Wednesday, April 30, 2025
Blog Page 1043

Spotlight: Eliot as playwright

0

Murder in the Cathedral is one of the stranger plays I have had the pleasure of reading. Full of both highly lyrical meditations on life and faith and passages of religious obscurity, it ultimately fails to toe the fine line between theatricality and poeticism.

Many of the speeches run on for far too long and the play even includes a sermon half way through. Completely dissipating any sense of pace that the play may have had, the character of Thomas A Beckett monologues for
several pages on Christian ideas of peace. Although it is true that Eliot’s poetic power never deserts him, it doesn’t translate at all well to a genuine stage performance that will entertain the average theatre-goer.

From my point of view, it is a play to be read and not seen. Once this fact is accepted, it seems as strong as much of his poetry, employing themes of existential purpose, temptation and the relations between church and state. These renewed focuses, combined with the novel idea of changing historical setting, reinvigorates much of this play – as read on the page, at least. Subtly drawing parallels between Beckett’s individual resistance to authority to the rise of anti-individualistic Fascism in 1935 when it was first performed is, in my opinion, one of Eliot’s defter artistic ploys, and makes the play both timeless yet also powerfully pertinent to the period. Watching this would be perplexing – trying to understand complex references and nuanced verse in the theatre would probably be too much of a strain for the average viewer.

Yet as an English Literature student, studying the play reveals much of its complexity in an enjoyable way that shows how good it really is.

In short, I’m not saying I don’t like Eliot. All I am saying is, don’t go and watch his plays. 

How similar is pro-Israel discourse to apartheid apologism?

1

Attacks on Israeli Apartheid Week often claim the apartheid analogy is inappropriate and inaccurate. So I thought I’d put the analogy to the test, and it passed.

The analogy between the modern State of Israel and apartheid South Africa is a highly controversial one. This week has seen another scandal ignite, with Labour Party personalities signing open letters condemning Oxford University Labour Club for its endorsement of Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) – not to be confused with the separate, highly concerning allegations about anti-Semitism at the Club. In a letter published on the website LabourList, a host of former OULC co-chairs declared, “It is wrong to contend that Israel – a multiracial democracy – even remotely resembles the horrors of South Africa’s racist dictatorship.”

I was genuinely curious, then, about what the reaction might be when I changed the words “South Africa” for “Israel” in a 1980s pro-apartheid screed, and submitted it to The Oxford Student. Surely, they wouldn’t fall for it? Surely, we would have made some progress since the 1980s, when the defence of racist chauvinism was commonplace?

In the end, they published it largely unchanged.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13039%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The original version of the article is here, in a 1,300-word essay from 1989 for the US-based Christian Science Monitor. I’ll leave it to readers to judge whether the argument was faithfully compressed in the shortened version I submitted to The OxStu, but I believe that most fair-minded observers would say it was. (The editors made a couple of tweaks – a long paragraph denying the historical reality of black people/Palestinians having been driven from their lands was cut, though few would dispute that such denials are, indeed, commonplace in pro-Israel discourse). Barring the opening sentence, there is nothing in this defence of Israel – a cogent, typical and superficially quite compelling one – which was not cribbed directly from the racist diatribes of pro-apartheid white South African academic Anne-Marie Kriek.

Of course, there are differences between Israeli apartheid and its South African counterpart. The key difference is that Israel does give the right to vote to a small sub-section of the Palestinian population, namely the 1.5 million Arabs who reside within ‘green-line’ Israel. This allows liberal apologists for Israel to argue that, despite the oppression of 4.5 million Arabs in the occupied territories, “Israel proper” is nonetheless a “multiracial democracy”.

But Arab-Israelis are allowed to vote solely because there aren’t enough of them to make an impact. When asked about the Palestinians expelled in 1948, Israeli authorities are perfectly explicit: they and their descendants are not allowed to come home, because if they did, they might vote the wrong way (i.e. for Arab, rather than Jewish, leaders). A ‘democracy’ that gerrymanders its own electorate at gunpoint to ensure an ever-lasting ethnic monopoly on politics is no democracy at all.

Then there are the 4.5 million Arabs, second-class, non-voting Israeli citizens in all but name, who live in the occupied territories. These people rely for everything, even drinking water, upon a state that openly regards their very existence, their very ability to reproduce, as a threat. No wonder South African anti-apartheid leaders like Desmond Tutu and Dennis Goldberg have concluded repeatedly that Israel’s system of race management is, if anything, more brutal than classic apartheid.

But if The OxStu’s decision to print the article demonstrates anything, it’s that the parallel is at its most visible in the discourse of these systems, the arguments they deploy in their defence. We are told that the natives are barbarians who will slaughter their former rulers as soon as they get freedom; we are invited to look at a troubled region, and then at the little island of repressive stasis under discussion, and draw the conclusion that oppression works better than freedom in such a savage, unruly part of the world. The OxStu published my/Kriek’s article with a picture of glittering Tel Aviv harbour, and the caption, “Israel has one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East.” It’s an achingly beautiful photograph, but the message couldn’t be uglier: “Look at this civilization; look at everything colonialism has built. If the natives take over, they’ll run it into the ground.”

These are the arguments used today to justify Israel’s system of oppression. They are precisely the same ones that were used to justify South Africa’s system of impression, utterly indistinguishable to a student editor, not because that editor was at all incompetent or was dozing on the job, but because they are the exact same thing.

My little experiment is hardly the final word in the debate over the nature of Israeli apartheid, but it did help underscore that, sensible and mainstream as it feels to us now, making excuses for Israel’s systematic racial oppression is something that few people will feel proud of in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years or whenever it is that justice and equality are instituted in Palestine, as they surely will be. If you want to know about that struggle – if you want to know how you can be on the right side of it – come to our events at Israeli Apartheid Week, running Monday to Saturday of 6th week.

NOTE: This project was undertaken on the sole initiative of the author, and was subsequently presented to Cherwell. The editors of The Oxford Student have submitted the following statement in response:

“We have been made aware that the article submitted to us, ‘Criticism of Israel is disproportionate’, was heavily based on a pro-South African apartheid article. We were unaware of its source, and must conclude that it was written as an act of provocation which we do not endorse.

“We also observe that Cherwell received no such article. We heavily edited the article, even removing entire paragraphs of content which we viewed as particularly problematic, but felt that the article should be published in order to voice both sides of the argument and avoid prejudice or bias on the part of our publication.

“The content in Comment in no way reflects the views of The Oxford Student. We were disappointed to note the article in Cherwell, which seems like a blatant attempt to politicise the role of our respective newspapers, even as we attempt to include both often unbalanced perspectives on this issue to synthesise them into a balanced overall discourse, which is especially important considering the topical nature of this debate within Oxford.

“However, we apologise for printing false statistics which present a distorted picture of the Israel / Palestine conflict.”

 

Louise Richardson backs EU membership

0

In a joint open letter released in this week’s edition of The Sunday Times, Oxford University’s Vice Chancellor, Louise Richardson, has expressed her support for Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU.)

The letter urges the British public to consider the impact of the UK’s withdrawal on its university system. The letter claims that among the benefits at stake are the possibility of collaboration on economically advantageous research. The signatories argue, “We are better able to collaborate with partners across Europe to carry out cutting-edge research, from medical and healthcare advances to new materials, products and services.”

The letter places a general emphasis on the economic dimension of ‘Brexit’ claiming, “This has a direct impact on our economy, driving growth, generating jobs and improving people’s lives.” In addition to the financial question, the signatories cite a reputational issue, that “Leaving would mean cutting ourselves off from established networks and would undermine the UK’s position as a global leader in science and the arts.”

Among other senior figures that joined Professor Louise Richardson are Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, and Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow president of Universities UK. While the letter states that the signatories are writing as, “As university leaders,” it is not clear if they are representing their individual opinions or the more general position of their respective institutions to the upcoming referendum.

The UK’s referendum on EU membership will take place on Thursday 23rd of June.

The letter is reproduced in full below:

Brexit will cost universities valuable education alliances

NOW the prime minister has announced the referendum date, we urge the British public to consider the vital role the EU plays in supporting our world-class universities. Inside the EU we are better able to collaborate with partners across Europe to carry out cutting-edge research, from medical and healthcare advances to new materials, products and services. In the EU the UK is also a more attractive destination for global talent, ensuring that our students are taught by the best minds from across Europe. This has a direct impact on our economy, driving growth, generating jobs and improving people’s lives. 

While no one is suggesting that UK universities could not survive outside the EU, leaving would mean cutting ourselves off from established networks and would undermine the UK’s position as a global leader in science and the arts. 

Throughout the referendum campaign, as university leaders we are committed to highlighting the value of EU membership to our universities, ensuring that a range of views are heard on campuses and debating why the EU matters now and for the future.

 Professor Dame Julia Goodfellow, President, Universities UK; Vice-Chancellor, University of Kent, Professor Janet Beer, Vice-President, Universities UK; Vice-Chancellor, University of Liverpool, Professor Colin Riordan, Vice-President, Universities UK; Vice-Chancellor, Cardiff University, Professor Sir Pete Downes, Vice-President, Universities UK; Vice-Chancellor, University of Dundee, Professor Simon Gaskell, President and Principal, Queen Mary University of London, Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-Chancellor, University of Cambridge, Professor Louise Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, University of Oxford, Professor Michael Arthur , President and Provost , UCL, Professor Alice Gast, President, Imperial College London, Professor Sir Steve Smith, Vice-Chancellor, University of Exeter, Professor Craig Calhoun, Director and President, London School of Economics and Political Science, Bill Rammell, Vice-Chancellor, University of Bedfordshire, Professor Julie Lydon OBE, Vice-Chancellor, University of South Wales, Professor Timothy O’Shea, Vice-Chancellor, University of Edinburgh, Professor Anton Muscatelli, Vice-Chancellor, University of Glasgow, Baroness Valerie Amos, Director, SOAS, Professor Sir Ian Diamond, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of Aberdeen, Sir Anthony Seldon, Vice-Chancellor, University of Buckingham, Professor Julia Buckingham, Vice-Chancellor, Brunel University London, Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Vice-Chancellor, Aston University, Professor Mary Stuart, Vice-Chancellor, University of Lincoln, Sir David Bell, Vice-Chancellor, University of Reading, Peter Horrocks CBE, Vice-Chancellor, The Open University, Professor Paul Boyle CBE, Vice-Chancellor, University of Leicester, Professor Paddy Nixon, Vice-Chancellor, University of Ulster, Professor Patrick Johnston, Vice-Chancellor, Queen’s University Belfast, Professor Hugh Brady, Vice-Chancellor, University of Bristol, Sir Alan Langlands, Vice-Chancellor, University of Leeds, Professor Stuart Corbridge, Vice-Chancellor, Durham University, Professor Helen Marshall, Vice-Chancellor, University of Salford, Professor Kathryn Mitchell, Vice-Chancellor, University of Derby, Professor Dominic Shellard, Vice-Chancellor, De Montfort University, Professor Edward Peck, Vice-Chancellor, Nottingham Trent University, Professor Tom Inns, Director, The Glasgow School of Art, Professor Graham Upton, Vice-Chancellor, Glyndwr University, Nigel Carrington, Vice-Chancellor, University of the Arts London, Professor Richard B Davies, Vice-Chancellor, Swansea University, Professor Chris Brink, Vice-Chancellor, Newcastle University, Professor Sir Keith Burnett, Vice-Chancellor, University of Sheffield, Professor Sir David Greenaway, Vice-Chancellor, University of Nottingham, Professor Sir David Eastwood, Vice-Chancellor, University of Birmingham, Professor Gerald Pilay, Vice-Chancellor, Liverpool Hope University, Professor Judith Petts, Vice-Chancellor, University of Plymouth, Professor Graham Baldwin, Vice-Chancellor, Southampton Solent University, Professor Sir Paul Curran, Vice-Chancellor, City University London, Professor Gavin Henderson CBE, Principal, The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, Professor John Raftery, Vice-Chancellor, London Metropolitan University, Professor Cliff Allan, Vice-Chancellor, Birmingham City University, Professor John Cater, Vice-Chancellor, Edge Hill University, Professor John Vinney, Vice-Chancellor, Bournemouth University, Professor David Phoenix, Vice-Chancellor, London South Bank University, Professor Andrea Nolan OBE, Vice-Chancellor, Edinburgh Napier University, Professor Bob Cryan CBE, Vice-Chancellor, University of Huddersfield, Professor Craig Mahoney, Vice-Chancellor, University of the West of Scotland, Professor Aldwyn Cooper, Vice-Chancellor, Regent’s University, Professor Nick Petford, Vice-Chancellor, University of Northampton, Prof Clive Mulholland, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, University of the Highlands and Islands, Shirley Atkinson, Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, Professor Christina Slade, Vice-Chancellor, Bath Spa University, Professor Margaret House, Vice-Chancellor, Leeds Trinity University, Professor Chris Husbands, Vice-Chancellor, Sheffield Hallam University, Professor Julius Weinberg, Vice-Chancellor, Kingston University, Professor Mike Thomas, Vice-Chancellor, University of Central Lancashire, Prof John Latham, Vice-Chancellor, Coventry University, Professor Paul Croney, Vice-Chancellor, Teesside University, Professor Barry Ife CBE, Principal, Guildhall School of Music & Drama, Professor David Maguire, Vice-Chancellor, University of Greenwich, Professor Paul Layzell, Principal, Royal Holloway University of London, Professor Peter Piot, Director, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Professor Calie Pistorius, Vice-Chancellor, University of Hull, Professor Michael Farthing, Vice-Chancellor, University of Sussex, Professor Anthony Bowne, Principal, Trinity Laban Conservatoire of Music and Dance, Dr Paul Thompson, Rector, Royal College of Art, Professor Karen Stanton, Vice-Chancellor, York St John University, Professor Malcolm Press, Vice-Chancellor, Manchester Metropolitan University, Professor Michael Gunn, Vice-Chancellor, Staffordshire University, Professor Ed Byrne, Principal and President, Kings College London, Professor Nigel Weatherill, Vice-Chancellor, Liverpool John Moores University, Professor Alistair Fitt, Vice-Chancellor, Oxford Brookes University, Professor Steven West, Vice-Chancellor, University of the West of England, Professor John Hughes, Vice-Chancellor, Bangor University, Professor Gerry McCormac, Vice-Chancellor, University of Stirling, Professor Stuart Reid, Principal, The Royal Veterinary College, Professor Geoff Layer, Vice-Chancellor, University of Wolverhampton, Professor Andrew Wathey, Vice-Chancellor, University of Northumbria, Professor Pamela Gillies CBE, Glasgow Caledonian University, Professor John Joughin, Vice Chancellor, University of East London, Professor Richard Williams OBE, Vice-Chancellor, Herriot-Watt University, Professor David Richardson, Vice-Chancellor, University of East Anglia, Professor David Green, Vice-Chancellor, University of Worcester, Professor April McMahon, Vice-Chancellor, Aberystwyth University, Professor Sir Adrian Smith, Vice-Chancellor, University of London, Professor Jenny Higham, Principal, St. George’s, University of London, Professor Anthony Forster, Vice-Chancellor, University of Essex, Professor Trevor McMillan, Vice-Chancellor, Keele University, Stephen Marston, Vice-Chancellor, University of Gloucestershire, Professor Michael J Kearney, Acting Vice-Chancellor, University of Surrey, Professor Sir Christopher Snowden, Vice-Chancellor, University of Southampton, Professor Patrick Loughrey, Warden, Goldsmiths, University of London, Professor Debra Humphris Vice-Chancellor, University of Brighton

Shakespeare al fresco

0

Arriving back at my college, Regent’s Park, I was somewhat dismayed to find a crystal clear evening and sub-zero temperatures. With gloves and hat donned, two jumpers and (for the second half) flask and blanket, I felt as though I bore an admittedly pensioner-esque look as I took my seat to see the opening night of director Lucy Clarke’s production of Coriolanus. However, there was no need to be dismayed, in what turned out to be a thoroughly streamlined three-hour production of one of Shakespeare’s least performed plays.

Set in the days of the Roman republic, Coriolanus charts the age-old struggle between the aristocracy and the people. Having not seen or read the play beforehand, I was shocked by the cultural resonances with both the dictatorships of the twentieth century and the unsettling political environment of today. The play follows the changing relations between the political hierarchy formed by Rome’s consulship and the tribunes of the people, with the fairly priggish eponymous warrior Coriolanus at its centre and a populace disgruntled by corn laws and political corruption.

Lucy Clarke succeeded in extracting the full force of Shakespeare’s psychological treatment of how the desire for power affects the individual.

The Ronaldoesque physique of Will Taylor (Coriolanus) was only a minor point in what was otherwise a tremendously moving portrayal of Shakespeare’s protagonist. Victoria Gawlik gave remarkable force to what was both a disturbing and very moving representation of Coriolanus’ mother Volumnia. Sicinius (played by Laura Gledhill) and Brutus (Hugh Tappin) embodied the political scheming of the slightly fascistic tribunes of the people. However, it was the silent decorum of Ethan Knightley (Senator 1) that stole the show at the very end, leaving the audience slightly stunned as the lights fell.

Lucy Clarke’s production took full advantage of the quad at Regent’s; the play was performed outside Helwys Hall with full length republican banners being unfurled for a large part of the evening from the top of the library, 30 feet above. The cast made full use of the quad’s enclosing force:its size meant it was somewhat cosy to begin with for the 100 members of the audience before it began to emulate the increasingly confining walls of power and human malice. Shakespearean diction has a tendency to isolate the characters of the play on the stage. However, the four walls of Regent’s Quad and the excellent craft of the stage production team forced the full implications of Shakespeare’s play onto the audience.

All in all, the production is a must-see for not only keen Shakespeare fans but anyone even vaguely interested in the psychology of power. As I rose from my many, many clothes, I felt a great sense of not only of satis- faction, but, perhaps more significantly, of unsettling Brechtian ‘Unhomeliness’ at the thought of the power and the human will to it. 

Spotlight: Gender

0

Dear reader, in my last days of secondary school I was utterly typecast as ‘the one boy who’d put a dress on for a play’. Not that I’m complaining – as a slightly podgy and profoundly uncool year 11, the experience of having people pay attention to me made for a thrilling departure from the norm. Obviously the practice of men portraying women on the stage as a long and illustrious history; Shakespeare’s plays would have initially been performed by all male casts, with prepubescent boys filling in for a Juliet or an Ophelia.

This practice was often carried out with gay abandon by the English teachers at my single sex school, who took an remarkable pleasure in casting the most ruggedly good looking footballing types as the femme fatale in group readings in classrooms. Getting to dress as a woman on stage was not only enormous fun, but it played an important role in the on going development of my understanding of, and interaction with sexuality. It made me conscious of the ‘acting out’ of masculinity that happened off stage – the intentional and the subliminal, the former of which I was never any good at, but the latter, I began to realise, formed a massive and unanticipated portion of my identity. By building up the persona of the towering and screeching Lady Bracknell, or the saucily conspiratorial nurse, I began to deconstruct some of the assumptions I’d had about my identity, and the role that gender plays within that.

However, in recent months, especially given the increased prevalence and discussion of trans issues, I’ve begun to question the very simple narrative I’d formed with regard to portraying different genders on stage. As a cis person, I have a degree of privilege with regard to my gender, which allows me to stand on stage one minute, portraying a woman, then step off the stage and continue being Matt. Whilst this has been useful for me in exploring and understanding my own gender, I’ve begun to worry that this might actually be damaging to the cultural acceptance of transgender identities.

There is still a sad lack of understanding around LGBTQ issues even in an age where Caitlin Jenner can embrace her identity on the national stage – and a distinct lack of space for trans identities in popular culture. My instinct is that playing other genders can help in the fight for greater equality, but that it needs to be done sensitively – for much more delicate exploration of trans identities in theatre, I strongly recommend you go an see both Cashiered and Binding at the BT this week.

Review: Cashiered

0

Cashiered is an exciting, bold and pithy piece of new writing from Hannah Greenstreet. Its set during the American civil war and examines the story of transgender soldier Albert J.D. Cashier. The writing effectively relates an easily identifiable narrative – of the right to your gender identity in conflict with the powers that be – a story that resonates today. Bold staging choices make this piece shine with anxiety and suspense. The play begins with a curtain separating the actors and audience, who are only allowed to see the shadows of Albert’s past follow him into his hospital bed. The curtain, once dramatically removed to reveal Albert, weak and powerless, constantly comes back into play to represent the division of his character with society. We constantly get small insights into Albert’s world, understanding his pain at being forced to defend the fact he is the man – and not the woman – he claims to be, only to then get shut out and left as an outsider by the pulling across of the curtain. This dramaturgical strategy, which metaphorically paints the divide between society and transgender people at that time, keeps the audience engaged throughout.

This dark and threatening beginning foreshadows the tragic moroseness of the rest of the play, throughout which we will constantly be reminded of the injustice of Albert’s treatment and condemnation. Combining careful research with vivid insight, Greenstreet’s script definitely has potential in the dialogue and portrayal of characters. Franni Ball’s rendering of Nurse Danby steals the show. She encapsulates the struggle of the generous and caring members of society who try to be understanding towards the fate of transgender people, despite being constantly faced by backlash from those around her. Throughout the play, she stays strong in the face of Sister Baterman, Nurse (Lara Marks), who epitomizes the unempathetic state of mind of the majority towards trans identities. Marks’ ability to switch smoothly between this role and that of army-bully Fred Carter is proof of her skill as an actress, and her presence greatly increases the sharpness and brutality of the play. Luke Martin was convincing in his range of characters, standing head above the others to embody the powerful positions of the Investigator and Sergeant.

The interview scenes when he depicts Reporter Ralph illustrate the role of the media in public humiliation, and how fraught with untruth the public understanding of these issues really was. Thea Keller was faced with an insurmountably difficult role, and the temporal transition experienced in the writing occasionally leaves his characterization feeling a little stilted. To his credit, he manages very effectively to portray the sheer breadth of emotional response experienced by Cashier. The American accents throughout sometimes felt a bit forced, and often I thought the dialogue and manor of speech were not very representative of that during the American civil war. Despite this, the most interesting relationship was that of Albert and Robert (played by Laurence Bialy).

The awkward but sweet conversations between the characters exemplify the confusion experienced by both at the discovery of undemonstrated feelings. The audience is kept in suspense as to whether or not there are any romantic feelings between them. Overall, this was an effective portrayal, evoking the very difficult questions of gender identities. The plot avoided unnecessary twists, and hit home a powerful message with great pathos. I felt outraged at the struggle Albert had to endure in being open about his gender identity, and disgust at society’s treatment of him. Both emotions are what the play was trying to get out of the audience, so in that regard it was definitely a success. Although lacking in some domains, the piece has a great deal of potential and is worth a watch.

Review: Phantom of the Opera

0

★★★★★

Every reviewer probably dreams (secretly) of writing at least one particularly savage review. Some, like A. A. Gill, have even made a career out of it. But, fortunately, this review will not be my A. A. Gill moment. This production of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera, put on by Milk and Two Sugars, was simply draw-dropping. Fantastic, sublime, awe inspiring (forgive me if I gush – but as you can probably tell I loved it).

Phantom must be a daunting musical to stage. Lloyd-Webber’s musical score is rightly famous as one of the most famous in the history of musical theatre. The challenge of doing justice to the original, while also making it one’s own, is a large one. Inevitably, the question must always be: can the performance live up to the writing? This production has emphatically lived up to the original.

For this alone much praise must be given to the Director, Sarah Wright, the Musical Director, Callum Spiller, and the Choreographer, Laura Day. Putting such a huge musical on requires a certain amount of courage, making it work requires definite skill. Both were on show here and it is welcome to see something like this come off.

But, of course, the greatest directors are in need of a good cast. One gets the impression that this cast pretty much picked itself, as it is of an unusually high standard for a university performance. Perhaps most impressive was Indyana Schneider – fresh from the Sydney Opera House – as a Carlotta that was at once terrifying and hilarious. Laurence Jeffcoate, who himself has a West End pedigree as a former Oliver at Drury Lane, was admirable as Raoul (though having met his family in the queue I could hardly have said otherwise). Crucially, Charles Styles was excellent as a darkly menacing yet tender Phantom and Rachel Coll’s Chrstine was brought to life by virtue of a beautiful voice. Neither of these parts are in any way easy and both were carried with aplomb.

These were well supported by Josh Blunsden and Adam Carver as very humorous Andre and Firmin (both of whom threatened to steal every scene they were in). They, together with Harry Redish as Piangi offered some light relief which were juxtaposed nicely with more dramatic parts. All this was held together by strong performances from Zoe Firth and Kathy Peacock as well as a well-drilled chorus and Corps de Ballet. Special mention must also be made of the set, which was supremely impressive in its ingenuity.

Of course, as a student production, there were some minor things that didn’t go quite as planned. But really nothing could diminish the strength of this performance, which never dropped in energy and provided many touching moments. This was a show which has been worked on for months, and it showed. A standing ovation was what this cast and crew deserved and the audience did not fail to oblige. It was a fittingly powerful end to a wonderfully powerful evening.

The Cherwell Encyclical: HT 5th Week

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%13031%%[/mm-hide-text]

I can understand why picking your kids up from school could be quite a stressful experience, what with the responsibility of making sure they don’t kill each other or burn the house down. At a primary school in Manchester, the head teacher has had to ask parents to stop smoking marijuana at the school gates after it was noticed by several older pupils. Presumably this would also explain why the parent committee at the same school recently opted to install seventy eight unicorns in the library.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%13032%%[/mm-hide-text]

This week also saw the un-momentous occasion that is the No. 10 charity bake off, and in light of the Manchester incident David Cameron has taken the opportunity to assure the press that there was no cannabis added to any of his baked goods. Though with the Lib Dems plans to legalise the drug, it is perhaps unsurprising that judges described Nick Clegg’s entry as “chill” and “deep”. There are reports of a slight moment of tension during the competition though, as George Osborne was said to be very adamant that everyone only took their fair share of the cake, and gave him part of their slice as part of his spare room tax. He later referred to Paul Hollywood as a “greedy scrounger”, after he did not bring a cake of his own.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%13034%%[/mm-hide-text]

There was some surprise in the media at the discovery of the love letters from Pope John Paul II to a married woman. It would appear that in writing love letters (and surname), the Pope and I have much in common. Unfortunately, unlike him, I am still waiting for replies. I am hoping number 472 will be the lucky one.

The most exciting thing to happen this week was undoubtably when the Daily Telegraph copied my ‘deal or no deal’ blog post from 3rd week for their front page. I would have been flattered, but unfortunately it was 2 weeks late and not nearly thirty percent as funny.

 

LMH in row over Emma Watson "sneak picture"

0

There was excitement amongst LMH students this week after one of the College’s new visiting fellows, Emma Watson, was spotted being shown round on Friday.

The actress, famous for her role as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, was first spotted by a student as she made her entrance into the College. There was initially some confusion amongst JCR members as to whether Watson was in fact present in the College. Her visit was later confirmed, however, by a student on the LMH JCR page.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13029%%[/mm-hide-text] 

The visit of Watson follows the appointment of 11 new visiting fellows by LMH Principal and ex-Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger earlier this month. The appointments included public figures from a variety of backgrounds, including actor Benedict Cumberbatch and Pet Shop Boys singer Neil Tennant.

One student managed to capture a photograph of Watson as she took a tour of the college library with Rusbridger. There was concern for the actress’s privacy following the publication of the photo on Twitter, however.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13030%%[/mm-hide-text] 

In an email sent to the whole of LMH JCR, the JCR President, Emma Andrews, passed on a message from the Principal which confirmed that Watson had visited the College for “a preliminary discussion”.

Rusbridger added, “I showed her the library. A student evidently took a sneak picture of her which is now on Twitter.

“I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to undermine the programme of visiting fellows than our students refusing to respect the privacy of our guests.

“Emma is keen to have contact with students and has imaginative plans for engaging with LMH. But it simply won’t work if our students behave in this way.”

The message went on to ask students to remove the photo of Watson from Twitter, with Rusbridger reminding students of “the basic courtesy we owe to our visiting fellows”.

Despite the Principal’s caution, LMH students expressed considerable excitement following the news of Watson’s visit, with one student commenting on the JCR page, “Going for a reconnaissance ‘laundry run’. Will report back unless her sheer beauty causes me to spontaneously combust.”

An LMH student who was in college on Friday told Cherwell, “A friend of mine at LMH was leaving a college building when our Principal, Alan Rusbridger, and what appeared to be Emma Watson walked straight past him and into one of our main college sites – Deneke, home to the Principal’s Office (among other rooms).

“He managed to snap a far-off picture of their distant backs as they neared Deneke. From there, he posted a declaration akin to “Emma Watson is in LMH!” at the end of a Facebook post or something, and I heard about it through a group chat. Another initially-sceptical friend then concurred that Watson was in college by stating that her car seemed to be in the LMH car park (how she knew it to be hers I don’t know).

“I asked our college JCR page if anyone could corroborate this news but no-one had seen anything else. As news spread, small groups started not-so-subtly hanging around Deneke and the idea that Watson was here to attend our weekly Friday formal became popular.

“However, when I went to Deneke to ask around, a woman who worked in college passed us asking if Watson was indeed around, when I explained what people had seen, she said that she would check when she went up to the Principal’s Office. She returned a few minutes later confirming that Watson was there but seemingly trying to keep a low profile and not attending for any event or appearance.

“Personally, I then returned to my work deciding that there was no justification for bothering Watson’s visit, which was seemingly of neither public interest nor involvement. People kept hanging around Deneke for a while after, but I haven’t heard of anyone meeting or seeing her later in the day.”

The College has been contacted for comment.

 

Shia LaBeouf slaps fresher in lift upon request

0

A first year St John’s student was slapped by Shia LaBeouf upon request during the 29-year-old Transformers star’s #ELEVATE performance art piece, which involved LaBeouf standing in a lift for 24 hours talking to various members of the public.

The student claimed to be a performance artist himself before asking LaBeouf, “can you help me with the completion of my next piece by punching me in the face?”

The student told Cherwell that the reason behind his request was motivated by the fact that LaBeouf was probably “bored”.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%13027%%[/mm-hide-text]

In response to the St. John’s student’s Facebook post in a closed group designed “to sell streetwear as well as provide general discussion” in which he asked for suggestions on what to ask LaBeouf, another student commented, “Say, ‘Hi, I am an artist who specialises in performance art, can you help me complete my next piece by punching me in the face”.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%13028%%[/mm-hide-text]

Upon hearing the request, LaBeouf expressed concern, saying “I don’t want to punch you very hard.”

The student, who was in the lift with four other members of the public, responded by telling LaBeouf not to be “a p***y”. A slap can be heard from behind the closed doors of the lift after the student asked to be slapped instead.

In the build-up to the event, the Union wrote about the piece, “Visitors will be able to join LaBeouf, Rönkkö & Turner inside the elevator during this time, and are invited to address the artists, the debating chamber, and the internet, so that their collective voices may form an extended, expansive and egalitarian Oxford Union address.”

LaBeouf was in the lift with Nastja Säde Rönkkö and Luke Turner from 9am on Friday until 9am on Saturday, leavng only to use the toilet and talk in the Union Chamber at 8pm on Friday.