Latest News

Laughing Matters, Opinion

What the great coffee debate boils down to: Instant is best

With coffee shops lining every street corner in Montreal, residents are bound to become regulars at a spot of choice. They find a cafe to lose themselves in an essay on a Sunday afternoon and acquire a signature drink. However, the greatest coffee experience of all is a simple cup of instant coffee.

As we approach the holidays, there are a number of volatile topics of conversation that are best avoided. The only thing worse than Aunt Jean drunkenly detailing her voting history over Christmas dinner is the man who yells at you on the train because someone said “Happy Holidays,” instead of “Merry Christmas.” However, I’ve learned that in my family, the most outrageous reactions often come around dessert, when I break out my instant coffee and giant mug, sparking a polarizing discussion. It seems that once a person establishes a go-to cup of coffee, they’re stuck for life—and will never fail to defend their cup.

Coffee habits are entrenched lifestyle practices. People vary, but, for many, how one drinks coffee quickly engrains itself into one’s personality. My overworked aunt looks me dead in the eye, hands shaking as she grips a full thermos, and professes her love for French vanillas with four shots of espresso. Someone else will sip iced coffee even as they shiver in a winter jacket with the threat of a Montreal snowfall approaching, and swear they’d never drink anything else. Then there’s the person walking out of Starbucks, holding either a Frappuccino or some convoluted holiday drink that, in either scenario, they paid way too much for.

 

Despite its flaws, nothing compares to the literally and figuratively simple joys instant coffee affords.

Instant coffee is my half sweet, non-fat, extra-whip peppermint mocha. I do recognize that instant coffee is objectively bad—not since the 10th grade have I been naïve enough to believe otherwise. No matter the brand or how refined your palate is, you’ll taste the bitter, almost sour qualities of instant coffee, especially in the aftertaste. Yet, this is not the point.

Despite its flaws, nothing compares to the literally and figuratively simple joys instant coffee affords. Aside from not having to change out of your pajamas to drink it—which already gives it a serious advantage over coffee shop concoctions—it is also the cheapest cup of joe you’ll ever get. Pro tip: Buy at least six jars any time it is on sale and hoard them. They almost never go bad—or well, get any worse.

The advantages of instant coffee go above and beyond practicality. Consider, for a moment, waking up on a Saturday morning, just after midterms have ended and prior to the start of finals, knowing that for one short day, there is nothing pressing to do. Smell the overly pungent coffee granules that permeate the air, as an unmeasured—and definitely far too much—amount falls into a mug. Let the water boil while Netflix plays in the background, and you meander from one tangle of blankets in bed to another makeshift blanket cocoon at your desk. For good measure, I like to lay out some math homework that I know full well will not get done.

With cold hands, grasp that hot cup and take a sip—the first one is always too hot, so burn your mouth and wait another five minutes. There exists a 20 minute window when instant coffee is cool enough to drink, but not cold enough that it becomes literally undrinkable. Finish the cup at your leisure—but again, I stress, do not let it get cold—and then take your portable wrap of warmth, and boil the kettle again.

It is time to put an end to the pretentious coffee debate. Of course, no respectable coffee lover will ever tell you that Maxwell House Instant Dark Roast is better than the rich, full-bodied cup of joe they sipped on while traveling abroad in Barthelona. However, this self-proclaimed coffee expert will tell you that there is no better feeling in the world than bundling up, relaxing, and drinking up the slightly-too-strong scent of a hot cup of instant coffee.

 

 

Caitlyn Atkinson is a U0 Management student, and is deeply involved in the Chandler and Monica vs Ross and Rachel debate.

 

 

 
Student Life

TEDxMcGill event gave voice to students and activists alike

On Nov. 11, TEDxMcGill held its fifth annual conference at Montreal’s McCord Museum. Over 100 passionate attendees from the McGill and Montreal communities filed into the museum to watch the series of talks, all of which were centred around the theme ‘giving voice.’ The lineup featured 10 speakers and musical performers in fields ranging from artificial intelligence to LGBTQ+ activism, all speaking on how their work has inspired positive change locally or globally.

From teaching music in indigenous communities to including inter-disciplinary space exploration, the diverse lineup of speakers demonstrated how essential hearing a multitude of voices is in everyday life.

The event’s musical performers interpreted ‘giving voice’ through their voices. Moe Clark and Ahau Marino—musicians, composers, and educators—performed two pieces at the event and used a multitude of musical techniques, such as a looping pedal that layered sound effects over live vocals, to convey music’s ability to empower. After years of exploring various genres of cultural sounds together and teaching music to Indigenous high school students, Clark and Marino have developed a strong partnership.

“Giving voice comes from, for us, using our bodies as the sight for connection, for creation, and for communication,” Clark said in an interview with The McGill Tribune. “And a lot of that comes from the creative capacity to build kinship. Some of that kinship comes from other performers, and artists. And some of that kinship comes from other forces.”

The diversity of fields represented at the conference reminded attendees that there are no limitations to how one can ‘give voice.’ One speaker, Olivia Nuamah, a community builder and activist, spoke about her experience serving as the executive director of Pride Toronto, one of the largest cultural events in North America. Nuamah’s work deals extensively with representing minority groups within the pride community.

“It’s too easy to look at that LGBTQ+ and think that the group is a whole bunch of the same people, when it’s not,” Nuamah told the Tribune. “It’s quite nuanced.”

She also encouraged students to get involved in LGBTQ+ activism, explaining that the first steps to doing so are to learn more about the community and to support local pride events.

“Lots of people are involved in Pride Toronto and Pride Montreal,” Nuamah said.  “We’re looking for as many allies as possible to support what we’re trying to say.”

Another speaker, Paul Albert-Lebrun, U3 engineering, encouraged students to join the space conversation in his talk about the McGill Space Systems Group (MSSG). Albert-Lebrun co-founded the group with McGill alumni Angus McLean and Harris Innes-Miller, graduates in Engineering and Arts, respectively, in the class of 2015. Albert-Lebrun’s decision to create the MSSG stemmed from his interest in interdisciplinary space research. He encouraged students of all faculties to get involved in galactic dialogue—not just those in the field of science.

“I challenge everyone in the audience to think of how their discipline can get involved in space,” Albert-Lebrun told the Tribune. “Getting to space technologically shouldn’t be the only question. The question should be how we get there as a global society.”

Regardless of their area of expertise or major of study, attendees left the event feeling invigorated by the call to make an impact and give voice to others.

Creative

Word on the Y: What does balance mean to you?

As midterms approach, the concept of ‘balance’ may begin to seem increasingly elusive. Navigating university life is no easy task, but remembering to keep the big picture in mind is one of the biggest lessons students learn during their time at McGill. The McGill Tribune asked passers-by at the Y-intersection about how they define a balanced life.

Read more here.

Interviews by Amrit Grewal & Avleen Mokha.
Video by Noah Sutton.

Hockey, Sports

Mo-Money Mo-Awareness: How NHL hockey is helping change the face of men’s health

A simple idea, hatched between friends over a few drinks at an Australian beer garden in 2003, has since grown into a leading charitable organization that has shaken up the way people approach men’s health. The Movember Foundation has helped to fund research and raise awareness for men’s health issues, such as prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and mental health. The NHL has had a profound impact on this movement by leveraging its high profile and bringing Movember to the forefront of sports culture.

During November every year, men are encouraged to join the movement by signing up at movember.com and growing moustaches to “Change the face of men’s health” in order to raise money for the foundation. Those contributions originally funded prostate cancer research exclusively, but the Movember foundation has since expanded to combat testicular cancer and men’s mental health issues. The increased focus on mental health aims to combat the added stigma that men face in discussing mental illness. It’s unfortunately rare for men to take action on their health issues—both mental and physical—so the Movember Foundation also works to proactively instill healthy habits in their lives.

The NHL has provided Movember with one of its largest platforms to promote the cause. In 2007, now-retired Anaheim Ducks forward George Parros brought the movement to the NHL. While still a Ducks player, Movember Foundation cofounder Adam Garone approached him about getting involved when the campaign reached North America. Since then, the movement has picked up steam. Today, it is commonplace for players to grow fresh moustaches during the month. Brendan Gallagher of the Montreal Canadiens has become a proponent for the campaign since he lost his grandfather to prostate cancer. Whole teams have taken the movement in stride too, with the New Jersey Devils and the Columbus Blue Jackets each raising more than $10,000 this year.

Hockey players are considered some of the toughest athletes in all of sports, and their perceived super-human status makes them strong role models for other Movember participants. Movember’s strength lies in its accessibility and power to unite—these issues affect all men, and fans, coaches, referees, managers, and trainers alike have grown moustaches in support of the cause.

Growing a moustache in November can prompt conversations about men’s health. It engages men in talking about the health issues that they face and has made them more knowledgeable and comfortable talking about how they feel. NHL players help promote these healthy habits by increasing the visibility of the movement, thereby funding the research that could inspire lasting solutions to men’s health problems.

As the month of November comes to an end, the focus on health issues should not. Making this commitment to raise money for prostate cancer, testicular cancer, and men’s mental health programs should continue throughout the year. The NHL does a fantastic job in promoting this issue, but all men should take these five actions: Stay connected with friends, reach out to others who need help, be open with someone, know when to get tested for prostate cancer, see a doctor if something doesn’t feel right, and add more physical activity to their day. These tenets can be found on the Movember website, alongside many other helpful links.

To date, Movember has raised nearly $900 million for various men’s health causes, and its momentum doesn’t appear to be slowing. So, to all those who choose to support men’s health issues through growing or donating: Happy Movember!

Creative

The Tribune Tries: Campus coffee

Editors Grace Bahler and Ariella Garmaise put McGill campus coffees to the test, from Dispatch to McGill’s very own “Roddick Roast.”

Directed by April Barrett
Edited by Noah Sutton
Crew: Samantha Ling, Hannah Seo, Heather Lawson

Hockey, Martlets, Sports

McGill Martlet hockey falls to Ottawa in shootout stinger

On Nov. 24, the McGill Martlets (3-5) faced off against the University of Ottawa Gee-Gees (5-2). Despite a strong third period comeback and two goals from first-year forward Kellyane Lecours, the Martlets were unable to close the deal, falling 4-3 in the shootout.

McGill had a slow start to the game, giving up two goals and 11 shots in the opening 20 minutes. Ottawa scored in the sixth minute and doubled the lead with a minute left. However, Lecours added her fourth goal of the regular season just 34 seconds later to get the Martlets on the board heading into the first intermission.

“I thought we didn’t have a great start,” Head Coach Peter Smith said. “We weren’t very good in our own end in the first period, but I thought we adjusted and I thought are second period was outstanding.”

Despite a hard fight and a number of power plays on both sides, neither team was able to score in the second period: McGill registered 18 shots on net, but none found the twine behind Ottawa goaltender Maude Levesque-Ryan.

In the third period, the Martlets’ offence finally managed to translate shots into goals. Halfway through the period, first-year forward Christiana Colizza tied the game at two apiece, converting off a pass from second-year forward Jade Downie-Landry. Lecours added her second score of the game just four minutes later to give McGill the lead. This lead, however, was foiled by second-year Gee-Gees forward Alexe Drouin, who scored a goal in the final minute of regulation to force the Martlets into overtime.

“I thought the third period was real good,” Smith said. “It’s an unfortunate third goal that we gave up, but I thought our team showed a tremendous amount of character in coming back from two goals down.”

This was the Martlets’ first time playing overtime hockey this season. USports regulations dictate two five-minute overtime periods: The first is played four-on-four, and the second is three-on-three. The two sides went scoreless through both overtime periods, despite registering four shots each. In the following shootout, strong goaltending thwarted attempts from both sides, with the deadlock lasting seven rounds before Ottawa forward Sara LaChance finally scored the decisive goal.

Second-year goaltender Tricia Deguire was outstanding throughout the game, stopping 22 of 25 shots in regulation and overtime, including a third period save in which she stretched her glove across the net to bat the puck out of harm’s way, bringing the crowd to their feet.

First-year forward Stephanie Desjardins was encouraged by her team’s performance.

“It was a really good game for both teams, but I think we showed a lot of character, and the support staff on the bench was great, so we’re definitely going to use that aspect for the rest of the season,” Desjardins said.

Next up for the Martlets is a Dec. 2 home matchup against the Université de Montreal Carabins at McConnell Arena.

 

Moment of the Game

In the third period, Kellyane Lecours pulled the puck to her backhand and popped it through the five hole for her second of the game.

 

Quotable

“This is a big part of us, working hard and coming back. We did our best tonight. We tried hard. We know that we can always be better, [and] it will come. We’re a young team, we’ll put all our heart and character into it, and it’s going to come.” Second-year goaltender Tricia Deguire on her team’s performance.

 

Stat Corner

The Martlets had gone 649 days since last playing in a regular season shootout on Feb. 14, 2016.

Student Life

How students can help others dealing with suicidal ideation

Vent over Tea, a free active listening service at McGill, hosted a Suicide Crisis Intervention workshop at the Aldred Building on Nov. 12. Fourth-year Neuroscience PhD candidate Daniel Almeida led the workshop. He reviewed how to intervene in cases of suicidal ideation as a peer supporter, and identified risk factors and warning signs to look out for in friends. After the workshop, The McGill Tribune spoke with Almeida on what thoughtful suicide intervention looks like to get a grasp on how students can better support one another.

The McGill Tribune (MT): The idea of talking about suicide can be daunting for some students. How can the average student know if they’d be good at supporting friends and peers coping with suicidal thoughts?

Daniel Almeida (DA): Before becoming a peer supporter, there is a lot to do with understanding your limits [and] what you’re comfortable dealing with. For some people, talking about suicide and helping individuals who are suicidal is outside of their comfort zone [….] I think it’s always important to know what your own barriers are [….] Anybody who is willing to […] help can become a peer supporter […] There’s also [training available] to help others.

MT: What mindset should students have if they are intervening in a situation where a friend or peer is at high risk of dying by suicide?

DA: I think peer supporters are often scared that if they ask if someone is suicidal and they are not suicidal, it will make them suicidal. That’s objectively not true. What peer supporters should know about suicide is that this person is coming to you for help and if you’re willing and able to help them, you will only lead to a positive outcome.

MT: What warning signs of suicidal ideations or attempts should people look for in their friends? 

DA: One of the most common risk factors for suicide is a past attempt [….] That is very important to look for, [asking] ‘has this person attempted suicide before?’ Also, [ask] ‘do they have a current plan [for suicide]?’ If they have a plan, it leads to a higher risk in the individual [….] There’s also the issue of [negative] resources […] such as materials to enact their plan, or it can be the absence of positive resources, such as social connectedness. When a person is hopeless and has psychological pain, that leads to ideation of suicide. When the hopelessness outweighs connectedness, it [worsens] ideation [….] Thoughts can become action, when an individual has the capabilities to die by suicide.

MT: Talking about suicide and suicidal ideations is still heavily stigmatized in Western society. How can we, as a culture, change this?

DA: Suicide has often been referred to as the quiet epidemic […] because of the taboo we have on suicide in Western culture, […] especially [concerning] male suicide. We know that men […] die [from suicide] around 3.5 times more than women because of the masculinity norm around seeking help for mental illness. There is a lack of targeted mental health advocacy for male suicide. It’s a problem for both sexes […] but we’re not dealing with it well in men.

Another thing is [addressing the problem] in marginalized communities. The LGBTQ+ community has a high rate of suicide. [Trans] individuals during their transition […] have high rates of suicide. Aboriginal individuals [also] have high rates of suicide. So, designing community awareness programs that target at-risk population is definitely something we need to start with […] erasing the stigma.


If you or someone you know may be at risk of suicide, there are resources for help, such as the bilingual Suicide Action Montreal at 1-866-APPELLE. The McGill Nightline is another option in less urgent cases, and can be reached at 514-398-6246. If you feel that you are in immediate danger, make sure to call 9-1-1 or, if you’re on campus, Campus Security at 514-398-3000. For more information on suicide prevention, there is the Canadian Association of Suicide Prevention, which can be reached at suicideprevention.ca.

Commentary, Opinion

Creating space for inclusive political conversations on campus

Sometimes, it seems almost impossible to talk politics on campus without coming across some mention of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. And, often, it feels as though on this issue there is no room for discussion. However, the problem is not that issues like BDS are inherently toxic. Rather, it’s that conversations about any campus issue increasingly turn into divisive arguments, whether about BDS, Divest McGill—a movement to force McGill to stop investing its endowment funds in fossil fuels—or other campus political topics. If students want to see progress on the issues that they care about, they need dialogue, not shouting matches. Moreover, conversations must be kept open and respectful of everyone on campus—whether they are a student activist deep in the BDS trenches, or a first-year just trying to figure out where the Stewart Biology building is.

Unproductive, divisive, political arguments occur on campus due to various factors. First, both sides would like, ideally, to change the other’s mind. Then, of course, there are people who simply prefer to think aloud. But, there is also a third reason: The desire to fit into a group by parroting its opinions. The temptation to do this is especially common among people new to McGill, for whom the desire to find a place can be overwhelming.

Regardless of the reasons, the net effect is that discussion of these issues becomes hostile, toxic, and unwelcoming to anyone who isn’t already a self-proclaimed expert. The Divest McGill website, for example, is clogged with language foreign to anyone not already familiar with the issue. Demands for students to support one side unequivocally, often made with no explanation of the issue at hand, make asking questions intimidating. When this happens, it becomes difficult for a serious discussion of any issue to take place on campus.

[Open] conversations create an environment in which it is okay to ask questions or challenge dominant thought, with the understanding that there are often more than one—or even more than two—sides to a debate.

Though meaningful engagement with the opposing side is important, there are obvious limits to such an approach. Sometimes, people become so invested in a particular cause that their minds cannot be changed. Yet, even in those cases, conversation is still valuable, because it forces individuals to confront the holes in their own arguments and, as a result, they can find ways to strengthen them. Moreover, such conversations are beneficial for our campus community in general: They create an environment in which it is okay to ask questions or challenge dominant thought, with the understanding that there are often more than one—or even more than two—sides to a debate.

The divisive political issues that polarize campus are, in fact, nuanced and complicated. Pretending that they are not, and framing them in purely right-or-wrong terms, is a disservice to the causes that students supposedly care about. Moreover, making people feel attacked for not coming to university with an encyclopedic knowledge of every world issue is not productive, and contributes to the kind of toxic political culture that makes campus an even more stressful place to be than it already is.

Rachel Nirenberg is a U0 Arts student, occasional writer, and opinionated viewer of bad DC shows.

 

 
Football, Sports

2017-2018 NFL Award Predictions

Rookie of the Year: Kareem Hunt, Kansas City Chiefs

Through just 10 games, Hunt has rushed for 873 yards at a 5.0 yards-per-carry clip while hauling in an additional 335 yards through the air. Statistically, he has been easily the best of a highly-touted 2017 running back class. The Chiefs have felt his impact immediately. He racked up 148 rushing yards and 98 receiving yards in his career debut, a game in which Kansas City dominated the New England Patriots and established themselves as one of the NFL’s best. Months later, Hunt and the Chiefs hold a commanding lead in the AFC West and are poised to make a playoff run. His performance already looks great, but Hunt still has room to grow and should only become more exciting as his career progresses.

It is also important to acknowledge that Deshaun Watson of the Houston Texans broke two NFL rookie records—most touchdowns in a week (five) and a calendar month (16) for a rookie. However, Watson’s season-ending ACL tear on Nov. 2 removes him from contention.

 

Most Valuable Player: Carson Wentz, Philadelphia Eagles

After a pedestrian rookie year, Wentz has been a revelation in his sophomore season, already topping his 2016 season mark for touchdowns in seven games. He now leads the NFL with 25 touchdown passes and has led the Eagles to a surprising 9-1 start. This progression is even more impressive given Wentz’s lacklustre offensive options. He has played a big role in making tight end Zach Ertz one of the NFL’s most productive players in his position. Aside from Ertz, Wentz’s only alternatives are uninspiring veterans and disappointing big names like Alshon Jeffery and Jay Ajayi.

No one expected the Eagles to make a deep playoff run this year, but behind Wentz and a superb defence, Philly is a legitimate Super Bowl contender. It’s obvious that Wentz is the heart and soul of his offence. Without him, the Eagles would be going nowhere once again, which cements his spot as the most deserving of MVP.
 

Offensive Player of the Year: Antonio Brown, Pittsburgh Steelers

This race boils down to Steelers wide receiver Antonio Brown and Chiefs tight end Travis Kelce. Since it’s quite difficult for tight ends to receive the award, Brown is the pick. Despite playing alongside wide receiver Martavis Bryant, running back LeVeon Bell, and standout rookie wide receiver JuJu Smith-Schuster, Brown has remained Ben Roethlisberger’s main target, earning him impressive numbers once again. In fact, he’s on pace to post career highs in receiving yards, touchdowns, and yards per reception. Moreover, he has continually bailed out a struggling Roethlisberger and the less-than-stellar Pittsburgh defense, leading them to an 8-2 record. Between dominant performances like athree-touchdown Week 11 game and clutch plays like a 51-yard touchdown reception in Week 6, he has constantly carried the team on his back.

 

Defensive Player of the Year: Calais Campbell, Jacksonville Jaguars

After signing a four-year contract with the Jaguars, Campbell opened the season by setting a franchise record with four sacks. From there, the defensive end has not slowed down. He is on pace to post a career-high 20 sacks this season, and leads the NFL with 11 sacks already. His total tackle count has dipped this season, but that’s because the Jacksonville defence is stacked with great players. With a mediocre offence, the Jaguars depend heavily on their defence. Led by Campbell, they have certainly stepped up, holding teams to 4.6 yards per play and forcing a turnover margin of 11—both NFL-bests. The team’s strong defence has led the burgeoning Jaguars to a surprising 7-3 record, and Campbell clearly deserves credit for his role.

Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

The Killing of a Sacred Deer brings original formal approach to derivative subject matter

The Killing of a Sacred Deer opens with Schubert’s grandiose “Stabat Mater” playing over an extreme close-up of a human heart mid-operation, followed by a conversation between two surgeons about wristwatch straps. Within minutes, director Yorgos Lanthimos sets the tone for the film: Darkly eccentric, fearlessly macabre, and meticulously choreographed. However, underneath its spectacle, and despite some incredible performances, The Killing of a Sacred Deer falls short of the depth and emotional resonance it seems to want to achieve.

The title of The Killing of a Sacred Deer references the myth of King Agamemnon, who killed one of Artemis’ deer and had to sacrifice his own daughter to appease the goddess. In his fifth feature, Lanthimos explores crime and punishment, the fragility of family bonds, and the consequences of playing god.

Colin Farrell, in his second time working with Lanthimos following 2015’s The Lobster, plays a successful cardiologist, husband to a wife of 16 years (Nicole Kidman), and father of two children (Raffey Cassidy and Sunny Suljic). His seemingly-idyllic life is torn to shreds with the arrival of oddball teenager Martin (Barry Keoghan), and he is forced to make a choice with life-or-death consequences.

Farrell and Kidman are in top-form, presenting Lanthimos’ trademark stilted dialogue with remarkable nuance, communicating layers of subtext through the subtlest body language. However, the star of the show is undoubtedly Barry Keoghan ('71 (2014), Trespass Against Us (2016)), fresh off of his mainstream debut in Dunkirk, who steals every scene with just the right blend of charming awkwardness and spine-chilling menace.

Lanthimos has clearly drawn inspiration from Michael Haneke (Amour, (2012); Funny Games, (1997)) in his unflinching stare into the depths of cruelty and horror, all painted with a glaze of deadpan masochism and pitch-black comedy. Jarring musical cues punctuate the film’s surreal slow burn; slaps and gunshots resonate like thunderclaps through the soundscape. Stanley Kubrick’s posthumous fingerprints are all over the cinematography: Dreamlike tracking shots follow characters down hallways and windy roads, or frame them dwarfed by cavernous rooms. The world of the film is cold and antiseptic, as painstakingly curated as a museum. Every beat of action, every move of the camera, every edit, is graceful and deliberate; Lanthimos never puts a foot wrong.

Sadly, other than its technical prowess, nothing that The Killing of a Sacred Deer presents is truly remarkable. While Lanthimos brands every moment with his auteur stamp, the gravitas with which he approaches his themes suggests that he believes he is treading new ground. However, filmgoers have seen too many films to count about dangers in suburbia, emotional distance in modern society, repressed sexuality, the sins of the father. Everything The Killing of a Sacred Deer says has already been said by other directors, from Haneke to Lynch to Polanski—repeatedly, and better. Lanthimos is offering little new, apart from technical and visual flair.


The Killing of a Sacred Deer is stunning and brutal, a masterclass in arthouse filmmaking, but its cold-heartedness and maddening, bizarre horror make it truly difficult to sit through for even the most resilient of viewers. The emotional distance between the characters (and between the audience and the characters), while clearly intentional, still leaves viewers floundering in an emotional void, with little to invest them in the plights of the characters or offer any catharsis at all. Just as Kidman seduces her husband by lying motionless on the bed—“general anaesthetic,” as she calls it—so too does Lanthimos try to seduce his audience with the allure of watching a truly alarming tale through an apathetic lens. When The Killing of a Sacred Deer reaches its fierce final act, there is little to do but watch the horrific action play out with the same cool indifference as its characters, a frustrating and hollow payoff after being trapped in a two-hour nightmare.

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue