Thursday 21st August 2025
Blog Page 1201

PPEist becomes PM

0

Yesterday’s General Election saw PPEist facing PPEist in a close-run campaign.

Ted Miliband is well known for his tenure as Corpus JCR President and OULC co-Chair. David Cameron is relatively unknown by comparison, notable for being captain of the Brasenose Tennis Club, and rumoured to have spent his time with members of controversial drinking society the Bullingdon Club.

More recently, when one commentator compared the Old Etonian’s Bullingdon antics to the London riots of 2011, Cameron told the Today Programme that, unlike the Bullingdon Club’s debauched evenings, the riots were “very well organised…looting and stealing and thieving.”

Ted Miliband has lost out to Brasenose rival David Cameron before, scoring a 2:1, while Cameron achieved a First. Cameron’s tutor, Professor Vernon Bogdanor, described him as “one of the ablest” students he has taught.

However, Miliband has the more impressive hack credentials, while one university friend, Steve Rathbone, suggested that Cameron was not keen on student politics because “he wanted to have a good time”.

Another friend, James Delingpole, described him as a “normal 19-year old” who is “likeable and fun, with not an ounce of (apparent) political ambition in his bones”.

Miliband, by contrast, has proved his insatiable passion for activism by demonstrating against Corpus Christi’s proposed 27 per cent increase in battels. As JCR President, he led around 50 JCR members, sporting t-shirts bearing the slogan “Blood from the breast, not from a stone,” chanting, “27 is a joke, not an offer!”

The reputation of both candidates pales in comparison, though, when compared with the BNOC status of LMH English student Michael Gove, whose time as Union President was characterised by scandal and notoriety. Gove graced the pages of this newspaper time and again during his time as Union President, making headlines including ‘Union hacks in five in a bed romp shocker’.

Both Cameron and Miliband have been quizzed about drug-taking, and Miliband appears to have kept his nose cleaner, both literally and metaphorically.

When asked about how well qualified he was to dictate drugs policy, he told an audience of 16- to 24-year olds, “I haven’t taken drugs. I’m not in favour of decriminalisation, for example, of cannabis, because of my reading about it – and I have read about it.”

Cameron has been less up front about his relationship with drugs. He has declined to comment on whether he was almost expelled from Eton for smoking cannabis, or whether he partook in cocaine while at Oxford.

Number 10 is no stranger to PPEists: if Miliband becomes Prime Minister, he will be the fourth PPEist to do so after Cameron, Harold Wilson and Edward Heath.

Despite generating so many political success stories, PPE has regularly come under fire as a degree choice.

Journalist Nick Cohen expressed widely held reservations in the Spectator, saying, “PPE essay crises are the perfect preparation for politicians who will distil a complicated society down to a few slogans.

“Above all, the flightiness of PPE encourages puppeteer politicians, who stand above their society pulling the strings, rather than men and women who represent solid interests within it.”

Commentator John Crace, writing in the Guardian, explained why so many politicians have ascended to office after graduating from Oxford with a PPE degree, writing that the degree gives students “a talent for having a firm opinion about absolutely everything regardless.”

Interview: Bill Oddie

0

Anyone who has witnessed Bill Oddie’s passion for nature, or watched the personable and wonderfully erudite wildlife presenter in action, might be forgiven for thinking that he could never really have been anything else. But such a role was not the natural end of a career that began with comedy sketches in a university amateur drama club. While most young people will recognise Oddie from such well-loved programmes as the BBC’s Springwatch and Autumnwatch, his career is really a tale of two halves, and “the comedy years”, as he laughingly refers to them, made up a considerable period of his life.

He was at Cambridge at the same time as John Cleese and Michael Palin, and later become part of the comedy trio ‘The Goodies’, whose humorous sketches delighted audiences throughout the 70s.

When I mention that ‘The Goodies’ came rather before my time, he admits that the realisation that he is now known predominantly as a wildlife presenter has been “a terrible shock as the years go by. The wildlife bit of it was quite specifically a hobby, and always had been since very young really.” Despite this early fascination with nature, “doing wildlife programs was not an ambition at all, it was an accident, really. I honestly can’t remember the exact details.” Some of his earliest enterprises, however, were Wild Weekends; a series of short episodes set in London, not far from where Oddie was living. “I suppose [these programmes] set off a reputation amongst TV people that I knew something about wildlife. I think it was very important for my confidence, because I’m sure there was a bit of opposition to it in the early days, a certain amount of natural history snobbery – ‘He’s just a comedian, he doesn’t know anything about it.’ It took a long time to get to the greatest hits.”

Once he had made it, though, Oddie was unstoppable. Three series of Birding with Bill Oddie were followed by another three of Bill Oddie Goes Wild, before he achieved arguably his greatest successes with Springwatch and Autumnwatch. I ask if, despite having apparently completed the transition from comedy to wildlife, his skills in the former overlap into the latter. “I think they do a great deal, on all sorts of levels. I think that’s a really good question because I don’t get people recognising that and understanding that quite so much. It’s improvised acting a lot of the time; actually, I sometimes feel that they don’t recognise the strength of that either.”

It’s perhaps his capacity for improvisation that accounts for a self-confessed pet hate in wildlife documentaries. “Nothing pains me more,” he says, gesticulating in exasperation, “than watching clichés, and cliché presenters and cliché voiceovers. If I see a presenter walking towards camera, obviously either reading the words off an autocue, or repeating something that’s actually a script, plus using all the usual natural history gestures, or reporting gestures, I can’t stand it, I get so annoyed about it. Let’s have a bit more originality and relaxation and being genuinely natural.”

At the heart of the individuality that distinguishes Oddie’s style of presentation is his ability to immerse the viewer in the scene. As he puts it, “The birdwatcher is part of the programme.”

One heart-warming anecdote illustrates what he means, “One of the nicest accolades I ever got was a letter from an elderly lady. It said, ‘I’m 80 now, and I’m very much housebound, but last Friday you took me for a walk.’ It was just lovely. And I thought, that little phrase encapsulated an awful lot about the job satisfaction that you can have – you could see exactly what she meant. And I thought, ‘Thank you, that’s as good a review as I can get, because that’s exactly what I’m trying to do.’ I take the camera for a walk, but the camera is you.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11703%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Perhaps one of his most remarkable successes is the popularisation of bird-watching, helping to erode its associations with eccentric, retired colonels in plus-fours wielding enormous binoculars, or even so-called ‘twitchers’ – people who race up and down the length of the country in order to catch a glimpse of a recently-spotted rare bird. “I think it’s settled down [now] – there are plenty still like that, to be perfectly honest, but I think there’s room for it now. It’s alive and well and why shouldn’t it be, because it’s just people who like birds, and that’s fine!”

But just when everything seemed to be going so perfectly, Oddie was suddenly axed from Springwatch in 2009. Tentatively, I press him about his relationship with the BBC. “That’s always terribly dangerous,” he chuckles. Was he ever given an explanation as to why he was sacked? “‘No, not really. The nearest I got was just a really waffly explanation, ‘It’s a number of things’. I can’t even remember who said it now. But I wasn’t called into a bloody great committee – I wish I had been, in a way, because I’d have had lots of people to cross-question.” One possible reason he puts forward, though, is a crippling paranoia at the BBC following ‘Sachsgate’ the infamous incident in October 2008 when Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross left multiple lewd and offensive messages on the answer machine of actor Andrew Sachs. Following the incident, Oddie claims, anything controversial had to go. “There is no panic,” he says, “like a BBC lawyer’s panic… I’ve always had an abrasive streak, I would own up to that, and I think in that autumn I was more abrasive than usual. Perhaps that had something to do with it.”

But what Oddie was not aware of at the time was that he was in fact suffering from bipolar disorder, or manic depression as it was formerly known. The latter term has become rather non-PC in recent years, but according to Oddie, it provides a rather accurate portrayal of the condition, “Manic depressive – I always thought that was pretty good, because that described what it was! One minute you’re depressed, the next minute you’re jolly.” I ask if it’s something that he’s struggled with all his life. “I mean it didn’t hit me at Cambridge, fortunately, but loneliness was certainly an element. As anybody who’s been to university knows, it’s perfectly possible to be part of a larger institution with thousands of people and still feel incredibly lonely wandering around in the middle of the night thinking, ‘There must be something going on.’ But I was lucky, because I had lots of activities. I had the Footlights stuff, I played a lot of sport, and so on and so forth.”

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%11704%%[/mm-hide-text] 

Surprisingly, Oddie believes that his work and his depression are largely unrelated, but that it has in fact contributed to his creativity as a presenter. “The manic side of bipolar can be very creative. It can also be very dangerously over the top. But for a while, it can give you great energy and imagination. I think I was very fortunate that my manic side is not extreme, it’s not dangerous. The plus side is that I can work under pressure and never even think of it as pressure.”

He is perfectly prepared to admit, though, that he sometimes becomes irritable with people. He has courted controversy in the past with his political views, claiming in an interview last year that the size of British families should be restricted to help control population rise, rather than tougher immigration laws, and calling the British “a terrible race” which he is “ashamed” to belong to. With this, and the large sign on the outside of his house saying, ‘Vote anyone but the Tories (and UKIP and Labour)’ in mind, I ask him what is the most important issue for him in this year’s General Election. His answer is typically robust. “The most important issue is not an issue. It’s a quest, a necessity, and that’s to get rid of the Tories, and get rid of Cameron. It’s been a disastrous couple of years from the wildlife and the real countryside point of view.”

I can sense the agitation building as Oddie expresses his utter contempt for the current state of British politics. “I’ve never known the reputation of politics and those connected with it and those financing it and benefiting from it to be so riddled with lies and corruption in my lifetime. I wouldn’t blame new voters for saying, ‘But I don’t feel I can trust anybody, so maybe I won’t vote at all!’ I don’t know whether that’s a tragic thing either, but I do know that truth comes very high, and of the people I’ve seen talking, it’s perfectly possible that whoever gets in will renege on whatever they were going to do.”

I can tell that a genuine anger lies beneath Oddie’s friendly, slightly avuncular exterior. While vociferous in his opposition to environmental policies such as fox-hunting and the badger cull, he clearly feels a much deeper disillusionment with politics, and the choices available to the country. Oddie’s view of David Cameron is simple: “I just hate the bastard. Nobody’s going to blame people for making a change if a change is obviously required, but please, let’s just have a bit of honesty. And I don’t trust Cameron and his crowd at all. I’m sure there are some good people, but…” He tails off, apparently overcome with sheer exasperation, and after a few seconds looks back up at me, all charm and jolliness again. “You didn’t go to Eton, did you?” Happily, I’m able to reply to the contrary.

Bill Oddie is a fascinating man, whose talents extend far beyond the realms of TV wildlife presentation. His huge success is testament to both his insuppressible passion for wildlife and his strength of character. While his appearances on our screens have become less frequent recently, I am sure that Oddie will not be leaving the public spotlight any time soon.

Bill Oddie is speaking at a documentary-making conference at St Hilda’s College on Saturday 16th May. For more information and tickets visit www.st-hildas.ox.ac.uk/st-hildas-documentary-making-conference-16-may-2015.

Life as a hoarder: thinking inside the box

Suitcases, bare walls, an obscene amount of cardboard and ‘Safestore’ sticky-tape: it’s moving day and I feel a little bit sick when I think about what we have to do today. We’re about to transfer everything we own from one place to another. Sounds simple. Obvious. Except for when you think about what that actually means.

As I sit here waiting for the removal men to arrive in their portable warehouses, I can’t quite believe how much stuff we have. Old stuff, new stuff, half-forgotten-about stuff, that we’ll be lugging from this house to the next, and probably to the one after that. So why do we feel the need to cling on to it all?

Now, I’d be the first to admit that both my mum and I suffer from mild HD (hoarding disorder). For us, it’s mentalities such as, “Oh but so-and-so gave me that for my birthday ten years ago,” and, “I’m sure if I shrunk this a bit I’d wear it again,” that stifle the voice screaming, “But we have no room!” amongst the folds of my old baby blankets. That aside, I refuse to believe that we’re just weak-minded people with minimal will power. There, I said what all you minimalists out there were thinking. So humour me, while I try to explain away the two (make that three) industrial storage units we have rented to stuff with childhood keepsakes and auction-worthy furniture. Here we go then: the science behind the storage; the sense behind the nonsensical.

While I wait for my credible source (Chrome and Safari et al 2015) to load, I hope that the studies I’m about to come across are called something equally as cheesy as the title I’ve given this very article. I wonder how they would go about collecting this kind of data. I imagine white-coated lab technicians examining some other-world “me” equivalent as she sorts through boxes, andhow they would ask her to rate her attachment to each item out of ten, before collating the results and dividing each by the amount of time that has passed since that item counted as being part of the present tense. Or something like that. Although it does not offer me answers to my Google question, “why do people get emotionallyattached to stuff ?”, ‘Miss Minimalist’s Blog: Self-help for Hoarders’ presents a striking conundrum for those of my persuasion. “Imagine that the place you live is suddenly struck by political unrest or natural disaster. Could you walk out the door and leave everything behind?” I think back to when our house flooded and Mum waded in to save some old sweaters. I scroll down and decide against completing the survey entitled ‘Are You Irrationally Attached to Your Stuff ?’. The ‘Purpose Fairy’ cannot help me magic-up an answer to my madness either, but does offer a helpful motto for those hippy-hoarders out there, ‘Love Everything, Be Attached to Nothing’. Going for a more medical approach, the article ‘For the Love of Stuff ’ steers me towards the diagnosis of ‘Terminal Materialism’, but I really don’t think my instinct to cling onto things is driven by a desire to show off how much stuff I own. Believe me, most of it I would never dream of showing anyone (Primary school Sports Day certificates for the coveted prize of ‘Tried the Hardest’ – I mean, hello?).

No, that definitely wasn’t it.

To my disappointment, there seems to be no mathematical formula to explain my indecision when it comes to my belongings, but my internet hunt does seem to come to one, overwhelmingly scientific, conclusion: we’re human. Well, duh, you might say, but I can reason with this grand discovery. Despite the efforts of time’s numbing effects, there are some items that no amount of tape and years will make seem old or irrelevant.

Fast-forward through the move itself – when the box-numbering and furniture allocation system crumbles; you fail to piece together the cut-and-stick IKEA kitchen correctly; and the local Costa is cleared of its entire caffeine stock. Fast-forward through all of that to the traditional take-out pizza and bottle of wine amongst your very own cardboard fortress – the only bit of the day that is guaranteed to go as planned. This is when you look at each other and say, “We did it, yet again. Move number seven!” and you do the selfish internal gloat that you’re escaping to Oxford the next day for the Trinity eternity of Pimm’s and sunshine that is your illusion of a summer term without exams. This is when you tear open the box next to you in a desperate search-and-rescue mission for the corkscrew and find your Grandad’s binocular set staring back at you.

Suddenly, you remember how he used to “bird-watch” and offer commentary on his findings, making up names of birds for you as you sat next to him on his striped deckchair, your little feet not yet grazing the graveled floor. You remember how you were none the wiser to his little game and how to this day you swear that, somewhere out there, there really is such a thing as the lesser-spotted bird, the ‘Featheroo’. You turn to each other; smile together; and for that brief moment he’s with you again.

Rewind back to the present and I’m still sitting on the floor of my empty bedroom. My phone goes and it’s a text from Mum, “We’ve left the storage units. On way to you. Need coffee.” I make my way downstairs and nudge the kettle on. As it boils, I see the shadow of bright yellow, shiny canvas rolling up the drive, the green hedges tickling its sides. They’re here. And, shit, I still haven’t stripped the beds.

Dissolving the science/arts divide

0

 A new 3D printing technique allows solid objects to be created from a pool of goo within minutes – working up to 100 times faster than current models. Sound like science fiction? Well that may be because the scientists behind the technology have revealed that the idea was inspired by a scene from the film Terminator 2 in which a killer robot emerges from a puddle of liquid. 

The technology, developed by scientists at the University of North Carolina, uses a combination of light projections, which solidify the liquid, and oxygen, which inhibits solidification, to create the desired shape. The technology is set to revolutionise 3D printing, being the first technique which could realistically compete with the traditional manufacturing process, and it all started with an abstract idea in the mind of a filmmaker. 

Investigating further, I discovered that a numb e r of technologies were imagined in the arts years before science made them a reality. From the Star Trek communicator which inspired the first mobile phones to the novel The World Set Free which inspired the world’s first nuclear chain reactor, the examples are endless. Most excitingly, for Harry Potter fans at least, scientists are currently investigating how metamaterials can be used to bend light around objects – opening up the possibility of a real life invisibility cloak. 

These metamaterials are artificially engineered to interact with electromagnetic waves in ways that natural materials cannot; leading to bizarre optical properties including the ability to make objects appear invisible. Although it probably won’t exist in the immediate future, applications of the research include the use of such materials to aid complex surgery by being able to ‘see through’ organs, and the idea of active camouflage for military use. Without invisibility devices being described in fictional works such as Star Trek and Harry Potter, this branch of research might not even exist. 

Of course this is by no means a one way process. Scientific advancements and individuals are being given increasing coverage in the arts with recent films such as The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything offering people a glimpse into scientific advancements past and present and the lives of the scientists behind them. In fact, this represents a wider change in the way that science is presented to the general population. A century ago, newspapers didn’t even feature science or health sections and as far back as 50 years ago scientists who engaged with public communication were seen as “second-class scientists, doing a lower form of work”, according to Declan Fahy, author of The New Celebrity Scientists. With popular science at its peak, books, articles, television programmes and radio shows are all written and broadcasted with the aim of engaging the public by making science clear, interesting and relatable. After all, it’s our public taxes which fund the majority of scientific research and the public who will be affected by its progress. Whether or not you think it is good, science has now infiltrated the arts and media in an unprecedented manner. 

The blockbuster Interstellar is perhaps one of the best examples of a successful interplay between the arts and science; the film’s premise was motivated by space travel, and contributed to our knowledge of black holes. The special effects team fed pages of equations modelling black holes into their rendering software, creating what are thought to be the most accurate images of a black hole to date. Although some relativistic effects were ultimately removed from the film in order to keep it symmetrical and more aesthetically pleasing, the original images have already been used in two scientific papers. 

Even though we may not be able to agree on whether 9ams or essay crises are worse, the arts and science divide is not all that significant. Not just that, but the separation of the two could endanger both fields – taking away big ideas from science and exciting concepts from the arts. In the words of Jules Verne, the French writer who has been credited with first envisioning air and underwater travel, “Anything that one man can imagine, another can make possible”.

The genius of Mad Men

0

What is it that sets apart Mad Men, Matthew Weiner’s AMC series about an advertising agency in the 1960s, from other dramas on TV? Is it the captivating ensemble of nuanced characters, who’ve grown and withered, loved and experienced every kind of loss in the show’s seven years? Is it the merciless scrutiny under which it dissects well-worn 60s tropes? The incredible wardrobe? (That doesn’t contradict my last point, the colours were fabulous…).

 

The truth is, our current television landscape blesses us with an abundance of these qualities – such high standards in characterisation, social commentary and production design are not so rare in what has frequently been dubbed a new Golden Age of Television. From the time of HBO’s emergence as an environment fostering high quality, censorship-free drama in the late 90s, there’s been an onslaught of intelligent, adult cable series, and with new players like Rectify, Fargo and The Leftovers all still in their early seasons, it’s clear that there’s no shortage of torchbearers for the post-Mad Men era (the show is currently airing its final batch of episodes).

 

So how can Mad Men stand out in this sea of quality? Its true trump card is this: Matthew Weiner understands how people interact, and he is unrivalled in his gift for bringing this authenticity to the screen. If that sounds like vague nonsense, allow me to be more specific. In reality, conversation can be a clumsy thing – we’re not working from a script, we rarely have the perfect response, and we often prepare our next lines as other parties speak and simply wait our turn. Weiner’s keen observation of this principle, and his ability to translate it into a medium where people are reading a script (in fact, he has an infamously low tolerance of even the slightest script deviations) are the keys to the show’s success, and position Weiner as the antidote to Aaron Sorkin and his ilk – I don’t mean disrespect to his often brilliantly witty scripts, but Sorkin is the ultimate example of a writer whose characters could only exist within the confines of TV-land.

 

http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/4b/73/48c677e043f8a78dba810ecd84e6/mad-men.jpg

 

It may seem false of me to highlight this quality in a show about rich, successful salesmen, the smoothest of smooth talkers. Yes, Mad Men is nominally about creative thinkers and/or slick pitchers, but more importantly the show explores the personal cost of a life spent selling an image of success, of family, of happiness. In their own lives, most of the characters are alone and unfulfilled. Glib tongues will not bring them happiness, and cannot prepare them for life’s everyday uncertainty and unpredictability; at all times, the script is rooted in this honest imperfection.

 

Much of Mad Men’s humour (and it’s a hilarious show) also stems from the winning combination of the script’s little absurdities and non-sequiturs, and each actor’s total inhabitation of their role. Characters constantly misinterpret one another, ignore each other’s references, and become delightfully incoherent as they get flustered or frustrated. Petty home or office arguments are a joy to behold, frequently ending in personal attacks or hopeless retorts (‘I’m tired of everyone telling me to shut up. I’m not stupid, I speak Italian’, fumes one character after being berated by her husband).

 

I’ve gone on for too long without mentioning the man at the centre of the show: Don Draper, man of mystery. In him, Matt Weiner and actor Jon Hamm have crafted one of the most iconic of modern TV’s array of antiheroes, a man who perfectly distils Mad Men’s themes. Impossibly handsome, and with legendary powers of persuasion and aptitude for creative work, Draper seems to have been drawn directly from the old ‘Men want to be him, women want to be with him’ line, but the falsity of his image quickly becomes apparent – Don is a lousy husband and father, and a pathological womaniser with a serious drinking problem.

 

At this point it’s important to talk about Mad Men’s ancestry. Modern TV history can be broken up into pre- and post-Sopranos; it was this show, with its rare combination of auteurial vision and huge ratings, which paved the way for the new pedigree of cable drama we’ve seen in the last fifteen years, and its influence can be seen wherever you choose to look (not least in the now-verging-on-ridiculous antihero vogue).

 

http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sopranos.jpg

 

Of all the series which emerged from The Sopranos’ fertile loins, however, it is Mad Men which I consider to be its most direct descendant. Matt Weiner served as a producer and writer on the show for its final seasons, and the experience clearly left an indelible mark on him. Don, like Tony Soprano before him, struggles to balance his family, work and extramarital affairs. Both men are examined in many lights, as husbands, lovers, mentors and fathers.

 

The two shows are also linked by the thematic concerns at their cores. Characters are overcome by the uncertainty of their futures, and many respond by sinking into existential despair. There is a sense that Tony and Don are men of bygone eras, pining for their pasts and struggling to adapt to the challenges of the present. The shows are fascinated by the question of change; can a man truly change his fate? Can he change himself? Character progression is always honest and genuine, with both series understanding that personal growth is far from a linear path. Over the many seasons, we see countless setbacks, regressions and characters falling back on old vices. It can be frustrating to watch, but in the end this verisimilitude is what enables us to become so emotionally invested.

 

And the naturalistic dialogue that I was going on about? That’s another debt which Weiner owes the men and women of The Sopranos, with their confused logic, fallacious analogies and of course Tony’s infamous malapropisms (‘Revenge is like serving cold cuts!’), but here we also see a major way in which Mad Men steps out from the shadow of its predecessor. One of The Sopranos’ weaknesses was its tendency to view its own characters with great contempt, and if the show couldn’t take them seriously, then how could we expect to? Some of the cast mainstays spent six seasons serving as little more than comic relief, and numerous supporting characters never developed beyond a single dimension.

 

Matt Weiner, on the other hand, endeavours to bring each of his characters to life with a depth and richness that was reserved for the central five or six in Sopranos. Even one-time roles feel fleshed out, and we’re rarely presented with caricatures or ideological stand-ins. It’s this commitment to realism which gives Mad Men its dramatic power and lasting impact. The show’s surface is glamorous and sexy but its world is not, and in its details it simultaneously captures the regularity, but also the improbability of everyday life. Mad Men distinguishes itself from its competition by virtue of its flawless cast and uniquely observant writing, and it’s with a heavy heart that I’ll be bidding these characters farewell in two weeks’ time, and waiting to see if anything can fill the hole it leaves.

Oxford Candidates in Pieces

0

The Hertford College Home Bursar, Dr Andrew Beaumont, has created representations of all the Oxford West and Abingdon candidates out of Lego.

Dr Beaumont, who has a doctorate in Modern History and describes himself on Twitter as “a benign Lego obsessive”, made the figures during his lunch break after getting campaign literature and thinking that all the candidates “looked a bit the same”.

The electoral candidates met their Lego counter-parts during a Radio Oxford constituency debate.

So far, the reaction has been positive. The incumbent MP, Conservative Nicola Blackwood, told Cherwell, “Although I’m not known for wear- ing a neck tie, Lego Nicola has a fabulous blonde mane – Dr Beaumont gets my vote for innovation and light relief in the middle of a very hard fought campaign.”

Mike Foster of the Socialist Party was equally impressed, saying, “The Lego figures have been one of the highlights of the campaign for me, and seeing the article on the BBC website gave me a good laugh. When we hear the election results, hopefully none of the candidates will go to pieces as easily as their Lego counterpart can!”

Sally Copley, the Labour candidate, was also pleased with her likeness, telling Cherwell, “My kids were impressed when they heard about it, but less so when they saw it! I quite liked it though.”

The Lego MPs are the latest in a line of projects undertaken by Dr Beaumont. He has also recreated the famous Bridge of Sighs in Lego, which was featured as part of the College’s open day events for access and outreach. This was followed (due to popular demand) by the Hertford College Chapel.

Other interesting projects include homages to Harry Potter, the Rocky Horror picture show and “the life of Vladimir Putin”, as well as a “more inspirational” version of the criticised “Lego friends” range, which instead features representations of important contemporary female figures such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Maya Angelou.

Regarding the election mini figures, Dr Beaumont told Cherwell, “The election mini figures which you’ve seen have been really popular, but they were honestly made in about five minutes on my coffee break last week, and I had abso- lutely no idea people would like them so much. Several of the candidates have asked to keep them as lucky mascots. I’m considering this.”

Dr Beaumont has also disclosed details of his next project: the front façade of Hertford College, which would be up to five feet long and contain around 20,000 bricks – hopefully ready in time for the University open days in July.

When asked who he’d be voting for, Dr Beaumont replied by saying, “I’m not telling you my voting plans, although I think my Twitter feed might give it away a bit.”

For more designs, Dr Beaumont has an impressive Twitter feed displaying his most interesting projects. 

Monumental Art: Fine detailed portrait of Homer Simpson

0

This week in monumental art it is everyone’s favourite internet artist who is it that is right it is chris (simpsons artist) and his first ever unsettling picture that he posted on facebook of homer a character from the tv show called the simpsons.

I’m sure many of you will be familiar with Chris’s idiosyncratic drawings and accompanying ramblings in the style of the above. Crude, childish, and bordering on the outright hideous, when he uploaded this bizarre illustration onto social media in early 2011 he managed, incredibly, to change the art game forever. 

The portrait is pretty disturbing, distorted but with none of the measured effect of caricature: an eye floats away from Homer’s face, his teeth are not delineated properly and there is an absolute disregard for any sense of proportion or perspective. Its caption – ‘DOG!’ – is short but sweet, the misspelling of Homer’s immortalised catchphrase complementing perfectly Chris (Simpsons Artist)’s strange deformation of this pop-culture icon. Close enough to be recognisable but hopelessly misshapen, Chris’s hamfisted drawings really do resemble the poor imitations of a child.

What’s most remarkable about this picture, especially as I sit here trying to write a serious analysis of it, is that the longer you look at it the funnier it gets. On first sight, Chris (Simpsons Artist)’s artwork confronts us with a pretty simple question: is this the talentless doodling of an innocent mind, or the parodic work of a comedic genius? Given the way his drawings have developed, becoming more studied and exaggerated, we can perhaps conlude the latter, and Chris (Simpson Artist)’s art instead becomes a comment on the condition of contemporary art in the internet age. Chris embraces that canted old criticism of modern art (yes, a child really could have drawn this), as well as social media’s role in providing a public platform for all art, the good, the bad and the ugly. It’s impossible to take Chris (Simpsons Artist) seriously, but that’s not to say that his work is not profound.

Chris (Simpsons Artist), whose real identity remains unknown, now has a huge following on Facebook, has had several pieces featured in the Independent, and in May 2012 his work was displayed at the IG:LU art gallery in Inverness. In this first picture that he ‘gone and done’, Chris (Simpsons Artist) challenged what it means to be an artist today – and what’s more, it looks like he did it on MS Paint.

Controversial ‘joke’ in The Newt

0

LAST WEEK NEW COLLEGE’S satirical student newspaper published the comment, “No I’ve never punched a woman during sex. But never say never,”.

National tabloids Daily Mail and The Mirror have called the comments “offensive” and “outrageous”.

The college newspaper, The Newt, often quotes students’ comments that have been overheard throughout the week in the top margin of the page. It was here that the ‘joke’ was published. Other sections of the newspaper include a social media page, satirical cartoons and ‘dispatches’ from people spending a year abroad. The newspaper has existed in its current format since 2008.

Katy Sheridan, Welfare Representative for New College JCR, hoped that the comments would not affect people’s perceptions of “the strongly supportive community” of New College.

She commented, “At New College, we have a very active and appropriately trained welfare team who take extremely seriously the importance of supporting survivors of sexual violence. The welfare team have undertaken first responder and peer support training.”

She made the College’s condemnation of sexual violence clear, telling Cherwell, “New College JCR in no way endorses the trivialisation of sexual violence; such an attitude grossly misrepresents the strongly sup- portive community we have at New College.”

Last year, students were given the choice to opt-out of having their comments published in The Newt and the newspaper is obligated to ask the people who it intends to quote if they are happy to be featured. The person who made the ‘joke’ was given this choice.

Former Newt editor James Mannion com- mented, “I think the tone [of the newspaper] can vary but only from being satire-centred to being a more gossip-orientated, humorous college newsletter. The tone has to be on the side of people involved.”

He explained that he thought that the ‘joke’ had made it to national print because on opening the newspaper, “what leaps out is casual violence against women,” which was caused by “a misjudgement of tone”.

Mannion believed the quotation was “throw away dark humour”, and had been taken from a casual conversation someone overheard regarding S&M.

He added, “However, as a stand-alone quote it appears to negate that, and that is why I think it was an inappropriate choice of quote, because it fails to provide enough of a background to maintain the inherent harmlessness of the statement. I see why people have been offended; but I also think it has been blown out of proportion by a misinterpretation of the tone of the comment.”

Chris Green, Director of anti-violence against women charity, the White Ribbon Campaign, told the Mirror, “The inappropriate page header of the ‘news’ paper which is delivered to every pigeonhole in New College reinforces sexist and controlling disrespectful attitudes which stu- dents are already excessively exposed to. Only a foolhardy publisher would put such an offensive quote into a newspaper.”

It has been reported that the editor of The Newt was told by the Dean to exercise more caution when selecting stand-alone comments, however New College are yet to reply to a request for comment. The editor of The Newt also declined to comment. 

Trinity JCR to Support Divestment

0

A motion in favour of divestment from fos- sil fuels was passed by Trinity College JCR last Sunday, with a 51-15 majority and five absten- tions. The motion mandates the JCR President to support OUSU’s Environment and Ethics campaign to request the divestment of college investments from fossil fuel companies.

The motion was proposed by Rosemary Leech and seconded by Alice Jones, the JCR’s Environment and Ethics Reps. The motion stated, “Investment made by the University into unethical fossil fuel companies is socially irresponsible and inconsistent with the educa- tional objectives of the University”.

15 other JCRs have pledged to support the Oxford University Fossil Free Divestment Campaign, including Balliol, Keble, University and Exeter. A further fourteen MCRs have also pledged support for the campaign, and this in total represents over 8,200 students.

Oxford University’s Socially Responsible Investment Review Committee (SRIRC) has stated that it “has decided to canvass the opinions of stakeholders. We are therefore requesting evidence and opinions from relevant bodies in the collegiate University, and through the publication of this statement invite interested parties to submit evidence or views that might inform the committee’s consideration of the question of possible divestment from companies ‘that participate in exploration for and/or extraction of fossil fuel reserves’ as per the OUSU representation.”

Leech commented, “Essentially, we passed the motion to support the wider OUSU divestment campaign, which is bigger than anything we could do as a single college. So while other colleges passing the motion did influence me in proposing it in a way, this was something Alice and I wanted the support of the JCR in anyway. Personally, I think divestment is hugely important for large bodies like Oxford University. We hold significant investing power, and by divesting from a fuel source which damages the planet and makes life harder for the world’s most vulnerable people, we would send a strong message about the need to care for the future.”

The University Council will meet on 18th May to make a decision on divestment after deferring their decision at the first meeting.

Trinity College has not replied to Cherwell’s request for comment. 

The Dark Side of the Picket Fence

0

In the opening scene of David Lynch’s Blue Velvet, we are met by vibrant shots of a suburban neighbourhood basking in the glow of a warm summer sunlight. As a man suffers a crippling stroke, the camera does something unexpected. We pan away from the catatonic victim and stumble, deep beneath the grass, on a hoard of crawling, festering insects. Lynch makes his point beautifully. Beneath the pleasant façade of suburbia lies a creepy and infested underworld; behind the picket fences and crimson roses are people we know nothing about – people riddled with secrets.

How much do we really know about our neighbours? Aside from the polite “good morning” and mandatory Christmas cards, do we truly know what’s going on behind the closed doors of people who live a matter of feet away from us? It’s a curiosity explored endlessly on screen. Ricky Fitts’ video camera in American Beauty reveals the peculiar nude workout routines of a man’s mid-life crisis; a vain young girl desperately seeking attention from men; and his own personal favourite – an insecure teenager who feels she’ll never find anybody who loves her. What his camera doesn’t pick up is his own father’s repressed homosexuality (masquerading as intense homophobia); Carolyn’s adultery; or even Lester’s infatuation with his daughter’s 16 year old friend. These are things no neighbour could ever know because they are hidden so well.

In 2004, Marc Cherry was inspired by American Beauty to create a TV series about the mysteries of one’s neighbours hidden behind the beautiful surface of suburbia, Desperate Housewives. With each new season, a different neighbour joined the street, always disguising a sinister past that threatened to break free. The picturesque Wisteria Lane became synonymous with closeted skeletons, and the female protagonists represented the “everyman”, inquisitive but clueless about the lives of their neighbours. It doesn’t matter how “ordinary” one may seem – everybody has secrets they want to protect.

Suburban life is all about exhibiting a shiny façade. It’s about Stepford Wives-type figures, perfectly prim and presentable, ready to offer a batch of warm cookies to passers by, whilst concealing the fact that they’re actually robots. It’s about the ideal family unit and community spirit displayed by Truman Burbank in The Truman Show – a man who is all the while unaware that his life is part of a scripted TV series. Jeffrey Beaumont never expects to discover a severed ear in his neighbourhood in Blue Velvet – why would something so disturbing ever find its way into his quaint little community? But as long as everybody feels safe – as long as they believe that no harm could ever come to their homes, the façade may continue and life can go on.

But how should we treat our neighbours if we do find out something unsavory about them? Todd Field’s Little Children is one of many films to deal with this difficulty. Should a community band together to enrage one another against a convicted paedophile living amongst them, or does he deserve a chance at anonymity and redemption? In Rear Window, is L.B. Jefferies right to take his suspicions of his neighbour – whom he’s been watching from across the street through binoculars – into his own hands? Does Claire have justification to slander her enigmatic neighbours to her husband and friends in What Lies Beneath? Curiosity always gets the better of us, it seems.

The most effective examination of the neighbourhood network is probably demonstrated by the soap opera. A myriad of characters share the screen for brief vignettes, each simultaneously contributing to a larger picture of a disconnected yet closely associated community. We all emit different personalities when we’re out and about to when we’re sitting in the comfort of our own home. This is what film and TV loves to explore. The medium lends itself perfectly. Just like Ricky Fitts, filmmakers are able to push their cameras deep into the private world of the most fascinatingly revealing place of all: the home.