Tuesday 8th July 2025
Blog Page 1262

Milestones: The Beer Widget

0

Genius and innovation go hand in hand. Any brain brilliant enough to be considered genius will inevitably produce something to improve the world around them, and these inventions are what drive human achievement. Just take a moment to think where we’d be as a civilisation without the wheel, the plough, the printing press, the refrigerator or the ballpoint pen. 

Consequently, the modern man is no longer plagued by the tribulations of the past. The telephone means we no longer have to wait an agonisingly long time for a handwritten letter from a loved one. The jet engine means we can travel thousands of miles in the time which our ancestors would have taken to travel tens. Yet, we are constantly affronted by fresh problems in our lives. 

Take the greatest issue facing our species in the current era: the quest to relax. In a world that is rapidly running out of food, water, inhabitable space, fossil fuels and bees, the importance of kicking back, opening a can of beer and just chilling has never been greater. It is at this juncture that we meet the greatest unsung inventors of the twentieth century: Alan Forage and William Byrne. 

They had the common person’s concerns at heart. Canned beer was the pivotal step in allowing the public to relax in the comfort of their own homes. But it was also widely known that lesser carbonated beers had never successfully survived the canning process. Guinness, the company for whom our dynamic duo worked, set up Project ACORN (Advanced Cans Of Rich Nectar) to valiantly resolve this issue. 

Their solution was the widget, the most beautiful ball of hollow plastic the world has ever known. This elegantly simple creation was filled with nitrogen during the canning process, and placed in the beer so that it would re-release the gas once the can’s tab was pulled. This created the ideal level of gas bubbles and liquid. What that means in layman’s terms is a cracking foam head on every can of Guinness, Tetley’s and John Smith’s you could ever imbibe. 

The widget not only makes sure the foam is as substantial as one pulled in a pub, but the additional nitrogen also ensures the foam is creamier and better tasting. Consequently, it was a win-win for Guinness on every front; it meant their stout tasted good whether on the go or at a bar, and it meant they had a new product to mass market. By 1989, in a quest for innovation that began in 1968, Forage and Byrne’s genius had pushed human achievement to its greatest pinnacle yet. 

So the next time the year 1989 springs to mind, remember it wasn’t significant just for the collapse of the Berlin Wall. And the next time you kick away an empty Guinness can into the gutter and hear a mysterious rattling noise as it rolls, remember what that noise means. That noise is the siren song of the widget, the answer to humankind’s most profound problem (surrounding the issue of effectively canning lesser-carbonated hops-based drinks). For now, we can revel in all our beers having sufficient foaming heads. And really, who couldn’t do with a bit more head?

"Washing the dust of daily life off our souls"

0

“The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls,” according to Picasso. Assuming one of the most influential artists of all time knew something about the trade that kept his kids in shoes, we should accept that good art involves the individual, facilitates clarity of understanding, and, in general, gives people a bloody good, thought-provoking time. Art should cleanse, art should inspire, and art should invigorate.

How is this best achieved? To that, there is no single answer. Picasso and his avant-garde contemporaries may have argued that provoking the viewer into re-evaluating their preconceptions was key. One imagines that politically motivated artists like Banksy or Ai Weiwei would attempt to engage with the viewer on an ethical, rational level. But in the global, commercially-driven spheres of popular music and film, I would suggest that emotional involvement is paramount.

The latest Taylor Swift song or Hollywood blockbuster seeks to find success with as large an audience as possible, and to do that, it utilises recognisable (if not always relatable) emotions in an evidently manipulative way. In short, it attempts to involve the viewer or listener by making them feel.

And this, for the most part, is a tremendously effective approach. Its artistic merit placed to one side, I think you would be hardpressed to find anyone who wasn’t just the tiniest bit affected by Frozen, or by Katy Perry’s Fireworks. Yeah, Katy, I will make them go oh-oh-oh as I shoot across the sky-sky-sky.

But what happens when complex, real-life stories are approached through these, for want of a better word, populist mediums? Are awkward, un-fairytale-like themes butchered into cute, kitsch banalities? Are difficult issues ignored in favour of happier conclusions? Is high-level academic theory reduced to the most layman of layman’s terms? Is fact entirely reduced to disrespectful fiction?

The stories of Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking are particularly relevant examples because two films depicting their lives, The Imitation Game and The Theory Of Everything respectively, have been released in the past few months, both to widespread critical acclaim.

No-one could argue that the stories of their lives are straightforward. Alan Turing suffered childhood tragedy when his best friend died of tuberculosis, he endured the traumas of both world wars and played a major role in ending the second by cracking the Enigma code, only subsequently to be prosecuted for homosexuality and to commit suicide in June 1954.

Stephen Hawking was diagnosed with motor neurone disease whilst studying for his doctorate in Cambridge. His continued devotion to pushing the
boundaries of cosmology is undoubtedly inspiring, but his personal life, particularly his strained relationship with his first wife Jane, is far from formulaic.

How are their stories and achievements treated in their respective biopics? The Imitation Game, which starred Bendict Cumberbatch as Turing, was damningly labelled “multiplex-friendly” by Christian Caryl and “soft-focus cinematic capital” by Catherine Shoard. It is difficult to disagree.

Although undoubtedly an emotionally engaging and artistically sound film, it deserves the heavy criticism it received, both for its exceedingly tentative attitude towards Turing’s homosexuality, which is rarely more than hinted at throughout, and for the frustratingly brief description of the science that led Turing and his team to break the Nazis’ “unbreakable” code.

As a result, The Imitation Game is little more than the cinematic equivalent of a chart-topping Katy Perry song: predictably moving but ultimately unrecognisable to the point of disrespect. Its is a shallow success, one built on hackneyed themes, limited pretensions to scientific complexity, and above all, cheap sentimentality.

The Theory Of Everything addresses the difficult issues at its heart with considerably more courage, with Eddie Redmayne’s powerfully physical portrayal of Hawking providing a major contribution. We are left under no illusions as to the viscerally debilitating nature of his condition, nor are we fobbed off with a cosy, wide-eyed love story; the strain the Hawkings’ marriage is placed under is foregrounded, and the thought-provoking implications are never side-stepped. Even his scientific theories, which are so far evolved from my own intellectual capacity as to be virtually nonsense, are, if not detailed fully, at least sketched in. And as a result, it is infinitely more powerful.

Art should wash the dust of daily life off our souls, as Picasso said, and in the world of film, it is emotional engagement that truly registers as a good soul-cleansing sesh. Both The Imitation Game and The Theory Of Everything involve the audience, but only the latter does so in a commendable fashion.

Neither Turing nor Hawking are paradigmatic Prince Charmings, and they should in no way be treated as such. They are both exceptionally intelligent individuals who have achieved remarkable scientific leaps and who have had to face the stigmatisations society has placed in front of them. Their stories, and those like them, should be treated with the respect and complexity they deserve.

Debate: should there be exclusionary zones for abortion clinics?

0

YES

Mary Reader

The ‘Back Off’ campaign to create ‘exclusionary zones’ outside abortion clinics has generated a great deal of support in recent months, including a petition with over 100,000 signatures. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has found a substantial increase in the number of anti-abortion protestors actively blocking, harassing or intimidating women entering clinics. BPAS have therefore called for legislation to make ‘buffer zones’ of at least 10 metres. The campaign has attracted support from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Rape Crisis England and Wales, the Royal College of Midwives, and Violence Against Women. In addition, Yvette Cooper and Ed Miliband have recently considered legislation on this topic.

Abortion has always been, and always will be, a highly sensitive issue. It is really important in such emotive debates to consider how the status quo could affect the most vulnerable. Imagine you are a rape victim. You have made the difficult but completely understandable and legitimate decision to have an abortion, albeit not without regret and huge conflict of emotion. But, having made that decision, you arrive at the clinic to be confronted on the steps with posters and leaflets illustrating dismembered foetuses, banners screaming ‘Protect the Embryo’ and even recording equipment testifying your entrance into the clinic.

The sad truth is that these protests are not just nuisances for patients; they have a very real effect upon women’s state of mind before having an abortion. Anti-abortion groups trade on this power. Such groups claim that they are “educating” women about the reality of abortion. But the images they use are not representative of the vast majority of cases; they are created as propagandist pieces of emotional manipulation. The leader of Abort67, Ruth Rawlins, says that they are helping women make “an informed choice”. But emotional blackmail does not help people make rational choices.

BBC Newsbeat spoke to a 21 year old anonymous woman who had an abortion at a Marie Stopes clinic and found the protestors “really upsetting”. She said, “It’s not like you haven’t thought it through and you’re just doing it on a whim. Nobody has an abortion on a whim. So it just reinforces a bunch of emotions that you don’t need and probably can’t handle much at that point in time.”

One BPAS patient claimed, “If it was my first appointment I probably wouldn’t have come in. I had to phone a family member crying as I didn’t want to walk past.”

So long as abortion is legal in the UK, there should be free and accessible provision where there is need, without the threat of social condemnation or intimidation. Of course, ‘exclusionary zones’ will not completely solve the problem. But it will provide a ‘safe space’ around clinics so that patients will feel as protected, safe and relaxed as possible.

Opponents argue that this is an infringement of free speech and the right to protest. It is nothing of the kind. There is nothing free about actively intimidating others, especially some of the most vulnerable people in society while they are receiving a legal operation.

The ‘free speech’ card is recurrently used to legitimize exclusionary and intimidating actions. It is rarely used to protect the rights of those in society who are most likely to be silenced.

Of course, free speech should be exercised at times in the debate around abortion. The steps leading to the abortion clinic provide neither the correct time nor the place.

 

NO

Kayleigh Tompkins


Equal rights for women has, unfortunately, always been a radical concept to some. In the 1910s, the idea of female franchise was a radical one and in their campaign for the vote women chained themselves to railings, went on hunger strikes, even detonated bombs. While methods of demonstration have changed, women have continually challenged existing social structures and attitudes in a manner that certainly did not pander to traditional ideas of female behaviour. These forms of protest are ‘radical’ and they are visible.

In the 1960s and 70s, women began to live in ways that challenged the traditional idea of nuclear families. Feminists such as Lynne Segal sought empowerment through collective living. Other radical feminists rejected any kind of relationship with men, instead advocating lesbianism, asexuality or celibacy. Here, again, accepted social norms were dismantled by groups of women seeking emancipation in ways that were novel and shocking to some parts of society.

Today, inspiring men and women are continuing to challenge sexism, standing up against cat-calling, unfair media representations and rape culture. People continue to take a stand, refusing to be cowed by negative responses. Fear is a tool of oppression and by refusing to mitigate their actions they refuse to be oppressed.

It is when we place the issue of legal exclusionary zones in this larger historical narrative that it becomes more contentious. The idea that women making brave and difficult choices about their bodies needs to be hidden away, as though it were something shameful, is a disquieting one. When women experience ‘slut-shaming’ for exercising their sexual agency, it is a powerful and sad reminder that there will always be those who will attempt to shame women for exercising their rights. By closeting a woman’s right to choose, this action itself becomes one of ‘shaming’. The creation of exclusionary zones suggests that abortion is not a normal action condoned and accepted by society. This is surely the wrong message to be sending to women making brave and difficult decisions.

Hiding away has never beaten the bullies. History shows that acting visibly, and not shying away, in the name of feminism, has lead to great feminist achievements. Despite the inevitable angry reaction from some segments of society this causes, it has never, and should never, deter women from challenging oppressive structures in the search for equality. By continuing to practice openly the culture that feminists believe in, whether mainstream patriarchal society agrees or not, a fairer and freer culture can become normalised.

I realise this point of view is selfish. No woman should feel she has a duty to stand up to anyone, especially those that harass or intimidate others. She should not feel indebted to a grandiose narrative of resistance in a situation as emotional and potentially vulnerable as abortion.

Ultimately, we do need safe spaces for women to make their choices. However, we must face up to those who challenge us. Exclusionary zones may hinder us by hiding away what we want to proudly assert, by making it abnormal. By openly challenging norms that prevent progress, we can stand tall. For those who can and who want to challenge these norms, we must stare our oppressors in the face, assert our rights proudly, not hidden away behind legal curtains.

Can #Fitspiration make us healthier?

0

As we’ve settled into January, it’s become clear why it’s dubbed ‘diet month’. Newspapers and magazines are full of the ‘New Year, New You, New Body’ clichés. The solution to an improved, ‘more healthy’ you is a lifestyle change that involves losing weight. Looking at the poster girls for ‘healthiness’, ‘health’ looks like a defined pair of biceps, a chiselled set of abs, and a keyhole thigh-gap flanked by solid quads. In other words: an absence of body fat. Is that really ‘healthy’? ‘Health’ should not just be about physical wellbeing.

Discussions of mental health, particularly with regards to body image, and eating disorders are extremely important. There’s an awful lot we don’t know about eating disorders. Evidence suggests that 1.6m people in the UK suffer from them and that 89 per cent of those people are female (National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence). Fashion magazines have long been criticised for an unhealthy emphasis on one’s appearance, and in 2012 a coroner even blamed the fashion industry for the suicide of a schoolgirl who had been suffering from bulimia. Conversely, health and lifestyle magazines have rarely been condemned for promoting negative mental wellbeing because this would be utterly paradoxical. But just because they champion that simple five-letter word in their titles, does that mean they are actually endorsing it? 

The virtual world of social media is also revealing. If you type #thinspo into Instagram’s search engine, it’ll yield no results. If, however, you type in #fitspo, you’ll find over 15 million. ‘Thinspiration’ is the online glorification of thinness and eating disorders. ‘Fitspiration’ is apparently the ‘healthy’ version. But the fact that the demise of the former and the rise of the latter was simultaneous suggests that we are dealing with a Lernaean Hydra which is not something that can be easily censored. Fitspo perpetuates the same trends as thinspo because of its excessively meritocratic mentality. Supposedly, if you can work hard enough, then you’re entitled to feel good. If you can’t, you deserve to feel like a failure. In comparison to thinspo, it’s argued that fitspo encourages a healthier body image because it doesn’t focus on low BMIs. But by placing excessive emphasis on having low body fat and eating ‘clean’ foods, fitspo can encourage similar unhealthy thoughts and behaviours as thinspo.

A disorder has recently been identified by the chair of the British Dietetics Association, Ursula Philpot known as ‘orthorexia’ – the unhealthy obsession with eating only ‘clean’ foods. Essentially, the disorder does not necessarily cause the sufferer to be physically malnourished because they don’t obsess about controlling food quantity but rather food quality.  Researchers have shown that social problems and mental rigidity are more obvious dilemmas. If orthorexia were a recognised disorder like anorexia, fitspo would probably be censored like thinspo. But it isn’t, because ‘healthiness’ is terminologically imbued with positivity. It seems though that ‘healthiness’ has taken on a far too narrow definition because it has been constructed against an equally narrow conception of ‘unhealthiness’. We cannot deny that obesity is a problem in the UK; 23.1 per cent of the population is obese. However, cultural anxiety over this issue has fostered  perception of health into dichotomous categories of ‘fat’/’thin’, ’guilty pleasures’/‘clean foods’ and ‘unhealthy’/’healthy’.

We now have a discourse of health which has lost one of its oldest adages, the ‘healthy balance’. Essentially, the ‘healthy’ ideal presented in the media is aesthetically attractive by today’s beauty standards, and wrongly conflates ‘healthy’ with ‘thin’. This aesthetic is created and primarily driven by the beauty and fashion industries so that ‘healthy’ is synonymous with ‘skinny’. If, however, health was perceived more broadly as a spectrum rather than black and white categories, which incorporated mental as well as physical wellbeing, we might be able to shift the construction of the healthy ideal into a more achievable place. There should not be a definitive depiction of health. Humans come in all different shapes and sizes and we need to celebrate diversity and broaden our perception of health.

Bexistentialism: HT15 Week 0

0

Whilst some may have used the vac to detox on debauchery, mine instead pleasantly supplied a collection of disasters which aided me in my constant journey closer to becoming a parody. This involves interpreting the whole ‘sitting by the fire’ Christmas vibe in a hip and nouveau way by accidentally managing to set alight two items of my clothing at a party, with a single tea light.

Constantly running from those damned dignity police, I am thus happy to head back to Oxford. But first, I have a deadline. Because, yep. You are subjected to me once again, and all the pain that comes with it. I would say I’m sorry, but I’m not. At least you don’t have to BE me. And so I begin to discuss my last week. Must. Appear. Cool. And. Edgy.

The problem? In my last week or so, the friends who haven’t already moved on from Base-Camp to cooler places, stream back to their respective unis. I wave my handkerchief sadly, and return to my posh and non-edgy work establishment. To the burn of 8am-until-finish shifts and a boss who hates me (though, on requesting work for January, I am told, “We would LOVE to have you back, sweetie.” The email gives off  such strong undertones of sickly bullshit that I throw up a little in my mouth.)

The objective and unquestionable hate began sadly on my first shift last April. On learning that I am at Oxford, she turns her head sharply away. It turns out she was at Brookes. I learn too that her husband left her for her best friend (do I look like her best friend??). The psychoanalysis is exhausting. Fellow workers laugh in bemusement at the way she treats me, demanding me to unveil the grand reason why. I woefully sigh. If only I knew.

But finally – my last shift. My mind is kind and nudges me. I remember that I’m not delving into hell for the, err, hell of it. I’m getting money! I imagine $$$ swirling like snowflakes (admittedly, it’d be more useful if they were £££, but that wouldn’t be so cool, bae). The week’s payslips arrive. Work Friend nervously sifts through the envelope, and then bites her lip. “I don’t think you’ve been put back on the payroll.” I wade on. As the shift draws to a close she hands me a discarded £6.20. “She may eventually pay you, but you’ll never get your tips.” I clutch the money tightly in my hand. When I unclench, an angry 20p-induced dent remains.

Bar Review: Balliol

0
★★☆☆☆
Two Stars

Having reviewed a few bars by this point, I wanted to start the term off with a bang and so I decided to review the most frequented of all: Balliol. Balliol is in many ways the college bar to which every other is compared and every Crazy Tuesday it’s completely full.  With this in mind, I took my college daughter on a Tuesday so she could experience this rite of passage.

The first thing I must say about Balliol is that it isn’t particularly well-designed. The ceiling is too low, there aren’t enough toilets, it’s kind of grotty, and if you didn’t manage to nab that table early, there’s no hope of sitting down. The drawings on the wall of famous Balliolites are kind of take-them-or-leave them (I leave them) and the pool table is a nice touch but if it’s a busy night then it’s unlikely you’ll be able to play. It kind of seems like Balliol designed the bar for significantly fewer people and then became a victim of its own success when the crowds started showing up en masse.

However, the signature drinks are still fun (even if they do run out of the Balliol Blue all the time) and it is a fun place to be. The selection of alcohol is very impressive and it’s of course very very cheap here too. My beer was well-pulled and the bartenders are nice, if a little overworked and everybody seems to be in a relatively good mood. I’ve never been to Balliol bar and had a truly shitty time. The fact that it’s so central means bar-hopping is easy and if you’re there with someone who’s dull as fuck you can always ditch them easily.

But then other people can be slightly standoffish and people don’t chat unless they’re wasted which can make it an oddly lonely experience, especially if you’re relatively sober (as I was that night). The most social place to be is often smoking outside but unfortunately no one here is that sociable either, and everyone seems to be smoking alone (where’s the fun in that?).

In my mind, going to Balliol bar is as much an ‘Oxford Moment’ as matriculation or punting and this means it’s incredibly difficult to really give this bar a rating. It has its issues (overcrowding, claustrophobic-ness) but in the end it manages to get a very good blend of location, price, and atmosphere. So, to be honest, it is fair enough that this is the college bar to which every other bar is compared, but that still doesn’t mean that it’s the best bar in Oxford. My feeling about Balliol bar is that it attempts to be a typical student bar in a place which doesn’t really offer the typical student experience which is why it has become so successful. Unfortunately this has meant that it’s become slightly clichéd and slightly uncool. I personally feel that this really has become a place which is just for freshers, which was fine for my daughter but I really felt too old.

★★☆☆☆ (2/5)

A birthday party to remember

0

In case you didn’t know, this comic-book themed diner offers you a free burger on your birthday, provided that you prove it with ID. Since it was my birthday I begrudgingly allowed my friend to talk me into having my birthday party here. Neither a fan of burgers nor comics, I had never been enticed to go in until I found out about this deal, especially given its slightly tacky exterior.

I was more than happy to see that the menu was varied (down to what you want your burger to be made out of, and whether you’d like malt added to your milkshake). They served us with smiles on their faces and in their voices, and spread around the good cheer. When we showed up on the night, we were immediately welcomed and shown to our table at the back of the room, below the TV screen that was showing old music videos on loop. Stepping inside, you feel like you’ve entered a cartoon world – even our table was bright and multi-coloured. Drinks followed shortly afterwards (apart from the one that they had overlooked), in milk bottles and they were creamy, frothy, cold, and bursting with flavour. Adding malt is free, so a friend and I had malted shakes for the same price as my other friends who had normal shakes (i.e. £3.25).

As for the burgers, the clean plates said it all. Juicy meat, with a light burger bun that was crucially not greasy (though they were prepared and gave us extra napkins), with generous fillings. To give you an idea of the prices, they range from £8.25 to £10.95 and you can “go Atomic” with any of the burgers, i.e. double their size. The sides were superb too – crispy thin fries, potato or sweet potato came with the burger. You can also order onion rings, extra toppings on your fries, and salads.

Understandably, by the time we got to the dessert, even though we were only sharing, our extended bellies meant that we weren’t really in the mood for it. Sadly, the Wookie Cookie Sundae (£5.95, inside are oreos and a chocolate butterscotch sauce) did little to change that, but it was upstaged and partially melted by the flame from the portable ‘campfire’ we had to roast marshmallows in. I was particularly impressed by their investment in these burners, which you could use at the table for the ‘Roasty Toasty Marshmallows’ (£3.95), having not expected much (I was half expecting them to be roasted before being brought to the table) because of the dessert’s low low price.

Atomic Burger is a great place to eat with your friends, serving delicious food with good humour and in a fabulous environment. It took my friends and I on a trip down memory lane, and we felt like children again, sitting around the campfire, which was nice since I was feeling particularly old that day. This is my new restaurant of choice for an informal evening out, and should be highly  recommended for any upcoming birthday celebrants.

Creaming Spires: 0th Week HT

0

“So, how many guys have you slept with?” my date asked over his fourth pint (bottle of rose for me instead, please). I was so taken aback that I forgot to be offended by the heteronormative assumption. “Why do you ask?” I mumbled, unsure where this was coming from.

Thoughts flash through my mind, none of them good. Does he want me to go through them one by one, like suddenly we’re in Four Weddings and a Funeral? You’re cute babe, but not Hugh Grant cute. Or does he think I have herpes? Or he’s scared that I’m a virgin? Or he’s just simply curious, because somehow our previous conversation about essay marks turned him on so much all he can think about are my pants? And their various past visitors? I’m an open kinda girl, but if you want my detailed sexual history and you’re not a GP, you better have a good reason for it. “I don’t know. You seem like a very confident, sexy person. I was just curious.” The guy gave me a flirty wink and changed the subject, like a good boy that he definitely wasn’t.

But by then my attention was hooked. You want numbers? Let’s talk numbers. And the conversation suddenly became very informative. I’m not going to disclose the figures here, just like I didn’t disclose them to my nosy admirer. Partly it’s because I don’t think numbers matter a fuck, unless you have a habit of entertaining a large proportion of the populace down below without condoms. The other reason is that, well … I could do a count up if I really tried (and you never know, maybe one day I will), but I’m not a mathematician; I get lost in the particulars.

When I was a teenager only discovering my sexuality, and then a newly single young woman with all of Oxford open to me, numbers mattered a great deal. Part of me was proud of every ‘notch on my lipstick case’ and danced to Promiscuous when getting ready for a night out. The other part wanted to stuff a rosary down my throat each time the list grew by yet another name. Or vague memory of a name. Or just college, subject, and shirt colour. I’m not even sure how I feel about it myself, why would I share with him? The point is, I have had sex with many people, don’t have any STIs, and God has not sent any thunderbolts in my direction yet.

Unfortunately, it didn’t look like my date shared this sentiment. I’m not even angered by the double standard anymore; it just bores me. But when a man says, in an apologetic tone, that he finds it a bit weird if a girl had more than ten partners, I’m not gonna stick around the pub for much longer. No new name on the list that night.

Shakespeare on Trial

0

Ought Hamlet to have been prosecuted for the death of Polonius? A courtroom drama in more than one respect, Roger Bernat and Yan Duyvendak have created Please Continue (Hamlet), a fascinating piece in which one of Shakespeare’s most famous characters is literally put on trial for his actions. This is a theatrical experience that transcends the boundaries between reality and fiction in a way unlike anything I’ve seen before.

Hamlet, Ophelia and Gertrude were all actors but the lawyers, judge, clerk, and psychiatric expert were professionals who were instructed to treat this case just like any other. Each night the experts are completely different people, sourced locally, meaning that each trial is unique. The production I saw was in France, following the French legal system, though it has been performed in several European countries, each true to their own judicial systems.

I realised that my sympathy for Hamlet as a character influenced how I viewed the case. In this particular production, Hamlet benefitted from an especially enthusiastic defence lawyer, who somewhat overshadowed any sympathy we felt for the depressed Ophelia.

Following the trial, the jury was selected randomly from the audience and given half an hour to settle on a verdict, under the guidance of a legal professional to keep things to time. The experiment was as much an examination of the ethics of Western judicial systems as it was of our interpretation of these characters. The statistics of previous decisions were read out, with outcomes ranging from condemning Hamlet to decades of incarceration, to completely letting him off.

Somewhat inevitably, true legal accuracy was held back by the limits of theatre and room for theatrical entertainment was faced with the limits of the legal realism. Admittedly, three hours of having to concentrate on an intense legal process in French is not how I usually choose to spend my Friday evenings. Nevertheless, this was an immersive, extremely thought-provoking experiment.

As the audience had no idea who would be chosen to participate in the jury, we had the unusual feeling of being actively, inescapably invested. The fourth wall was thus not merely broken but completely non-existent.

The trial also evoked a number of philosophical questions about the idea of determining guilt in such a context. The variation in verdicts despite the case file always being identical is a profound comment on the fallibility of any legal system. Indeed, rather than really determining Hamlet’s guilt or innocence, I found that this theatrical experiment simply highlighted the enigmatic nature of the character, as well as the difficulty of ever truly ascertaining someone’s motives beyond all reasonable doubt.

Preview: West Side Story

0

West Side Story is an iconic musical. From the music to the story, it has a special place in all our hearts, whether it’s your all-time favourite or because you repeatedly listened to ‘Something’s Coming’ during your Music GCSE.

Consequently, drifting into the rehearsal room mid-song, I was immediately lost in nostalgia at the expert vocals of Brandon Levin (Tony). This will be a production which is true to what we know and love about the show. But a sense of nostalgia is definitely not all that Byzantium Productions’ West Side Story has to offer. With original choreography by Ed Addison, a cast of over 30 committed actors and a full orchestra brought to the stage under the watchful eye of Eric Foster, it is sure to be impressive.

Furthermore, as Clemi Collett – Maria – notes, it is “a very ‘raw’ version of West Side Story. The show is aesthetically incredible, and the dancing is stunning, but at the same time I feel as if it’s really explored the depth and meaning behind the text.”

The play follows the rival gangs the Jets and the Sharks, set in the oppressive environment of 1950s Manhattan, counting racism and violence among its themes. It is about how hate breeds hate – something as pertinent to a 1950s audience as it is to us today. At its core, however, is the love story between Tony and Maria. From ‘Balcony Scene (Tonight)’, it was evident to see the chemistry between these two; they have obviously worked hard on conveying the love story that thrives throughout a story full of hate. Speaking of this to Collett, she describes their relationship as “a true and impulsive love, which is coloured, and in the end destroyed, by the world around them”. Put quite beautifully, Maria is “a woman who has learnt to love, but now also to hate.”

Yet, while these themes are addressed, the show does not forget its humour. This was made especially evident by Helena Wilson’s Anita in what is sure to be a showstopping ‘America’.

Furthermore, I was wildly impressed with the slickness and potential of all the numbers I saw in this first stumble run given they still have a few weeks left of rehearsal.

Dom Applewhite, the director, spoke to me about his aim to not have “cardboard cutout” characters. He said, “In my mind, musical theatre acting often looks bland precisely because the actors have been directed according to the emotions of the scene, rather than allowing them to happen naturally.”

One major way of questioning this has been through Maria, who, whilst a great character, suffers from her position as a woman. This is evident in a number of ways, such as Maria being given only one solo compared to Tony’s two. To combat this, he has actively tried to be aware of the stereotypes and has researched feminism in musical theatre – “It’s an old musical, but we’ve definitely imbued it with a Twenty-First century attitude!”

What was most palpable about the run was the sense of excitement among the cast seeing each other’s work for the first time; they seem to know they are on to something good. And, given what I’ve seen and the fact that already a quarter of tickets have sold, I have to agree. Something’s coming indeed and I can’t wait to see it.