Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Rushton, Professor in Film Studies, Lancaster University

This year marks the 25th anniversary of Moulin Rouge!, Baz Luhrmann’s reinvention of the movie musical. There is little doubt the movie musical was on the decline in the 1980s and 90s. The only real contender during that period was Disney (who released Beauty and the Beast in 1991 and The Lion King in 1994).

The musical was slowly being replaced by what contemporary critics called the “musically oriented film”, starting with 1977’s Saturday Night Fever, then Fame (1981), Flashdance (1983) and Footloose (1984). This trend extended to films whose soundtracks proved irresistible. Think Top Gun (1983), Quentin Tarantino’s bold soundtracks (Pulp Fiction in 1994 and Jackie Brown in 1997), alongside Nora Ephron’s nostalgic throwbacks in Sleepless in Seattle (1989) and You’ve Got Mail (1998).

These poppy soundtracks – full of songs you know but haven’t heard in a while – provided the perfect platform for Luhrmann to introduce a new kind of jukebox musical.

Not only did Moulin Rouge! pack an extraordinary number of songs into its duration – over 20, when a classic musical such as 1934’s Top Hat might contain as few as five tunes – it did so in a way that no musical had ever done before.

Traditional musicals tended to construct their song and dance sequences via long takes while also maintaining a good distance from performers. This was in order to preserve the integrity of the number. It was thought by who? important to capture a dancer’s full body so as to appreciate the athleticism and wholeness of a performance. This was central for Fred Astaire (say in Swing Time, 1936), Gene Kelly (in Singin’ in the Rain, 1952) and even Marylin Monroe (in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, 1953). The integrity of the performance was everything. Not so for Luhrmann, who introduced cut-up, super-edited song and dance numbers at breakneck speed.

The average shot length in Moulin Rouge! is under two seconds: a very fast pace for the time. While acceptable for an action movie, nothing like this had ever been done in a musical. It is likely that Luhrmann gained inspiration from pop music video culture — the “MTV aesthetic” — that had been de rigueur on TV screens for a good ten to 15 years. He had already borrowed from it in his previous films, Strictly Ballroom (1992) and William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet (1996).

From one world to another

Moulin Rouge! nevertheless borrows one of the main traits of movie musicals. The story of Moulin Rouge! is the story of the attempts of its main characters to go from one world to another.

We find this in many classic musicals. It’s in Dorothy’s dream of leaving Kansas and journeying to Oz, and then in her desire to return home again in The Wizard of Oz (1939). It’s in Maria’s desire to leave the convent in The Sound of Music (1965). Or most emphatically in Tommy’s desire to leave Manhattan and live the rest of his days in a fantasy world in Brigadoon (1954).

In Moulin Rouge!, Christian (Ewan McGregor) wants to leave his current world behind and enter a world in which he is a great writer. Satine (Nicole Kidman), too, desires to leave the world in which she is a dancer at the Moulin Rouge and enter a new world in which she will be a “real” actress on stage in the legitimate theatre.

As happens so often in the musical genre, our characters try to get to a new world by way of song and dance. That is, by putting on a show – what is generally termed a “backstage musical”. When Christian sings Your Song, he is intimating that Satine has opened up a new world for him (“How wonderful life is now you’re in the world”). Satine herself is even more emphatic in singing One Day I’ll Fly Away – and that may be her best way of getting from one world to another.

Do our characters make it to their new worlds? Indeed, Christian does: he becomes a writer and the film we see is his version of the story. But this is not so for Satine – she dies. There certainly are musicals that do not have happy endings, such as West Side Story (1961), Funny Girl (1968) and All that Jazz (1979). But it was was an extraordinarily bold move to chart the demise of the film’s most glamorous performer and biggest star. In this way Luhrmann’s debt may be more akin to opera, such as Puccini’s La Boheme (1869) or Verdi’s La Traviata (1853).

In the end, Moulin Rouge! grounds its stylistic excess in a simple credo: “The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.” As Satine does not survive to enter the future she imagines, love crosses a different boundary – death itself. Christian’s private grief becomes public art, and the romance endures as story and song. Love does not avert tragedy, but it grants it form, and in doing so allows it to last.

Richard Rushton 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. Moulin Rouge! turns 25: how Baz Luhrmann reinvented the movie musical – https://theconversation.com/moulin-rouge-turns-25-how-baz-luhrmann-reinvented-the-movie-musical-277575

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nicola Tempest, Senior Lecturer, Subspecialist in Reproductive Medicine and Consultant Gynaecologist, University of Liverpool

Academy Award-winning actress Lupita Nyong’o recently shared on Instagram that she has fibroids. The actress revealed that she has had 77 uterine fibroids over the course of her lifetime – the largest of which were the size of an orange. The actress took to social media to share her story in a bid to raise awareness for the common condition.

Fibroids are non-cancerous growths that develop in or around the womb (uterus). They’re thought to affect two in every three women – though many women won’t even realise they have them as they won’t have any symptoms.

Fibroids are made up of muscle and fibrous tissue. Their growth is driven by hormones such as oestrogen and progesterone. They can vary massively in size, from pea-sized to the size of a watermelon. Some women will only have one discrete fibroid – while others, like Nyong’o, will develop numerous fibroids. They’re also sometimes known as uterine myomas or leiomyomas.

Age and ethnicity are the strongest risk factors for fibroids. Approximately 70-80% of women develop fibroids by the age of 50. Those of African ancestry have the highest prevalence and earliest onset of fibroids, with 60% of black women affected by age 35. Fibroids also tend to be larger, more numerous and cause worse symptoms in black women.

Symptoms of fibroids can be many and varied. Heavy periods (menorrhagia) are the most common symptom. Prolonged bleeding (for more than seven days) and bleeding between periods can also be common. Heavy bleeding can also lead to anaemia (low iron), which may result in tiredness, shortness of breath and lightheadedness.

Pain can also occur with fibroids. For some, this pain only happens while they’re on the period or during intercourse, while for others the pelvic pain is constant.

This pain is usually related to the degeneration of the fibroids or pressure from the fibroids pressing against the bladder, rectum or ureters (the tubes that transport urine from the kidneys to the bladder). Pressure symptoms typically include feeling like you need to urinate often or being unable to urinate and bowel dysfunction.

Fibroids can also cause problems when trying to get pregnant. Miscarriage may also occur, due to distortion of the uterine cavity (the place where a pregnancy would implant).

People with fibroids that become pregnant are also at higher risk of giving birth early, requiring a caesarean section to deliver and having a bleed following delivery.

Treating fibroids

Fibroids usually shrink after the menopause, since levels of oestrogen and progesterone decrease. However, they may still continue to grow in women who take hormone replacement therapy (HRT).

Treatment options for fibroids will depend on a variety of factors, including the sufferer’s symptoms, the size and location of the fibroids and their fertility wishes, as some treatment options can affect a woman’s ability to become pregnant in the future.

Pharmaceutical treatment options can help reduce bleeding (such as tranexamic acid and the combined hormonal contraceptive) or reduce the size of the fibroid by decreasing the amount of hormones present (such as GnRH agonists).

Surgical options can include uterine artery embolisation, which blocks the blood supply to the fibroids and effectively decreases bleeding and shrinks the fibroids, ablation (which removes the lining of the womb) and a myomectomy, in which fibroids are surgically removed.

Some women may also opt for a hysterectomy, where the womb is surgically removed. This is usually done in cases where a woman has large fibroids and severe bleeding. Both ablation and hysterectomy will make pregnancy impossible, so it’s important these options are only considered if you do not wish to have children.

All of these treatment options should help to improve symptoms. However, surgery doesn’t always prevent fibroids from growing back. This is something Nyong’o informed her followers of, saying that despite having 25 fibroids surgically removed, more than 50 are still growing inside her today.

It’s very common for fibroids to return following removal, as the underlying causes remain. At five years after removal, there’s an approximately 50-60% chance of fibroids recurring.

Fibroids are very common. While some women will have no symptoms whatsoever, others may find symptoms to be debilitating. Research to uncover better treatment options for those with fibroids is ongoing, especially looking at non-hormonal treatment options and less invasive surgical options.

Nicola Tempest 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. Lupita Nyong’o revealed she has fibroids – here’s what you need to know about them – https://theconversation.com/lupita-nyongo-revealed-she-has-fibroids-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-them-277419

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephan Blum, Research Associate, Institute for Prehistory and Early History and Medieval Archaeology, University of Tübingen

Could ancient humans really have built the pyramids without extraterrestrial help? Or do such questions reveal more about modern anxieties than the past itself?

The idea that aliens assisted the builders of ancient monuments was promoted by the Swiss author Erich von Däniken in his bestselling book Chariot of the Gods – published in 1968. Von Däniken died in January 2026, but his vision of ancient astronauts still captivates millions.

The author had pointed to ancient structures such as the pyramids, along with enigmatic ancient artefacts, as supposed evidence that beings from beyond Earth shaped the civilisations of the past.

Though these ideas have been repeatedly debunked, television shows such as the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens continue to air similar narratives.

Erich von Däniken’s theories emerged at a distinct historical moment. They crystallised during the cold war, amid fears of nuclear annihilation, the space race and rapid technological change.

As humans prepared to leave Earth, while simultaneously confronting their own destructive power, the idea of ancient astronauts offered both cosmic reassurance and existential drama. The past became a stage for modern hopes and anxieties.

The reason some people feel able to believe in completely unfounded theories relates to the nature of archaeology itself. The discipline works with fragmentary evidence, layered deposits, and interpretations that rarely yield simple conclusions. Sites such as Giza in Egypt, Göbekli Tepe (a Neolithic settlement in modern Turkey known for its monumental pillars decorated with sculptural reliefs), and Troy – also in Turkey – are not unsolved enigmas but the result of decades of systematic excavation and analysis.

At Giza, archaeologists have uncovered planned worker settlements, bakeries and organised food supply systems, demonstrating how thousands of labourers could construct the pyramids over decades.

Göbekli Tepe shows that its monumental stone pillars were erected by hunter-gatherer communities millennia before the invention of writing – not through alien intervention, but through coordinated labour and ritual innovation. At Troy, successive settlement layers reveal centuries of rebuilding, adaptation and regional exchange rather than a sudden technological anomaly.

Archaeological conclusions are cautious, probabilistic and grounded in material evidence. To outsiders, however, caution can resemble hesitation. Pseudoscience fills that perceived gap with spectacle: aliens built the pyramids; mysterious forces raised Göbekli Tepe; forgotten super-technologies shaped Troy’s walls. Stripped of context, evidence becomes entertainment. Complexity is flattened into insinuation.

A typical “ancient aliens” argument illustrates the pattern: the pyramids are extraordinarily precise. Precision, the claim goes, requires advanced technology; therefore, humans without modern machines could not have built them.

The reasoning sounds logical – but it rests on a false dilemma. What disappears from view is precisely what archaeology studies: logistics, labour
organisation, tool assemblages, accumulated craft knowledge – and small imperfections that reveal human hands at work.

The lure of the extraordinary

Such explanations satisfy a deep psychological impulse. Where once religion explained purpose, science explains process. The “ancient astronauts” hypothesis exploits proportionality bias – the intuition that extraordinary achievements must have extraordinary causes.

Just as medieval legends framed the pyramids as protection against cosmic catastrophe, modern narratives cast humanity as part of a grand design guided by superior beings. Archaeological sites become props in a cosmic drama.

Humans cease to be creators; the past becomes extraordinary because it was “helped”. The appeal is not confined to fringe audiences. Surveys suggest that many people consider extraterrestrial life possible or even likely.

Many scientists agree that, given the vast scale of the universe, such life is statistically plausible. But plausibility is not proof – and it is certainly not evidence for alien intervention in antiquity.

Distrust amplifies the effect. Universities, museums and academic journals are often portrayed as gatekeepers suppressing inconvenient truths. Scientific refutation becomes evidence of conspiracy.

Academic prose – careful, qualified and precise – struggles to compete with dramatic certainty. Questions such as: “How could humans have built this without modern technology?” already contain the insinuation.

Digital media turbocharge the pattern: visually striking claims circulate faster than methodological explanations. Archaeology emphasises gradual change and cumulative knowledge; pseudoscience promises revelation.

Pseudoscientific archaeology is not just a set of beliefs – it is a lucrative industry. Books on ancient astronauts sell millions of copies worldwide. Television franchises generate steady revenue, and leading figures attract audiences in the hundreds of thousands online.

By contrast, scholarly work circulates in a radically different economy: monographs are printed in small runs and generate little profit. This is not only a battle of ideas but a battle for attention: spectacle is rewarded more visibly than caution.

Von Däniken’s rhetorical genius lay in ambiguity. He rarely made definitive claims, preferring suggestive questions and selective juxtapositions that turned uncertainty into insinuation.

As he once remarked: “Chariots of the Gods was full of speculation – I had 238 question marks. Nobody read the question marks. They said: Mr von Däniken is saying … I did not say – I asked.” The strategy is disarmingly simple: frame speculation as inquiry and criticism as misunderstanding.

Reclaiming the story

The popularity of pseudoscience is not simply ignorance. It reflects the difficulty of interpreting fragmentary evidence, a hunger for meaning, declining institutional trust and the dynamics of digital amplification.

Yet dismissal alone is not enough. Archaeology does more than recover artefacts; it constructs narratives about how humans organised labour, shared beliefs and transformed landscapes. Those narratives are shaped by contemporary questions — and acknowledging this strengthens rather than weakens the discipline.

Debunking alien claims matters. But so does telling richer, more compelling stories about how humans shaped their own past. Archaeology shows that uncertainty is intellectual honesty, that incremental knowledge is cumulative achievement, and that context deepens wonder rather than diminishes it.

Monuments, cities, and human creativity are achievements of our own making, not traces of lost cosmic visitors. Through cooperation, experimentation and resilience, humans created the extraordinary – without any extraterrestrial assistance.

Through rigorous scholarship and compelling storytelling, archaeology shows that the extraordinary was never alien. It was always human.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Why some people still believe that aliens shaped ancient civilisations – https://theconversation.com/why-some-people-still-believe-that-aliens-shaped-ancient-civilisations-277993

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Boubert, Principal Lecturer in Psychology, University of Westminster

They say love conquers all, but it doesn’t always conquer snoring.

In the US, it’s estimated that 82% of couples share a bed. Sharing a bed with your partner is often seen as an essential part of a romantic relationship. But have you ever wondered whether sleeping apart might actually be better for your health?

Good quality sleep is essential for both physical and mental health. As most adults spend between six and nine hours asleep in every 24-hour period, our sleeping arrangements can have a major effect on wellbeing.

Sleeping arrangements have also evolved over time and across cultures. Until the early 20th century, sleeping together with a partner, children, extended family members or even pets was common. However, the discovery of germs and growing concerns about hygiene led to fears about disease transmission. Sleeping in close proximity began to be seen as a potential health risk, and a new trend emerged for couples to sleep in separate beds or even separate rooms. More recently, we have seen a surge in celebrities announcing their “sleep divorces” from their partners – but are they right?

---

Read more:
There are benefits to sharing a bed with your pet – as long as you’re scrupulously clean

---

Sleeping together does appear to bring several benefits. It can strengthen closeness and attachment within a couple and support intimacy. Research suggests it may also have physical effects: couples’ breathing and heart rates can synchronise during sleep, which may contribute to feelings of safety and security. Sleeping together can also reduce stress and increase the production of the hormone oxytocin, sometimes referred to as the “love hormone”.

Couples often report that they sleep better together than when sleeping apart. This has been examined not only through self-reports but also through research using specialist sleep-monitoring methods, including laboratory sleep studies and wearable sleep trackers that measure movement during the night.

When sharing a bed disrupts sleep

However, what happens if your sleep is actually disrupted by your partner rather than improved?

There can be many reasons for this. A partner may snore, get up several times during the night to use the bathroom, read with the light on, or watch television in bed. They might have a sleep condition such as sleep apnoea or restless legs syndrome. Hormonal changes can also play a role, for example menopausal hot flushes or night sweats. Pregnancy, caring for an infant, or different work schedules and shift patterns can also disrupt sleep.

When these disturbances occur frequently, they interfere with fundamental sleep processes, including how quickly you fall asleep (known as sleep onset), how often you wake during the night and how long you remain asleep. Disruption to these processes can have a range of detrimental effects on general physical health.

Poor sleep can impair the immune system, increasing susceptibility to infections such as coughs and colds. It can also disrupt digestion and metabolism, increasing the risk of weight gain and conditions such as diabetes by affecting insulin regulation.

In situations like these, sleeping apart may help. Separate sleeping arrangements allow each person to optimise their own sleep environment. This might include choosing different mattresses or bedding, adjusting light levels, controlling room temperature, or even changing scents and air quality in the bedroom.

Sleeping apart can also support better sleep hygiene. Each partner can adapt their habits around their own sleep patterns, such as going to bed at different times, reading before sleep, or avoiding screens in bed. This behaviour is known to promote better sleep and, in turn, better overall health.

Why relationship quality matters for sleep

But the physical sleep environment is only part of the story. Relationship dynamics also play an important role.

Couples who report being in happy, supportive relationships tend to experience better sleep overall. By contrast, people in unhappy relationships often report poorer sleep quality. Lack of sleep can then worsen emotional regulation, increase anxiety, lower stress tolerance and reduce empathy. These effects can create a negative cycle in which poor sleep contributes to further relationship strain.

Although sleeping in separate beds is sometimes seen as a sign of relationship trouble, this is not necessarily the case. If a partner’s behaviour is consistently disrupting sleep, the health benefits of sleeping separately may outweigh the drawbacks.

Ultimately, whether couples sleep best together or apart depends on both partners and the quality of their relationship. For some couples, sharing a bed strengthens connection and comfort. For others, a “sleep divorce” may simply be a practical way to ensure everyone gets the rest they need.

Laura Boubert 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. ‘Sleep divorce’: could separate beds improve your health? – https://theconversation.com/sleep-divorce-could-separate-beds-improve-your-health-278055

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Roscoe Loustau, Affiliated Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study, Central European University

Relations between Hungary and Ukraine have deteriorated significantly over the past month. In early March, Hungarian authorities arrested seven Ukrainian bank workers who were transporting millions of US dollars worth of cash and gold through Hungary to Ukraine.

Hungary’s tax authority said they had been detained on suspicion of money laundering, which prompted a furious response from Ukraine. In a post on social media, Ukraine’s foreign minister Andrii Sybiha denounced what he called “state terrorism and racketeering”.

This incident followed an earlier decision by the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, to deploy the military to guard power plants after warning that Ukraine planned to disrupt his country’s energy system. Orbán had previously accused Kyiv of holding back Russian oil deliveries through the Druzhba pipeline, which passes through Ukrainian territory.

In these conflicts with Ukraine, Orbán’s eyes are certainly on the home front. Hungarians head to the polls in April for parliamentary elections and, with ordinary people having suffered from high inflation and limited job prospects in recent years, Orbán may well be ginning up international incidents to distract from his poor economic record.

But a deeper dive into the region’s history shows that Orbán has often picked diplomatic fights with neighbouring states, with Ukraine taking the brunt of this campaign.

When the Austro-Hungarian empire collapsed after the first world war, several countries in central Europe inherited ethnic Hungarian communities within their new borders. One of these communities was in Transcarpathia, a region of Czechoslovakia that was taken over by the Soviet Union in 1946. The Hungarian minority there became citizens of independent Ukraine in 1991, along with the rest of Transcarpathia.

A hallmark of Orbán’s nationalist politics since the 1990s has been his willingness to criticise neighbouring countries over their treatment of Hungarian minorities. And after becoming prime minister for a second time in 2010, he fulfilled a longstanding pledge to offer Hungarian citizenship and passports to ethnic Hungarians in surrounding states.

Several years later, in 2014, Orbán then called for for “autonomy” for ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine and has since then kept up a series of complaints about the Ukrainian government’s treatment of the Hungarian minority in Transcarpathia.

Following Russia’s 2014 incursions into eastern Ukraine, for example, Kyiv instituted laws restricting the use of minority languages. These laws were introduced to promote the Ukrainian language and limit Russian.

Orbán complained that the laws violated the rights of Transcarpathia’s Hungarian minority to their own culture and language. He has subsequently used the rationale of defending minority rights to block a variety of measures promoting cooperation between Ukraine and the EU.

Ukraine has been a major focus of Orbán’s campaigns regarding ethnic Hungarian rights. But the country is not alone in being targeted by Budapest. Orbán also referred to southern Slovakia, where there is a large ethnic Hungarian minority, as a “partitioned part” of Hungary in a July 2023 speech.

Orbán’s Russian alliance

It has become complicated for Orbán to maintain his rhetoric of protecting ethnic Hungarian rights as the war in Ukraine has continued and Hungary has drifted further into Russia’s sphere of geopolitical influence. For example, he has more recently muted his criticism of neighbouring countries for their treatment of ethnic Hungarians if they are supportive of Russia.

The Hungarian prime minister initially looked the other way when Slovakia’s government, which has been led by pro-Russia Robert Fico since October 2023, passed a new law in January criminalising speech against a set of post-second world war laws called the “Beneš decrees”. This law has widely been seen as targeting Slovakia’s ethnic Hungarians.

The Beneš decrees were used by Slovakia’s government to deport thousands of Hungarians from the country in the 1940s. While leaders of Slovakia’s Hungarian minority continue to denounce these decrees as a crime against their community, under the new law they could be put in jail for such statements.

Orbán’s initial response was cautious. He pledged to talk with Fico but only once he had a “sufficiently deep understanding” of the situation. Orbán’s opponent in the upcoming election, Peter Magyar, then led a protest in front of the Slovak embassy in Budapest where he denounced the new law. And under pressure, Orbán announced he would appealing the law to the European Commission.

The new law put Orbán in a bind. Should he criticise Slovakia over this assault on the collective rights of ethnic Hungarians and risk sowing discord with a fellow Russian partner? Or should he defend the Slovak government against criticism from Magyar and pay for it at the ballot box?

It’s likely that whoever leads Hungary’s government after the upcoming election will continue to pick fights with neighbouring states over the issue of national minorities. Magyar has signalled he will continue Orbán’s approach, and not only with his protest in front of the Slovakian embassy.

In 2025, he made a point of travelling to Ukraine and Romania to meet with ethnic Hungarians. And he has also consistently demonstrated concern for these minority communities in his campaign speeches.

Given his record of chiding neighbouring state over their treatment of Hungarian minorities, a Magyar win in April will not mean an end to tensions between Hungary and Ukraine. But it could still be a fresh start after years of hostility under Orbán.

Marc Roscoe Loustau 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. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán reignites his hostility towards Ukraine as he prepares for April elections – https://theconversation.com/hungarys-viktor-orban-reignites-his-hostility-towards-ukraine-as-he-prepares-for-april-elections-277026

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Frazer Lee, Reader in Creative Writing, Brunel University of London

The horror genre rose from the grave to win big at this year’s Oscars, with four films featuring prominently in the awards.

Ryan Coogler’s period vampire movie Sinners was nominated for a record-breaking 16 Oscars, bringing home four golden statues – including the coveted best actor prize for Michael B. Jordan.

Weapons’ Amy Madigan fended off stiff competition to win best supporting actress, and – at the PG-rated end of the horror spectrum – K-Pop Demon Hunters won best animated film and best original song.

Guillermo del Toro’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s classic novel Frankenstein; Or, The Modern Prometheus shuffled away from the ceremony clutching three Oscars in its cadaverous hands. It won best production design, best costume design, and best make-up and hairstyling out of nine nominations that included best picture and best supporting actor for Australian actor Jacob Elordi.

It would appear that horror is now considered up there with the costume dramas and masterpieces of world cinema that have long been mainstays of film industry awards. But this has not always been the case. Aside from rare recipients such as William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) – which took possession of golden statues for best adapted screenplay and best sound but missed out in all eight of its other nominations – horror has often taken a back seat during awards season.

It seems unfathomable now that Anthony Perkins didn’t receive any Oscar love for his now-iconic role as Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). Fans were also horrified, but not in a good way, when Ari Aster’s 2018 occult chiller Hereditary (and its trailblazing performance by lead actress Toni Collette) was completely overlooked by the Academy.

The Exorcist was the first of only a handful of horror features to be nominated for the best picture award. Jaws (1975), The Sixth Sense (1999), Black Swan (2010) and Get Out (2017) were all nominated, and more than worthy potential recipients, but were all snubbed. In 1991 Jonathan Demme’s The Silence of the Lambs won best picture (there’s much debate as to whether the film is a horror or a thriller – let’s just say it’s both), but why the wait for another success story like that of Sinners?

For many, the view that horror is less worthy of mainstream gongs stems from the “video nasty” era when rental shelves at petrol stations across the Western world placed horror tapes on the top shelf alongside more lurid adult titles.

But horror is a very broad church and anyone with a passion for the genre will tell you of their love of everything from gore-fests such as Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1981) to quieter, more atmospheric terrors like Jack Clayton’s The Innocents (1961) and Robert Wise’s The Haunting (1963).

Indie horror is a hotbed of innovation and experimentation and an inclusive place to take risks and have fun. And perhaps one reason for horror’s ascension to the big league of film awards ceremonies is the way in which it is purpose-built to hold a mirror up to society’s problems.

Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance (2024) explored ageing, body image and media manipulation via twin powerhouse performances from Margaret Qualley and Demi Moore. Fargeat was the first woman to be Oscar nominated for writing and directing a horror film, and Moore received a best actress nomination, but both were snubbed on the night.

Jordan Peele’s brilliant and disturbing horror-with-comedy Get Out (2017) took an unflinching look at racism with the Academy awarding it best screenplay. Horror can tackle these big themes using allegorical storytelling, revealing that the scariest monsters of all are often ourselves.

While cheering on the great and good during the Oscars coverage on Sunday night, I was reminded of my own undying love for the genre. I remembered my first ever live book reading at a big horror convention called Horrorfind Weekend in Maryland, US. Tens of thousands of fans were in attendance, lining up for hours for autographs from horror luminaries such as George A. Romero (Night of the Living Dead, 1968) and Tony Todd (Final Destination franchise, 2000s, and Candyman, 1992).

The panel discussions often continued in the bar afterwards and I remember chatting with one of my horror heroes, the writer and filmmaker John Skipp (A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, 1989). We were talking about how to reach a wider audience with our work and Skipp reminded me, “If you make outsider art, you’ll attract outsider fans.”

Perhaps, this is the key to horror getting the gold standard of approval from awards voters. The more our leaders push us into ever widening margins with their endless stoking of culture wars, the more we become outsiders. We need to face our demons in order to overcome them. Many of us long to be seen, and horror stories see all of us.

The emerging generation of horror filmmakers like Ryan Coogler know this and embed it within their work. To paraphrase the (now Oscar-winning) song Golden from K-Pop Demon Hunters, horror is done hiding, and now it’s shining.

Frazer Lee 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. Horror won big at the 2026 Oscars – it’s time the genre was taken seriously – https://theconversation.com/horror-won-big-at-the-2026-oscars-its-time-the-genre-was-taken-seriously-278574

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elizabeth Rosser, Associate Professor of Aging, Rheumatology and Regenerative Medicine, UCL

Arthritis is often associated with older age, but it also affects children. One of the most common forms is juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), an inflammatory condition that causes persistent joint swelling and pain.

For reasons that remain unclear, between 10% and 30% of children with JIA also develop uveitis, an inflammatory disease of the eye. In some cases, this eye inflammation does not respond to treatment and can lead to sight loss.

A recent study from our laboratory shows that immune cells called B cells, best known for producing antibodies, play a previously underappreciated role in driving this process and may point to new treatment approaches.

JIA is diagnosed when a child or young person under 16 develops inflammation in at least one joint for more than six weeks with no clear cause. Around one in 1,000 children in the UK are affected. The condition includes several subtypes, most of which are autoimmune, meaning the immune system mistakenly attacks the body’s own tissues.

Outcomes vary. With treatment, some children experience long periods of remission and may outgrow the condition. For others, inflammation persists into adulthood and can cause joint damage and disability. JIA can also affect organs beyond the joints, including the skin, gut and eyes. When it involves the eye, the condition is known as JIA-associated uveitis.

Much remains unknown about why some children with JIA develop eye inflammation while others do not. It is unclear whether the same immune pathways drive disease in both joints and eyes, or why inflammation most often affects the front of the eye, known as anterior uveitis. In many cases, the condition is silent and painless, allowing damage to accumulate unnoticed. Regular eye screening is therefore essential.

Several risk factors are well established. Girls and children who develop JIA early in life, particularly before the age of six, are more likely to develop uveitis. Children who test positive for antinuclear antibodies are also at increased risk.

Even so, the biological mechanisms linking arthritis and eye disease remain poorly understood, and the role of antibody-producing B cells has received relatively little attention.

To investigate this, our study analysed blood samples from more than 150 children with arthritis. Certain types of B cells were more abundant in those who had developed uveitis than in children with arthritis alone. A distinctive aspect of the research was the opportunity to examine samples taken directly from affected eyes.

In some children, uveitis can lead to cataracts or glaucoma, making surgery necessary to preserve vision. During these procedures, small amounts of biological material that would normally be discarded can be collected for research. Using these samples, we found that activated B cells had migrated into the eyes of children with JIA-associated uveitis.

Laboratory experiments showed that blocking communication between B cells and another type of immune cell, known as T cells, significantly reduced inflammation. The drug used to achieve this is already being tested in clinical trials for multiple sclerosis and lupus, raising the possibility of repurposing it for children with treatment-resistant disease.

The need for new approaches is clear. Currently, one in four children with JIA-associated uveitis do not respond to the only approved biologic therapy, and by age 18 nearly a third have lost some vision in at least one eye.

These findings point to a potential new treatment pathway and highlight a broader issue in medical research. There is often a delay of many years before therapies developed for adults are tested in children, even when the underlying inflammatory mechanisms are similar.

Improving how discoveries are translated into paediatric care could significantly change outcomes for children with arthritis and uveitis. Earlier intervention, targeted therapies and faster access to treatments already being explored in adult disease may help prevent vision loss, and reduce the long-term burden on children and their families.

Elizabeth Rosser received funding from Fight for Sight, Arthritis UK, the Medical Research Foundation, Moorfields Eye Charity, the Lister Institute for Preventive Medicine and the Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research for this study. Work for this study was made possible by the CLUSTER consortium (https://www.clusterconsortium.org.uk) and the Childhood Ocular Inflammatory Disease (CHOIR) Biobank.

Beth Jebson 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. Why arthritis in children can threaten eyesight – https://theconversation.com/why-arthritis-in-children-can-threaten-eyesight-276355

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cassandra Etter-Wenzel, PhD Candidate in Energy Policy, University of Oxford

As the Middle East conflict intensifies and oil and gas prices swing wildly, the UK has seen renewed calls to drill more in the North Sea. The argument is straightforward: if Britain produces more of its own oil and gas, household energy bills should fall.

But our analysis suggests the effect would be minimal. Even if the UK maximised North Sea extraction and returned revenues directly to households, the reduction in energy bills would be at most a modest £82 per year – far smaller than the savings expected from accelerating the shift to renewable energy.

In fact, a faster transition away from gas-powered electricity could cut household energy bills by three times as much as maximising North Sea oil and gas.

Why UK energy bills are so high

A typical UK household has a single “dual fuel” bill covering both electricity and gas. This can be divided into several different components.

The largest share is the wholesale cost – the price suppliers (the company named on your bill) pay for electricity and gas – which accounts for about 41% of the bill. The rest covers the costs of running and maintaining energy networks (23%), operating costs and debts (15%), policy costs such as environmental and social levies (12%) and VAT.

At the wholesale level, the UK does not consistently pay more than other European countries. At various points since 2022, countries such as Italy and Germany have faced similar or higher wholesale costs.

Yet UK households still pay some of the highest retail electricity prices in Europe. That’s because of how the electricity market works.

In Britain, the wholesale electricity price is usually set by the most expensive generator needed to meet demand. That generator is often a gas-fired power station. As a result, electricity prices tend to rise and fall with gas prices – even when much of the electricity is produced by cheaper sources such as wind or solar.

Gas also dominates home heating – 85% of UK households still rely on gas boilers, far more than in most comparable countries

This makes UK households highly exposed to swings in global fossil fuel prices. Gas prices are set on international markets, which are heavily exposed to geopolitical shocks, as seen both in 2022 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and again today.

Britain’s poorly insulated homes – among the least energy efficient in northern Europe – compounds the problem. This means households consume more gas to achieve the same level of warmth.

Why more North Sea drilling wouldn’t cut bills

Producing more oil and gas in the North Sea would not create the UK’s “own special supply”, nor could its price be set specifically for UK citizens.

That’s because any new production would be sold on international markets at international prices. The UK simply doesn’t have the ability to extract, refine and use oil all by itself even if it wanted to – some international trading will always be necessary.

The only way North Sea extraction could reduce household bills is through government revenues. Taxes and levies on oil and gas profits – the so-called fiscal “take” – could in principle be redistributed to households.

To explore this possibility, we modelled a scenario in which the UK maximised North Sea oil and gas and used all revenues collected to subsidise lower energy bills.

Even under those assumptions, the effect would be limited. Household bills would fall by between £16 and £82 per year. That’s roughly 1% to 4.6% of the current average household energy bill of £1,776, according to UK regulator Ofgem.

Bigger savings from renewables

A different policy direction – one that reduces the role of gas in electricity production – produces much larger savings.

If the price of electricity was set by cheaper renewable energy rather than by gas, our analysis suggests households could save £105 to £331 per year through lower wholesale energy costs.

That is roughly three times more than the “maximise oil and gas” scenario.

Importantly, these savings would also be recurring. Once electricity prices are less tied to volatile gas markets, and instead are set by cheaper and infinitely available resources – wind and sun – households benefit every year.

Savings could be still higher if the structure of electricity bills were rebalanced. At present, many policy costs – including support for renewables – are added to electricity bills rather than funded through general taxation.

If those policy costs were moved into general taxation, as announced in the government’s autumn 2025 spending review, the average household could save up another £110 or so annually. In our renewables scenario, that would bring the total savings to about £441 per year.

Moving policy and system costs from bills onto general taxation is one way to make energy costs fairer and more egalitarian. That’s because energy bills take a larger share of income from lower income households while taxes better reflect ability to pay.

Our analysis used oil and gas prices in January 2026, prior to the breakout of the US-Israel war on Iran. In other words, ours is a conservative scenario that assumes relatively favourable conditions for fossil fuels. If global prices rise further, the advantages of renewable energy would become even greater.

Reducing exposure to fossil fuel shocks

Recent history illustrates how costly dependence on fossil fuels can be.

Research by our colleagues at Oxford Smith School found that if the UK had moved away from importing Russian oil and gas after its 2014 invasion of Crimea, it would have saved about £22 billion in energy costs during the price spike after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Similarly, had the UK adopted the “balanced net zero” pathway proposed by its official advisory Climate Change Committee, it could avoid spending around £70 billion on crude oil and natural gas between 2022 and 2030.

Today’s energy crisis simply reiterates this argument: if the UK was less reliant on oil and gas today, it would be in a much better economic position.

The best way to keep energy bills low in the long run is to reduce dependence on gas altogether. That means expanding renewable generation, investing in energy storage and grid infrastructure, improving home insulation and electrifying heating through technologies such as heat pumps. Support for vulnerable households will also be crucial during the transition to a lower-carbon energy system.

Our findings refute speculation that draining the North Sea of all oil and gas would significantly lower bills and make the UK energy secure. Even if further fossil fuel extraction went ahead and all tax revenues were returned directly to consumers, the savings for consumers would be modest. Meanwhile the UK would remain exposed to geopolitical shocks and be economically worse off.

Staying the course on clean energy would not only save households three times as much money but render the UK truly energy secure for generations to come.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Would more North Sea drilling lower UK energy bills? Our analysis says no – https://theconversation.com/would-more-north-sea-drilling-lower-uk-energy-bills-our-analysis-says-no-278467

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

Weight-loss injections that have become famous for helping people shed pounds may also help some patients with advanced cancer live longer when the disease has spread to the brain, according to a new study.

These medicines belong to a group of drugs called GLP-1 receptor agonists, and they include Wegovy and Ozempic. They were first developed to treat type 2 diabetes, but over the past few years they have drawn global attention because many people taking them experience significant weight loss.

The new study does not show that these injections directly treat cancer. Instead, it suggests something more subtle but potentially important: they might help some very ill patients live longer.

The study focuses on brain metastases. This happens when cancer cells travel from somewhere else in the body – such as the lung, breast or skin – to form tumours in the brain. Unfortunately, brain metastases are relatively common and usually indicate that cancer has reached a late and dangerous stage.

Many patients in this situation also have type 2 diabetes. This matters because the condition can make serious illness harder to manage. High blood sugar can cause chronic inflammation, damage blood vessels and weaken the body’s ability to cope.

In my own clinical practice, I often prescribe steroids to help patients with brain metastases manage symptoms such as swelling in the brain. Steroids can be very effective, but they also tend to raise blood sugar levels and can make diabetes harder to control. This has led researchers to ask whether GLP-1 drugs might have additional benefits.

When diabetes drugs meet cancer care

Laboratory studies suggest they may protect brain cells, reduce inflammation and help preserve the brain’s blood supply. Until now, however, there has been very little evidence from everyday clinical practice showing how patients with both diabetes and brain metastases fare when they take these medicines.

The new study, published in Jama Network Open, set out to explore that question. Researchers used a medical database of anonymised health records from 151 hospitals and healthcare systems around the world.

They searched for adults who had three conditions: cancer, type 2 diabetes and brain metastases. The records covered patients seen between 2018 and 2024. The researchers were particularly interested in whether these patients had been prescribed a GLP-1 drug – such as semaglutide, dulaglutide, liraglutide or tirzepatide – around the time their diabetes and brain metastases were first diagnosed.

To make a fair comparison, the team matched people who received one of these injections with similar patients who did not. They took into account factors such as age, sex, type of cancer, other medical conditions and treatments including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and steroid use. Statistical matching cannot eliminate every difference between groups, but it helps reduce the risk that the results simply reflect one group being healthier at the start.

In total, the researchers identified more than 19,000 patients with cancer, brain metastases and type 2 diabetes. Among them, 866 had been treated with a GLP-1 drug, while over 11,000 had not. After careful matching, the analysis compared two balanced groups of 850 patients each who were similar in terms of their cancers, body mass index, diabetes control and other health issues.

The researchers then followed these patients for up to three years after their brain metastases were first recorded. Their main question was straightforward but important: how many people in each group died during that period?

The researchers found that patients who were taking GLP-1 drugs were significantly less likely to die during the follow-up period than those who were not. Overall, people taking GLP-1 drugs were about 37% less likely to die over the three years.

The pattern was fairly consistent across several major cancer types, including lung cancer, breast cancer and melanoma. It also appeared across different drugs within the GLP-1 class.

When researchers compared GLP-1 medicines with other modern diabetes treatments – including drugs called SGLT2 inhibitors and DPP-4 inhibitors – the GLP-1 group still seemed to fare better. That hints that something about GLP-1 signalling itself might be beneficial, rather than the effect simply coming from better blood sugar control.

Important limitation

Even so, the researchers emphasise an important limitation. This study looked back at medical records rather than testing treatments in a controlled trial. To do that, researchers would need randomised clinical trials in which patients are deliberately assigned to receive a GLP-1 drug or another treatment and then followed over time.

So how might these so-called weight-loss jabs help people whose cancer has spread to the brain?

One possibility is that they help indirectly by improving diabetes itself. Better blood sugar control, reduced body weight and improved heart health could help patients cope better with surgery, radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

But there may also be more direct effects on the brain. Scientists have discovered that GLP-1 receptors are in brain tissue and play a role in controlling inflammation, protecting nerve cells and helping maintain the blood–brain barrier – a protective layer that keeps harmful substances out of the brain.

Animal studies suggest that activating these receptors can reduce damage in brain cells and help them function properly. In theory, that might help the brain tolerate metastatic tumours better or make it a less favourable environment for cancer cells to grow. The new clinical findings are consistent with these ideas, although they do not yet tell us which mechanisms matter most in people.

For patients and families reading about this research, it is important to understand what the results do – and do not – mean. The study does not suggest that people with brain metastases should rush to start GLP-1 drugs, nor that these medicines can replace standard cancer treatments such as radiotherapy, surgery, targeted therapies or immunotherapy.

The potential benefits were seen specifically in people who already had type 2 diabetes. Like any medication, these injections can cause side-effects such as nausea and vomiting, and there are ongoing discussions about rare but serious risks.

Anyone considering them would need careful guidance from both their oncology and diabetes teams rather than making decisions based on a single study.

Still, the findings open up an intriguing new line of research linking cancer, metabolism and brain health. If future trials confirm that GLP-1 drugs genuinely improve survival in patients with brain metastases and diabetes, they could eventually become part of supportive care for people facing this difficult complication.

Justin Stebbing 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. Could Ozempic help people whose cancer has spread to the brain? – https://theconversation.com/could-ozempic-help-people-whose-cancer-has-spread-to-the-brain-277999

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Macdonald, Lab Director and Fellow, University of Cambridge

The UK’s use of land is indefensibly inefficient. Roughly 5% is used for buildings and roads, 10% for forest and woodland, plus 20% for arable crops. But the largest share, around 50% of our country, is dedicated to livestock.

Producing protein by raising, feeding and slaughtering animals can consume ten times more land than extracting the protein directly from crops. In other words, the UK is dedicating the largest share of its land to the least efficient form of protein production.

Better still, emerging technologies such as cell cultivation and precision fermentation could produce the same quality and quantity of protein on hundreds of times less land.

Despite devoting roughly half the country to raising and feeding livestock, the UK produces only around 60% of the food it consumes. This leaves it dependent on imports and vulnerable to climate shocks and disruptions of global supply chains. The UK also still has to rely heavily on millions of tonnes of imported animal feed, often sourced from regions where forests have been cleared or ecosystems degraded.

Animal agriculture is a major environmental and ethical burden. It contributes disproportionately to greenhouse gas emissions, water pollution and nature loss.

In a lose–lose trade-off, more land-efficient livestock systems can clash profoundly with public sentiment: intensive farming means many dairy cows never set foot outside and many hens spend their entire lives indoors, often confined to spaces no bigger than a single sheet of A4 paper.

Emerging technologies such as cell cultivation and precision fermentation offer a transformative alternative. Protein grown from cells or microbes programmed to produce certain proteins can be made hundreds of times more efficiently, while delivering the same or better nutritional quality.

Research shows that increased protein intakes have significant health benefits, especially for older people. For example, high-protein diets help prevent sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength that reduces mobility and independence.

My latest study shows that high-protein content is now a key driver of meal choice among UK consumers. So, securing and expanding sustainable protein supply aligns with both consumer preferences and the growing evidence on optimal health outcomes.

---

Read more:
New food technologies could release 80% of the world’s farmland back to nature

---

Some nations are already motoring ahead with this protein transition. In the US, for example, companies such as Upside Foods, Good Meat and Wild Type are using cell cultivation technology to grow animal meat cells such as chicken and beef.

Other companies in the US such as Perfect Day, The Every Company and Triton Algae Innovations are applying precision fermentation technology — a process in which microorganisms are programmed with instructions to produce specific animal proteins — to manufacture animal-identical proteins such as whey, egg white and other dairy proteins.

Rather than resembling factory farms or slaughterhouses, these facilities look like breweries, with rows of stainless-steel tanks where microbes or animal cells convert simple nutrients into proteins (just like yeast converts sugars into alcohol during brewing).

While the US has already approved and begun limited sales of cultivated meat, the UK remains in the regulatory development phase, with no products yet authorised for human consumption.

Indoor and controlled-environment farming could similarly revolutionise fruit and vegetable production. For example, automated vertical farms provide predictable, year-round yields, insulated from droughts, floods, seasonal volatility, trade wars and global supply chain disruptions because they aren’t subject to external variables.

Powering protein

An energy transition underpins such a food transition. The UK would need to expand renewable energy and develop its nuclear capacity to meet the needs of this energy-intensive form of food production. Renewables provide scale; nuclear provides stability. Together, they could power innovative protein facilities, indoor farms and electrified heating and transport, enabling a fully domestic, self-sufficient food-energy system.

---

Read more:
Four myths about vertical farming debunked by an expert

---

The benefits of this land-use shift could be transformative. The masses of land freed up could be used for more trees and national parks; more biodiversity and leisure spaces; cleaner air and water. More predictability, less suffering.

The great protein transition won’t be easy. It will involve challenging negotiations and significant investment. It will take time and forward-thinking leadership. But the prize is well worth it: a national-scale protein transition would strengthen independence and national security.

The UK stands at a crossroads. By embracing the protein transition, it could one day feed and power itself, building resilience against increasing climate and geopolitical uncertainty.

Chris Macdonald 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. How a new plan for protein could transform the UK’s national security – https://theconversation.com/how-a-new-plan-for-protein-could-transform-the-uks-national-security-277661