Thursday 26th June 2025
Blog Page 1348

OUAC hop, skip and jump to victory in the Varsity athletics

Caspar Eliot
-
0
OUAC hop, skip and jump to victory in the Varsity athletics

The 150th Anniversary of the Athletics Varsity Match was always going to be a special day. Cambridge went in as 4-0 victors from 2013, but only the most partisan blue of either shade was predicting anything other than a series of very close contests.

Both the second team matches were hard fought affairs. Emma Perkins, winner of numerous matches and a former UK Indoor High Jump champion, was competing in her final match and dominated the jumps, setting second team records in the long, triple and high jumps. Wins on the track for Isabel Wray, Hannah Petho (in an 800m record) and Katie Hickson, along with Oxford’s strength in the heavy throws, kept them in the game, but the Cambridge sprinters and jumpers were too strong, and they ended up taking a 116-84 point victory in the Millipedes vs. Alligators. In the Centipedes vs. Alverstones, captain Ben Conibear led the Dark Blues from the front as he won the shot, discus and javelin, all in personal bests, for which he was awarded Oxford second team performance of the match and spent the rest of the evening sporting a natty striped blazer donated by a noted alumnus. The Centipedes actually matched the Alverstones for wins, sharing 10 apiece, with Aidan Smith and Ian Shevlin also putting in notable performances (along with CUAC’s Freddie Bunbury, who set a second team Pole Vault record with an excellent 4.15m clearance), but came up agonisingly short in the end, losing 109-103.

Oxford’s Women’s Blues team was sadly missing captain Katie Holder, due to ineligibility, and 10-time event winner Nadine Prill due to injury, but the team nevertheless stepped up to the mark. Incoming captain Montana Jackson and Christina Nick both picked up two events each, Jackson taking the 400m hurdles in her first ever race over the distance along with the triple jump, while OUAC discus record holder Nick unsurprisingly took that event, along with the shot. Supported by OUNC President Charlie Warwick, multi-eventer Emily Stone and ex- Light Blue Rose Penfold were all winners, as in the seconds Cambridge’s strength in the sprints proved too much. Captain Alice Kaye took the 200m and 400m, the latter in an excellent solo match record, and was second in the hundred to Emma Cullen while CUAC President Helen Broadbridge claimed the hammer record as CUAC ran out winners by 100 points to 89.

The Men’s Blues really was one for the ages, an epic encounter that ebbed and flowed until it was all over. The first field events set the standard. Michael Painter of Cambridge broke the hammer record with his first throw, while a humdinger of a long jump encounter saw ex-CUAC President Matthew Houlden take the lead with a 7.25m jump, only to have incoming Oxford Captain Sam Trigg equal that, before Houlden won the event with a staggering 7.48m leap, possibly the longest wind-legal jump in Varsity history. Trigg can count himself as unlucky, as in the triple jump his 15m leap saw him again behind an inspired Houlden, who broke the CUAC record. In fact, the field was nearly all Cambridge, with Welsh International javelin thrower Aidan Reynolds the only OUAC winner, in a 1-2 with American Arran Davies.

The track, though, was Oxford’s domain. Craig Morten took the 400m hurdles, ahead of Oxford captain Adam McBraida, but this was to be McBraida’s only loss of the day as he rampaged through a series of extraordinary wins in the 100m, 200m, 200m hurdles and 4x100m to inspire fear in the Cambridge ranks. Tom Frith repeated last year’s 800m victory in exactly the same style with a blazing last 100m, while Ismaila Ngum was victorious in the 110m hurdles and CUAC’s Matt Leach, a BUCS bronze medallist over the 5000m, took that and the Mile. The match came to a close with the winner of the 4x400m taking the spoils and the OUAC team of Gundle, Morten, McBraida and Club President Ralph Eliot, who had secured the silver medal at BUCS, romped home with ease.

The 400m saw Cambridge athlete Barney Walker in only his second race over the distance, take on George Gundle, OUAC’s fastest man in over a decade. Undeterred by this, Walker set off at a roaring pace, leading well at 200m, and then inexplicably kept on going. Gundle drew level on the home straight but Walker somehow found extra reserves of strength, the lead changing hands several times before the Cambridge man’s legs seemed to give way and he tragically stumbled and fell two metres short of the line in one of the bravest displays of quarter-miling seen in a while.

However, if this match is remembered for one thing alone, it will be for the steeplechase, and not what happened at the front (where OUCCC captain Alex Howard took a fine victory) but at the back. Tom Quirk had been leading with Howard for most of the race, but with two laps to go began to falter and it became clear that something was wrong. Approaching the bell, he broke down, clutching his leg, but then determined to finish got back up again and began to shuffle and limp onwards as the remaining runners passed him. CUAC second team runner Paul Hodgson then spontaneously decided to eschew any chance of a PB for himself to aid his fellow athlete, and the two proceeded to help each other round the track and over the barriers to the finish.

"Serious irregularities" in NUS referendum

Robert Walmsley
-
0
"Serious irregularities" in NUS referendum

“Serious irregularities” have been discovered in the voting process for the NUS affiliation referendum held between Monday and Wednesday. The official result of the referendum was announced at the King Arms pub at 7.30 on Wednesday with a 1780 to 1652 vote to disaffiliate from the NUS for the academic year 2014-2015 announced. A formal complaint about the referendum has been put forward by the leader of ‘Believe in Oxford’, Jack Matthews, and will be heard by a Junior Tribunal next week.

In a post on the ‘Believe in Oxford’ website, Matthews wrote that his suspicions had first been aroused by “the larger than expected turnout, both overall, and for ‘NO’.” Matthews also wrote that “a victory built upon conspiracy and corruption would be hollow, hypocritical, and wrong”, and so as a consequence he would be looking to see the result overturned.

Irregularities with the voting process include large clusters of ‘No’ votes that appear to have been cast at the same time, as well as from the same location. Matthews wrote a letter to the OUSU Returning Officer passing on these concerns, in response to which the Junior Tribunal has been called.

Cherwell was the first to break the news of the challenge to the referendum result, tweeting:

In a joint statement the leaders of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns Tom Rutland and Jack Matthews commented,“We are both concerned that the result of the referendum did not accurately reflect the views of students. We await the decision of the Junior Tribunal, and will be working together over the coming weeks to ensure that the democratic principles of OUSU are upheld.”

OUSU Returning Officer Alex Walker told Cherwell, “The evidence that I have seen is clearly of a very serious nature and I am sure that the Junior Tribunal will make an appropriate decision. If the Junior Tribunal comes to the decision that the referendum should be voided, then I believe that OUSU Council should either pass a motion to affiliate to the NUS or organise another referendum”.

Following the challenge, OUSU President and ‘Yes’ campaign leader Tom Rutland has since tweeted that Oxford actually voted to reaffiliate to the NUS. Rutland later tweeted that the real result of the referendum is thought to approximately be a 70% vote in favour of reaffiliation and a 30% vote against, on a 11% turnout.

Review: A History of Falling Things

George Grylls
-
0
Review: A History of Falling Things

As theatres go, the BT studios is a fairly claustrophobic space, nestled as it is in an attic of Dostoevskian nightmares. Appropriate then that it should house A History of Falling Things, a play whose main premise is the limitation of space. It charts the online relationship of two sufferers of keraunothnetophobia – the irrational fear that upon leaving ones room, one shall be struck down by the errant remains of the last sputnik i.e. the fear of falling satellites. Robin (James Aldred) has had the condition since childhood, Jacqui (Nathalie Wright) since being trapped on the London Underground during the 7/7 bombings. Unable to leave their rooms, they cultivate an awkward, charming and frustrating relationship over web-cam. However, therein lies the drama: is it frustrating? From Jacqui’s perspective the cabin fever is evidently genuine, but Robin appears to obtain a perverse pleasure from his isolation, describing himself at one stage as ‘happy’ with his hermetic life. The fear for both seems moreover a manifestation of deeper psychological issues.

It is interesting to watch a play in which the central characters never exchange dialogue face-to-face and credit must go to the main actors for keeping us entertained despite this. Indeed the actors addressed their laptops as easily as Hamlet would a skull. The lead male, James Aldred delivers a rounded performance and Nathalie Wright is excellent opposite him, effortlessly natural in her portrayal (the only artificiality being the assumption that this Robin might be in her league). Rebecca Heitlinger and George Bustin provide breezy Northern comedy with consummate ease, although there are some rather strange cameos involving a ‘courier’ distinguishable only because of a spanking new pair of maroon Pumas. The ending lends the play a more Richard Curtis feel than it really should; it closes with the line “Jacqui; it ends with ‘u’ and ‘i.’” Wright’s discomfort is almost palpable in saying these lines and I don’t blame her. The play’s strengths lie in its psychological intrigue, not the imitation of a low-grade rom-com. But the fault is the writer’s and the play is well co-ordinated by Freya Judd, requiring a lot of technical details and complex staging because of the nature of the relationship. An enjoyable performance, but one that could do with some claustrophobic Raskolnikovian bite to temper the sugary sweet ending.

Interview: Joseph Nye

Archive
-
0
Interview: Joseph Nye

As a PPE finalist struggling to find justifiable reasons to procrastinate, when offered the chance to interview Joseph Nye, the founder of Neoliberalism and theorist of soft power in international relations, and to quiz him on issues of U.S foreign policy, the rise of China and the consequences of the Ukraine crisis, it seemed as good an excuse as I was ever likely to get.

Professor Nye, currently Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University, is intimidatingly well educated, with degrees in political science from Princeton and Harvard as well as being a former Rhodes Scholar of PPE at Oxford. His most famous work is on soft power, which is basically the idea that U.S influence is not limited to its banks and tanks, but its cultural ability to influence through persuasion.

He cuts an impressive figure in his speech. He is aging, but retains a mental sharpness and analytic vigour that demonstrates why he remains one of the major intellectual forces of neoliberal political thought. We discussed some of the crucial world issues of current world policy in the Union Bar after his speech.

One topic that greatly interests Nye is the rise of China. With a fundamental reassessment of American foreign policy and military spending as it moves out of a period of intense engagement in the Middle East, the threat of China as a peer competitor has loomed large in the thoughts of American policymakers. John Mearshimer, Nye’s intellectual sparring partner, claims that this geopolitical shift eastward, and an increasingly assertive China, is bound to lead to greater tension, and an “inevitable US-Chinese conflict”.

Nye was not so pessimistic. He tells me that China’s economic and military growth will not match the US any time soon. “While approach-ing the U.S in the absolute size of its economy, on almost every other indicator; GDP per capita, investment, technological research, military power, and soft power, the U.S retains large absolute advantages.”

Nye notes that while, “China can draw on the talents of 1.3 billon people, the U.S, at the heart of the neoliberal economic order, can cherry-pick the best of 7 billion”, bringing the best of them into its educational and business communities through sheer force of attraction.

“In addition, conflict requires a perception of threat. Given strong Chinese emphasis to present its rise as peaceful, and to conduct it within existing international institutions, this perception of existential threat does not seem likely to become fundamental to U.S security policy.”

However, as Nye tells me, history does provide a warning about complacency. Just as at the start of 1914, conflict in Europe did not seem likely, a new global conlict does not seem so today. But crises can come at any time. Sarajevo was a single spark that helped light the inferno of international world war. Likewise, to take one example, Sino-Japanese conflict would only “require a Japanese or Chinese fighter pilot to act foolishly and take matters into their own hands” over the current Diaoyu-Senkaku islands dispute.

Individual agency is an important factor in Nye’s conception of world politics, and the job of statesmen is to ensure that they minimise international tension by “removing the kindling and dampening the paper” of potential crises, preventing such sparks from lighting conflicts. While China is not a major threat to U.S power, mistaken handling of such crises, rather than genuine hatred for the other, could plunge the world once more into confl ict, despite this being the last thing leaders on both sides want. This, for Nye, is the lesson of 1914.

For Nye, the Ukraine crisis did not mark a historic Russian victory. “Russia has got away with gains in the short run, put simply, it now has Crimea.

That said, it is likely to suff er costs in the long term, as it has lost a large proportion of its soft power, and European states no longer trust Putin. It has also caused for itself major security issues by giving a new lease of life to NATO.”

I pressed Nye on the notion that smart power, the subject of his latest book, was merely soft power repackaged. After a slight pause, he responded that smart power is, “The interactive effect of hard and soft power”.

This did not seem too distinct from his original theory, and thus these criticisms may be valid, but this does not detract from the centrality of his point. Soft power remains crucial to our understanding of American power in international relations, and the massive costs to U.S influence that the Iraq war has imposed stands as stark evidence of this.

On the issue of global internet management, a security concern that Nye has recently discussed at length, Nye said, “You can’t use hard power on the internet, and we risk fragment-ing the internet if we can’t achieve mutually acceptable collective management, with the freedom of information and economic costs that this brings.”

On China specifically, “China is likely to crack down in the short term, but in the long term, its internal security depends on it being able to come to some sort of accommodation with opposition movements in its society.”

Finally, on the issue of U.S engagement in dealing with humanitarian issues, he stated that, the US needs to operate a kind of Hippocratic Oath in its foreign policy. Do no harm. If it doesn’t know how it could make a situation better, it is likely to make things worse by blindly intervening. Obama’s policies are far from perfect, but they are also certainly not imprudent.”

Thus, U.S dominance does not imply omnipotence. Sometimes, there are tragedies in world politics that intervention would only worsen. American dominance seems likely to remain, and we should not keep ourselves up at night fearing a Chinese menace.

That said, as Nye states, global leaders need to engage fully in addressing transnational and interstate issues such as the global economy, terrorism and territorial disputes, to avoid adding unnecessary fuel to international tension. The potential match that could light a new major confl ict might be hidden in the East of Ukraine, or in the small island chains of the South China Sea.

Debate: Should Britain leave the EU?

Tom Posa
-
0
Debate: Should Britain leave the EU?

YES

Tom Posa

In May 2013, the European Union passed rules mandating that olive oil put on tables in restaurants must now be placed in specially designated bottles and labelled in line with food standards legislation. This is just one example of the overbearing technocracy that the EU is imposing on member states. Statistics from the House of Commons Library suggest that the percentage of laws now set in the country from Brussels has increased from 9.1% in 2005 to 15% in 2010. We ought to take seriously claims from senior European politicians that we are heading towards a United States of Europe. These are not the views of an obscure low-profile European politician – this was Angela Merkel speaking in 2011.

We need to reassert our preeminence on determining national laws which apply to Britain and its people. The EU actively undermines the democracy of this country by standing against the ability of our parliament and our citizens to shape our own laws. This is not just a problem with the fact that EU laws and regulations immediately overrule those set in Westminster – institutions such as the European Court of Justice now overrule British judges and represent the highest appeal in our legal system. It is not clear why exactly we think that judges from Lithuania, Finland or Romania are better at administering legal judgements in this country than a British judge.

The key arguments deployed in favour of continued membership of the Union include that it maintains peace in Europe, that we have intrinsic cultural links to Europe, that the economic harms of leaving outweigh the benefits, and that since we would remain subject to some regulations from Brussels, we should have a say in making them. The EU may have maintained peace in Europe in the past, but the idea that in 2014, the UK would go to war with France, Germany, or Italy if we left the EU is farcical. Equally, our cultural links with Europe will not fall away if we leave the Union. It is fair to assume that reasonably liberal migration laws would continue (but without the current prejudice shown to non-EU migrants), and that tourists and citizens will continue to flow in both directions. Our ties with the USA, Canada or Australia have not been undermined by our membership – nor would ours with Europe were we to leave. On the economic front, we need only look at Iain Mansfield’s research proposal – which won him a Brexit award – to see an economic upside of £1.3 billion to our GDP. The false claims of lost trade and productivity do not translate into reality.

Finally, the idea of being continually subject to EU regulations is frequently trotted out in favour of membership. Yes, those companies which continue to trade with EU members will be subject to legislation. However, now they can chose between paying a higher cost of compliance in transactions with Europe, or trading with other countries where compliance costs are lower. This can only benefit us economically. And I ask you – when the EU is preoccupied with questions such as how high a hairdresser’s heel is, or how much in subsidies we should pay to cows in rural France, why should we continue to waste our time, money and political talent in this enterprise?

NO

Eleanor Newis

There’s been a lot of hot air floating around regarding Britain’s EU membership in recent times. In reality, despite the pro-Europe debate being severely handicapped by the continued presence of Nick Clegg, the argument for staying in the EU is actually very sensible.

The idea proposed by many Eurosceptics that Britain could have an ‘amicable divorce’ from the EU and make like Norway and Switzerland is nothing but a pipe dream. Marit Warncke, head of Bergen’s chamber of commerce said in 2012, “We are the most obedient of EU members, rapidly implementing directives to the letter, yet we have no say in them.” Norway contributes €340 million a year to the EU, without having membership. Switzerland, has actually reviewed all its parliamentary bills for their EU conformity since 1988.

Apart from this, the ‘amicable di- vorce’ idea is completely bogus, even if Britain declared that the marriage was loveless from the start and left, its exports would still be subject to EU laws. All export tariffs would still apply, and would have to meet EU production standards – only then, Britain would have no say in them. The impact on trade would be considerable – Farage’s “We’re Britain, we can stand out or own two feet” argument is just too idealistic. The EU is the UK’s main trading partner, worth more than £400bn a year – 52% of the total trade in goods and services. So, if we don’t have a say in any of those tariffs, a good portion of our trade will be impacted by laws we aren’t making.

UKIP’s nationalism is attractive to many, and Cameron’s promise of a referendum to many more. But the argument is becoming clouded by issues like immigration. Without turning this into an exposé on immigration laws, I will say that Mr. Farage should be taken with a large plate of salt, and we should all do some research. Any dangers people see in immigration are not down to the EU – they are, like most things that go wrong, the fault of our own elected politicians. The UK is better off economically inside the EU; yes, they are responsible for some pesky anti-tobacco laws (which I am personally quite offended by) and they do have an unfortunate poster boy in Clegg. Yet it remains that Britain simply could not have the economic privileges it currently enjoys without EU membership.

I understand that most people aren’t too bothered about tariff s and export charges – it’s hardly inspiring stuff . But there are other EU successes which are easy to forget, such as the capping of mobile phone roaming charges, and the rejection of ACTA, which would have severely restricted internet freedom. Let’s not forget fi nancial regulation either; without the EU, bankers could still be getting bonuses above 200% of their salaries. Please, please do some googling be- fore you jump on the anti-EU bandwagon. I know it’s becoming fashionable, but like hot pants and see-through stilettos, it really doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Women in media: Does the industry work against them?

Kate Tuohy
-
0
Women in media: Does the industry work against them?

There are numerous events over the next few weeks celebrating the 40th anniversary of co-education at Oxford. It seems bizarre to think that only 40 years ago, other than a few female-only colleges, Oxford was solely open to men. This term, the University is looking at women in the workplace, ranging from law to media, and asking women how their gender has impacted their position within the professional world.

Jesus College was the driving force behind the first of these events which took place on 8th May and was entitled ‘Women in Media’. It was held at the British Academy in London and was open to both current students and alumni. The evening was structured around a panel discussion between four successful women working within the media industry: Broadcaster and novelist Francine Stock; Sunday Times Education Editor Sian Griffiths; weather presenter and meteorologist Kirsty McCabe, and Head of Editorial Partnerships and Special Projects at the BBC World Service Group, Emily Kasriel.

A 2013 survey showed that only one in five solo radio presenters are female, with that figure falling to one in eight during the peak- time breakfast and drive hours. A separate study from the same year, showed that women accounted for just 22% of national news- paper front page by-lines in nine national papers. These statistics were put to the panellists raising the question, why is it still the case that women remain underrepresented in the media?

They started by stating the obvious: women do have pregnancies, which biologically can’t be changed. Because of this, the majority of
them end up taking a break in their career which leaves them at a disadvantage. Kirsty McCabe commented that she worked for the duration of her pregnancy but was hurt by the abuse she received from (predominantly male) viewers, who didn’t like seeing “a pregnant woman on TV”. The comments ranged from, “Get off our TV” to, “I can’t see Wales”. Kirsty seemed confident enough to take this on the chin but felt that others might be more sensitive.

Then there is the period of time when the children are growing up. The panellists agreed it shouldn’t be the case that women still tend to be the ones that step back from their career to look after their children, but it nevertheless is. The general consensus on part–time work was that the workload isn’t lessened; it is rather a case of fitting five days of work into three, which for many women with children just isn’t manageable.

Emily Kasriel felt that during her career women have worked together and there hasn’t been a competitive edge with her colleagues. However, Sian Griffiths contradicted this believing that older women do feel a threat from the ‘younger models’ entering the industry, fearing that they might lose their jobs. The women collectively claimed that when we read about people who have retired “to spend more time with their families” it is more likely that they have been paid off because a younger option has taken over.

Nevertheless, they made it sound painstakingly difficult to enter this industry. This is somewhat disheartening. Though the occasional ‘younger model’ will manage to obtain a position, for the most part it is extremely tough for women to be successful in media. The fact of the matter is, long-standing employees don’t want to give up their jobs. This leaves the question, how can these statistics change if aspiring women face an impossible task when trying to get their foot through the door?

 

 

 

Review: Man of Mode

Libby Wicks
-
0
Review: Man of Mode

The Man of Mode is perhaps not the most well-known play that Oxford has ever seen, but George Etherege’s Restoration comedy is a pleasing two and a half hours of theatre nonetheless, particularly so in the setting of Univ’s Master’s Garden, where a lovely little marquee had been set up to keep the chill from getting to the audience members too much. Even more charming is the change of era from the 17th century to the 1920s, and the costume department (if there is such a thing for a garden play) must be commended on a delightful array of outfits which fit the bill perfectly.

This is not to say that the production is entirely faultless, however. A bit of jitteriness with the script, and a tendency to overact and read the lines without much mind towards meaning does both cloud comprehension and make attention waver. Some of the “bit parts” are a touch weak, and the transitions between scenes, despite the good use which was made of the many entrances to the marquee, could be a bit clunky.

On a brighter note, the star of the show was without doubt Matthew Robson, playing the dandy Sir Fopling Flutter. His prancing movements and general cavorting (including a spritely jig and a tremendous burst of ham-singing) were a joy, and the scenes were invigorated by his presence. Another brilliant comic turn came in the form of Old Bellair, played by Joseph Prentice, whose obsession with his son’s love interest and sudden attempts to hide it were captured superbly.

The Man of Mode did have a capable and rather large cast, headed by the reprobate ladies’ man Dorimant (Will Yeldham), but another performance which stood out from the rest was Imogen Hamilton-Jones as Harriet Woodville, the young lady who becomes the match for Yeldham’s character in the final scene. Her accent, demeanour and posture were all entirely convincing, and she was perhaps the easiest member of the cast to place in a 1920s setting in terms of engaging with the sense of her lines and pairing them with a well thought out portrayal of character.

All in all, the performance was not without its lukewarm lows, but as the flappers settled after a well-executed and suitably cheering Charleston to close the show, it was with a warm heart, and not just a warm pair of feet, with which the audience left the cosy marquee. It was a successfully amusing evening’s entertainment, and in its role as a light-hearted garden play, The Man of Mode did its job well.

Review: Timon of Athens

Zoe Slater
-
0
Review: Timon of Athens

This week the Magdalen Players attempted to rescue Timon of Athens, notoriously regarded as one of Shakespeare’s most difficult works, from its obscurity in an atmospheric late night performance. A collaboration between Shakespeare and Thomas Middleton, the play is riddled with difficulties from textual tension between the two dramatists, to archetypal, one dimensional characters and digressive subplots. It follows the fortunes of overly generous patron of the arts, Timon, in Ancient Greece as his excess and indulgence leads to misanthropy and debt.

In the programme Gabriel Rolfe outlines his directorial vision, which foregrounds the play’s didacticism to present “a different breed of tragedy in its struggle, and arguably its failure, to achieve ‘life’.” The setting in the shadowy, dark wood panelled Magdalen hall is reminiscent of this “different breed of tragedy” which would have taken place before the birth of theatres in the homes of the aristocracy. He reverses the trend among recent performances, which have shifted the play to modern settings like the City or Wall Street, to evoke the medieval morality play in a “parable-like simplicity”.

The choice to stage the play inside the hall is the most successful aspect of the performance. On entering the candle-lit room each audience member receives a glass of prosecco from the circulating waiters and gradually take their seats around the centrally situated stage. The ambiguously named ‘banquet food’ for which you fork out an extra four-fifty turns out to be a strange mix of after eights, baklava, olives, and pineapples (though perhaps these latter are more for decoration since there is no way to eat them). The players mingle amongst the audience, completely collapsing the fourth wall to breed anticipation for the performance. They wear a eclectic mixture of clothing from velvet cloaks conveying decadent luxury, to 1920s dresses reflecting the Gatsby-ian theme of vacuity in society. When it does begin I miss the first few lines amongst the chattering of the audience and as a result struggle to follow the first scene. However, Dina Tsesarsky gives an interesting performance as the painter conveying an almost manic artistry as she smudges the murky portrait with her hands. 

Rolfe makes full use of the magnificent space, having Timon silhouetted by the projector in a captivating entrance. The players take their positions at the head table in a raucous feast scene which will form a tripartite structure in the play. In the reversal of Timon’s fortunes he invites the same shallow and flattering guests to dine at an empty table after they have refused to help him, and in the closing moments of the play we are given a glimpse of the first scene repeating itself reflecting the last lines to “Make war breed peace, make peace stint war, make each/ Prescribe to other as each other’s leech.” It is an effective and original way to portray the cyclical nature of human folly. 

Alive Rivers playing Timandra is excellent, investing the haughty courtesan with a fragility that takes her beyond being a stock character to show that she is to be pitied for being “a slave to her obsession with money”. In one of the most climactic scenes, Timon has withdrawn from society to live alone in a cave hoarding his gold. Timandra and Alcibiadies visit him and when throws his gold on the ground, she scrabbles desperately on the floor to pick up the pebbles which represent money. Simon Palfrey writes of the character of Timon that he suggests how “Depth is an illusion; inwardness no more than a raging soliloquy”. Tom Dowling, who had given a strong performance up until Timon’s break down, takes “raging” too much to heart. He attempts to portray madness simply by shouting for twenty minutes, and as a result much of his monologues are drowned out. It’s evocative and intense to watch, but ultimately misses something of the play. 

The Magdalen Players give a hit and miss performance of this demanding play. The director had recognised that there is an “uncertainty, or even impossibility, of the play’s own dramatic potential” and despite the experience of the performance being a novel one, there is an “uncertainty” about whether they carry it off. 

 

Preview: Frankenstein

Vicky Holley
-
0
Preview: Frankenstein

Harley Viveash’s brave version of Frankenstein has been made more difficult by the complete transformation it has un- dergone, being set for the first time entirely in the modern day. This is a highly intelligent decision which pays off. There are several reasons why Frankenstein adapts so well to modern life. As the cast explained, we live in an age where scientific progress is such that the creation of human life from scratch no longer seems a far-off dystopian reality. Frankenstein’s creation of his creature is now a possibility and that makes it all the more powerful.

The production is a devised play; thus the cast have created the entire script from scratch. This is a risky strategy, but the result is impressive. As the cast explained, something like death is not a plot device in their production. The strangulation of Frankenstein’s brother William is not a device to reintroduce the monster, but a real event with emotional consequences. This was poignantly shown in one of the scenes I previewed where Victor’s mother, replacing his father in one of the casts’ major and best changes to the origianl novel and played beautifully by Lamorna Ash delivers her son’s eulogy. This is part of the director’s clever reinterpretation of the play to focus more on the people of Frankenstein, not just the Gothic concept.

The ‘monster’ is always the most intriguing character in any production of Frankenstein, and Nick Finerty is excellent in the role. Although the production strips away the out- wardly monstrous, Finerty’s voice is mesmerising. It has a demonic quality, mixed with an entirely apt social awkwardness.

Frankenstein at the O’Reilly is original, creative and has a talented cast. If you wanted the tired format of Gothic castles and lumbering monsters, you won’t enjoy this production. But, if you want a highly intelligent, modern and forward-thinking production, this is one to watch.

Review: Father God

Fergus Morgan
-
0
Review: Father God

Religious satire has long been a rich source of material for comedians; one inevitably thinks of Monty Python’s Life of Brian or Mitchell and Webb’s Evil Vicar sketch. It is this vein that Mansfield student Tasha Dhanraj has attempted to tap with her new comedy Father God, a hectic, almost farcical, three-person piece concerning the divine trinity and its exasperation with humanity, performed at various locations within Mansfield.

The play sprints through both Testaments from the perspective of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Tom Barnett played the almighty God, affecting a Pacino-esque Manhattan drawl and growing steadily more irate with the mind-numbingly stupid activities of us here on planet Earth. Reuben Adams played a moping, adolescent Jesus who frequently sulks over his lack of responsibility, much to the annoyance of his shrill sister, Holly (Holy Spirit, you see?), played by Helen Harvey. A bright red telephone provided the conduit to Earth, and it was through this that we learn of mankind’s progression, from Cain and Abel to the nativity itself.

The writing is genuinely funny and notably intelligent. A scene in which God and Jesus argue over the Ten Commandments (originally the Fourteen Instructions apparently) was particularly memorable. However, the most common font for humour were the conversations on the bright red hotline to humanity from which we hear only one side. It was here that we learn of Moses’ infantile tantrums (“Put him in a basket in a river and the waves will rock him to sleep”, Jesus advises), Joseph’s technicolour dreamcoat (“I don’t care how many colours there are!”, snaps the Holy Spirit), and Jonah’s unfortunate exploits (“I don’t believe it, he’s got himself stuck where?”, moans the Father).

Unfortunately, the originality and quality of the script was let down by some nondescript performances. Adams’ Jesus was painfully wooden; although his sullen teenage attitude is convincing, any more sophisticated characterisation seems beyond him. Harvey’s Holy Spirit was disappointingly shallow, her range of emotion wavering between irritatingly shrill discontent and annoyingly loud unhappiness, with only occasional glimmers of comic timing.

Barnett, on the other hand, with his accomplished New York accent was a joy. His exasperation was thoroughly enjoyable and he delivers the play’s funniest line with laudable panache: “Omniscient, omnipotent, omni-pissed-off, that’s what I am!”. He was the only one of the three who truly did justice to Dhanraj’s writ- ing, confidently expressing himself without fear of mistake.

Despite two questionable performances, Father God was a commendable production. At only 40 minutes long, Dhanraj’s gentle satire was a delectable treat, and Barnett’s God will live long in the memory. 

1...1,3471,3481,349...2,514Page 1,348 of 2,514

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley