Latest News

McGill University Bookstore
a, McGill, News

Students opinions considered in McGill bookstore’s future

by Alexia Martel-Desjardins on

More in a:

In Fall 2014, the McGill Bookstore announced its plan to move to a new, undetermined location on campus to allow the Faculty of Management to expand into the location by Winter 2016. In an effort to gain student perspective on potential changes, bookstore management installed white boards in various buildings around campus for students to share their input. According to Jason Kack, the manager of the Bookstore, the white boards project also served as a reminder of the upcoming changes.

“I’d say [the objective] was twofold,” Kack explained. “It was also to keep it active in the mind of the community that [the bookstore move] was happening.”

Each board featured a different question, such as “What would you like to see in your bookstore?” or “What is your favorite clothing item at the bookstore?” and the questions were changed regularly to collect a variety of student opinions.

“We’d actually rotate the questions, so depending on which one you saw [at which time], it might have been a different question,” Kack said.

The results were collected frequently in order to keep track of the responses and  to erase the boards for new ideas.

“We did record them all and kept track on an Excel sheet,” said Kack. “Two students […] would go around with their cell phones, they’d snap [photos] on a fairly regular basis, and they’d pull out the pictures and decipher all the [responses].”  

Some examples of ideas that were written on the board include reading rooms, a greater variety of apparel, a free book exchange section, and a space to hold events, such as a cafe; however, despite student consultation, nothing pertaining to the bookstore move is certain yet.

“We will move out of this location somewhere between the end of spring, beginning of the summer,” Kack said. “Whether that [new area] will be our permanent new location or a temporary one while our location is being prepared is still up for grabs.”

According to Kack, efforts to reach out to students for feedback are often impeded by the issue of textbook prices.

“I will say we’ve been pretty bad at having a dialogue with the campus and specifically student groups, seeing their needs, often because the conversation will [quickly turn] to price and that’s a very hard conversation to have given that we don’t set the price of the vast majority of course material, it’s the vendor,” said Kack.

The boards have been well received by students according to Kack. Marie Plamondon, U2 Arts, agrees that the boards reflect a good effort from the bookstore to engage with students, but worries that they might not be the best venue of communication.

“I think white boards are a great way to let the student community express itself,” said Plamondon. “However, I thought the bookstore could find a more efficient way to seek the students’ opinion.”

Until the move is finalized, students can expect to continue to see the white boards around campus. Idea brainstorming and recording may increase through more direct engagement with the community, in order to collect as much suggestions as possible.

“The white boards [are] less of a dialogue, [and]  more of a kind of heads-up,” said Kack. “We’re going to look into getting a focus groups going.”

Meanwhile, students can use the white boards, the bookstore’s Facebook page, and its website to speak out and give their comments.

a, Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Letters: SSMU Winter GA 2016 Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions

by McGill Tribune Opinion on

More in a:

Editor's note: Ahead of the Students' Society of McGill University (SSMU) Winter General Assembly (GA) the Tribune will be accepting letters on the subject of the "Motion Regarding Support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement." If you would like to join the conversation please send a 400-word letter (any letter above the word limit will not be accepted) to [email protected]. If you would like to join in on the conversation for any of the other motions being debated at the GA we welcome your opinions as well. We look forward to publishing the McGill community's thoughts on the issue. – Mayaz Alam, Editor-in-Chief

Why I support BDS

Sophie Heisler

U1 Arts

 

I am in support of the motion calling for SSMU to support the BDS movement.While this movement does not claim to be a foolproof or all-encompassing solution to the conflict, it is a powerful way for those who live outside Palestine and Israel to effect change by placing economic pressure on Israel to comply with its core demands: The end of the occupation, the recognition of Palestinian human rights, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees. Being students at an academic institution that holds global financial influence through its investments provides us with a position of power that many people our age do not occupy. In instances like the SSMU GA, we are given the opportunity to influence whether or not our institution will continue to be complicit in human rights violations. Israel, as an apartheid state, to its core is a state that undermines the basic human rights of the Palestinian peoples. Be it through land seizure, devastating bombings, or limiting caloric levels of those in the Gaza Strip to just above starvation, Palestinians are continually dispossessed, marginalized, and made subject to senseless violence at the hands of Israel. These actions are severely unethical and abhorrent, and it is imperative that we make it clear to our administration that we will not tolerate McGill’s involvement in them in any way, shape, or form.

Simply put, I support the BDS movement because I support basic human rights. It is my responsibility to use my position in this institution to do what I can for those who are being oppressed. Palestinians are being oppressed, and we must respond to their call. The illegal occupation of Palestine is a human rights issue, and I refuse to support my university’s complicity in it.  I strongly encourage McGill students to vote in support of this motion at the GA. Now is the time to exercise our rights as students and show our solidarity with those whose voices are being institutionally silenced and whose lives and freedoms are always under threat.

 

The situation in the Middle East is the result of a lengthy and multifaceted territorial conflict in which neither Israel nor its neighbours have been without blame. The narrative upon which the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) motion is based is inherently flawed because it ignores this fact. That is why I will be voting “No” at the SSMU GA.  Specifically, this motion does not account for the historical context of the present day situation in Israel-Palestine, and propagates the fact that it is only Israel obscuring the prospect of peace.

This motion intentionally fails to address that prior to 1967 the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza strip by Egypt. Israel only seized control of these territories as a result of a defensive operation it launched in response to the unprovoked war of aggression waged against it by several Arab countries. After Israel amassed the Territories, before any Israeli settlement was laid on the ground, the Arab League unequivocally rejected United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 at its 1967 summit. The Resolution called for the “acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.” Instead, they passed the Khartoum Resolution, which called for “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, and no negotiations with it.”

One of the motion’s demands is for Israel to relinquish control of “all Arab lands captured.” However, on many occasions, Israel has disengaged from areas under its control, developments which did not bring about peace. In 2005, thousands of Israeli citizens were uprooted from Gaza in an attempt to forge peace, an act which was reciprocated by Hamas' re-engagement in terrorism and belligerency. Further, Israel offered to withdraw from the West Bank in both 2000 and 2008. The Palestinian Authority categorically spurned these proposals and articulated its intention to abstain from any further dialogue.

To solely blame Israel for the conflict, or to solicit concessions from Israel and Israel alone, is to observe historical realities through a warped lens. There are ways to engage in meaningful discussions, there are ways to promote an atmosphere of coexistence, and there are ways to justly advance the cause of humanity. BDS, by placing blame on one actor, and not even considering the actions of others, is not one of them.

a, Editorial, Opinion

Winter 2016 SSMU General Assembly Endorsements

by McGill Tribune Editorial Board on

More in a:

Editor's note: Ahead of the Students' Society of McGill University (SSMU) Winter General Assembly (GA) the Tribune will be accepting letters on any of the motions being presented If you would like to join the conversation please send a 400-word letter (any letter above the word limit will not be accepted) to [email protected]. We look forward to publishing the McGill community's thoughts on the issue. – Mayaz Alam, Editor-in-Chief

Motion Regarding SSMU's Procurement of Products Containing Conflict Materials— "Yes with reservations"

This motion, moved by a student from the Faculty of Arts, calls for the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) to declare itself as part of the Conflict-Free Campus Initiative, which encourages universities to pressure electronic companies to invest responsibly in the Congolese mining industry, and call on electronic companies and other industries to remove conflict minerals from their supply chain. The Tribune endorses a “Yes with reservations” vote at the Winter 2016 General Assembly (GA).

While the declaration itself would be purely symbolic, the clause that calls to influence industries that make use of conflict minerals is vague and gives no indication of how SSMU would accomplish this. It should therefore be modified to reduce the opacity or be struck from the motion. Moreover, the inclusion of the Financial Ethics Research Committee (FERC) must clearly detail the need for consultation with experts on the issue of conflict minerals so that the investment decisions are both well-informed and productive. Without adequate research, the decision to invest in a company based on the extent to which it uses conflict minerals may do more harm than good. The motion falls into the trap of conflating the cause of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo with the perpetuation of the conflict. Embargos on conflict minerals, rather than having the intended impact on warlords and perpetrators of violence in the Congo,may in fact serve to disenfranchise labourers and those working to earn a living wage for themselves and their families. As a result, warlords gain more power relative to ordinary citizens, and unemployed former-labourers become militarized, thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence. As such, this motion should be adapted so that the emphasis is on updating the FERC plan in consultation with those who are well-informed regarding the various implications of conflict minerals.

Motion Regarding An Increase In Indigenous Course Content At McGill University— "Yes with reservations"

In light of McGill’s lagging progress behind other Canadian universities, the vice-president (VP) University Affairs (UA) of SSMU should lobby to increase the amount of Indigenous content available to students, as well as the number of Indigenous professors to be represented throughout all faculties at McGill. The recently created Indigenous Studies minor has seen success since its introduction, and the addition of a major, a process that is already beginning to be undertaken by the university, will similarly satisfy the significant student interest in Indigenous Studies. A major in Indigenous Studies would also expand the variety of multidisciplinary courses that students could select to fulfill other degree requirements. This is one of the benefits of programs such as North American Studies, which includes courses from a variety of different programs. Similarly, the introduction of an Indigenous Studies major would stand to benefit a wide population of students within the Faculty of Arts by increasing course offerings.

While expanding the visibility of indigenous history and culture on campus is a goal that SSMU should pursue, the top-down implementation of a mandatory course in Indigenous Studies for all McGill students is not the solution. A mandatory course could be difficult to incorporate into the degree plans of students who enter from CEGEP or with advanced standing credits, of which McGill has many, and could be difficult to implement university-wide. Instead, SSMU should focus its efforts on lobbying individual Faculties, who could then implement more mandatory indigenous content or introduce an Indigenous Studies course that is more appropriate academically to that individual Faculty. This would allow such courses or requirements to be better adapted to the specific needs of each Faculty’s students. For the Faculty of Arts, for example, such a course could be conceivably incorporated into the Freshman Program. This motion should therefore be adapted to give Faculties the discretion on the method of implementing mandatory indigenous course requirements.

Motion Regarding Support For The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement— "Abstain"

The “Motion Regarding Support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement” is a highly contentious one—this is the third time in the past two academic years that a motion regarding the situation in Palestine and Israel has been brought to the GA and each time it has surfaced it has succeeded in dividing students. This motion has prescriptions and clauses that are far clearer and more direct than its predecessors; for example, it cites exactly which companies it seeks McGill to divest from and shows how they are related to the situation. This being said, the Tribune endorses an “Abstain” vote for this motion.

Yes, SSMU has a commitment to “demonstrating leadership in matters of human rights and social justice,” as outlined in its constitution. Proponents of the BDS movement at McGill commonly cite the historical precedent with actions taken against Apartheid-era South Africa. Indeed, the weight of the international community’s condemnation did have an effect on the dismantling of the system of oppression in place at the time.

The situation in Palestine and Israel, however, is far less binary. It may be among the most, if not the most, complex geopolitical issues of our time. In contrast, the way that this debate has been framed on campus lacks nuance. Voting “Yes” for this motion brings with it implications that reach far beyond the specific prescriptions that the motion calls for. Similarly, those who vote “No” are rarely given the opportunity to express why they disagree with the motion.

Moreover, the third clause of the motion states that "this call for BDS states that such campaigns are to remain in place until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination [….]” Although this clause is not binding to SSMU—as per its Internal regulations SSMU's stance would be valid for up to one year—it implies entrenching SSMU’s position over a long time period, which does not consider that the composition of the society represented will change.

Students have demonstrated that they wish to have a forum to discuss this issue; however, the SSMU GA, as it is currently constructed, has proven to be ineffective, especially given the budgetary constraints that prevent the GA from being held in a larger external site such as Leacock 132, as it was in Winter 2015.

One of the inherent problems with a motion such as this one is that it inspires a debate of a political issue that is firmly entrenched within individuals’ identities. When a debate that is as integrally personal as this one turns awry it threatens students’ personhoods. The risk of alienating a large portion of the student body through a decision on this motion is unjustifiable.

a, Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Letter to the editor: Crowdfunding and austerity

by Marc Weinstein on

More in a:

Thank you for your thoughtful editorial on the relationship between philanthropy and government funding (“When austerity strikes, McGill turns to crowdfunding,” Feb. 9). I agree wholeheartedly with your central argument that fundraising – whether through crowdfunding or other mechanisms – is no substitute for a government funding model that fully supports McGill’s needs and ambitions. This is something I hear from donors nearly every day, and which the principal and others are working hard to address in their discussions with the Quebec government.

I do want to address one important statement near the beginning of your editorial that misstates the level of transparency in McGill’s fundraising operations.

You say that funds raised from donors to McGill “go into the university’s operating budget, a relatively opaque process, so some donors do not necessarily see where their money has gone.” In fact, the opposite is true: Virtually all of the donations we receive—large or small, and whether by cheque or through our online portals—are designated to specific purposes identified by the donors themselves, whether it’s creating a new bursary or scholarship, or supporting a wonderful program like the Arts Internship Office.

I am delighted that Seeds of Change, which the University Advancement team launched in 2014, is providing students with a much-needed platform to raise funds for the projects they believe in, but the same principle of highly directed support applies to nearly every gift we receive. Regardless of the method of giving, it is private donations, targeted to the causes near and dear to the hearts of our donors, that allow McGill to maintain its margin of excellence despite having an operating budget that is dwarfed by many of our peer universities.

Respectfully,

Marc Weinstein

Vice-Principal, University Advancement

a, Hockey, Men's Varsity, Sports

Hockey: McGill on cloud nine, dominate Concordia

by Arman Bery on

More in a:

‘Relentless’ is a word that summarizes the McGill Redmen Hockey team’s (21-6-1) dominant 9-2 victory over crosstown rival Concordia (10-12-6) at McConnell Arena on Wednesday. From the puck drop to the final buzzer, the Redmen played a physical, skillful, and disciplined style to capture a 1-0 series lead in the OUA East quarter-final.

“You try to play the same way, try and stick to your plan,” Head Coach Kelly Nobes said. “And I think we did a good job of that tonight. We played a full 60 minutes, and that’s what it takes this time of year.”

Of the two sides, McGill generated the best chances in the first period, most notably a fifth minute thread-the-needle pass by centre Liam Heelis. At 11:35, senior centre Mathieu Pompei’s nasty slide-by dangle and shot past the goalie opened McGill’s account for the post-season. Concordia replied swiftly, scoring a minute after a McGill penalty kill. McGill reclaimed its lead at the end of the first period as forward Patrick Delisle-Houde scooped up a blocked shot rebound to find the top of the net. 

From the second period onward, McGill dictated the game’s pace; at the 2:18 mark of the second period, a point shot from McGill was deflected onto the stick of rookie winger Rock Regimbald, whose no-look behind-the-back pass found rookie winger Christophe Lalonde for the goal. Even though Concordia tied the scores five minutes later, the Redmen were still in charge. A double penalty at the 12 minute mark led to four-on-four play; a great sliding breakup by rookie defenceman Dominic Talbot-Tassi in the Redmen’s own zone led to a counterattack goal scored by Talbot-Tassi himself.

“It’s a 200 foot play,” Nobes said. “It’s a great defensive play that gets you rewarded at the other end of the ice and that’s how the game works all the time.”

McGill asserted their will at the end of the second period with a beautiful transition three-man-weave that led to rookie centre Frederic Gamelin scoring. The Redmen entered the third period with a 33-20 shot advantage and a 5-2 lead.

McGill dominated Concordia in the third period; three minutes in, sophomore winger Simon Tardif-Richard squeezed the puck into the front of the net. Frustrations began to boil over for the Stingers, and the visitors’ Frederick Roy received a five minute major and a game misconduct for fighting (Gamelin also received two minutes for roughing). Despite the tensions, McGill continued to play with great drive: The team’s seventh and eighth goals, both on power-plays, were scored by Lalonde and Jonathan Bonneau, respectively. Bonneau also added McGill’s final and ninth goal of the game—he  exploded past the defender on the right side of the ice, sniping a stunning shot into the top-left corner of the net. 

McGill went on to win the second game and the series at Concordia in a hard fought 4-3  overtime win on Friday, Feb 19. Simon Tardif-Richard scored twice, including the game-winner, to help the Redmen advance to the next round of the OUA playoffs against the Carleton Ravens on Feb 24.

Quotable

“I think that it’s the playoffs, it’s a short series, [so] you need to be ready from the start, need to play 60 minutes, I don’t think that was a factor in tonight’s game.”—Nobes on whether McGill’s rivalry with Concordia influenced their performance.

Stat Corner

Concordia was only 1-7 on the power-play, and McGill had a decisive shot advantage of 43-29. 

Play of the Game

A great end-to-end play by the Redmen during four-on-four, with a great diving breakup, translated to a great goal from the slot on the other end by Talbot-Tassi. 

a, Opinion

Any outcome of the BDS motion will not reflect McGill students’ positions

by Joseph Timan on

More in a:

Editor's note: Ahead of the Students' Society of McGill University (SSMU) Winter General Assembly (GA) the Tribune will be accepting letters on the subject of the "Motion Regarding Support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement." If you would like to join the conversation please send a 400-word letter (any letter above the word limit will not be accepted) to [email protected]. If you would like to join in on the conversation for any of the other motions being debated at the GA, we welcome your opinions as well. We look forward to publishing the McGill community's thoughts on the issue. – Mayaz Alam, Editor-in-Chief

Next Monday, a divided and emotive topic will return to the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) General Assembly (GA) as students debate and vote on a motion proposed by the McGill Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) Action Network. Previous debates regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict exposed incompatible views and severed hope for any consensus on the issue. The “No” campaign made it clear in the debates before and during last year’s GA  that many students feel anxious about the BDS movement. On the other hand, the motions' proponents, Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR), demonstrated that their proposals were passionately driven by the urgent need for a change in the Palestinians’ continually worsening situation. This latest motion—the inevitable consequence of mutual distrust, reciprocated blame, and a lack of compromise on both sides—has no hope of accurately representing the views of McGill students. While a motion that satisfies all students is impossible, a motion that addresses each other's compatible concerns would at least capture the sentiments of more students with a stronger united voice. Instead, this motion ignores the very concerns previously expressed.

The most recent motion threatens to deepen distrust by ignoring many students’ worries regarding the support of the BDS movement at large. Consequently, any decision that comes from next week's motion cannot be reflective of the perspective of the McGill student body. Rather than abandoning reconciliatory efforts and taking an escalated approach, the various stakeholders on campus should find an alternative motion that genuinely considers the legitimate concerns of all sides. These issues include Israel’s security, the focus on Israel as a sole perpetrator, the effects of the BDS movement on all Israelis, as well as the urgent need for change. While a vibrant discussion is necessary to address each other’s concerns and determine which are compatible, opponents to previous motions must be willing to take a stance.

Dialogue alone cannot address the need to take concerted steps to change the situation facing the Palestinian people. Although SSMU’s role in international affairs will always be symbolic, a public condemnation and official statement that represents the views of students can send a powerful message; however, rather than making amendments to last year’s motion to condemn Israeli action in Gaza, the “No” campaign successfully tabled the motion indefinitely. By shutting down debates and claiming the issue is beyond SSMU's jurisdiction, the “No” campaign failed to address the pressing need to have an immediate impact on the worsening conflict. Groups like Israel on Campus (IOC) must realize that not taking a stance on the matter is complicit with the status quo.

If there is any hope for compromise on this issue at McGill, students with genuine concerns regarding the BDS movement must first recognise the urgent need for change. If neither side shows a willingness to change their approach, legitimate concerns will continue to be ignored. Rather than attempting to address each other’s concerns, both sides will attempt to get as many of their voters into the SSMU building as possible, degrading the debate to a tribal numbers game. Just a few votes may change this year's outcome, but whatever happens, the result has no hope of sufficiently representing the views of McGill students.

a, McGill, News

Quebec finance minister holds pre-budgetary town hall at McGill

by Aislinn Kalob on

More in a:

Quebec Finance Minister Carlos Leitão,  participated in a town hall meeting on the upcoming provincial budget revision at the Desautels Faculty of Management on Monday, Feb. 15, fielding questions from both students and professors on public finance, environmental economic policy, and Quebec’s changing tax structure.

The town hall addressed three topics: Public finance, economy and environment, and financing innovation and education.  Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) Vice-President (VP) External, Emily Boytinck, brought forward her concerns over austerity and its disproportionate effects on university students, notably students who experience learning challenges.

“Throughout these cuts, the students who are most affected are consistently the ones who are already marginalized by society […] whether it be children with learning disabilities, or students with mental health issues in university,” Boytinck said.  “It's across the board the same sort of thing.”  

Leitão refrained from referring to budgetary restrictions as austerity, but stated that education will be a financial priority—however, he placed the responsibility of education funding outside his purview, and on the Education and Family Ministers.  

“We have a period, yes, of a very tight budget,” Leitão said. “As I said before, we need to make sure that our operating budgets can be financed [….] Going forward, we do have the necessity to make sure [we] spend a little more in education and in health.  We believe that […] spending in education will be considerably stronger than it was last year.”

Mark Michaud, senior planning analyst at McGill, questioned how the government will ensure stability within the budget at the provincial level, and how this could affect preparations for McGill's own budget and strategic goals for the future.

"As somebody who works in planning […] a certain amount of predictability is always appreciated,” Michaud said. “I know you mentioned […] there’s always uncertainty, but […] what can the government do to help us in our responsible long-term planning […] and [in] helping us pass that predictability to the families, and the students who have to pay to study here?"

The solution, according to Leitão, lies in first balancing revenues and expenditures in Quebec's operating budget.   

"In my opinion, it is so important for us […] to have a balanced budget," Leitão said. "It's not some sort of ideological obsession [….] In order to make sure that we're sending that message, that we now have a predictable and stable framework, it is crucial."

Leitão cited a recent fiscal commission investigating the structure of taxation in Quebec, which indicated that personal and corporate income taxes were the main contribution to budget revenues, and offered recommendations to decrease reliance on these taxes.   

“A third or so of the recommendations of the commission were already put into place,” he said.  “We already made some significant adjustments […] regarding tax credits and other corporate taxes, but not so much on the personal side.”

McGill Economics Professor Christopher Ragan, echoed Leitão’s concern over Quebec’s current income tax burden.

“You are a well-trained McGill economist, so you know […] the economic damage that can be caused by high rates of taxation,” Ragan said. “In particular, [of] personal income taxation and corporate income taxation [….] You also know that there are both environmental and economic benefits that come from putting a price on pollution.”

Leitão pointed to the efficacy of Quebec’s current system of pricing carbon, and its potential for generating revenue for the future.

“Something we already have in place is a cap-and-trade system,” he said. “It exists and works reasonably well [….It] generates revenue for the government […] which has generated over a billion dollars.”

a, Album Reviews, Arts & Entertainment

Album Review: EVOL – Future

by Saif Cheval on

More in a:

A question that might come to mind when analyzing trap music is whether the lyrical content is in fact an accurate representation of the rapper's selves and their views. With this question in mind, what can one make of Future? As his life fell apart in recent years, his music has receded further and further away from human decency, with fugue-like beats and gruesome lyrics depicting himself as drugged out, violent, almost criminal. But as his music tumbled deeper into the abyss, the acclaim and success he found skyrocketed. Future's character is both enthralling and disturbing: The content of his drawling verses will shock you—if you manage to pay attention. He is the super-villain incumbent of trap: Dark, brooding, and dangerous. 

In 2015, Future managed to put out a universally acclaimed album (DS2), catch the interest of pop-star/Internet-meme Drake, release a mixtape with him, sell over 300,000 units of said mixtape in its first week, and somehow bring Kanye West—an artist known for influencing others—to scrape up a track (“FACTS”) that was clearly inspired by Future’s sound. He had a spectacular year, and it’s clear how good he feels about that on EVOL. The concerning lines are still around (“I wanna fuck the DA lady in her mouth, though”), the beats are still drone-heavy, but here Future moves past his lean-infused sound to something much more triumphant: On EVOL, he becomes a real super-villain.

Tracks like “Maybach” display Future mixing classic braggadocio with his corrupted, drug-abusing persona. Desperate grasps for more confidence, like “I get better and better with time, don’t I?” sound natural. “Lil Haiti Baby” expands on this, putting Future on a beat Lil Wayne could’ve rapped over on Tha Carter IV. Booming bass underscores Future’s raspy boasts, before the song collapses into a darker, familiar tale of violence and addiction. “Xanny Family,” with stripped down beats and surprisingly clear vocals, is a sobering break between the two, almost reminding the listener that the rapper Future is an actual person, and he might be suffering—the title of the album is LOVE spelt backwards. There are more than a few moments within songs where that thought wanders to the forefront, before retreating back into the darkness.

As the second half of the album descends into more generic tracks, including “Lie to Me,” a strange almost-love-ballad, and a weaker rehash of better songs from previous albums, like “Jersey” or “Jumpman,” with “Program,” Future grows more removed from our world. The Weeknd provides the only feature on the album, and practically blends into the overall flow out of Future’s mind, since he is essentially his R&B counterpart. The lingering introspection of “Fly Shit Only” rounds out the album, and it’s unfamiliar, striking production leaves the listener confused and wondering who exactly the real Future is. EVOL is entertaining, disturbing, and enthralling at times, but the true emotions, beliefs, and motivations of its protagonist remain a mystery.

Sounds like:

Future, but louder than usual.

Standout Track:

“Xanny Family”

Best lyric:

I did what I had to do, I ran in that bitch I didn't have a mask / I did what I should have did, survive through the trenches and look like a man

Ingrid Bergman: In Her Own Words
a, Arts & Entertainment, Film and TV

Ingrid Bergman: A captivating look into the life of one of Hollywood’s greatest stars

by Miray Eroglu on

More in a:

Ingrid Bergman: In Her Own Words, a documentary directed by Stig Björkman, honours the life and art of actress Ingrid Bergman. The film offers an inside look into the life of the Swedish actress who embodied the Golden Age of Hollywood and starred in iconic films worldwide, including Casablanca (1942) and Notorious (1946). Not only does the film pay homage to Bergman’s success as an actress, but it provides an intimate look into her family life and three marriages to doctor Petter Lindström, director Roberto Rossellini, and producer Lars Schmidt. In essence, Ingrid Bergman: In Her Own Words is a touching tribute to a woman who followed her destiny to create the life of her dreams.

The film paints a lovely portrait of Bergman, an independent woman who followed her heart from Stockholm to Hollywood, then to Italy, France, and England. The piece provides a glimpse into the many lives she led, not just on stage but in life, centering on her most important role: A mother to her four children. The film utilizes rare video footage and interviews with her children that highlight the significant role she had in shaping their lives. Despite a nontraditional upbringing, their reverence for their mother is unmistakable, which is emphasized throughout the film.

The primary focus of the film is given to the life Bergman led, both on and off screen. It is essentially her own story told through a collage of diary entries, home movies, letters, and personal photographs woven together by her life experiences. Alicia Vikander narrates the film and gives a voice to Bergman’s diary entries in their original form by voicing over photographs that correspond to Bergman’s diary entries. The score by Michael Nyman provides a beautiful backdrop to the scenes and photographs.

Bergman’s story began in Stockholm, Sweden, as an aspiring actress. The film brings to light Bergman’s relationship with her father, a photographer who influenced her passion for film and photography. After the untimely death of her parents, Bergman went to live with her aunt and studied acting at the Royal Dramatic Theatre School. Bergman’s talent for acting was immediately evident and following great success in Swedish cinema, she relocated to Hollywood, leaving behind her first husband Petter and young daughter, Pia, who later came to live with her in New York and Los Angeles.

The narrative of the film is presented through archival footage, clips from Ingrid Bergman’s time in Hollywood and on stage in Paris, which includes her speech receiving her first Academy Award for Best Actress in Gaslight (1943). The film includes interviews with her children Pia Lindstrom, Ingrid, Isabella and Renato Rossellini, as well as close friends and family members. The interviews add a personal touch to the film, and the documentary looks at Bergman’s life through a nostalgic lens, rather than in a critical manner. Essentially celebrating Bergman, the documentary juxtaposes moments from Bergman's life shifting from Hollywood to her family life. A deeper theme expressed in the documentary is the impact Bergman had on her children, and the documentary is told through their eyes.

Bergman’s diary entries express her conflicting roles as mother, wife and actress. They recount her attained fantasy of living in Hollywood working as an actress combined with her insatiable thirst for adventure; however, life was not always a fairytale for Bergman. After falling in love with Rossellini, who was then married, she was shunned from Hollywood for committing adultery. The film shows how the Rossellini family navigated the scandal surrounding the marriage, and the life she led in Italy. During this period, Bergman mainly starred in Italian films, as well as in theatre productions in Paris, starring in a vast array of roles including playing the lead in Joan of Arc (1948).

Bergman was an avid photographer and filmed her travels with her husband and, her family life, focussing on her children.The camera was a powerful tool for Bergman as it allowed her to document her life experiences. Photography was not only a creative outlet, but it allowed her to carry her memories with her throughout her travels and time abroad. In this manner, the film provides a first-hand look into Bergman’s adventurous spirit and her commitment to preserving her memories.

Ingrid Bergman: In Her Own Words is a testament to Bergman’s accomplishments, artistry, and enthusiasm for life that touched all those who met her. Bergman’s enduring charm was one of her defining characteristics, which is ever-present in her films and photographs.

a, Opinion

Race Project attendance should be encouraged, not coerced

by Inoue Vong-Seguy on

More in a:

The implementation of Race Project, an extension of Rez Project that seeks to encourage discussion of race and colonialism in university residence, had a rocky start this semester as attendance was not as high as facilitators had hoped. In a recent article for the McGill Daily, floor fellows and facilitators were quoted as suggesting that attendance be incorporated into students’ lease agreements. This raises the question of whether forced attendance will positively encourage more students to discuss issues of racism and diversity at McGill. Widening the range of attendance has been a stipulated concern for facilitators, but such a measure would be an example of treating the symptom, not the cause of students not attending the workshop. In fact, student enthusiasm is often more stunted in these workshops by the format of the discussions than by whether the attendance system is lenient or not. If first year students are reluctant to take part in the first place, then compelling them by fear of penalty is not a positive remedy. To put it simply, forcing attendance for students that feel uncomfortable in these settings is counter-productive, especially for a project that seeks to create a more inclusive environment in residences.

Race Project is a necessary initiative at McGill that stresses the need for more open discussions on diversity. For students, racial and cultural uniformity among professors creates a narrowed exposure to different points of view. There is also a lack of diversity in the student body; at the moment, there are less than 200 Aboriginal students at McGill. In an establishment that should, in fact, educate people on the nuances of human cultures and perspectives, this is a worrying fact. Minority cultures on campus are drowned out by a curriculum put forth only by white professors and as a result, minorities become more and more isolated. If minority viewpoints are neglected in academics, then students are not prompted to recognize their value in everyday life. In this context, Race Project represents an essential site for students to express themselves on issues of racism on campus. But for this process to work, it is essential that they feel included and safe in the discussion; to this end, making it a legal obligation would be counterintuitive.

In a domain as introspective as race and identity, students should retain their right to decide to participate or not. Some subjects can be very difficult to broach and the exchanges that ensue might also be triggering. For some, this may be a window of opportunity—an outlet for minority culture where frustrations are expressed and assistance sought. For others, it is just another occasion in which they are spotlighted or, worse, pitied. Consequently, In order for the atmosphere in Race Project workshops to be propitious to a devoted discussion, the platform should be more open and comprise students who participate willingly.

Rather than making attendance mandatory in lease agreements, organizers should take more steps to improve the availability and accessibility of the workshops themselves. The program is, after all, in its infancy—now would be the ideal time to consider smaller steps to improve attendance before leaping to a more drastic measure. For instance, workshops could be held multiple times throughout the year. There is potential for one to take place in the Fall semester and another in the Winter semester; this would to help to create a sense of continuity and provide an opportunity for reflection. Talking about these issues once does not etch them into students’ memories. But taking steps to create a conversation will. As a result, the entire initiative could be made less formal and subtly introduced into rez life in a variety of manners. Floor fellows, who are already in collaboration with Race Project, could also be instructed to stir similar conversations during ‘Floor Tea,’ for example.

The need for Race Project is undeniable—it was developed as a result of student demand. But in ensuring that the project fulfills its purpose and lays the foundation for students to be critical and self-reflective members of the McGill community, it must grant students the choice of whether or not to partake.

1 … 757 758 759 760 761 … 1,363

Read the latest issue

Read the latest issue