Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Pace, Professor in Global Studies, Roskilde University

When the British government recently announced its plan to emulate Denmark’s asylum and immigration system, it framed the move as a way to restore fairness and regain control. But for those who know how Denmark’s system actually works, the move raises serious ethical — and practical — questions.

This is not the first time the UK and Denmark have looked to each other for ideas on tough migration policies. In 2022, both considered schemes to send asylum seekers to Rwanda and for claims to be processed there.

In the end, neither country went ahead. Denmark paused its proposals and the UK’s scheme was blocked by the courts and then ditched after a change of government.

Denmark once prided itself on its liberal welfare state and human rights commitments. But it has spent the past decade turning itself into one of Europe’s toughest destinations for refugees.

Indeed, it is the only country in Europe to have revoked refugee protection on a large scale. And the first to reorient its laws away from integration and towards return.

I have spent years studying Denmark’s migration system and interviewing the refugees affected by it. My forthcoming book, Un-welcome to Denmark, traces the laws governing entry, residence and expulsion in Denmark’s Aliens Act, which has been amended more than 100 times over 36 years (1983–2019).

For context, that pace of change is unusually high, making Denmark’s immigration system one of the most frequently revised in Europe. And this has created near constant uncertainty for those living under it.

A tougher system

The turning point for Denmark’s asylum system came in 2015, when a change to the Aliens Act allowed authorities to revoke refugee status if conditions in someone’s home country had improved — even when those improvements were fragile or unpredictable.

Between 2017 and 2018, roughly 900 Somali refugees lost their residence permits. Then in 2019, just as the Social Democrats returned to power under Mette Frederiksen, parliament approved a package of legislation that has widely been described as a “paradigm shift” in Denmark’s asylum policy.

Under this tougher system, Syrian refugees who held temporary protection had their permits reassessed. In 2022 alone, nearly 400 Syrians left Denmark, fearing they would lose their refugee status and sought protection elsewhere in Europe.

Residencies were revoked, but refugees could not be deported, because Denmark had no diplomatic relations with the then Assad government. So people were placed in so called “departure centres” — facilities designed to house people expected to leave the country (and under stricter conditions than standard refugee shelters).

Some of the Syrians I spoke with, who were detained at these centres, described the experience as extremely unpleasant — a non-life — seemingly designed to push them to leave voluntarily.

A life in limbo

Denmark has become a pioneer in restrictive immigration policies. And this has come with serious legal, ethical and moral challenges.

The European Court of Human Rights has, for example, previously found that Denmark violated the right to family life under the European Convention on Human Rights due to a three-year waiting period for refugees with temporary protection.

Last year, the European Court of Justice accused Denmark of racial discrimination for planned mass housing evictions in previously so called “ghetto” neighbourhoods (now referred to as parallel societies, where a high proportion of residents are migrants.

Refugees I’ve spoken with have told me how they often feel that integration is pointless if they might still be deported. Social isolation and limited rights for asylum seekers are the norm. Families face long waiting times for reunification despite few cases and refugees face temporary permits that hinder long-term planning.

The system is clearly designed to discourage settlement through restrictive living conditions and a lack of control over daily life, which creates a huge amount of stress and fear for those living under such rules.

Harsh and destabilising

Denmark’s asylum system shows how far a (supposedly) centre-left government can go in tightening migration policies while maintaining political support. The Social Democrats inherited a strict framework and have continued to apply it, including temporary protection, reassessment of refugee status and the use of departure centres.

For the UK, which is now considering adopting similar policies, the Danish experience offers cautionary lessons. These measures may reduce asylum numbers, but they come at a human and legal cost. Families are left in uncertainty, long-term planning is impossible and life in departure centres can be harsh and destabilising.

Any government looking to copy this approach should look beyond the statistics and consider the real experiences of the people affected. Denmark’s story is a reminder that migration policy is not just about managing numbers — it is also about the lives that are shaped by those policies.

This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Michelle Pace received funding from the Carlsberg Foundation for her forthcoming monograph entitled Un-welcome to Denmark. The Paradigm Shift and Refugee Integration (MUP, December 2025). (Details here: https://www.carlsbergfondet.dk/en/what-we-have-funded/cf21-0519/). She is also an Associate Fellow, Europe Program, at Chatham House.

– ref. Think twice before copying Denmark’s asylum policies – https://theconversation.com/think-twice-before-copying-denmarks-asylum-policies-269660

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sanam Mahoozi, Research associate, City St George’s, University of London

Iran is facing its most severe water crisis in more than six decades.

Major dams supplying drinking water to provinces with millions of residents are nearly empty, and groundwater reserves have been depleted. Many cities have endured an entire autumn without a single drop of rain.

In the capital, Tehran, and in Mashhad, the country’s second-largest city, in the north-east, some reservoirs are at less than 5% and 3% capacity, respectively.

Authorities have begun cutting off water at night in the capital, according to reports. Iran’s president Masoud Pezeshkian has even warned of possible evacuations if “it doesn’t rain soon”. Images have surfaced on social media showing university students protesting water shortages on campuses.

Water shortages pose a serious security risk in Iran. In the summer of 2021, protests broke out in Khuzestan province in the south-west of the country due to severe water shortages. A few months later, farmers in Isfahan gathered to demonstrate over the Zayandeh-Rud River drying up.

Today in Shiraz (home to iconic cultural landmarks such as Persepolis) as well as the historic cities of Isfahan and Yazd, land subsidence is cracking buildings, collapsing roads and threatening monuments as excessive groundwater extraction weakens the soil beneath them.

More than 90% of Iran’s water is extracted for farming, with much of it lost to inefficient irrigation practices. Studies show the country’s ambitious dam-building campaign, intended to enhance food and energy self-sufficiency, has disrupted natural ecosystems and contributed to the drying up of major wetlands and lakes. These include Lake Urmia, once the Middle East’s largest salt lake, now reduced to a bed of salt that could fuel dust and salt storms across the region.

While climate change has contributed to the worsening drought, Iran’s water crisis has mainly been caused by poor management. The government’s focus on agricultural expansion and dam construction has often come at the expense of sustainability, while limited regulation of groundwater extraction including widespread drilling of around one million wells, half of which are illegal, has severely depleted aquifers across the country.

Iran’s foreign policy and isolation from the international community are also key drivers of its water crisis. Sanctions have meant that Iran has limited access to new technologies. These include advanced irrigation systems, high-resolution satellite monitoring such as InSAR data (which can detect land subsidence), cloud-based AI platforms for detailed urban or infrastructure-level monitoring, smart sensors, and precision agriculture tools.

The absence of such technologies has deepened inefficiencies, accelerated land subsidence and exacerbated the depletion of vital water resources across the country. Foreign investors are also hesitant to fund projects in Iran because of sanctions, further blocking opportunities for innovation.

Iran’s divided decision-making system has made the problem worse. The ministry of energy, the ministry of agriculture and the department of environment often operate with different priorities. One builds infrastructure for hydropower, another pushes for farmland expansion, while the environmental office doesn’t have enough resources and power to make major changes. These conflicting agendas have created confusion, inefficiency and widespread overuse of water.

But Iran’s water crisis goes beyond its borders. For instance, the country shares bodies of water with Afghanistan and Iraq. Disputes over water, such as the long-running disagreement with the Taliban over the Helmand River, have already increased tensions.

As lakes and rivers dry up, their exposed beds could turn into vast sources of sand and dust. These particles can travel thousands of kilometres, crossing national borders and degrading soil and air quality across the wider region.

What begins as a local water crisis in Iran then has the potential to become a transboundary environmental threat, affecting millions beyond its border, from Sistan and Baluchistan and Khuzestan to neighbouring countries downwind.

Can anything be done?

Scientists, academics, and the media have discussed the causes and consequences of Iran’s water crisis for a long time. What’s talked about far less, however, are the potential solutions – and whether anything can actually be done to address parts of the crisis and answer the question on the minds of more than 80 million people: Is there still hope?

The short answer is yes.

Assuming the country gains access to modern technology and finance through changes to its foreign policy (which means for instance that sanctions are removed), this could turn the tide. In the short term, the priority must be halting groundwater depletion through strict monitoring, smart meters on wells, and integrating satellite data with on-the-ground measurements.

Real-time water accounting – using tools such as space satellites Grace and Sentinel – can identify critical areas and guide emergency action. The government must also inspect areas affected by subsidence or over-extraction. This might include schools, which have suffered lots of problems with subsidence historically, causing cracked walls and other damage. Then it must take immediate action, including temporary closures or relocations where safety is at risk.

Mid-term priorities should focus on improving monitoring and efficiency. Managed aquifer recharge (a strategy that deliberately directs water into underground reservoirs) using stormwater or treated wastewater, precision irrigation, digital agriculture, and AI-based irrigation scheduling can dramatically reduce losses of water

AI and digital twin technologies (digital replicas of environments) have proved to be highly effective in sustainable natural resource management.

An example of this is how the €10 million (£8.8 million) EU-funded AI4SoilHealth flagship project leverages AI and big data analytics to monitor and quantify soil health across Europe. Managing water resources is no exception. Integrating AI-driven models and using new digital tools can enhance forecasting, optimise usage, and help inform policy decisions.

Long-term recovery also depends on governance. Iran needs a unified national water authority that aligns energy, agriculture, and environmental goals around sustainability.

Legal caps on groundwater abstraction, and economic diversification away from water-intensive crops are essential. Incentivising efficient irrigation and wastewater reuse plus adjusting water pricing to reflect scarcity would help.

The country must diversify its economy so that fewer livelihoods depend on water-intensive industries, such as farming. Together, these steps could stabilise Iran’s water systems and prevent further environmental, social, and economic damage.

Iran’s environmental crisis is human-made and so is the solution. With these changes, the country could secure its water systems, and give its public more security.

Nima Shokri receives funding from European Commission for the AI4SoilHealth project.

Sanam Mahoozi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Iran’s capital faces unprecedented water shortages and even possible evacuation. What changes could help? – https://theconversation.com/irans-capital-faces-unprecedented-water-shortages-and-even-possible-evacuation-what-changes-could-help-269637

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Catherine Happer, Professor of Media Sociology, Director, Glasgow University Media Group, University of Glasgow

That trust in media is declining throughout the world is almost an unquestioned truth today. But researchers have found it hard to clearly demonstrate how we went from an era of high trust in 20th-century media to one of low trust in the digital age.

The ways people engage with media and where they go for trusted information are changing. From 2011 to 2024, my colleagues and I at the Glasgow University Media Group have charted these trends through a series of focus group studies.

Our findings, summarised in my book The Construction of Public Opinion in a Digital Age, suggest that many people feel journalism today represents the interests of the powerful and does not speak for them.

For audiences of 20th-century broadcasting and press, trust largely rested on what we might call a leap of faith. With only a small number of news outlets – and where organisations like the BBC were given exclusive access to politicians and experts – there were few alternatives for audiences to turn to for information. Most people didn’t have access to other sources or direct experience of what was reported in the news – though when they did, they trusted news reports less.

Traditional media outlets now rely on digital platforms to deliver their content, where it competes with an expanded range of alternative information sources. Mainstream news continues to be led by the perspectives of government, business and economic experts. But digital platforms also allow the voices of social media influencers, independent journalists, activists and everyday users to be heard. This gives audiences easy access to perspectives which directly and regularly challenge the narratives presented in news.

In this environment, journalists working for mainstream news outlets are expected to prove they best represent the interests of their audiences – it is no longer taken as gospel by readers, listeners and viewers.

Focus group participants told me and my colleagues over many hours of discussions that they see mainstream journalism as being bound up with a political system that is failing. For example, journalists may positively report percentage points of economic growth and demand sensible spending plans, but many people simply don’t believe things will get better.

In our most recent study, which analysed media content and audience reception in relation to the cost of living crisis (and will be published as a book in 2026), we found that journalists, in line with politicians, reported the crisis as a short-term shock, temporarily raising food and energy prices.

But our participants understood the crisis as one of long-term decline in their communities and standard of living. In other words, there is a disconnect between the priorities and beliefs of journalists and their audiences.

This disconnect was evident across all demographic groups studied – yet not all are affected to the same degree. Our findings point to a correlation between those most disaffected with the political system – particularly those really struggling – and the likelihood of investing trust in alternative “news” sources.

Where do you get your news?

With more choices than ever for where to get information, people now move between different platforms and devices depending on their needs and circumstances. During the pandemic, millions tuned in to the BBC for the latest health guidance. At other times, people follow algorithm-driven social media feeds for entertainment and news.

Our research indicates, however, that most people have a dominant mode of engagement they rely on to deliver trusted information. These fell largely into three categories in terms of preferences:

1. Mainstream sources

Older and highly-educated participants tended to rely on mainstream news. They invested trust in official forms of evidence and authoritative voices such as politicians and experts.

2. Non-mainstream sources

Lower-income participants were more likely to engage with sources which were seen as free of the mainstream “agenda”. Trust was often invested in partisan podcasters, independent outlets and bloggers – as well as social media posts more generally – who shared their scepticism of public institutions and establishment figures.

3. Mix of sources

Younger participants were more likely to filter news through aggregation apps like Google News, friend endorsements, or simply be led by platform algorithms. They decided who to trust by comparing multiple sources, often giving more credibility to social media influencers who were more relatable and seen to better represent their interests.

It is important to note that these these are generalised categories – it is not the case that all those on low incomes go to social media for their news, nor that young people don’t access mainstream outlets.

New information sources are emerging in the context of algorithm-driven platforms which push provocative content to users, as well as political groups which amplify and distort people’s frustrations.

The danger is that as greater numbers move away from traditional news towards information sources without any formal verification processes or proper scrutiny of political parties, uncertainty about who or what to trust may only deepen.

Interestingly, there was one source across our studies which held a unique position of being widely trusted across a broad range of groups. That was the website MoneySavingExpert and its founder, Martin Lewis. As a financial journalist who then set up his consumer website, Lewis brings his expertise to often personalised, everyday financial concerns.

At a time when mainstream journalists are seen to parrot political rhetoric, Lewis positions himself on the side of the public – most notably during the cost of living crisis, making an emotional appeal to politicians to “help people” live on TV.

If journalists want to re-engage with communities lost to online alternatives, the remedy may lie in lessons that can be learned from figures such as Lewis, and his innovative model of trust which seems to work so well for the digital generation.

Catherine Happer receives funding from UKERC, Avatar Alliance Foundation and the University of Glasgow.

– ref. What a decade of research reveals about why people don’t trust media in the digital age – https://theconversation.com/what-a-decade-of-research-reveals-about-why-people-dont-trust-media-in-the-digital-age-264222

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Cushion, Professor, Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Culture, Cardiff University

The BBC has long weathered accusations of bias. So why did the latest scandal lead to the resignations of the BBC’s director general and head of news? Many have pointed to the BBC board’s internal divisions over how to respond to a memo – leaked to The Daily Telegraph – alleging the BBC had “systemic problems” with its impartiality. A longtime critic of the BBC, the paper prominently reported on its claims.

But there has been limited scrutiny of the document at the centre of the chaos itself, and the man who put it together: Michael Prescott. Prescott was appointed as an external adviser to the BBC’s editorial standards committee, but left earlier this year.

Having repeatedly complained to the BBC board about the broadcaster’s coverage on a range of issues, Prescott grew frustrated that the news division failed to take them seriously. In the memo, he wrote: “What motivated me to prepare this note is despair at inaction by the BBC Executive when issues come to light.”

The memo highlighted the broadcaster’s supposedly imbalanced coverage of the 2024 US election, which was viewed as favouring Democratic over Republican issues and voices. In the reporting of racial diversity and immigration, the memo claimed to identify sloppy journalism and selection bias that underplayed stories about illegal immigration. In coverage of biological sex and gender, Prescott argued the “trans issue” was largely covered from one side that celebrated “the trans experience”.

He also found “simplistic and distorted narratives about British colonial racism [and] slave-trading” that lacked expert voices. And on the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, Prescott concluded that BBC Arabic favoured pro-Hamas perspectives.

How did Prescott conduct this review?

The memo included occasional references to studies (not publicly available to read) produced by David Grossman. Grossman, a former BBC journalist, prepared the reports in his role as a senior editorial adviser to the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards committee.

There was no information in the memo about how Grossman was appointed to this role. Nor was there transparency about how the specific topics raised were selected for analysis. As journalist David Aaronovitch has pointed out, the Prescott memo does not include “a single word … about the BBC’s political, business, education, health, royalty, home affairs, climate change or crime coverage, or even Ukraine”.

Leaving aside its narrow focus, on the issues Prescott did interrogate, there were no research questions or objectives, method, sample, time frame or, crucially, analytical framework for examining output. While the memo is not a peer-reviewed research paper, to allege “systemic issues”, you need to adopt a more systematic approach to analysing news output across a broad range of issues over time.

As someone who has researched the impartiality of journalism over two decades, I believe these are all essential to transparently conveying how and why you arrived at the conclusions.

When the BBC has typically commissioned studies, including thematic reviews of news and current affairs output, the focus was justified alongside methodological details.

For example, in a 2024 review of migration coverage, the author – migration researcher Madeleine Sumption – carried out interviews with external experts and BBC journalists and executives, focus group research, samples of BBC content and complaints from audiences. From the outset, she acknowledged the limitations of the study by prominently stating: “The judgements in this report are necessarily subjective.”

Despite Prescott’s report being filled with anecdotal evidence, it included no such disclaimers. The memo featured a response from the BBC about the partial selection of stories: “Cherry-picking a handful of examples or highlighting genuine mistakes in thousands of hours of output on TV and radio does not constitute analysis and is not a true representation of BBC content.”

This was dismissed by Prescott as “defensiveness”. Prescott wrote in the introduction that his “views on the BBC’s treatment of the subjects covered … do not come with any political agenda”.

Researching impartiality robustly

At Cardiff University’s School of Journalism, Media and Culture, my colleagues and I have researched the impartiality and accuracy of journalism over many years. We have, for example, examined the reporting of the four nations of the UK and devolved politics, coverage of election campaigns, the use of statistics, role of fact checking and the allocation of airtime to parties.

Our studies have been robustly designed and transparently explained to ensure they accurately convey how they were conducted and the conclusions drawn.

Take, for instance, our studies of the four nations. These examined the extent to which England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were covered over a set period in UK-wide news. They also looked at how accurately the policy responsibilities of the UK government was reported compared to the decisions by the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland executives.

Above all, we found England was often represented as a stand-in for the UK, with a focus on London-centric politics. We also found a lack of clarity about the nations being responsible for governing in areas such as health and education.

We constructively worked with broadcasters and regulators, helping to raise awareness of stories that could be reported more effectively to promote better understanding of politics and public affairs across the UK.

More recently, we systematically tracked how broadcasters allocated airtime to the UK’s major parties. Our research showed the evening TV news bulletins focused more on Reform UK than the Liberal Democrats. Other recent studies demonstrated how the UK’s main political panel shows, such as Question Time, selected panels made up of largely Labour and Conservative guests.

Our studies have systematically tracked patterns of coverage over long periods of time, assessing the accuracy and impartiality of broadcasters through an analytical framework. Broadly speaking, we have not found evidence of any systemic bias as alleged in the Prescott memo. Nor have we alleged flagrant breaches of broadcast impartiality.

We have, however, identified blind spots where more context, background and explanation would help audiences understand often complex political and social issues.

The Prescott memo that sparked the BBC’s current crisis has not been transparent or robust in design or approach. The analysis itself falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands.

Stephen Cushion has received funding from the BBC Trust, Ofcom, AHRC, BA and ESRC.

– ref. BBC bias? The Prescott memo falls well short of the standards of impartiality it demands – https://theconversation.com/bbc-bias-the-prescott-memo-falls-well-short-of-the-standards-of-impartiality-it-demands-269576

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anna Walker, Senior Arts + Culture Editor, The Conversation

The winner of this year’s Booker prize, Hungarian-British writer David Szalay, has often been accused of overwriting. His earlier short story collections and novels sometimes lost readers in their ornate, over-detailed descriptions. It seems he’s taken that criticism to heart. After abandoning a novel he had been working on for nearly four years in 2020, Szalay has returned with Flesh – a book that, contrary to its title, strips the story right to the bone.

A short, propulsive read, Flesh took the prize because of its singularity. The judging panel said: “Szalay has a talent for only telling the good parts. This is the story of a man’s life, from his youth to deep into adulthood, and yet there are gaps left in the protagonist’s life that Szalay leaves uncovered. He generously allows the reader to fill them in.”

For our reviewer, Tory Young, who researches 21st-century literature, the novel was “deeply affecting.”

Flesh is available in all bookshops now

Read more:
David Szalay’s Flesh wins the Booker prize – a deeply affecting novel about masculinity

Running men and trespassers

The 1987 adaptation of Stephen King’s The Running Man is one of many spandex-filled Arnold Schwarzenegger films my partner has made me watch. As far as Arnie movies go – and I do enjoy the occasional one (True Lies, for instance) – The Running Man is pretty dreadful. So, if not for the involvement of director Edgar Wright, I probably wouldn’t have been tempted to see the new adaptation.

Fortunately, Wright’s signature flair for fast-paced action and lead actor Glenn Powell’s undeniable charisma makes this version a winner. In fact, according to our reviewer, King expert Matt Jacobsen, it’s “the most fun you’ll have at the cinema this year”.

The Running Man is in cinemas now

Read more:
The Running Man is the most fun you’ll have at the cinema this year

As well as film recommendations, we like to share books in The Conversation office. The one that’s perhaps been passed around the most is Louise Kennedy’s masterful debut novel, Trespasses. It follows the relationship between Cushla, a young Catholic woman, and Michael, an older married Protestant man during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. No doubt we’ll all be tuning into the excellent new Channel 4 adaptation, starring Tom Cullen and Lola Petticrew.

Romances between Catholics and Protestants are still often controversial in Northern Ireland. Laura Smith, a researcher at the University of Liverpool, regularly interviews Northern Irish women in these mixed-denominational relationships. She found that the show’s themes of forbidden love still ring true for these couples.

Trespasses is available to watch on Channel 4 On Demand

Read more:
Trespasses: little has changed for couples dating across the religious and political divide in Northern Ireland

Brilliant women

Apple TV had me at “Emma Thompson” with their new drama Down Cemetery Road. Add Ruth Wilson to the mix, and I’ve been counting down the days to its release. Now that it’s here, it doesn’t disappoint.

Art conservator Sarah (Wilson) and private investigator Zoë (Thompson) uncover evidence that the UK government deliberately maimed its own soldiers during secret chemical weapons testing on the Afghanistan battlefield. The result is thrilling, but also sharp, funny and unexpectedly thoughtful – all set to a brilliant soundtrack featuring Björk, PJ Harvey and Billie Holiday.

Down Cemetery Road is available to watch weekly on Apple TV

Read more:
Down Cemetery Road: Emma Thompson and Ruth Wilson delight in this light conspiracy thriller

Also playing on my speakers this week is LUX, the stunning new album from Spanish singer-songwriter Rosalía. It’s a remarkable piece of work, with lyrics in 14 different languages, weaving together a tapestry of styles drawn from a rich variety of storytelling traditions and cultures.

If you’re wondering where to start, check out the music video for the lead single, Berghain (which also features Björk). In it, Rosalía goes about everyday tasks – ironing, visiting the doctor – while a full orchestra squeezes into the room, accompanying her haunting, operatic voice.

Our reviewer found that through its exploration of faith and courtly love, LUX evokes the tradition of the Spanish troubadour. No wonder Madonna has called Rosalía a “true visionary.”

Read more:
LUX: the tradition of the troubadour is at the heart of Rosalía’s songwriting

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

– ref. Trespassers and troubadours: what to watch and listen to this week – https://theconversation.com/trespassers-and-troubadours-what-to-watch-and-listen-to-this-week-269734

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura O’Flanagan, PhD Candidate, School of English, Dublin City University

Set in the Oxfordshire village of Ramsden in 1916, The Choral inhabits a world where the war is distant – yet its shadow lies over every street. Many of the young men are gone to the front, their names echoing through the church and village hall. Those left behind hover between waiting and pretending that life continues as before.

The film reunites Alan Bennett’s pen and Nicholas Hytner’s direction for their fourth film together (The Madness of King George, The History Boys, The Lady in the Van). Bennett’s eye for endurance and small absurdities, his distinct blend of humour and heartbreak, lends the story a warmth which threatens but never fully falls into sentimentality.

Determined to keep something of the village’s heart intact, the local choir opens its doors to all. The remaining boys – “fodder for the mill, fodder for the front” – join with nervous energy and untested voices. Around them unfold the small dramas of youth: crushes, jealousies, the thrill of being noticed – all under the dark cloud of war.

At times, the film recalls early Downton Abbey: the lightness of routine belying a deeper unease as the order of things begins to tremble. Hytner’s direction keeps the tone measured, his pacing unhurried, the village life unfolding in laughter across fields, flirtation in the lanes, and the faint hum of something approaching.

Ralph Fiennes, in superb form, is characteristically restrained as Dr Guthrie, the new choirmaster whose time in Germany prompts quiet gossip and complicates his loyalties. Dressed in tweed with a pocket watch gleaming, he brings calm authority tinged with sorrow. Alongside the enemy across the Channel, Guthrie sees the human faces behind the rhetoric of war, and thus he is both insider and outsider.

Beneath his composure runs a conviction that compassion itself has become a form of dissent. When Jacob Dudman’s traumatised soldier laments “life’s fucking shit”, Guthrie replies simply: “So, sing.” It becomes the film’s credo: music as both defiance and survival, a way to hold despair at bay. That spirit finds its fullest expression in Mary (Amara Okereke), whose voice lifts through the air with a brilliance that soars towards the transcendent.

Disappointingly, in a story otherwise so attuned to compassion, the film’s portrayal of women feels thin. The women of Ramsden are treated as narrative currency, their sexuality quietly commodified and offered as recompense for men’s suffering. The Choral would struggle to pass even the most forgiving version of the Bechdel test: the few conversations between women are framed by men’s absence or desire.

The film hints at a worldview in which women and sex are treated as rites of passage, experiences the young men are owed before war denies them adulthood. Yet for all the attentiveness to male sorrow, its compassion remains finely tuned to the loss which binds the village, finding moments of truth despite its blind spots.

While the choir scenes are wonderful and the climactic performance is deeply moving, the film is most affecting in its quietest moments. Jubilant farewells at the railway station are almost immediately shadowed by trains bringing home the wounded. The innocence of departure meets the silence of return, and in between lies everything the village will lose.

When a young woman rejects a soldier newly home, Hytner captures the moment with painful clarity: the war has already cut him off from the life he fought to reclaim. The village photographer (Mark Addy) records the last flicker of innocence, freezing faces that might have stepped from the stanzas of Philip Larkin’s poem MCMXIV “grinning as if it were all / An August Bank Holiday lark” – still radiant with a trust in life that history will soon betray.

The Choral is both elegy and celebration: a reminder that even in the quietest corners, song can sound like survival – the fragile note of hope that refuses to fade.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Laura O’Flanagan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Choral: this moving first world war film reveals the power of music to transcend despair – https://theconversation.com/the-choral-this-moving-first-world-war-film-reveals-the-power-of-music-to-transcend-despair-269771