Born With Teeth: queer imagining of Shakespeare and Marlowe tale is also a play about plays

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Will Shüler, Vice-Dean of Education and Senior Lecturer, School of Performing and Digital Arts, Royal Holloway University of London

Currently playing to enthusiastic reviews at London’s Wyndham Theatre, Born With Teeth imagines a historic moment in playwriting in which Liz Duffy Adams illuminates how history can be presented from a queer perspective, while revealing precisely how a play actually functions.

Starring Edward Bluemel as the Bard and Ncuti Gatwa as his contemporary Christopher “Kit” Marlowe, Adams’ play imagines the process of the two co-authoring Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3 – which historically have always been attributed solely to Shakespeare.

As the programme note makes clear, linguistic analysis points to Marlowe very likely having contributed to these plays – though of course, there is no hard evidence for the conversations that take place in Adams’ Elizabethan writers’ room.

This imagined collaboration is more than professional, as the sultry poster for the play reveals. While Marlowe is widely thought to have been gay, Born With Teeth builds on the knowledge that Shakespeare was probably interested in both female and male affections. The play contributes to a long line of queer Shakespeare work, including most recently Will Todd’s history, Straight Acting: The Many Queer Lives of William Shakespeare.

Bluemel and Gatwa display a magnetic chemistry and engaging physical presence on stage. The two young actors lead the audience through a rollercoaster of emotion, prompting them to root for the pair to kiss, fight, shake hands and ultimately write a classic trilogy of plays.

By creating this possible past, the imagined sensual co-writing of the Henry VI plays contributes to a queer retelling of history. Queer lives and experiences have traditionally been subject to erasure by historians; imagined pasts are a way of answering this homophobic practice.

My research looks at how imagined narratives provide a way of understanding queer experience and questioning what is “normal”. To queer something in an academic sense means to question any notions of dominance, legitimacy and normality in society. By foregrounding the homoerotic aspects of Shakespeare and Marlowe’s lives, Born With Teeth challenges presumptions of a dominant version of history.

Alongside exploring queer lives, the process of collaborative writing, and the tense religious environment of Elizabethan England, Adams’ play is also about plays themselves. This is an example of “meta-theatricality” – an artistic device of calling attention to the performative nature of a production. Born with Teeth does a clever job of employing meta-theatricality in three ways.

The first instance occurs as Will and Kit discuss their approach to writing the history of King Henry VI. Will is keen to rely heavily on a historic account provided by English chronicler Rafael Holinshed. Marlowe, on the other hand, doesn’t want the truth to get in the way of a good story. Of course, what a historian writes is always a version of the truth (at best), but this early disagreement between the two wordsmiths cleverly functions as almost a prologue to the play.

Will and Kit’s dialogue about writing Henry VI tells the audience the play will not necessarily be providing an accurate history of events – that while this is a play about the past informed by historical accounts, it is nevertheless a piece of theatre whose function is to entertain and invite contemplation.

So any Shakespeare enthusiast ready to call into question the veracity of the play’s events is immediately put right by the very meta-theatricality of Will and Kit’s conversation.

A second example occurs as the arrogant Kit, disdainful of his lesser-known contemporary throughout, begins to acknowledge Will’s artistic talent. In particular, Kit finds it quite powerful that Will has a way of endearing his villains to the audience.

In many ways, this is exactly what is happening within Born With Teeth. Kit is obnoxious, lecherous, threatening and petulant. And yet, his pride becomes him. His flaws are winsome and undeniably charming. In the same way that Kit commends Will’s ability to craft a lovable baddie, he himself achieves by enchanting the audience.

The third and most subtle bit of meta-theatricality – attributable to both Adams and director, Daniel Evans – is the way the characters play to the crowd. During one of their many intellectual sparring matches, Kit critiques Will’s comedic pandering to the pleasures of the pit – the part of the theatre inhabited by “groundlings”, who paid the least to stand and watch the play. Again, this is an instance of Born With Teeth commenting on theatrical practice while employing it.

The play regularly makes Shakespearean references and in-jokes which garner knowing laughter from the audience. For example, when Will comes up with lines that end up in other Shakespeare plays, or mentions how Kit will inspire his King of Cats (Tybalt in Romeo and Juliet), the audience reaction demonstrates their understanding and appreciation of these in-the-know jokes.

One of the biggest laughs comes from dramatic irony, where the audience is aware of something that the characters are not. Kit analyses and critiques some of Will’s scenes, to which the Bard replies: “It’s not like people are studying my writing.”

Of course, the joke is that Shakespeare is indeed one of the most studied and appreciated writers of all time. And so the wink-wink, pandering humour that the play comments on, it also enacts. With its clever exploration of theatrical collaboration and queer desire, there is much to enjoy here. See Born With Teeth if you can.

Born with Teeth plays at the Wyndham Theatre until November 1.

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.


The Conversation

Will Shüler 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. Born With Teeth: queer imagining of Shakespeare and Marlowe tale is also a play about plays – https://theconversation.com/born-with-teeth-queer-imagining-of-shakespeare-and-marlowe-tale-is-also-a-play-about-plays-264061

US obliteration of Caribbean boat was a clear violation of international ‘right to life’ laws – no matter who was on board

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

The moment before an alleged drug boat was hit in a targeted U.S. strike. @realDonaldTrump/Truth Social

The U.S. government is justifying its lethal destruction of a boat suspected of transporting illegal drugs in the Caribbean as an attack on “narco-terrorists.”

But as an expert on international law, I know that line of argument goes nowhere. Even if, as the U.S. claims, the 11 people killed in the Sept. 2, 2025, U.S. Naval strike were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, it would make no difference under the laws that govern the use of force by state actors.

Nor does the fact that protests from other nations in the region are unlikely, due in large part to Washington’s diplomatic and economic power – and President Donald Trump’s willingness to wield it.

Protest is not what proves the law. Unlawful killing is unlawful regardless of who does it, why, or the reaction to it. And in regard to the U.S. strike on the alleged Venezuelan drug boat, the deaths were unlawful.

Domestic U.S. legal issues aside – and concerns have been raised on those grounds, too – the killings in the Caribbean violated the human right to life, an ancient principle codified today in leading human rights treaties.

Killing in war and peacetime

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such treaty to which the United States is a party. Article 6 of the covenant holds: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Through rulings of human rights and other courts, it has been well established that determining when a killing has been arbitrary depends on whether the killing occurred in the context of peace or armed conflict.

Peace is the norm. And in times of peace, government agents are only permitted to use lethal force to save a life immediately. The United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials reinforce this peacetime right-to-life standard, noting “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The principle is also supported by the fact the U.S. has bilateral treaties regarding cooperation in drug interdiction. The Coast Guard has a series of successful Maritime Law Enforcement Agreements – known as Shiprider Agreements – with nations in the Caribbean and elsewhere. They commit U.S. authorities to respecting fundamental due process rights of criminal suspects. Such rights obviously do not include summary execution at sea.

Bypassing these bilateral and international treaties to dramatically blow up a ship not only violates law, but it will, I believe, further undermine trust and confidence in these or any other agreements the U.S. makes.

Flouting international law

In armed conflict, intentionally targeting an enemy vessel with lethal force is permitted, so long as the attack complies with international humanitarian law.

But it would be very difficult, in my opinion, for the U.S. to argue that it took action in the context of an armed conflict. In international law, armed conflict exists when two or more organized armed groups engage in intense fighting lasting at least a day. The U.S. started ignoring the definition of armed conflict when it began targeted killings of terrorism suspects with drones and other military means in 2002. War was raging in Afghanistan, but I would argue that killings in Yemen and elsewhere were not sufficiently tied to the fighting there to be lawful. The killings in Caribbean on Sept. 2 are a worse violation – they had links to no hostilities.

Organized crime groups of the kind the Trump administration alleges the boat members belonged to may be highly violent, but they are not engaged in armed conflict.

And while some armed groups waging war against governments do deal in drugs to pay for their participation in conflict, there is no evidence the gang that President Donald Trump purportedly targeted is such a group.

The term the Trump administration has used for the group is “narco-terrorist.” But that is not a recognized term under international law. As such, using it creates no exception to established principles on the right to life.

Nor does the right to life change depending on whether killings took place in territorial waters or on the high seas.

Given that the U.S. likely flouted international law, one could be forgiven for expecting the Trump administration to be held to account by the mechanisms that support the complex and comprehensive international legal system, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

But prosecuting alleged violations of international law is notoriously hard. And given the power of the U.S. government and the nature of the victims – members of an alleged drugs gang – the political will to hold Washington to account may be weak. Yet, the attack still presents an important opportunity to demand respect for international law and what it stipulates in regard to the right to life.

The Conversation

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

ref. US obliteration of Caribbean boat was a clear violation of international ‘right to life’ laws – no matter who was on board – https://theconversation.com/us-obliteration-of-caribbean-boat-was-a-clear-violation-of-international-right-to-life-laws-no-matter-who-was-on-board-264568

Kennedy hearing deepens crisis over dismantling of CDC leadership – health scholar explains why the agency’s ability to protect public health is compromised

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

Visible bullet holes in the CDC’s venerable building speak volumes of the unfolding crisis. Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images News via Getty Images

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long considered the nation’s – if not the world’s – premier public health organization, is mired in a crisis that not only threatens Americans’ health but also its very survival as a leading public health institution.

The degree of this crisis was on full display during Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Sept. 4, 2025, testimony before the U.S. Senate.

In the hearing, Kennedy openly criticized CDC professionals’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying “the people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving.”

Kennedy’s hearing came on the heels of a contentious week in which Kennedy fired the CDC’s director, Susan Monarez, spurring 12 members of the Senate Finance Committee – including 11 Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders – to call on Kennedy to resign from his position.

At least four top CDC leaders resigned following Monarez’s ouster, citing pressure from Kennedy to depart from recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.

I am a teaching professor and public health professional. Like many of my colleagues, the disruption happening at the CDC in recent months has left me scrambling to find alternate credible sources of health information and feeling deeply concerned for the future of public health.

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. walks into a Senate office building, flanked by police officers standing along the wall.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. arrives to testify before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images News via Getty Images

The CDC’s unraveling

These leadership shakeups come on the heels of months of targeted actions aimed at unraveling the CDC’s structure, function and leadership as it has existed for decades.

The turmoil began almost as soon as President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, when his administration enacted sweeping cuts to the CDC’s workforce that health experts broadly agree jeopardized its ability to respond to emerging health threats.

Trump used executive orders to limit CDC employees’ communication with the public and other external agencies, like the World Health Organization.

Within weeks, he ordered as much as 10% of the overall workforce to be cut.

Soon after, Kennedy – who was newly appointed by Trump – began undoing long-standing CDC institutions, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing all 17 of its members in a move that was widely denounced by health experts.

Critics pointed to a lack of qualifications for the new committee members, with more than half never having published research on vaccinations and many having predetermined hostility toward vaccines.

In June, more than 20 authoritative organizations, including the National Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, expressed serious concerns for the health impacts of overhauling the advisory committee.

How Monarez’s removal spurred the crisis

Public health leaders had cheered the July confirmation of Monarez as the CDC’s new director, seeing her nomination as a welcome relief to those who value evidence-based practice in public health. Monarez is an accomplished scientist and career public servant.

Many viewed her as a potential voice of scientific wisdom amid untrained officials appointed by Trump, who has a track record of policies that undermine public health and science.

In her role as acting director, to which she was appointed in January, Monarez had quietly presided over the wave of cuts to the CDC workforce and other moves that drastically reshaped the agency and weakened the country’s capacity to steward the nation’s health.

Yet Monarez had “red lines” that she would not cross: She would not fire CDC leadership, and she would not endorse vaccine policies that ran contrary to scientifically supported recommendations.

According to Monarez, Kennedy asked her to do both in an Aug. 27 meeting. When she refused, he asked her to resign.

Monarez walks into a room for a confirmation hearing with officials standing behind her.
Susan Monarez said that she had ‘red lines’ she would not cross in her role as CDC director.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images News via Getty Images

Her lawyers pushed back, arguing that only the president had the authority to remove her, stating: “When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

Ultimately, the White House made her dismissal official later that evening.

An agency in turmoil

Further exemplifying and deepening the crisis at the agency, on Aug. 8, a gunman who had expressed anger over COVID-19 vaccinations opened fire on CDC headquarters, killing a police officer.

Many health workers attributed this directly to misinformation spread by Kennedy. The shooting amplified tensions and made tangible the sense of threat under which the CDC has been operating over the tumultuous months since Trump’s second term began. One employee stated that “the CDC is crumbling.”

Some public health officials said the violence of Aug. 8 was a reaction to the ‘dangerous rhetoric targeting their profession.’

Public health experts, including former CDC directors, are sounding the alarm, speaking out about the precariousness of the agency’s position. Some are questioning whether the CDC can even survive.

A crisis of trust

Even before the most recent shock waves, Americans said they were losing trust and confidence in CDC guidance: In April, 44% of U.S. adults polled said that they will place less trust in CDC recommendations under the new leadership. This would undoubtedly undermine the U.S. response if the country faces another public health challenge requiring a rapid, coordinated response, like COVID-19.

In addition to installing new members on the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy abruptly changed the recommendations for flu and COVID-19 vaccines without input from the CDC or the vaccine advisory committee, and contrary to data presented by CDC scientists.

Public health professionals and advocates are now warning the public that vaccine recommendations coming from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices may not be trustworthy. They point to the lack of credibility in the review process for the new committee, the fact that members have made statements contrary to scientific evidence in the past, and failure to apply an evidence-to-recommendations framework as compromising factors. Critics of the committee even describe a lack of basic understanding of the science behind vaccines.

Health impacts are being felt in real time, with health care providers reporting confusion among parents as a result of the conflicting vaccine recommendations. Now, those who want to be vaccinated are facing barriers to access, with major retailers placing new limits on vaccine access in the face of federal pressure. This as vaccination rates were already declining, largely due to misinformation.

The end result is an environment in which the credibility of the CDC is in question because people are unsure whether recommendations made in the CDC’s name are coming from the science and scientists or from the politicians who are in charge.

Filling the gaps

Reputable organizations are working to fill the void created by the CDC’s precariousness and the fact that recommendations are now being made based on political will, rather than scientific evidence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Gynecology have both released recommended vaccination schedules that, for the first time, diverge from CDC recommendations.

And medical organizations are discussing strategies that include giving more weight to their recommendations than the CDC’s and creating pathways for clinicians to obtain vaccines directly from manufacturers. These measures would create workarounds to compensate for CDC leadership voids.

Some states, including California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico, are establishing their own guidance regarding vaccinations. Public health scientists and physicians are attempting to preserve data and surveillance systems that the Trump administration has been removing. But independent organizations may not be able to sustain this work without federal funding.

What’s at stake

As part of its crucial work in every facet of public health, the CDC oversees larger-scale operations, both nationally and globally, that cannot simply be handed off to states or individual organizations. Some public health responses – such as to infectious diseases and foodborne illnesses – must be coordinated at the national level in order to be effective, since health risks are shared across state borders.

In a health information space that is awash with misinformation, having accurate, reliable health statistics and evidence-based guidelines is essential for public health educators like me to know what information to share and how to design effective health programs. Doctors and other clinicians rely on disease tracking to know how best to approach treating patients presenting with infections. The COVID-19 pandemic made clear the importance of laboratory science, a unified emergency response and rapid distribution of effective vaccines to the public.

One of the strengths of the American system of governance is its ability to approach challenges – including public health – in a coordinated way, having a federal level of cooperation that unifies state-level efforts.

The CDC has been the nation’s preeminent public health institution for more than eight decades as a result of its vast reach and unparalleled expertise. Right now, it’s all sitting at a precarious edge.

The Conversation

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

ref. Kennedy hearing deepens crisis over dismantling of CDC leadership – health scholar explains why the agency’s ability to protect public health is compromised – https://theconversation.com/kennedy-hearing-deepens-crisis-over-dismantling-of-cdc-leadership-health-scholar-explains-why-the-agencys-ability-to-protect-public-health-is-compromised-264273

Put down your phone and engage in boredom – how philosophy can help with digital overload

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mehmet Sebih Oruc, PhD Researcher in digital media and philosophy, Newcastle University

Vectorium/Shutterstock

It feels like there are so many things constantly vying for our attention: the sharp buzz of the phone, the low hum of social media, the unrelenting flood of emails, the endless carousel of content.

It’s a familiar and almost universal ailment in our digital age. Our lives are punctuated by constant stimulation, and moments of real stillness – the kind where the mind wanders without a destination – have become rare.

Digital technologies permeate work, education, and intimacy. Not participating feels to many like nonexistence. But we tell ourselves that’s OK because platforms promise endless choice and self-expression, but this promise is deceptive. What appears as freedom masks a subtle coercion: distraction, visibility, and engagement are prescribed as obligations.

As someone who has spent years reading philosophy, I have been asking myself how to step out of this loop and try to think like great thinkers did in the past. A possible answer came from a thinker most people wouldn’t expect to help with our TikTok-era malaise: the German philosopher Martin Heidegger.

Heidegger argued that modern technology is not simply a collection of tools, but a way of revealing – a framework in which the world appears primarily as a resource, including the human body and mind, to be used for content. In the same way, platforms are also part of this resource, and one that shapes what appears, how it appears, and how we orient ourselves toward life.

Digital culture revolves around speed, visibility, algorithmic selection, and the compulsive generation of content. Life increasingly mirrors the logic of the feed: constantly updating, always “now” and allergic to slowness, silence and stillness.

What digital platforms take away is more than just our attention being “continuously partial” — they also limit the deeper kind of reflection that allows us to engage with life and ourselves fully. They make us lose the capacity to inhabit silence and confront the unfilled moment.

When moments of silence or emptiness arise, we instinctively look to others — not for real connection, but to fill the void with distraction. Heidegger calls this distraction “das man” or “they”: the social collective whose influence we unconsciously follow.

In this way, the “they” becomes a kind of ghostly refuge, offering comfort while quietly erasing our own sense of individuality. This “they” multiplies endlessly through likes, trends, and algorithmic virality. In fleeing from boredom together, the possibility of an authentic “I” disappears into the infinite deferral of collective mimicry.

Heidegger feared that under the dominance of technology, humanity might lose its capacity to relate to “being itself”. This “forgetting of being” is not merely an intellectual error but an existential poverty.

Today, it can be seen as the loss of depth — the eclipse of boredom, the erosion of interiority, the disappearance of silence. Where there is no boredom, there can be no reflection. Where there is no pause, there can be no real choice.

Heidegger’s “forgetting of being” now manifests as the loss of boredom itself. What we forfeit is the capacity for sustained reflection.

Boredom as a privileged mood

For Heidegger, profound boredom is not merely a psychological state but a privileged mood in which the everyday world begins to withdraw. In his 1929 to 1930 lecture course The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, he describes boredom as a fundamental attunement through which beings no longer “speak” to us, revealing the nothingness at the heart of being itself.

“Profound boredom removes all things and men and oneself along with it into a remarkable indifference. This boredom reveals beings as a whole.”

Boredom is not absence but a threshold — a condition for thinking, wonder, and the emergence of meaning.

The loss of profound boredom mirrors the broader collapse of existential depth into surface. Once a portal to being, boredom is now treated as a design flaw, patched with entertainment and distraction.

Never allowing ourselves to be bored is equivalent to never allowing ourselves to be as we are. As Heidegger insists, only in the totality of profound boredom do we come face to face with beings as a whole. When we flee boredom, we escape ourselves. At least, we try to.

Man sitting on floor sighing
Rather than filling every moment we should allow ourselves to sit in boredom and see where our minds go.
Autumn/shutterstock

The problem is not that boredom strikes too often, but that it is never allowed to fully arrive. Boredom, which has paradoxically seen a rise in countries drowning in technology like the US, is shameful. It is treated like an illness almost. We avoid it, hate it, fear it.

Digital life and its many platforms offer streams of micro-distractions that prevent immersion into this more primitive attunement. Restlessness is redirected into scrolling, which, instead of meaningful reflection, produces only more scrolling. What disappears with boredom is not leisure, but metaphysical access — the silence in which the world might speak, and one might hear.

In this light, rediscovering boredom is not about idle time, it is about reclaiming the conditions for thought, depth, and authenticity. It is a quiet resistance to the pervasive logic of digital life, an opening to the full presence of being, and a reminder that the pause, the unstructured moment, and the still passage are not failures – they are essential.


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.


The Conversation

Mehmet Sebih Oruc 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. Put down your phone and engage in boredom – how philosophy can help with digital overload – https://theconversation.com/put-down-your-phone-and-engage-in-boredom-how-philosophy-can-help-with-digital-overload-262396

Thailand has another new prime minister and an opening for progress. But will anything change?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Visiting Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University; Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

Thai politics is often chaotic. But this past week has been especially tumultuous, even by Thailand’s standards.

In a matter of days, Thailand has seen one prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, ousted by the country’s top court. And following a great deal of intrigue and horse-trading, a new prime minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, has finally been elected.

Anutin, a conservative tycoon who led the fight to legalise medicinal cannabis use, was elected by parliament after securing the backing of the progressive People’s Party in a surprise move.

Despite a leader being agreed on, there will be little stability in the new arrangement. Anutin will lead a shaky minority government, as many of his conservative values and policies are in direct opposition to those of his new backers.

The deal also requires a snap election within the next four months, once some constitutional questions have been settled.

The People’s Party has demanded Anutin commit to constitutional reform in exchange for its support. So, there is a chance democratic changes might finally be achieved. But Anutin could also renege on the deal once in power, if he can peel away enough MPs from other parties to sustain his government.

This would not be surprising. The country’s conservative forces have a long history of undermining the will of the people.

An all-powerful court

This political drama was put in motion after Paetongtarn Shinawatra was removed from office last Friday by the powerful and conservative Constitutional Court over violations of ethics standards.

Paetongtarn is the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself ousted by a military coup in 2006.

Since the Constitutional Court was established in 1997, it has toppled five prime ministers linked to the Shinawatra clan, in addition to dissolving 111 political parties, often linked to popular, pro-democracy politicians.

The court has dissolved three parties linked to the Shinawatras, as well as both progressive predecessors of the People’s Party. This includes Move Forward, which won the most seats in the last general election in 2023 but was prevented from taking power.

Thailand also has a history of military coups, with at least 12 over the past century. Not only was Thaksin’s government overthrown by a coup, so was his sister Yingluck’s government in 2014.

What did the People’s Party demand?

After Paetongtarn’s dismissal, the coalition government formed by Pheu Thai, the Shinawatra family’s party, and Anutin’s Bhumjaithai Party fell apart. In the political vacuum, the People’s Party emerged as kingmaker.

Despite its popularity, the People’s Party has been repeatedly stymied in its attempts to promote constitutional reform by the potent conservative forces in Thai society.

In exchange for supporting Anutin’s rise to prime minister, the People’s Party laid out several key conditions for the new government:

  • it must dissolve parliament within four months and hold a new election

  • it must organise a referendum, if required by the Constitutional Court, to allow parliament to amend the constitution

  • if no referendum is required, it must work with the People’s Party to expedite the process of moving towards drafting a new constitution.

The People’s Party also committed against joining the new coalition government or taking any ministerial seats in cabinet.

This plan would allow the People’s Party to put forward its candidates for prime minister at the snap election, which it is restricted from doing in the current parliamentary vote by the constitution.




Read more:
Explainer: why was the winner of Thailand’s election blocked from becoming prime minister?


Thaksin flees again

Adding to the political turmoil, 76-year-old Thaksin Shinawatra abruptly left the country on his private jet on Thursday, heading for his mansion in Dubai.

Thaksin, who had previously spent 15 years in self-imposed exile to avoid legal charges, was acquitted in late August over charges he violated Thailand’s oppressive lèse-majesté law. Under Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code, anyone found guilty of insulting the monarchy can receive up to 15 years in jail.

His acquittal initially suggested that a détente between the Shinawatras and conservative forces supporting the military and monarchy may have been back on track. But the removal of his daughter from office suggested these forces were keen to demonstrate they still held powerful cards.

Thaksin had been due to return to the Supreme Court next week in a separate case that could have seen him jailed. He said on social media he would return to Thailand for the court date on Tuesday, but whether he does so remains to be seen.

Where to now?

If the agreement between Anutin and the People’s Party holds, Thailand could see some movement towards constitutional reform, followed by a new election.

The People’s Party will likely win any election held, but whether its leader will be allowed to become prime minister is another question.

Since its predecessor was dissolved in 2024, its MPs have softened their rhetoric over reforming the lèse-majesté law. But there is little doubt conservative forces in Thailand still see the progressive policies and supporters of the party as a threat to their privileged status in society. They can be expected to use all means at their disposal to ensure the party doesn’t assume power.

Given the turmoil, another question is whether the military will step in, as it has in the past, to take control.

When asked about the military’s potential role in the current political negotiations, the Second Army commander said “the military has no plans for a coup”.

This will hardly be reassuring to Thais who have lived through more coups and removals of governments than they can count.

The Conversation

Adam Simpson 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. Thailand has another new prime minister and an opening for progress. But will anything change? – https://theconversation.com/thailand-has-another-new-prime-minister-and-an-opening-for-progress-but-will-anything-change-264332

What actually happens in your brain when you change your mind?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dragan Rangelov, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Swinburne University of Technology

master1305 / Getty Images

Imagine a game show where the host asks the contestant to randomly pick one option out of three: A, B or C.

After the contestant chooses, say, option B, the host reveals one of the remaining choices (say C) does not contain the prize. In the final step, the contestant is asked whether they want to change their mind and select the remaining option A or stick with their original choice, B.

Dubbed the Monty Hall problem after an American game show host, this famous puzzle has entertained mathematicians for decades. But it can also tell us something about how the human mind and brain function.

Why do some people choose to change their minds while others stick with their first choice? What would you do and what might your choice reveal about your mind?

Choosing when to change

Research on changes of mind uses the concept of “metacognition” to explain when and how mind changes occur. Broadly speaking, metacognition refers to psychological and biological processes that inform us about how well we are doing the task.

In a sense, metacognition is that inner voice telling us we are either on track or that we should try harder.

Intuitively, changes of mind may be triggered by low confidence in our initial choice. Yet, when my colleagues and I reviewed the research on changes of mind about a range of different kinds of decisions, we found many studies showing people change their minds less often than you might think. This was surprising, given how often we feel uncertain about our choices.

On the other hand, when people do choose to change their mind, it is often for the better. This ability to accurately gauge whether to change your mind is referred to as metacognitive sensitivity.

Our research has found people often make better decisions about whether to change their minds when they are put under time pressure.

Understanding more about how we decide to change our minds may lead to ways to train our minds to make better choices.

Our brains show when we will change our minds

Another interesting question about changes of mind is when do people choose to change their minds. The answer to this question might seem obvious, as people can change their minds only after they have made the first choice.

To find out more about this process, we measured people’s brain activity before they even made their initial choice in a laboratory task that involved answering questions about moving images on a screen. We successfully predicted changes of mind seconds before they took place.

These findings suggest brain activity that predicts changes of mind could be harnessed to improve the quality of the initial choices, without needing a change of mind later. Training based on this brain activity may help people in sensitive professions such as health or defence make better choices.

Why don’t we change our minds more often?

Research on metacognition has provided robust evidence that changes of mind tend to improve choice outcomes. So why are people so reluctant to change their minds?

There are at least two possible reasons. First, deciding to change your mind is typically a result of making extra cognitive effort to analyse the quality of the initial choices. Not every decision requires that effort, and most everyday choices can be good enough rather than perfect.

For example, choosing a wrong brand of orange-flavoured soft drink will probably not significantly impact our wellbeing. In fact, consumer research shows buyers tend to report higher product satisfaction when offered fewer choices, a phenomenon called “the paradox of choice”. This suggests having more choices and, therefore, greater opportunity to change one’s mind may be more cognitively effortful.

Second, frequent changes of mind may signal personality traits that are not socially desirable. Meaningful and fulfilling interpersonal relationships rely on the ability to predict and rely on another person’s actions.

Erratic and frequent changes of mind could negatively impact relationships and people may avoid doing this to improve their social integration.

The future of changing your mind

The science of changes of mind is an exciting field of research, developing at a fast pace.

Future developments in the field might focus on identifying specific brain activity markers of subsequent correct changes of mind. If reliable and valid markers are found, they could be harnessed to help people become experts on when they should change their minds to achieve better professional and social outcomes.

Oh, and coming back to the Monty Hall problem: if you ever do find yourself offered this choice by a game show host, you should definitely change your mind. In this scenario, for mathematical reasons, switching away from your first pick will double your chances of winning.

The Conversation

Dragan Rangelov 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. What actually happens in your brain when you change your mind? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-happens-in-your-brain-when-you-change-your-mind-263907

As Trump abandons the rulebook on trade, does free trade have a future elsewhere?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

The global trading system that promoted free trade and underpinned global prosperity for 80 years now stands at a crossroads.

Recent trade policy developments have introduced unprecedented levels of uncertainty – not least, the upheaval caused by United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime.

This is presenting some fundamental changes to the way nations interact economically and politically.

The free trade ideal

Free trade envisions movement of goods and services across borders with minimal restrictions. That’s in contrast to protectionist policies such as tariffs or import quotas.

However, free trade has never existed in pure form. The rules-based global trading system emerged from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to progressively reduce trade barriers while letting countries maintain national sovereignty.

This system began with the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by 23 countries in Geneva, Switzerland.

Through successive rounds of negotiation, this treaty achieved substantial reductions in tariffs on merchandise goods. It ultimately laid the groundwork for the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

‘Plumbing of the trading system’

The World Trade Organization introduced binding mechanisms to settle trade disputes between countries. It also expanded coverage of rules-based trade to services, intellectual property and investment measures.

Colloquially known as “the plumbing of the trading system”, this framework enabled global trade to expand dramatically.

Merchandise exports grew from US$10.2 trillion (A$15.6 trillion) in 2005 to more than US$25 trillion (A$38.3 trillion) in 2022.

Yet despite decades of liberalisation, truly free trade remains elusive. Protectionism has persisted, not only through traditional tariffs but also non-tariff measures such as technical standards. Increasingly, national security restrictions have also played a role.

Trump’s new trade doctrine

Economist Richard Baldwin has argued the current trade disruption stems from the Trump administration’s “grievance doctrine”.

This doctrine doesn’t view trade as an exchange between countries with mutual benefits. Rather, it sees it as as a zero-sum competition, what Trump describes as other nations “ripping off” the United States.

Trade deficits – where the total value of a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports – aren’t regarded as economic outcomes of the trade system. Instead, they’re seen as theft.

Likewise, the doctrine sees international agreements as instruments of disadvantage rather than mutual benefit.




Read more:
No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs


The US retreats from leadership

Trump has cast himself as a figure resetting a system he says is rigged against the US.

Once, the US provided defence, economic and political security, stable currency arrangements, and predictable market access. Now, it increasingly acts as an economic bully seeking absolute advantage.

This shift – from “global insurer to extractor of profit” – has created uncertainty that extends far beyond its relationships with individual countries.

Trump’s policies have explicitly challenged core principles of the World Trade Organization.

Examples include his ignoring the principle of “most-favoured nation”, where countries can’t make different rules for different trading partners, and “tariff bindings” – which limit global tariff rates.

Some trade policy analysts have even suggested the US might withdraw from the World Trade Organization. Doing so would complete its formal rejection of the global trading rules-based order.

China’s challenge and the US response

China’s emergence as the world’s manufacturing superpower has fundamentally altered global trade dynamics. China is on track to produce 45% of global industrial output by 2030.

China’s manufacturing surpluses are approaching US$1 trillion annually (A$1.5 trillion), aided by big subsidies and market protections.

For the Trump administration, this represents a fundamental clash between US market-capitalism and China’s state-capitalism.

How ‘middle powers’ are responding

Many countries maintain significant relationships with both China and the US. This creates pressure to choose sides in an increasingly polarised environment.

Australia exemplifies these tensions. It maintains defence and security ties with the US, notably through the AUKUS agreement. But Australia has also built significant economic relationships with China, despite recent disputes. China remains Australia’s largest two-way trading partner.

This fragmentation, however, creates opportunities for cooperation between “middle powers”. European and Asian countries are increasingly exploring partnerships, bypassing traditional US-led frameworks.

However, these alternatives cannot fully replicate the scale and advantages of the US-led system.

Alternatives won’t fix the system

At a summit this week, China, Russia, India and other non-Western members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization voiced their support for the multilateral trading system. A joint statement reaffirmed World Trade Organization principles while criticising unilateral trade measures.

This represents an attempt to claim global leadership while the US pursues its own policies with individual countries.

The larger “BRICS+” bloc is a grouping of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Indonesia. This group has frequently voiced its opposition to Western-dominated institutions and called for alternative governance structures.

However, BRICS+ lacks the institutional depth to function as a genuine alternative to the World Trade Organization-centred trading system. It lacks enforceable trade rules, systematic monitoring mechanisms, or conflict resolution procedures.

Where is the trading system headed?

The global trading system has been instrumental in lifting more than a billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990. But the old system of US-led multilateralism has ended. What replaces it remains unclear.

One possible outcome is that we see a gradual weakening of global institutions like the World Trade Organization, while regional arrangements become more important. This would preserve elements of rules-based trade while accommodating competition between great powers.

Coalitions of like-minded nations” could set high policy standards in specific areas, while remaining open to other countries willing to meet those standards.

These coalitions could focus on freer trade, regulatory harmonisation, or security restrictions depending on their interests. That could help maintain the plumbing in a global trade system.

The Conversation

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Peter Draper 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. As Trump abandons the rulebook on trade, does free trade have a future elsewhere? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-rulebook-on-trade-does-free-trade-have-a-future-elsewhere-264338

Fashion icon Giorgio Armani’s impact and legacy will be felt for decades to come

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By John Potvin, Professor, Art and Design History, Concordia University

Despite the hyperbolic and fleeting tendencies of the fashion industry, few designers have had the impact of Giorgio Armani, who has died in Milan at the age of 91.

The new look and attitude the designer offered 50 years ago is today largely taken for granted and, at first glance, seems rather unassuming. But from the outset, Armani’s focus and determination was to provide his customers with an easier way of dressing that was at once practical, sophisticated and thoughtful, yet unpretentious, powerful and subtle.

His suits required little effort on the part of the wearer, whose individuality and identity were meant to shine rather than being overwhelmed by his clothes. His approach to tailoring coincided with the growing awareness of health and fitness in the 1970s and 1980s.

Armani’s body-conscious approach soon garnered attention in Hollywood, and he was asked to provide the wardrobe for Richard Gere in the now cult-classic 1980 film American Gigolo.

Humble beginnings

Born in 1934 in the small northern Italian town of Piacenza, Armani was originally destined to be a country family doctor. Before founding his own fashion house in 1975 relatively late in life, at the age of 41, Armani began in the fashion industry as a window dresser for the Milanese department store La Rinascente.

In 1961, he was hired by stylist and businessman Nino Cerruti to work in the Cerruti family’s textile factory. This new and fertile environment proved seminal to Armani’s future in textile development and would determine his own aesthetic formula.

While working at Cerruti, designing for the firm’s Hitman menswear collection, Armani proverbially and literally took the stuffing out of traditional Italian tailoring, offering men a modern attitude and a novel, less rigid way of moving and living in their jackets and suits.

Quickly, and throughout his 50-year career, the now iconic multi-purpose Armani jacket provided men and women alike armour as much as comfort and support for the body underneath.

Encouraged by his romantic and business partner Sergio Galeotti, an architect who remained Armani’s business partner until his untimely death in 1984, Armani officially founded his own fashion house in July 1975.

He quickly changed the vocabulary of both menswear and womenswear: he incorporated and adapted textiles traditionally reserved for men’s tailoring for his womenswear collections while at the same time softening the fabrics and silhouettes of his menswear. Women appeared stronger, independent, resilient and ready to take on the workplace of the 1980s, while the Armani man was less aggressive and instead attractive and glamourous.

Conquering Hollywood

For American Gigolo, Armani sidestepped vulgarity and provided the lead character with a fluid and unstructured swagger and sex appeal.

Hollywood was immediately hooked. Armani had been enamoured by the classic era of cinema as a child and the star quality of actors like Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, Geta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich, so he was keenly aware of the value and cultural potential of not only dressing actors in films, but also saw the red carpet as what was, until then, an untapped resource.




Read more:
Oscars 2024: How a dress goes from haute couture design to red carpet


Armani soon had a major impact on red carpet dressing, so much so that industry bible Women’s Wear Daily dubbed the 1990 Oscars the “Armani Awards.”

This red carpet transformation was the result of Armani’s love of cinema and his business acumen as much it was his collaboration with Wanda McDaniel, an American whom he recruited in 1988, the same year he opened his first boutique in Beverly Hills.

As a social columnist and well connected to Hollywood’s elite, McDaniel was hired as a special liaison to Armani’s increasing film industry clientele. Their collaboration was a force to be reckoned with in the industry.

Armani’s personal abode

Fuelled by a steadfast drive, the personal and professional was indistinguishable for Armani, so much so that the designer’s palazzo at 21 via Borgonuovo in the heart of Milan served as both his home as well as the theatre where he staged his men’s and women’s runway collections from 1984 until 2000.

The space provided a personal and intimate invitation to more than just fashion shows, but a lifestyle empire in the making.

In addition to co-curating a 25-year retrospective exhibition at the Guggenheim Museum in New York, the year 2000 also saw the designer transform the brand’s DNA into a global lifestyle proposition that today encompasses hotels, spas, Michelin Star-awarded restaurants, makeup, jewellery, home furnishings and chocolates, among other items.

From the unstructured jacket that’s worn with ease to the social media frenzy garnered by red carpets, Armani’s imprint can be seen in every corner of the fashion industry and around the globe. His impact and legacy will be felt for decades to come.

The Conversation

John Potvin 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. Fashion icon Giorgio Armani’s impact and legacy will be felt for decades to come – https://theconversation.com/fashion-icon-giorgio-armanis-impact-and-legacy-will-be-felt-for-decades-to-come-264653

How Reform is pitching its party conference as an American-style rally

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christopher Burden, PhD Candidate in Comparative European Populisms, Aston University

Having spent the summer holding weekly press conferences, Reform UK is seeking to drive the political agenda into conference season by holding its annual gathering before Labour and the Conservatives have theirs.

The party will meet at the Birmingham National Exhibition Centre, with a bigger agenda and line-up than previous years. What’s also notable is just how different this conference will be compared to the traditional events held by the other parties.

Labour will be in Liverpool voting on policy, debating motions and deciding committee positions while the Conservatives will be in Manchester, unveiling their policies for the year following difficult local elections. Fundamentally, these conferences are expositions to the membership, followed mainly by journalists, politicos and the motivated base.

Reform is using its conference to draw public attention. So far, that mission has manifested in staging that feels more American than British.

The conference website features images of Farage surrounded by indoor fireworks, with a rolling ticker listing key speakers. Tickets are “SOLD OUT” – although “platinum” packages are still available for £2,500, which buys you fast-track entry and champagne breakfasts with party grandees.

Meanwhile, cinematic trailers on YouTube feature yet more flashing lights, sweeping spotlights, rousing music, and slo-mo montages of Reform UK politicians delivering impassioned speeches.

Unlike traditional conference formats – speeches, debates, motions and amendments – Reform is highlighting personality-driven performances. While the Conservative conference is promoting a “thought-provoking fringe programme”, Reform is promising entertainment.

Their proposed line-up features controversial TV presenter Jeremy Kyle, former host of an eponymous 2000s TV show which was once described by a judge as “human bear-baiting”. In the video announcing his involvement, Kyle says: “It won’t be boring, trust me.”

“It’s quite interesting – when you say party conference,” he adds. “This is gonna be a party.” Having a celebrity speaker trailed in this way – and to have him redefine what the “party” in “party conference” means ahead of time marks a significant cultural shift.

Kyle – and indeed everyone involved – seems to be actively crossing traditional conference boundaries between the politicians on stage and their audiences, drawing upon the transgressive aesthetics of populism.

These tactics are unusual for Britain but normal in the US. Journalist Tucker Carlson has long performed a Kyle-type role for the Republicans. Reform appears to be replicating this approach in the UK, integrating household names into the political fold, normalising the concept of politics as something for everyone.

These spectacles are for those who may not necessarily know what they want but know that they want something different. We might wonder if Reform minds that people question how much substance there is to its policies, so long as they’ve got people discussing their agenda.

Reform is threading forms of populism normally found in the digital realm into its conference agenda. This form of reciprocal populism seeks to reconcile the needs of the politician with the wants of the audience. It doesn’t necessarily matter what is promised, so long as the audience feels as if they have stock in that conversation.

At this conference, expect audience participation and soundbite straplines. We’ll see attendees sporting “Farage Number 10” football shirts. Just as Trump fans wear red Maga baseball caps at his rallies, Farage is seeking to brand his voters with his products. Maga has successfully transitioned from party slogan to household brand and Reform is clearly trying to follow suit.

Will it work?

On inspection, these American branding tactics, rousing patriotic music and bombastic speeches prove a relatively thin populist fabric. They are imported from successful campaigns abroad and mapped over a Britain the party wishes to conjure rather than necessarily reflecting the one that exists.

Policy-light infotainment and “mega-rallies” remain distinctly foreign to the UK audience and may later prove to be an unwelcome change in a country seeking stability in complicated geopolitical times.

The celebrity endorsements aren’t themselves odd, nor are the gimmicks entirely unheard of in British politics. After all, Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey spent much of the 2024 election campaign plummeting down waterslides and falling off paddle boards.

However, Reform UK is attempting something quite different when it emulates the brash, loud populism more often seen in the US. It’s just a style at odds with British sensitivities.

For instance, while dismissing net zero as nonsense, Reform has called for Britain to open up sites across northern England and Wales for fracking. Richard Tice directly quotes the American president, with a call to “drill baby drill”.

The rejection of net zero in this way, and the calling for greater use of fossil fuels, comes straight from Trumpian playbook but stands starkly out of kilter with British public opinion.

Similarly, calling for the mass deportation of 600,000 migrants mimics what is currently happening in the US. But while immigration has captured the national narrative, and has been a long feature of Reform campaigning, the opinions of the British public are far more nuanced than supporting wholesale repatriation of hundreds of thousands of people .

It’s clear that on these topics, which are to be discussed at the conference, Reform is not necessarily seeking to represent mainstream views as they exist. Instead it is trying to shift what’s known as the Overton window, the range of what is seen as acceptable views, in order to present these issues to mainstream voters who feel disaffected by the traditional parties.

The mainstream must not underestimate this threat. Reform has undertaken a significant effort to professionalise the party, constructing an inner circle of financiers, communications experts and advisors. While the character remains definitively populist, they possess the architectures and platforms needed to effectively campaign and operate.

The party is well aware that within the first-past-the-post system, where tiny leads deliver thumping majorities, they need to achieve only a broad support, rather than total conviction. Not everyone needs to be dazzled by this theatrical party conference – just enough to tip the balance.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


The Conversation

Christopher Burden is affiliated with the Labour Party.

ref. How Reform is pitching its party conference as an American-style rally – https://theconversation.com/how-reform-is-pitching-its-party-conference-as-an-american-style-rally-264458

Long Story Short: an appealing but unsuccessful animated fantasy of memory and liberalism

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alexander Sergeant, Lecturer in Digital Media Production, University of Westminster

Long Story Short is the latest animated series from Raphael Bob-Waksberg, the talented showrunner who is best known for his early Netflix hit BoJack Horseman. As fans of his previous work will know, Bob-Waksberg’s sensibility seems to come through an eclectic mix of absurdist humour and raw, emotional realism.

BoJack started life as a madcap stoner comedy about a talking horse acting like an entitled fratboy. By the end of its six seasons, the show had evolved into a psychological drama about a supremely damaged man struggling in vain to heal himself, albeit a man who happened to have a horse’s head.

In contrast to BoJack’s evolutionary quality, Long Story Short starts exactly where it means to start. This is ironic, perhaps, given that the show’s central conceit is that it tells the story of a multigeneration family in a non-chronological manner.

In episode one, we are introduced the Schwoopers, a dysfunctional middle-class Jewish family consisting of matriarch Naomi (Lisa Edelstein), patriarch Elliot (Paul Reiser), eldest son Avi (Ben Feldman), middle child Shira (Abbi Jacobson) and youngest Yoshi (Max Greenfield). Darting across decades of time and generations of tension, we witness couples meet, marry, divorce and die – sometimes all in the same episode and almost always not in that order.

The show possesses a primarily emotional rather than rational logic to it that fits nicely with it being an animation. It’s often said that animation possesses a quality that makes it particularly good for processing emotional trauma.

The essence of the medium involves purposely selecting moments in the world to bring to life, while leaving others behind. This process of self-conscious selection provides a space to order and sort the world in a manner comparable to something like therapy, processing the information differently through the act of bringing it to life onscreen. BoJack did this particularly well.

Drawing on animation’s long-established history of anthropomorphic characters, BoJack was set in a confusing world of animals and humans. The grotesqueness of the visual design often mirrored the internal disgust the central character felt about himself. Despite his status as an uber-wealthy actor who rarely worked, the writing was so good that BoJack’s trauma became our own.

One of the strongest features of Long Story Short is its look. Using thick black lines and a minimalist approach to scenery, the world of the Schwoopers takes on a painted, almost impressionist quality. It is like watching a Van Gogh painting drawn by Hanna-Barbera, the colours vivid and spotted, punctuating spaces and distorting others, like the process of memory itself.

It’s approach to narrative, however, sits in contrast to its bold look. Its story primarily deals with family dynamics and emotional trauma but these stories are painted with faint marks, opaque colours and tiny details. As such, a weariness emerges in the viewing experience, induced perhaps more by the times in which we are living rather than any failing of the show itself.

Premiering in 2016 and finishing in 2020, during the COVID lockdowns, Bojack seems to provide a strange antidote to Trump’s first term in office. Its madness matched the madness of its times, and its relentless compassion and desire for complexity served as a nice contrast to a world marked by a politics of simplistic cruelty.

Long Story Short tries to replicate this effect, but doesn’t do it as well. Coming out in 2025, the show’s interest in the quiet, everyday traumas caused by living with siblings and partners feel somewhat narcissistic and navel gazing.

Characters represent different sexualities and religions and all embody typical notions of family life. They are each given space and time to be represented onscreen. Yet none of that makes them hugely interesting as people. The character of Yoshi (Max Greenfield) is a good example of this.

Presented as a loveable loser in the mould of BoJack’s haphazard roommate Todd Chavaz, Yoshi is supposed to be somehow sympathetic and wise. However, he spends most of his time doing very little while his relatives struggle with far more arresting problems like surrogacy, divorce and bereavement. Among Yoshi’s biggest struggles are how he will get home after a night out at San Francisco’s trendiest, Instagram-friendly hangouts.

And the fact that a lot of this is set in San Francisco during COVID makes the unremarkability of its characters and premise all the more apparent. San Francisco is an exceedingly wealthy city dominated by a liberal elite. It is also a city that suffers from an undercurrent of real poverty and human suffering. This stark juxtaposition of worlds was made all the more intense during the pandemic. However, none of this finds its way onto our screens in Long Story Short.

As you watch these comfortable people be rather uncomfortable, you feel like grabbing the frame and turning it left or right in the hope that we might have a break from all this hand wringing. For those who know the city, we’re looking for reality to break in, to see an example of the suffering and pain probably happening on the streets that surround them.

This story about the liberal coastal elite fails to get beyond their narrow concerns to find more mutual and human territory in which we can all relate. It’s safe, comfortable, a little stifling, a bit boring, and seems to be completely fractured from the suddenly dangerous and precarious world that surrounds it.


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.


The Conversation

Alexander Sergeant 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. Long Story Short: an appealing but unsuccessful animated fantasy of memory and liberalism – https://theconversation.com/long-story-short-an-appealing-but-unsuccessful-animated-fantasy-of-memory-and-liberalism-264466