Wednesday 9th July 2025
Blog Page 1378

Review: The Double

0

★★★★☆
Four Stars

Richard Ayoade’s new movie is thematically tied to his 2010 debut Submarine, both films constituting a wry glance at the lonely, romantic fantasies of reclusive young men. Submarine would make for a compelling double-bill alongside this sophomore directing effort, but audiences expecting something tonally similar to Ayoade’s sensitive, self-aware coming of age drama will find themselves contending with something surprisingly dark, more intellectually ambitious. An appropriate progression perhaps, considering the nature of the Dostoyevsky novella upon which the movie is based.  

The Double follows office employee Simon James (Jesse Eisenberg), performing day-in, day-out, a mundane job involving ‘regression analysis’ (the exact nature of which remains teasingly vague) within the confines of a nightmarish industrial dystopia, seemingly reminiscent of Soviet Russia or the work-place of Thatcher’s Britain. Simultaneously ‘ultramodern’ and painfully retro, the brown-dusty palette of Ayoade’s film immediately establishes the emotionless, claustrophobic world Simon inhabits – surroundings which seem to intoxicate his very character, even down to his vapid stillness.

Against this bleak canvas, Simon’s attentions are occupied by two things, the first being a space-age TV adventure show (lead by a pouting, stubbly Paddy Considine) which is, at once, hilariously dreadful yet channels the energy of creepy Orwellian propaganda. The second is the ethereal Hannah (Mia Wasikowska) who lives in the flat opposite Simon but pays him little attention. Unfortunately for Simon, Hannah’s reciprocal affection seems as distant and unreal as the TV programme. Simon makes up excuses daily to visit Hannah but can never muster the courage to speak, instead, in a Rear-Window-esque trope, watching her silently through his telescope at night; it’s tragic, absurd, hilarious and creepy. Indeed, this multiplicity of tones, balanced so delicately by Eisenberg’s performance, is what makes The Double a truly impressive work.

The central conceit of the film follows Simon James meeting James Simon, an exact replica of himself facially but in all other senses his polar opposite. Ayoade draws out the uncanniness of the scenario with skill; because Simon is so essentially invisible in contrast with the ebullient and charismatic James, no-one is able or willing to recognise the eeriness of the situation, making this a complication which Simon must deal with independently. The camera-work effortlessly captures the neurotic disorientation of Simon, and Ayoade’s tendency to dwell on shots with a sort of irrational precision collapses the distinction between the psychological and reality to unsettling effect.

Notable too is the sound design of The Double, switching between mechanical droning, orchestral scores and dead silence in a way which further highlights the extent to which what we watch is being distorted by a disturbed perceiving consciousness. Where Submarine utilised voice-over to great effect, here Ayoade deprives us of any mediating or signposting voice, assaulting the mind and senses with pictures and sounds as tantalising and mystifying as its Dostoyevsky source material.

It’s funny, but uncomfortably so. Although lightened by a number of brilliant cameo roles (Chris Morris as a ‘workers service executive’ and Craig Roberts as the side-kick of a suicide police investigator are particular stand-outs) Jesse Eisenberg is not playing the role for the laughs. Although he clearly relishes the egotistical narcissism of the extrovert James, both roles are thoughtfully shaped and ultimately quite saddening. Indeed, it’s almost anti-comedy, as if James is trapped inside a sit-com, trying to break out of the comedic set-up in which he is ensnared, where everything is designed to frustrate his very human desires.

Unfortunately, Ayoade’s film can be so thoughtfully stylised and psychological that there are times when the action on screen becomes distant, at time alienating. Although the film demands a cold temperature to convey the numbed, stilted life of James, even Mia Wasikowska’s deeply sympathetic performance can’t always retrieve the film from the lifelessness it has tried so hard to convey; I found myself yearning for the underlying warmth of a film like Submarine. This is potentially problematic in a film which has so many narrative twists, where even the slightest disengagement engenders confusion in the mind of the viewer.

Nevertheless, the 93 minute running time means the film reaches a deeply satisfying conclusion before the film’ coldness can become tiresome. And the way Ayoade maintains a consistency of tone throughout is preferable to tacking on half-an-hour of superficially sentimental slop – the road too often taken by indie film-makers. It’s a provocative, aesthetically arresting piece on the way our exterior environment dictates what it means to be an individual, shrewdly written and cleverly acted. Although Richard Ayoade will hopefully remain on Big Fat Quiz of the Year for the foreseeable future, his second directorial project demands that he is taken seriously as an auteur-director, not simply as a TV funny-man. 

Pre-Release Thoughts: The Maleficent Conundrum

0

As a general rule, everybody always goes a little bit crazy when something very familiar is shaken up and taken in a new direction. Maleficent, Disney’s newest release, has certainly stirred up a remarkable amount of online controversy  and it doesn’t even land in cinemas until May 30th.

Prejudging certainly happens with the vast majority of new cinematic releases, it’s only natural. Cinema ticket prices are hugely inflated and we want to rest assured that we are getting value for money. If the film looks to be poor quality or a drawn-out sequel of a once-popular hit, sales will inevitably be disappointing. On the other hand, if it’s the long-awaited next episode of a vast franchise or series, there is likely to be a large degree of hype awaiting its release. 

But with Maleficent, nobody really knows what to think. Or where to start. Or indeed, where this film really fits in at all. First of all, where do we place it with regards to Disney’s original animated film Sleeping Beauty (1959)? It is certainly not a sequel, as the action appears to play out within the timeframe of the same story. But the trailer also hints that there will be interspersed moments of backstory…is it therefore partially a prequel? Others would argue, more significantly, that the two films should not be placed together at all. 

The trailer itself doesn’t exactly fill you with the warm fuzzy-wuzzy Disney love-story magic of the original film. It looks a lot darker, very medieval, evocative of an epic. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings spring to mind as far as aesthetic is concerned. Though this is very in keeping with popular culture, it has a fatal flaw: being so ominous and scary, it cuts away a sizeable chunk of the Disney franchise’s target audience. Though it has a sizeable adult following, the ethos of Disney has always been child-centered. And though it isn’t the first time Disney has aimed a film at its adult fan base, the majority of those films stood alone, not inseparably tied to one of Disney’s classic kids’ films. 

Even the mere commissioning of the film was enough to raise eyebrows. Would this film, the picking apart of one of the greatest, most unquestionably evil Disney villains, not ruin the original classic? I’d like, at this particular moment, to subtly cough out the word “Wicked”. Maleficent is not the first attempt to remould the villain of a traditional story. In Gregory Maguire’s hugely successful 1995 novel (yes, the book, not the musical) Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, he examines the character of the witch Elphaba through an alternative, more elucidating lens. Like Maleficent, undoubtedly the novel is targeted at an adult audience (NOT a bedtime read for your children), whereas the original Wizard of Oz story is very child-friendly. Yet, most importantly, Maguire’s novel does not largely impact upon the original. We are able, culturally and artistically, to see and enjoy the two creations as being separate if we choose to. 

So the ‘review of the antagonist’ has been done before, and done successfully, without spoiling the source story. But the parallels between Maleficent and the Wicked franchise are far from perfect. Whereas Maguire sheds light on areas of Oz left unlit by the original’s author L. Frank Baum, and introduces characters we didn’t meet in the original, Maleficent is set within the original setting, with the original characters, and even some of the original action. Whereas initially it seemed we could class the film as a prequel, this seems to suggest that rather it is a flat-out remake, with some significant alterations that will, therefore, impact upon the original. 

One more thing cannot be ignored. Angelina Jolie is playing the starring role. It’d be foolish to deny that alone will be a huge point of interest for many. In the trailer, I have to say she appears fabulous. She certainly has the look, she has the voice, she has mastered the nuances of the character, and all of this drawn from a mere two-minute snippet. Considering this, with the whole concept of the film being extensively scrutinised, I’m hoping for tw things.  One, that the film was not constructed around the signing of Jolie to the project and two, if the film is such a “bad idea”, her performance can save it. 

Of course, all of this is speculation. Maleficent might be a huge hit. One thing cannot be denied, many of us, even if we express our doubts about the film, are firmly on Disney’s side  Sleeping Beauty is a childhood memory cherished by many. Though it may be a film that one journalist in the New York Post declared will most likely be a “write down”, a lot of us certainly don’t want it to be. I for one will be crossing my fingers for Disney when May 30th comes around; the proof will be in the pudding. 

Kate Rundell wins the Waterstones Children’s book prize

0
Kate Rundell introduces herself to as the author of two childrens’ novels (The Girl Savage and Rooftoppers) and research fellow of All Souls College. She is writing a thesis on John Donne alongside working on both her third children’s book and a murder mystery for adults. The room, comprised mostly of aspiring undergraduate authors, draws a slightly intimidated collective breath. 
 
Within five minutes, however, she has established herself as the rare sort of person who manages to be both charmingly eccentric and completely accessible. Rundell is, after all, a storyteller, and listening to her speak is as absorbing as her novels. She seems rather like a character from a story herself, introducing her talk with anecdotes about eating instant coffee from a spoon, and strapping herself to a chair to force herself to write 1000 words a day. 
 
Even money-talk loops round to a discussion on the importance of economics to children’s novels (which are, Rundell proposes, “essentially socialist”). As everyone in the room has probably considered writing as an profession, she gives us the facts as far as she can remember them. The average advance for a first-time writer of children’s fiction is around £8000, but can go as low as £2000. Her advice for anyone who wants to be a children’s writer: “you absolutely should, but you should also absolutely get a day job”. Her relationship with her publisher she describes as based on “editing and love”. 
 
How does Rundell feel about the future of the publishing industry, in a world which largely considers that plagiarising and downloading will be its end? She is optimistic. “Fundamentally in favour” of eBooks, she considers that they enable us to draw stronger genre lines between “books that take you away from the world”, which you would read on a commute, say, and books which “give you something to take into the world with you”. She also predicts a rise in appreciation of the book as an object of beauty in its own right.
 
So what are the biggest problems in the world of children’s literature? Aside from the mandatory hatred of Michael Gove, it troubles Rundell how difficult it is for writers to talk about their work. Any form of self-criticism is impossible, and so uncommon that it comes to look “deranged, falsely modest” and “just not sexy”.There is also the problem of how, when children don’t write reviews, you can possibly know if what you write is “any good”. Rundell’s favourite letters from young fans are the ones in which children make up scenes: it shows that they have entered your world deeply enough for it to spark imaginative thoughts of their own.
 
Does she worry about the increasing “sanitizing” of writing for children? Rooftoppers is banned in some schools in Texas because in it a little girl drinks whiskey. As in every creative field, she says, “we have problems which are entrenched, and we’re trying to deal with them.” Protagonists are still largely white, and often male: “Hermione Granger and the Chamber of Secrets would never have sold”. Does she, then, see anything of herself in Sophie, the feisty protagonist of Rooftoppers? No, she laughs. For a protagonist to be in any way successful, they have to be a blank canvas – a home for the readers’ dreams and hopes. “All you need, really, is gutsiness and wit”. 
 
Where Rundell puts herself into her novels is in their settings. Rooftoppers was inspired by climbing on the roof of All Souls, accessible through a trapdoor. This is the part of the discussion where her eyes really light up. You can climb all along Turl Street on the rooftops of its colleges. Some brave souls have even scaled the Sheldonian. To write children’s fiction, it seems, you need more than a vague sense of the playful, as well as the enviable ability to put things in a way which is lyrical and original without sounding affected. “I love Shakespeare in that visceral way that I love cigarettes, and swimming in the sea”, she tells me later over a smoothie, when I ask about her PhD. I wish I had said it. I also wish that I smoked.
 
Rooftoppers has been announced as the overall winner of the 10th Watersones Childrens’ prize as well as top of the 5-12 age category.

A ‘case’ for the Anglo-Saxons

0

It’s 3pm on a Wednesday, and Room 41 of the British Museum is, for lack of a better word, buzzing. As a Medievalist, dedicated watcher of Time Team and general museum geek, I had expected to be one of the few people genuinely excited to hear that the Museum were revamping the room dedicated to showcasing the Sutton Hoo hoard – probably the most important archaeological discovery made in Britain to date. It is lovely, then, to see it so full of life. There are children here, admiring the weaponry. There are people who aren’t tour-guides talking excitedly about artistic symbolism.

The some 600 years that are termed the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ period saw the splitting of the country into separate Kingdoms; the conversion of the English people from Paganism to Christianity; the emergence of a culture of literacy which was the beginnings of the English language as we know it. And yet, it is a period also very much preoccupied with its own transience – the lack of a clear place in history which has continued to define it, leaving the skill and beauty of its art unsung and under-appreciated.

Generally, few people care about the Anglo-Saxons. Consider, say, the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery’s dingy and uninspiring presentation of the Staffordshire Hoard. The Ashmolean, admittedly, glories in its Medieval collection, with the Alfred Jewel continuously hailed as one of the museum’s must-see objects – but that is only to be expected for a museum owned by the only university in the country where Old English is still mandatory for English undergraduates.

This is a people too often pushed to the side-lines of history, overshadowed by their Roman predecessors and Anglo-Norman successors. It is significant, then, that room 41 actually feels like the centre of something. The Museum are demonstrating their engagement with the idea that the concept of the ‘Dark Ages’ is out of date.

There is, accordingly, a real feeling of light and space in the curation of this room. The tall bright glass cases showcase the intricate artefacts of the hoard in such a way that highlights not (as would perhaps be expected) their age, nor their varying states of decay and fragmentation – but their delicate craftsmanship, their richness and intricacy.

Items aren’t just left to tell their own stories – they are consciously engaged with. The most fragmented pieces have been pieced together, or else placed next to reconstructions which show the way they would have looked in their original glory. Illustrations – such as one showing a cauldron suspended from a beam in the all-important hall – help to place items in context and bring the period alive. The (Alfred) jewel of the collection, the famous helmet, holds a central position, strikingly illuminated to showcase the bestial form created by the brow and nose.

It is not the glass cases and LED lights which create the room’s feeling of space: the contents of the cases are light and beautiful, too. It’s not all rusted weaponry and cruciform brooches. There is a striking amount of glasswork – in the form of beads, drinking-horns, goblets, conical flasks and Roman-style claw-beakers. The shining gold and silver of the plates and jewellery reflect the light of their cases, but also create a light of their own, and appear as new as the day they were buried inside a ship in modern-day East Anglia 1,300 years ago.

Whether you’re a medieval enthusiast looking for something to complement the Vikings exhibition (which I will see when I have a spare £13), an English first-year longing to put The Wanderer etc. into context (because prelims), or if you’re just passing through on the way to see the mummies, Room 41 is well worth a look.

“Why couldn’t we create a monorail?” says County Councillor

0

Oxford students’ wishes for a monorail could be granted, if only after 2020, following an announcement by county council leader Ian Hudspeth.

Speaking at the “Connecting Oxfordshire” event, he explained that the existing infrastructure in Oxfordshire is likely to come under further strain in the near future, with 86,000 new jobs and 100,000 new homes predicted to arrive in the county by 2031.

“There are exciting times ahead”, he said. “Towns across Oxfordshire are going to increase in size, with places such as Bicester set to double in size over the next ten years. We are also seeing the technology and knowledge industry Science Vale Oxford really take off and the county council needs to lead the way in developing the supporting infrastructure.”

He added, “We can’t rule out ideas that might seem fanciful, such as creating a passenger service on the Cowley branch line, a mass transit system into Oxford. And why couldn’t we create a monorail connecting key locations around the city’s ring road?”

A car-free, “boulevard piazza” on St. Giles was also proposed. Hudspeth said that this would, “really give a different feel to the whole city centre.”

Samuel Kim, a medic at St. John’s, told Cherwell, “Dodging cars on St. Giles’ is always a thrill, but if we do get a piazza future students will certainly enjoy the reduction in mortal peril to get to G&D’s”.

This proposed transport link from the city centre to Banbury Road could grant students at St. Hugh’s and LMH the monorail promised in LJ Trup’s “personifesto” last year.

Some students contacted were concerned about the potential visual impact of the project, however. A senior member of the Oxford University History Society said, “Oxford’s historical beauty is a great draw for both prospective students and tourists alike. Hopefully, they can find a way to implement the monorail in a way that will both complement the visual image of our city and provide a great boost for its efficiency.”

Oxford city centre currently has a high traffic volume, with 180 buses per hour using the High Street and 80,000 vehicles using the ring road every weekday.

The proposed changes would extend an existing, £800 million plan to improve transport in Oxfordshire that includes a new railway station at Water Eaton, alongside improvements to existing stations at Oxford and Didcot.

 

Not-so-equal marriage

On Saturday, it became legal for same sex couples to get married in Britain for the first time. This was met with pride and celebration in the mainstream media, and rightly so. How could you not be happy for two people finally getting their chance to make a legal commitment to each other, recognised in the same way as everyone else’s? Sadly, it’s not quite that simple. Whilst for some, equal marriage can be seen as a huge step forward in the struggle for equal rights for those who identify as LGBTQ, but, for others, it’s not even a step in the right direction.

Marriage is a problematic institution. Under all the cake, flowers and dresses there lies a tradition which is not guaranteed to be based on mutual love and trust. Marriage has been used to trade people, especially women, as property. Marriage is still used today by governments to reward those who conform to a family structure, which it acknowledges to be superior, in the form of tax breaks. So from the start it is easy to see why a wedding is not necessarily a symbol of any kind of equality. This is all before we even look at the legislation that has been enacted at the weekend. Whilst the Equal Marriage Act clearly suits some, it is still leaving others out, particularly people who identify as trans*. Now, if you want to change your gender through getting a Gender Recognition Certificate, you have to gain the permission of your spouse. This means that if your spouse refuses to sign, you will have to divorce them in order to get your rights recognised—this clearly creates a loophole which allows the marriage to be threatened immediately in pursuit of gender recognition. Not to mention the fact that all of the legislation is written with the implicit assumption of the gender binary (that people are all either male or female without exception), so if you do not identify as either, there is still no space for you in the institution of marriage.

Meanwhile, LGBTQ people are more likely to be homeless, to attempt suicide and to self-harm. They are more likely to be bullied and physically attacked. Equal marriage is not solving any of these problems. It is easy to say that it sends a message that being gay is OK to a younger generation of straight and gay people, but it does not help a LGBTQ teenager who is facing suicide right now. Yet government programmes to find a solution to these problems, which are much more pressing, are thin on the ground. Years’ worth of resources in the queer community have been used up in the campaign for equal marriage, whilst people within that community still face daily struggles without support.

Part of the problem here lies in the fact that equal marriage is being presented so momentously by the British media as the be all and end all for gay equality, while some simple acknowledgment that we have an enormously long way to go would help put the situation all back in perspective. The coverage itself has demonstrated it through its choice of couples to portray over the weekend, who were all invariably white and middle class. Sandi Toksvig gained a lot of coverage for renewing her vows with her partner Debbie on stage at the Royal Festival Hall, whilst two gay couples who married on the stroke of midnight in Camden and Brighton were also focused on by the press. There is an underlying current of integration with the status quo which lies within this coverage, depicting couples getting ready for their wedding ‘normally’ despite their sexuality. Why should queer people want to become ‘normal’? Why should they be grateful for acceptance which involves being seen as ‘quite like straight people really’ from a society which constantly excludes them? There are more questions raised by equal marriage than there are answers given by it.

So as Stonewall this weekend ran an advert which said ‘We now pronounce you EQUAL’, it seems clear that this is an equality granted to a very specific proportion of the LGBTQ community. An equality which is undoubtedly better than none at all, but one that needs to be a springboard, not a ceiling. 

Varsity report: Table Tennis

0

In the Varsity ‘warm-up’ of Table Tennis Town vs. Gown, the Men’s firsts, Women’s firsts and Men’s seconds all had teams competing. The Men’s first won Town vs. Gown with an impressive 7-3 scoreline for the first time in six years, meaning that OUTTC now has a beautiful wooden trophy to put in its metaphorical cabinet. The Men’s seconds also put in a sterling performance with a 5-5 draw against an experienced Town team. Unfortunately the Town women proved too much for the Women’s firsts with a convincing win of 9-1.

Despite coming from the relative successes of the Town vs. Gown, Varsity posed a daunting challenge. Cambridge has convincingly held the Men’s firsts title since 2004 with an impressive win of 10-0 for the last four years, so this year’s team was determined to set the record straight with win on home turf. Varsity tradition suggests that the Women’s team is more evenly matched, with Oxford winning three consecutive titles since 2010, however we were beaten in last year’s competition after one of our strongest players changed sides!

In the Varsity match, Cambridge showed they still have tremendous strength at the top, beating the Men’s firsts 10-0. However, the Oxford players fought well and managed to win many sets against them, forcing them to play harder than they have had to in the last four years. It is unfortunate that this isn’t reflected in the score line, but progress is being made. On a positive note though, word on the street is that a lot of their key players are leaving this year, so next year’s match is set to be a more competitive fixture.

The real stars of the show were the Men’s second team, with Michael Peterer, Haijie Tan, Ben Nilsson and Maciej Jarocki winning 6-4 against their Cantabrian opponents. Especially noteworthy was Ben’s incredible performance; after a poor start, the score was two sets to nil, but Nilsson battled through and secured his win in the final set, coming back from 9-5 to assure Oxford’s victory. Huge congratulations to the Men’s 2nd team who are going from strength to strength!

The Women’s 1st team fought extremely well to secure two matches against their more experienced Cambridge opponents, eventually losing 8-2.

All in all, it’s been a great term for OUTTC and things are looking upwards with most of our players staying on next year. Hopefully we’ll keep up our fantastic strength and build on the successes of this term. The return fixture next year is set to be a more competitive one, with table tennis growing rapidly throughout Oxford. Come along to the Iffley Sports Centre on Thursdays from 4.30pm – 6.30pm, or on Sunday from 5pm – 7pm if you would like to play. The hugely popular College Cuppers is happening in Trinity so make sure that you get your entries emailed to [email protected].

Baby Love to relocate

0

The popular Baby Love bar has announced its intention to move sites as part of Oriel College’s plans to redevelop the premises.

In a statement, the bar said that it intended to remain open for the “foreseeable future”, and would make it known to customers as soon as the new premises has been decided upon. Cherwell understands that Oxford City Council has not yet received an application by Baby Love to surrender the premises licence.

A spokesperson for Baby Love told Cherwell, “Over the past year, our landlords, Oriel College, have taken a decision to redevelop the site at King Edward Street, and as a result, we have mutually agreed that Baby Love would find a new home. Neither side knows exactly when this is going to happen, as third party decisions are involved”.

They continued, “Baby Love would be taking its ‘love’ to a new premises, and would inform you and all its loyal customers, the minute its been agreed. It’s a new beginning and an exciting one for us. We can assure all our regular customers that none of our promoted nights will be affected and parities will continue as usual, either at our present or our relocated site”.

A Hertford College Baby Love club rep told Cherwell, “I hope that they don’t move far away. Right now they’re in fairly close proximity to my college, and it would be annoying to have to trek as far as, say, Park End Street to bust my moves”.

Last week, a rumour circulated on social media that Baby Love had failed to renew its licence. Several students, including OUSU President Tom Rutland, Tweeted their dismay at the news. However, a Cherwell investigation revealed that the rumour was unfounded, with the City Council confirming that they had neither confiscated, nor received an application from the bar to surrender their licence.

Baby Love bar on King Edward Street is one of a chain of three ‘Baby’ bars in Oxford. Baby Love plays host to popular club student nights including Supermarket and Poptarts.

The bar’s statement concluded, “Baby Love would like to thank Oriel College for the years of fun it has afforded our customers and us in what has become as institution amongst the students of Oxford University. We thank them and extend all our best wishes for their future plans”.

Oxford’s women rowers bid fond farewell to Henley

0

In a swansong to the Henley course that has proved so fruitful for Oxford crews in recent years, Oxford’s women rowers enjoyed a clean sweep of victories against three Cambridge crews on Sunday afternoon.

The main attraction of the day – a true festival of rowing– was the Newton Women’s Boat Race. Oxford came into the race as clear favourites, having won five out of their last six clashes; Cambridge, however, had history on their side, with forty past victories to Oxford’s twenty-seven. Having won the toss and elected to line up on the Berkshire station – regarded as more favourable, given the conditions, than the Bucks station to which Oxford were consigned – the Cambridge crew perhaps dared to wonder whether this could be their year.

Both crews started impressively, speeding off at around forty strokes per minute. Nevertheless, Oxford soon edged into a lead of about half a length. This advantage would only grow as the race progressed; by the time the Oxford boat flew (not literally) past its gathered fans at the Upper Thames Rowing Club the Oxford host had a full-length lead to cheer about – which they duly did. The Cambridge response was admirable, with club President and cox Esther Momcilovic imploring her crew to close the gap with cries of ‘Drive!’ and ‘Accelerate!’ Despite the attempted Cambridge fight-back, however, the Oxford lead proved unassailable. Indeed, it is testament to Oxford’s flawless technique and effort that, despite the tenacity of the Cambridge crew, by the time both boats had crossed the finish line at Temple Island, Oxford were deemed to have won by an impressive four lengths. Moreover, with a time just six seconds shy of the Women’s Boat Race record, the cheers with which the Oxford crew were greeted were nothing if not well-earned. Oxford chief coach Christine Wilson’s appraisal of her squad as being “a remarkable group of women” looks difficult to deny.

What was perhaps most encouraging for followers of Oxford women’s rowing, however, was the incredible strength in depth hinted at by victories in both the Reserves and Lightweight races. Whilst the Lightweight triumph was almost as emphatic as the Dark Blues’ victory, as they beat their opponents by just over three lengths, Oxford’s Osiris crew won by only half a length in a thrilling competition with Cambridge’s Blondie boat, an encounter characterised by a series of clashes in the final section of the course as the crews battled for supremacy. In the context of the Oxford women’s hat-trick of victories, the Cambridge Lightweight Men’s convincing win against their Oxford opponents, whilst commendable, looks to have been little more than a consolation prize for those Cantabrians still gathered on the banks of the Thames after a long afternoon of sporting spectacle.

This, then, was a great day for Oxford rowing. It is next year’s race, however, which promises to be truly momentous not just for the boat clubs of Oxford or Cambridge, but for the whole institution of the Varsity Boat Race. For the first time ever, next year’s women’s race will take place on the same 6.8km course, and on the same day, as the men’s races. It would seem, then, that rowing has moved on from its past prejudices, exemplified in a 1962 letter from the Captain of Selwyn College – who evidently missed the memo on sixties liberal attitudes – to the CUWBC, denouncing women’s rowing as “a ghastly sight”. The universities’ women rowers, then, are finally achieving the recognition and coverage they deserve – not least in the form of a possible television audience of several million. On the evidence of Sunday’s spectacle, nobody could argue they do not deserve it.   

Review: The Grand Budapest Hotel

0

★★★★★

Having heard it described as ‘the perfect film’, I went in to Wes Anderson’s new movie, ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ with undeniably high expectations. I was not disappointed. The film tells the story of Gustave H (Ralph Fiennes), a concierge at the magnificent Grand Budapest Hotel. Through his association with one of the elderly guests (the splendid Tilda Swinton), is drawn into a story of murder, family feuding and fine art, with the result that he and his devoted lobby boy Zero resort to series of increasingly madcap capers across the borders of Europe to ensure his safety.

It is an unbelievably precise film, in all its facets. As usual, Anderson’s film-making highlights rather than minimises the artifice inherent in all films. Rather than creating something and positing it as natural, Anderson carefully constructs shots in which every piece of furniture is arranged at a perfect right angle, in which the scenery, the architecture, the decoration is made up of endless squares and rectangles. Frames are composed with precise symmetry and there are countless shots of men walking right down the centre of exactly square corridors. But unlike in some of his previous films, here Anderson never gets too caught up in his own cleverness: it always exists to add to both the comedy and the drama, rather than detract from it.

Furthermore these features function thematically as well as stylistically, for among other things, ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ is about storytelling, about creating universes. There are frames, within frames, within frames, as a young girl visits a memorial to an author, who introduces via video a memory of his younger self, who meets a man at the hotel, who eventually gets down to the business of telling Gustave’s story. Each frame is shot in a different aspect ratio, an interesting touch, and one which carries the implication of the changing perspective, even changing universe, that accompanies the change in narrator. Anderson even implies that the hero, M. Gustave himself, is a creator of universes, just as are those who tell his story. We are told that “His world had vanished before he even entered it” and he is shown this world up for his guests, arranging flowers, furniture, and amorous encounters all with the same dedication, just as one might imagine Anderson might have set up each frame of the film. It is an extremely self-reflexive work, and therein lies at least part of its power of enchantment.

Fiennes delivers a performance which demonstrates previously untapped comedic potential, a far cry from the brooding, tortured characters of his resume, and yet no less accomplished. His characterisation is delicate, without ever becoming fussy, detailed without losing emotional depth. The honesty that both he and Tony Revolori bring to the relationship between Gustave and Zero is the solid foundation upon which all Anderson’s whimsy can be safely placed. Also commendable are William Defoe’s unnerving and ferocious villain, Saoirse Ronan’s enchanting turn as a baker’s assistant, and an understated performance by Jude Law. It’s an impressive cast, and the acting here pulls no punches.

Perhaps most importantly the film is undeniably hilarious. It is a perfectly pitched comedy, that had me chuckling more than anything else I’ve seen recently, and yet was still suspenseful, and edged with both darkness and loss. The film conveys nostalgia without kitsch, mainly because of the success, in his role in one of the framing narratives, of F. Murray Abraham in connecting that nostalgia to a very sincere sense of personal sadness and grief. It was undoubtedly a tour de force, and if you miss it then I am absolutely certain that you will be missing out.

Just a postscript though: it is perhaps worth looking at the poster for this film, if you do you’ll notice that it’s rows and rows of pictures of the rather extraordinary cast. Out of the seventeen faces, only three are women.