Cinco de Mayo

Hoy las armas nacionales se han cubierto de gloria.

Ignacio Zaragoza, May 5th, 1862.

First of all, I'd have to say that the inspiration behind this piece of writing came back in St. Patrick's Day, when I read Seamus McKiernan's article on The Huffington Post titled "Why I don't celebrate St. Patrick's Day". At first, I thought it was sort of odd, but later on I could find a reasonable ground for discussion about this topic, and actually how many similar issues were found with celebrating Cinco de Mayo and those like me who have Mexican heritage. I saw the parallelisms between both festivities. I saw the common ground between the Irish and the Mexican immigrants, with the bonus of remembering all those brave fighters who were part of the St. Patrick's Batallion, switching sides to fight for Mexico in the US-Mexican War. (And the reason why I have always wanted to travel to Clifden, Connemara, Ireland on September 12^th, to see the Mexican flag flying in remembrance of John Riley and his “Patricios”).

To begin with, I do not actively celebrate Cinco de Mayo. I might end up going out to a party by mere circumstance, but not exactly looking forward to it. Not in the way it is celebrated nowadays in the States. Cinco de Mayo is way more than enchiladas and tequila. It is way more than wearing a large sombrero and a fake moustache. Cinco de Mayo, though the remembrance of a temporary victory over the French, represented a good chance of a feeble and outnumbered David winning over a cocky and strong Goliath. 

Having lived in Mexico showed me the two different perspectives toward this celebration. In Mexico, May 5th is a national bank holiday, since it is the anniversary of the Battle of Puebla, back in 1862, when the Mexican army defeated the French. Obviously, there would be official government ceremonies, but not wide public celebrations as seen in United States. My reasoning behind that remarkable difference might be in the person of the leader of that Mexican army, a general named Ignacio Zaragoza.

This is the story of a man who was born in one little town, where nine flags have flown over the time. A little town that belonged to three countries while he lived. A man who had it all against him. His family left the town where he was born to move south, two years before the ones that called themselves Texians defied a central government looking forward to become a independent country. Growing up, he was enrolled to become a man of religion, but the times were changing so he pursued a different career. He might have not imagined back then that he was to face a great challenge and even less that he would overcome it to give a glimpse of glory to his name. Back then, Mexico was a country troubled by long internal fighting between Conservatives and Liberals. Such division and struggles had influenced in the loss of half its territory and a number of serious problems which were such a hurdle for the healthy growth of a nation. This same division caused in the long run that a foreign power became interested into invading them.

8 years before the French invasion, there was a competition to write a National Anthem. The lyrics of the chosen one (the one still being used as Mexican National Anthem) say:
 
"Mas si osare un extraño enemigo
profanar con su planta tu suelo, 
piensa ¡oh Patria querida! que el cielo
un soldado en cada hijo te dio."  

(But if some enemy outlander
should dare to profane your ground with his sole,
think, oh beloved Fatherland!, that Heaven
has given you a soldier in every son.). 

This was not totally true until 1862. For that brief moment, a man knew how to unify and lead his army to defeat a better one fulfilled that half-stanza.  He commanded a poorly equipped and outnumbered Mexican army to defend the city of Puebla against elite French forces.

Ignacio Zaragoza was Texan-born, from a place known today as Goliad, Texas (though similar to Goliath, the name is believed to be an anagram to Hidalgo, the founding father of Mexico) This happened years before the Independence of Texas from Mexico. This mere fact might establish the first reason behind the popularity of Cinco de Mayo in the States: how a Texan-born, fighting for another country (though he was raised more like a Mexican than a Texan), could defeat what was the best army back then. A short-lived victory though, since a year later the French defeated the Mexican and helped establishing the Second Mexican Empire, with Archduke Maximilian of Habsburg as emperor, and Zaragoza passing away of typhoid fever before Maximilian was crowned.

Some historians go further in the analysis regarding the increased importance of this apparently isolated event. During the same timeframe, United States was through the Civil War, and though there were no direct support from the States to either Mexico or France, historians like José Antonio Burciaga believe that if the French had won that battle, they would have aid the South to free the blocked ports. According with several academic studies, Cinco de Mayo became quite popular during the 1940’s due to the Chicano movement, as a banner for the Latino movement in Latino en California.

However,  whichever the reasons Cinco de Mayo has achieved this higher relevance in United States than in Mexico, my concern is that, as McKiernan expressed, this celebration it is becoming in just an excuse to drink and recreate a fake stereotype of Mexican people. Not everyone in Mexico wears a sombrero, or drinks tequila. The most famous kind of enchiladas made around the States is not even common in Mexico. Though it is heartwarming - for those who share Mexican heritage like me - to see music and traditions being celebrated through United States, at a certain extent it becomes amusing and somewhat annoying when a non-Mexican says “Happy Mexican Independence Day!”, which in fact is celebrated on September 16^th, and it is actually a bigger of a deal in Mexico. Everyone gathers with family and friends, preparing traditional dishes and drinks, wearing traditional costumes and waiting for the ceremony of the “Grito”, where the Mexican President goes in front of the crowd waving the Mexican flag shouting Vivas in remembrance of the equivalent of our Founding Fathers.

Some might say: “Whatever! Good for you, we will drink the tequila!” and I do respect. But I do consider that there are still quite sensitive issues for Mexicans living in the United States, being immigration maybe the most important. I am not against an inclusion of Mexican customs as acknowledgement of the widespread Mexican heritage that many of us share; nevertheless, I would like to see more content in these celebrations. Cinco de Mayo should be a reminder of how we can achieve things even against all odds, if we learn to overcome the strengths of our adversaries and join all our efforts. To help people see Mexico is more than bad news related with violence, and that we should be proud of this heritage. Mexico is the country of Sor Juana, of Frida and Diego, Alfonso Cuarón and Emmanuel Lubezki. The country of Juan Ruiz de Alarcón, Gonzalez Camarena, Mario Molina, Hugo Sanchez and Chicharito. The country whose soccer representative defeated the Brazilian giant in the shrine of English football two years ago in London. The country of a general who, against all odds, in front of a few thousand ragged soldiers held the world’s most powerful army back then, covering the national weapons with glory.

Downton, The Great War, and what Mexico has to do with it.

Downton, The Great War, and what Mexico has to do with it.
(Or the fascinating way all topics end up related).

Well, this is me, jumping late into a fandom wagon. I have been hearing about some TV series, recently born sagas that have captivated the attention of many people I know. Due to many reasons (maybe being a nomad during the last 3 years and deliberately refusing to get a new TV set) have increased my reluctancy of becoming again any given series follower, perhaps since I reckon I refuse to create an attachment to a TV program that can be finished anytime at the producers' will. (It happened back with "Cold Case"). However, I decided to contradict this former behavior by starting watching Downton Abbey. I have read many good comments about it, and I tried to channel my tendency to crave anything even remotely related to Britain by watching the first episode of Season One. And I immediately fell onto a slightly obsession around the Crawleys, and their world one hundred years ago.

Maybe now that I am almost done with the three seasons (actually holding to the last episode since I already know what happens and I will not discuss it any further since I hate being a spoiler!) I reckon that one of the things that I really like about this drama is how the temporality of life is portrayed. For many of us, war is just an idea. We might try to simulate it by playing videogames, watching epic sagas, etc. But our perspective is not entirely affected by the awareness of clear and present danger. We take life and most of its commodities for granted. We might repeat as parrots that life is short, and you might not be here tomorrow, but there is not a high percentage of probability of having a dangerous situation that can give additional weight to our words (or so we perceive).

The thing is, that at first I was not that interested since the time period when the series is developed (right after the Titanic sinking and then during the First World War) was not exactly my cup of tea. Personally, I have been strangely attracted to either the Regency period (i.e. early XIX century, when Jane Austen wrote her masterpieces) or the Plantagenet-Tudors hegemony (XV-XVI centuries). However, the dramatic plot moved me into looking for more information about it. I knew the main facts about The Great War (or World War I, as we call it across the Atlantic) but not really a great deal of it. I knew some events, like the sinking of the British passenger ship named "Lusitania" where a number of Americans were killed, and from my first source of knowledge about this particular event, I was told that due to this, United States entered the war. But reading more about the topic, it seems like this sole event was not the main reason.

And here is how Mexico appears on stage. During the second decade of the twentieth century, this country was engaged in the Mexican Revolution, a civil war started to overthrone Porfirio Diaz, who had become a dictator ruling the country for 30 years. There were a lot of external interests regarding the outcome of this armed conflict, due to the foreign investments done in Mexico during the Porfiriato. And obviously, these external interests tried to engage the fighting nation into their side of the conflict. So here is where Arthur Zimmermann, Germany foreign secretary, saw his attempts of creating a German-Mexican alliance frustrated. The "Zimmermann Telegram" was sent to the Mexican government led by Venustiano Carranza, in order to offer German support to Mexico to recover the lost territory back in the war against US, in exchange of Mexican support against the Allied Forces, led by the British. This telegram was intercepted by British naval intelligence and then sent to the United States embassy in London. When it was published on the Spring of 1917 in the States, this was interpreted as a direct German threat to the United States. Then the American forces joining the European conflict was something that followed right soon afterwards.

There has been some claims that Mexican government even analized the proposal, but it was immediately rejected based on the current situation of the country, already torn down due to seven years of conflict, as well as the unfeasible scheme of providing armed support in both ways (either Mexico to German, or viceversa) due to the British naval strategies that could block the supplies in both directions. Also reconquering the lost territories (from Texas to California) would imply severe adaptation schemes for the Americans already settled  and already used to the American laws.

Obviously, this topic sounds quite interesting and it seems like scholars have already analyzed if the Zimmermann telegram was nothing more than something used by the British in order to drag the United States into the war to secure the Allied triumph. And for me it is quite funny how you can link a modern British drama series with the Mexican revolution. It keeps my belief that somehow all topics end up related one to another.

I don't know how to love him...

I have not seen Jesus Christ Superstar, neither the movie nor the play. However, recently when one of my favourite singers (Melanie C) was going to appear as Mary Magdalene, I paid attention to the song she performs, called "I don't know how to love him". And I really liked the song.

Maybe my perspective is biased since I am her fan and I have not seen the whole play. However, from the lyrics I can say it is such a interesting portrayal of one of the female followers of Jesus. And I say interesting, since we are talking about a woman who was used to play an unpleasant role on society. I know, there has been a great deal of discussion about the true personality of Mary Magdalene, if she was really a sinner, a prostitute or according to Dan Brown, the wife of Jesus and the true chosen one to hold the power of the Christ church on Earth. Keeping this aside from any polemic discussions, let's stick to the baseline representation of Mary Magdalene as one reformed sinner. If she was who we have been told she was, the song cannot be more realistic about her perspective about this Galilean prophet, and His message of Love. Her, who was used to be the object of paid desire of man, found really confusing how to approach him, "how to love him". Us, as used to the modern idea of women having similar rights to men, having the right to vote and to work and do most of the things women like her obviously could not. For us might be difficult to understand, but if even the world of our grandmas was pretty different to ours, obviously thousands of years might be.

Hope you like this piano cover anyway :D

My two cents about the Oscars

Well, I do not really understand the urging necessity of some human beings to keep a criticising attitude towards everything. I mean, I am critical as well, but with things as movies, I understand that the main purpose of a movie is to entertain. My prior statement goes along with the reactions shown about some of the movies that were nominated for the Academy Awards this time. We all know movie industry depends on a lot of things and interests far beyond the mere art of filming. We do know that for sure. Even so, we are

able to see them honouring most of the best movies done by the mainstream industry. So why the surprise?

Let's take for example "Les Misérables". I have read several comments against the movie, based on the average singing performance of the actors involved when compared with the stage representations. Well, I have news for you. Stage representations are done wherever else, from Broadway to Mexico City, from West End to Auckland. Even in the border town I grew up in is planning to do one soon. And obviously, you might find more gifted Fantines than Anne Hathaway or way more skilled performers than Russell Crowe. But let me tell you something. I would pay for watching a movie with recent Catwoman singing about her cruel and painful life, sacrificing her hair, or the only one Gladiator attempting to sing stage-like or hunk Wolverine showing why he is one of the most perfect men in this world. I would not care about the best singer of West End or Broadway, I'm not a musical comedy expert. And the ugly truth is that most of the moviegoers are not. If they were, we would have more stage than movie theatres. You have to make ends meet. It's a matter of business and money. And I really enjoyed seeing all the ensemble cast singing an arrangement of "One Day More" special for the night, since in the movie Fantine does not take part on it (she is supposed to be dead by then).

Let's talk about "Argo". I got into a silly discussion with a Twitter random guy (silly, since I just kept saying "Peace out") but the thing is that for every historic event, there will be three sides of the story: our side, their side and how it really happened. You should choose to see the content rather than the form. It would be sort of distracting the issue that political interests got involved (even more if the First Lady presented the award!) but what I find fascinating is how something as vain and superflous as movie industry can be deemed can serve a higher purpose: saving human lives. And at the end of the day, I reckon most of the nominated movies caused some stirs regarding their central topic: Lincoln about the abolition of slavery, Django about the Tarantino-violence and portrayal of slavery, Silver Linings Playbook about a unrealistic scheme about bipolar disorder (Note: only one reviewer said so, the one from The New Yorker), Zero Dark Thirty about supporting torture. Anyway, I enjoyed seeing Ben Affleck receiving his Best Picture award. He really made a great work. If you watch Argo and notice you feel like watching a 70s movie for the quality of the film, not only due to the way the people are dressed, it is because he cut in half the film and give it some special treatment to make it look like the material used back then. And even when you can google and find out about the storyline, and you might know in advance how it is going to end, the whole movie your attention is caught by the movie and you are at the edge of your seat.

Let's move into more mundane stuff since for the previous ones, everybody will have their piece of opinion. One interesting fact about the two actresses that got an Oscar home. It is not widely known that Anne Hathaway was originally cast for the role of Tiffany in "Silver Linings Playbook" (the one that gave Jennifer Lawrence her first Oscar for Actress in a Leading Role). However, scheduling issues with The Dark Knight Rises made her to decline the role, so David O. Russell looked for another actress. After taking several famous comedy actresses into consideration (even *ergh* Angelina Jolie) for auditioning, he reluctantly accepted to give Jennifer Lawrence an audition (he thought she was too young) but after an audition via Skype he found her perfect for the role. And now you see it paid back for both.

I liked the irreverent hosting by Seth MacFarlane. Several of his jokes caused more than one "gasp" by the audience, but other than that the guy was cool. Other notable performances were obviously the songs, where Adele had a lukewarm reception by the audience, opposite what they did with Jennifer Hudson (maybe the effect of being "close to home" aside her stunning performance were important here, but nevermind, Adele's got it all!).

Being more frivolous, I loved Jennifer Aniston's dress, and how Charlize Theron can rock a pixie haircut. And she surely can dance. It was a funny ceremony. Call me frivolous and vain, I don't care. Quoting Tarantino, "PEACE OUT!"

Quite a while...

Wow! I just realized it has been a while since the last time I blogged regularly. All I have done lately it is more like sporadic posts, but not with the same enthusiasm I used to. (I avoided to say "like I used to" since it is almost the same title of a song I recently covered from The Cranberries). This happens when you end up tired of writing a dissertation and keeping up with coursework at grad school. But anyway, I reckon recess is over and my fingers are desperate for typing endlessly like before.

So this is a public announcement that I will resume posting articles, pieces of opinion, poems and any interesting piece of thought it could be shared via this blog. Hope you like them! And hope these holidays give me chance to stick to this resolution!

Noor

God put a smile upon my face

I want to be remembered with a smile in my face. Smiling to life, even if life does not smile me back. Grinning, beaming with joy, laughing so hard that tears of joy run down my face. Do not want to be remembered with a serious expression, with my eyes drained of all positive emotion. I know life is tough sometimes, but you can find the brightside and find out a thousand of reasons to make the muscles of your face to exercise while lifting the corners of your upper lip in a fabulous motion.

Smile. Whichever is the way you want it. Either the concealed smile from one of the most admired paintings in the world, shown at the Denon Wing, 1st floor of the former Palace of the Kings of France that Louix XIV thought it was too small to live in; or the open-mouthed cynical expression of the Cheshire cat.

Pre-Valentine mood...

Well, since a hideous laryngitis is not allowing me right now to make use of my voice for singing purposes, I will rely on writing words to make a good use of available time (as well as procrastinating on finishing another article I want to hand in before Monday!). Next week Valentine's Day is coming, and it is great for a purpose of writing about a song I have been listening and playing over and over in order to make a decent acoustic cover. I am talking about "Someone like you", a song from the British singer Adele, who is nominated for I-don't-know how many Grammy's for tomorrow's award show. Even when the showbiz world is currently shocked with the death of Ms. Whitney Houston, I will hold my thoughts regarding that in order to write about something I was meaning to express my perspective about it, and that I have been making some remarks every now and then.

My first general perspective of Adele's "21" was that it was a post-breakup mood album. Songs generated from the intense mix of emotions caused from the end of a relationship, or something like that. The song I will write about is "Someone like you", a song that talks about the perspective of a post-breakup scheme where one of the parts has moved on and already engaged in another relationship, with perhaps stronger ties (well, perhaps is not the best way to describe it since it clearly mentions "I heard that you settled down, that you found a girl and you're married now"). From a personal perspective, it can become a heartbreaking song since it shows a situation where things have obviously changed but oneself refuses to, as well as a hypothetical scheme where the transmitter gives a message of good wishes for the other, even though it is dying in the inside and wishing things were as before.

I have always thought songs are such a powerful way to convey emotions. Obviously it includes a lot of factors in order to make a deep impression in the public. Let's take the late Whitney Houston as an example with her majestic performance of "I Will Always Love You". This song had been written and performed by Dolly Parton way before, but it was until its release as part of the soundtrack of "The Bodyguard" that this song made an impressive impact from there on in the music industry. And I reckon that one of the factors was the way Whitney performed the song, she definitely nailed it! (I don't really pretend to diminish Dolly Parton's, but there you go, the charts show the difference!). My point here is that Adele gives such a heartbreaking performance from the perspective of someone left in the past, showing up to acknowledge the current situation and aside of any ongoing feelings, still wishes you the best! The starting line of the chorus is quite powerful and sets the whole argument of the song:

Nevermind, I'll find someone like you
I wish nothing but the best for you two...

Gosh. Just expressing "someone like you" shows a deep longing for being part of the future of the other one. To strongly wish the other one were the "significant other". But hell no, the other one has moved on and made it right, "found a girl and is married now". So what is left for the transmitter? To get over it, and try to get another life, with "someone like"? Geez. That's why I will move on to the next song as an antidote...

I hope that you miss me,
put me down on history
I feel such a reject now
get yourself a life...


The preceding lines are part of the song "Loud and Clear" by The Cranberries from their fourth studio album called Bury the Hatchet. This song shows quite a contrary perspective from the post-breakup perspective. Obviously, by reading the first four verses it is quite clear that the message from this song is completely opposite to Adele's. And I mentioned it as an antidote because the great performance made by Adele left me sort of saddened the first time I listened to her song, and I browsed immediately my music catalog looking for something that could counter-effect it. And I found it in The Cranberries's song. As you listen to it, you can find out the depicted message is from the other side of the coin, where a relationship is over and the transmitter lists the reasons why is better off alone (or at least, not with the receiver). It is maybe less naive than Adele's since it openly vents out all the negative feelings of sorrow and pain that the breakup has caused. It gives you the impression the transmitter might be more realistic and frank acknowledging why the relationship is over. Even though the final lines are a little bit extreme regarding the final wishes of the transmitter:

I hope that you never
Get the things you wanted to
Now I cast a spell on you
Complicate your life

Hope you get a puncture
Everywhere you ever drive
Hope the sun beats down on you
and skin yourself alive

A little bit tough and outspoken, isn't it? But let's be realistic just for a little while: all relationships end up for a reason. The flaw in Adele's song is that it depicts a wonderful scheme that it was broken by something we ignore and all we can imagine is that maybe the receiver is some sort of heartless bastard who did not care at all about the feelings of Adele or one self. But at least we take the bright side, showing mercy and the best disposition toward the one who got away with a "girl that gave you things I didn't give to you". Just reading this line leaves me wondering between a real kind disposition of understanding and goodwill and a really low self-esteem. It could be translated into "I was not exactly what you were looking for, but I know you are a really nice lad and I am still so into you" or "I was not and I am still not good enough for you". Sucks!

Taking the second road of contentious low self-esteem, that is one acknowledgement made by O'Riordan song:

I remember there was
Nothing I could ever do
Never could impress you
Even if I tried

It acknowledges a previous state of low self-esteem and continuous looking for other's approval, that seems to be fortunately over. That is why I was uneasy about Adele's song. Why this concern regarding "someone like you", if "with you things didn't work". Just by making a point of "you found a girl that gave you what I couldn't" drives me crazy thinking that the singer felt not good enough for the other one. Or maybe not, but that's what I could read between lines!

Anyway, the good thing about The Cranberries' song is that it left me in better spirits than Adele's. But do not make a big fuss about it: I am not a big supporter of rancor or resentment. I am supportive of venting out and acknowledging your feelings, but that's it. Just acknowledging "I'm pissed off by this and that" it is a big step towards closure and moving on. And I don't pretend to preach about it, but I reckon life's too short and there are so many things and so many people that if it didn't work with someone specific, there will be another one waiting out there. And even if it's not there, at least we were not losing time drenched in sorrow and sadness. So I reckon the best approach would be looking for a balance between acknowledging the good things from a previous relationship without forgetting the bad ones (just not getting to the extreme anger reaction of wishing the worst, like "punctures everywhere you ever drive or sun skins you alive")

Everyone has their closure period and it is OK: my suggestion is don't make it eternal.

Happy Valentine's Day (or "chocolates and friends day")

In a Better World… not Biutiful.

Another submission for the International Section of this week's issue of The Cambridge Student, which was not published since most of the space was devoted to oncoming CUSU elections.. enjoy!

In a Better World… not Biutiful.

By Noor-Hal Cuellar

On February 27^th, 2011 the 83rd Academy Awards ceremony took place in the Kodak Theatre, in L.A., and within all the film entities that were honored by the American Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) the award for the Best Foreign Film was granted to the film “In a Better World” a Danish production which portrays the story of a boy named Elias living in a small town in Denmark, whose Swedish roots, plus wearing a dental retainer equals frequent poundings for him, aside from his own personal struggles due to his parents’ separation. His idolized father is an advocate of turning the other cheek, an altruistic doctor who is often absent due to his volunteer services at an African refugee camp. Within this situation, a new kid called Christian intervenes and defends him, making them to create a strong bond that could lead not to a good end.

Rather than giving another movie review, I would like to emphasize the motivations behind the idea of making this film. In my opinion, “In a better world” shows the current complex reality on many households of our society. Even though the film in several moments confuses purposefulness with deepness, since it dwells a lot into the former but loses grip on the latter. However, with the portrait of two different realities being witnessed by Anton, Elias’s father, and the escalating anti-social behavior of Christian, holistically the message given is that the tendency toward the animalistic is present in us all, even the idyllic scheme known as the Denmark society. And this holds true if we reviewed the origin of this film that was started as a discussion between the director, Susanne Bier, and the screenwriter, Anders T. Jensen, about the perception of Denmark as a quite harmonious society. Then, the idea was to develop a plot when the dramatic turns of events would break the idyllic image of a blissful place. This entire together, plus several other ingredients like the cinematography capturing the harsh beauty of African landscapes, made it the kind of prestige film that would perfectly fit into the Academy’s sensibilities. And it obviously did.

Even though the rest of the nominees were movies with high standards of quality, I would like to talk about “Biutiful” which was clearly a favorite of the critics. And also it was strongly expected since his leading actor, Academy Award winner Javier Bardem gave an overpowering performance as a troubled middle-aged poor guy and got a nomination as Best Leading Actor, category whose strong candidate to win was Colin Firth for “The King’s Speech”. Even though it shows the less glamorous face from Barcelona, and its attempt at a globalist aesthetic of compassion at a certain extent gets too pretentious, Biutiful is clearly an impressive sample of Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu film-making he has shown in previous movies as 21 grams and Babel. By showing the other side of the dazzling and idyllic Gaudí reality, full of exploited immigrants living in turbulent suburbs and far from the perfect tourist destination scheme, Iñarritu goes beyond his previous work focused in entangling disparate lives together by a random event, and jumps into a different sort of magic naturalism.

All these factors were heavily considered by the Mexican Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to be chosen as the Mexican submission for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, a decision quite controversial, since the plot takes place in Spain, and there was another strong candidate which was submitted to the Spanish Goya Awards, a film named “Hell”, which was quite polemic, since it is a political satire about the drug trafficking in Mexico. However, the reception the film had all around the world, as well as the successful background of Bardem and Iñarritu quite justified the Mexican Academy selection.

Nevertheless, it was not enough to beat the holistic scheme portrayed by “In a better world”. Even more because I reckon that the situations reflected in Bier’s film can be applied in any other context on our reality, in any other country. Even there are societies more or less troubled than Denmark, the same tribulations can take place anywhere else.

Revenge of the Lions

OK, this was the original article I submitted for The Cambridge Student, but they shortened and put it together since this issue devoted most of its content to incoming CUSU elections...

Revenge of the Lions: Victory for Cambridge Second Men’s Basketball team as it breaks a Varsity Games losing-streak!

By Noor-Hal Cuellar

With seconds left, the 71-53 home victory over Oxford Twos was already celebrated by the Cambridge crowd when the German guard Sven Krippendorf took his time and before the clock stopped, seized the chance and scored an additional three-pointer that left the game with a 21 points victory for the Lions, who finally broke a losing streak in a gripping, actionpacked Varsity encounter.

The home team, which was craving for a win after a chain of defeats vs their archrivals in this annual game off-season, showed their bravery fighting and beating Oxford on quite a dynamic match. Even when the first two quarters were slightly slow in points and both teams went to half-time with not a clear advantage for any of them, with Lions defense slightly troubled by the intensive attack of Shaan Dalwadi and Daniel Peng. This, combined with some slight issues in the Cambridge defense that started allowing fouls to the visitors could have become a negative effect on the scoreboard by the end of the match.

However, the team coached by Elias Mouchlianitis seemed to have acknowledged their purpose in the court when half-time was over. The forwards started building up, Lithuanian Tadas Jucikas and Chinese Jin Zhang. The German center Marc Steuber improved his performance through the last quarters, and the addition of Americans Wes Hromowyk and Sam Ferguson fitted perfectly with the already stunning performance of Canadian guard Andrew Sullivan, who assisted all Hromowyk points and leading the strategy of the team especially at the last quarter. Even though Sullivan was replaced just a few minutes before the end of the match, clearly his performance made him the Man of the Match.

For the crowd, the most exciting part of the game was the last quarter, since the score was 51-50 by the end of the 3^rd quarter, so basically we are saying that the conjunction of superb performance, triangle offense and strong coaching gave no room for Oxford to score and overcome the increasing difference that Cambridge was accumulating due to the excellent drives and the strong games that the Lions were showing to the Other Place folks. Oxford coach, full of frustration, started yelling at the referees for every other foul marked against his team, prompting a technical foul while the whole Cambridge crowd booed at him. The same people that kept cheering their team all game long, hitting with their hands on the wooden edge of the viewing gallery of Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre, and yelling loud “DEFENSE, DEFENSE” to inspire their players to keep on the amazing performance that led into a marvelous difference of 21 points.