me play devil’s advocate’ [… and when] all of these are normalized as acceptable responses to the emotions of black and brown folks, […] then emotional harm ensues.”

While emotional labour remains a contentious issue in the classroom, PGSS Equity Commissioner Angela Yu, who organized the panel, hopes this kind of event will encourage a larger dialogue about the concept around campus.

“Throughout my year at PGSS, these topics kept coming up quite a bit […] but it was always just a caveat,” Yu said. “There was never really a place, in the university or activist workspace, to have a moment to ourselves [as women of colour.] To think about all of the work that we do, just advocating for ourselves and having to educate others at the same time.”

In addition to creating a space for discourse about the topic, the panel allowed attendees to reflect on the emotional labour they’d performed in the past. Mansha Imtiyaz, incoming PGSS Internal Affairs Officer and event attendee, felt that the panel helped her classify her own experiences.

“Before coming here, I had a different notion about emotional labour, and after listening I realized that this is something that I face each and every day,” Imtiyaz said. “This thing that I have been feeling, it has a name. This is enlightening for me, hearing all these people’s different experiences.”

McGill, News

Principal Suzanne Fortier re-appointed at Board of Governors meeting

by Fionn Adamian on

More in McGill:

On May 25, the McGill Board of Governors (BoG) met in a closed session to approve the re-appointment of Principal and Vice-Chancellor Suzanne Fortier for a second five-year term beginning July 1, 2018. Immediately following Fortier’s reappointment, the BoG held an open meeting, which began with a discussion of several grant requests for genomic research. Next, the BoG approved the McGill Senate’s changes to the Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Prohibited by Law and reviewed the annual report on the Safe Disclosure Policy.

 

Genomic Technology Grants

Vice-Principal (Research and Innovation) Dr. Rosie Goldstein presented two related grants on genomic research for consideration, both of which the BoG approved. The first, a collaborative project with  the Hospital for Sick Children and Génome Québec, allocates $7 million to the development of throughput genomic technologies for the scientific community. The second grant, valued at $9 million, funds an inter-university project with the University of British Columbia  and the University of Toronto  design new tools for genomic analysis in addition to the development of new technologies.

Both grants were matched by other sources, including the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Goldstein credited Mark Lathrop, the Scientific Director of the McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre, with leading the inter-university collaboration of the second grant.

“It's been [Lathrop’s] leadership that brought about the collaboration,” Goldstein said. “He can really take credit for bringing the country together in this area.”

 

Updates to the Sexual Harassment Policy

The BoG confirmed a series of changes–approved by the McGill Senate on May 15–to the Policy on Harassment, Sexual Harassment, and Discrimination Prohibited by Law. The changes enable the Senior Equity and Inclusion Officer, a post currently occupied by Pascale Legros, to address complaints and facilitate informal resolutions at her discretion. Complainants will retain the option to bring their disputes to Assessors, who are Faculty members trained to deal with issues including sexual assault, harassment, and stalking. This change will broaden the available resources for victims of sexual violence on campus.

Nevertheless, the policy remains a work in progress. Though third parties who experience or observe sexual harassment can inform Faculty members, they may not file independent complaints. In a memorandum to the Senate prior to its May meeting, Associate Provost (Policies, Procedures and Equity) Angela Campbell wrote that the Senate needed to assess the issue of third parties in the coming year.  

 

Annual Report on the Policy on Safe Disclosure

Additionally, the BoG reviewed the Policy on Safe Disclosure annual report, which summarizes the Policy’s use and outcomes over the last year. The policy allows members of the university community to report misconduct at McGill to the Secretary General without fear of reprisal, serving as a last step if the complainant feels that they have exhausted other options, such as lodging a complaint within their faculty. Secretary-General Edyta Rogowska said that one report had been filed during the 2016 calendar year, down from three in 2015. Though the details remain confidential, an investigation into this year’s complaint concluded that the respondent had not violated any McGill policy. McGill Alumni Association Representative Tina Hobday expressed uncertainty over the fact that only one case had been filed.
“I don't know whether we should take solace in [the single case] and think we're obviously doing a great job, or should we really be concerned that we're not creating an environment where people feel comfortable to come forward,” Hobday said.

Rogowska replied that the low numbers might reflect the fact that members of the McGill community have used other channels to settle complaints this year, but agreed that the BoG should strive to improve on that front.

“We have noticed the need to further raise awareness of the existence of this policy,” Rogowska said. “The Secretary has actually created a webpage that basically spells out the processes through which disclosures can be made. We're trying to raise awareness of this policy at an institutional level.”

Commentary, Opinion

Judicial independence should not be compromised for executive goals

by Gabriel Rincon on

More in Commentary:

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper left office in 2015, he left a legacy of politicizing the judiciary. Harper reformed the way judges are appointed to concentrate power in the federal government and pursue policy goals. Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has used similar tactics for his own agenda. A PM influencing the judiciary erodes the legitimacy of both the nomination process and of the judges who are appointed. If one values judicial independence and public confidence in the law, Canada’s judiciary should not be compromised by political agendas.

The PM has extreme discretion in the appointment of provincial superior court and federal court judges. Candidates are first screened by an advisory council, which then creates a ranked list from which the federal justice minister can choose a judge. These advisory councils are not constitutionally required, however, and their composition can be altered by the PM. In 2006, Harper passed reforms ensuring the federal appointees to the committees were a voting majority on the committees, comprised otherwise of provincial government and bar association representatives. Harper made his motives clear–to appoint judges friendly to his originalist constitutional views and his tough-on-crime agenda by changing the nomination process. Unfortunately, when Trudeau undid the Harper reforms, he did so to institute his own preferred policies.

In an essay in The Globe and Mail in August 2016, Trudeau outlined his vision for the Canadian judiciary. The Prime Minister placed a clear emphasis on increasing diversity on the bench, particularly by appointing more female jurists. Since then, the government has reformed the advisory councils so that the federal government no longer has a voting majority and has promised less interference in the neutrality of the councils. These are positive changes that should, in theory, ensure a judicial selection process that’s independent of Ottawa’s policy goals. However, the neutrality of the selection process is put into question when 66 per cent of the committee members are women and 59 per cent of subsequently appointed judges have been women, despite only 33 per cent of candidates being women. Even if it doesn’t have a voting majority, the federal government is still responsible for appointing a large percentage of screening committee members and for ultimately selecting the judges from the list of nominees–the disproportionate amount of women jurists can arguably be traced back to the policy goals articulated by Trudeau. Naturally, the Trudeau’s agenda has raised questions as to whether there are “quotas” in the appointment of female judges. These concerns unfairly taint the reputations of female judges as mere affirmative action appointees.     

The politicization of the judiciary is detrimental no matter how noble the policy goal. One should consider the precedent Trudeau is reinforcing for future PMs who may institute less popular policies through the judiciary. In its first 70 years the Supreme Court was held in disrepute since most appointments were political favours. The best way to preserve judicial independence is to create a meritocratic nomination system, devoid of politics, such that the judges appointed are seen as deserving of their position.

Indeed, to truly help women become jurists Trudeau need only to respect the process. Meritocratic nominating committees for provincial trial judges (non-federal appointees) have successfully appointed more women and minorities. According to a research paper from the University of Guelph by Derek Matisz, since nominating committees were instituted in Ontario in 1988 the percentage of female appointees jumped to from 30 to 52 per cent. Similar results were found in other provinces. There are undoubtedly highly qualified female lawyers that should become judges and a system based on merit will identify them–there doesn’t need to be a policy directive guiding the process.

Once the PM interferes in the nomination process to achieve a particular result, the judiciary becomes politicized, regardless of the goal of the interference. The judicial branch is supposed to be a check-and-balance on the government, not an instrument through which to advance federal political agendas.

1 … 653 654 655 656 657 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue