Friday 6th June 2025
Blog Page 1385

Oxford chaplains urge Church to reconsider gay marriage stan

0

Three Oxford University chaplains have signed an open letter in protest against recent guidance from the Church of England that banned all clergy from officiating same sex marriages.

The letter was written by Durham University’s Reverend Dr Hannah Cleugh and signed by 45 other clergymen under the age of 40. It argues that this guidance will widen the disconnect between the Church of England’s official position and the views of its members, and reinforce an image of the Church as a “toxic brand”.

The Pastoral Guidance note, which banned same-sex marriages in the clergy, was published by the House of Bishops, one of the three houses of the General Synod, which is the decision-making body of the Church of England. The note stated, “It would not be appropriate conduct for someone in holy orders to enter into a same sex marriage, given the need for clergy to model the Church’s teaching in their lives.”

Alongside heated pastoral debate, two Oxford academics have written a letter to The Telegraph, objecting to the premise stated in the note that “There will, for the first time, be a divergence between the… definition of marriage in England as enshrined in law and the doctrine of marriage held by the Church of England.”

Hannah Cleugh, Chaplain of University College, Durham, told Cherwell, “Obviously, it’s not true that only liberal churches grow – conservative churches and traditional, Catholic churches can be very popular with young people in Oxford. What makes a difference is the teaching and preaching and how welcoming the church community is. The Pastoral Guidance note is clearly a restatement of the Church of England’s existing position. However, following a recent report commissioned by the church, it has committed itself to a process of conversations across the Anglican Communion. The timing of this announcement is therefore unfortunate, and seems to be preempting some of these conversations.”

Andrew Allen, Chaplain at Exeter College, is among the clergy who signed the open letter protesting the new guidance. He pointed out the role of the Church in life at secular institutions like Oxford where chaplains are often students’ first port of call for welfare.

“The Church should remember that secular colleges choose to employ Chaplains and it seems that the Church has lost its lead on issues of morality and ethics,” he stated. “The point of Jesus Christ is that God comes to earth to meet people where they are in their lives; whilst some students may struggle with their own sexuality, many do not see this as an issue that the church should be concerned with.

“At Exeter we have a thriving Chapel community, not all who ‘sign up’, but who value what the gospel has to offer and the Church’s guidance on sexuality seems to run contrary to their experiences of religion and faith. Historically the University has often been at odds with the Church, and it is my hope that we will continue to challenge some of the views of the Church.”

Daniel Inman, Chaplain at Queen’s, said, “Although the Church is still in the early stages of rethinking its approach to gay couples, the new Church guidance was a document that gave us the sort of legalese that Jesus regularly mocked during his ministry at a time when we desperately needed to find ways of communicating that love and commitment are actually rather good things. I hope that changes soon, as the very peculiar limits that are currently set upon who can be blessed in our college chapels will surely become deeply problematic for Christian life here in the long term.

“If we’re willing to bless a Royal Navy battleship, why not a same-sex couple who are promising to cherish each other and be faithful to each other for as long as they both shall live?”

Anna Appleby, a Christian from St. Hilda’s identifies as LGBTQ+ and founded the Oxford students’ group ‘Faith and Diversity’, which focuses on issues such as the relationship between Christianity and sexuality. She said, “I believe God calls diverse people to the priesthood and therefore it is not up to the House of Bishops to assume who God might or might not call, or to deprive the Church community of LGBTQ+ people’s gifts and experience.”

However, one first year historian said, “For me, this is an issue of logical consistency. The Church of England isn’t legally allowed to conduct same-sex marriages. If its clergy can have same-sex marriages but not conduct them, it’s one rule for them and another for the laity.”

Review: REPLAY

0

The relationship between a teacher and a student is, by its very nature of differences in power and authority, a difficult one, which can lead to scenarios in the foggy moral area between professional responsibility and distance. Alex Wilson’s Replay explores this very area through the story of the piano teacher Freya (Mary Clapp) who develops an obsession with her student James after the suicide of his sister.

The soft sound of the piano conveys an uncomfortable mellowness and a somewhat subtly romantic atmosphere that heightens the uneasiness of the situation even further as a character study unfolds in front of the audience, drawin them deeper and deeper into the troubled psyche of the protagonist who seems to become increasingly tangled up in the sensitive situation and her own precarious emotions as the play progresses.

The strong, yet eerie chorus (Benedict Morrison, Soraya Liu and Poppy Clifford), with its clown-esque make up and elegant black tie attire that makes them appear almost scarily aloof, portraying the other characters as well, as it seems, Freya’s mind that is overflowing with voices and impressions, adds a compelling dimension to the play and acts as a backdrop for the protagonist’s inner turmoil.

With his protagonist Freya, Alex Wilson has produced an intriguing character whose ambivalent behaviour, especially due to her confiding in the audience as an invisible jury, makes her difficult to judge: Is she the victim of her own overbearing feelings and actually good intentions towards her pupil? Or is she merely using James and his vulnerability as an outlet for her search for a lost sense of excitement and vigour in her dull everyday life?

It is for the viewer to decide whose side they’re on, and the plot makes it painfully clear that making this decision is a lot harder than one might think. Replay is a gripping psychological drama and excellent new piece of writing that leaves the audience with a healthy sense of unease and questions in the back of their heads.

Inquest hears deceased student was harassed by tutor

0

A BPhil student who committed suicide after breaking up with her boyfriend last year had been subjected to harassment by a Philosophy tutor at Pembroke, an inquest has heard.

The body of Charlotte Coursier, a graduate Philosophy student at St Edmund Hall, was found by her housemates at her home in East Oxford on 10th June last year.

A coroner told the inquest that the student received “crazy and rambling emails” by from Dr Jeffrey Ketland.

The University has since been criticised for their handling of the harassment. One member of staff questioned the University’s decision not to immediately suspend Dr Ketland after the allegations were brought against him.

A spokesperson for the University told Cherwell, “The University takes allegations of harassment very seriously. Members of staff are made aware of the University’s policy on harassment and their responsibilities under it.”

It has also been alleged that the University’s advice to Coursier when she reported the harassment was “not to go to the faculty on days when he was lecturing”. The University responded that it was unable to comment on individual cases.

The University said it had conducted a review into the incident in October. A spokesperson commented, “Its purpose was to inform senior members of the University of the circumstances of Charlotte’s death and to advise on any future steps. The findings of the review remain confidential but University is continuing to consider the most appropriate action as a consequence.”

Dr Ketland and Coursier met at Edinburgh University where they had a sexual relationship. Coursier moved to pursue postgraduate studies at St Edmund Hall in October 2012. Ketland also came to Oxford soon after, taking up a lecturing position at Pembroke College.

When contacted by Cherwell, Pembroke declined to comment on the allegations.

Coursier began a relationship with Ben Fardell, from London, three months before moving to Oxford. Coursier received an email from Dr Ketland on 7th May, to which she replied “politely”. Despite this the emails she received reportedly became “crazed and rambling”.

According to the inquest, Dr Ketland reminded Coursier that he saved her life when she overdosed on paracetamol in Edinburgh. Fardell said in a statement, “He thought he saved her life in Edinburgh and in doing so, he managed to destroy his own.”

“She went to see him in a professional capacity to seek help and advice. His abuse of her made an already fragile girl even worse.”

Coursier reported Dr Ketland to Thames Valley Police, who issued him with a warning under the Harassment Act.

During the inquest, Fardell suggested that his relationship with Coursier had undergone a number of problems. In a statement he said, “In the first six months there were issues of trust and commitment in the relationship.

“But Charlotte was much better in the new year. Then, in February, she discovered she was seven weeks pregnant despite taking contraception.” Coursier subsequently had an abortion on 25th March.

According to Fardell, “She was very low for weeks after this and she found it very difficult to get over having murdered her child, as she put it.”

Professor Keith Gull, Principal of St Edmund Hall, told the Oxford Mail, “Charlotte was an outstanding student, well-liked by her friends, and is still greatly missed in our college community. Her death was a tragedy for her family and friends and our thoughts continue to be with them.”

Who is calling for Apartheid now?

0

Next week, Palestine Societies on campuses across the country will be hosting their annual event, ‘Israel Apartheid Week’. Activities held during this time have typically included proposed boycotts, shutting down academic freedom and intimidating public spectacles.

Yet despite the title ‘Israel Apartheid Week,’ the supporters of this event, mostly from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, always fail to address what apartheid really means. Apartheid has always meant the deliberate separation of peoples’ based on their ethnic background, as practised by the racist regime in South Africa. Israel has done nothing of the sort, and the freedom enjoyed by Israel’s large Muslim and Christian Arab minorities is testament to this.

Furthermore, the boycotters have certainly not done their homework. Boycotts in fact promote separation. They foster misunderstanding, hostility and intransigence.

Many Oxford students will remember George Galloway’s infamous walk out on ex-Oxford student Eylon Aslan-Levy, on the dubious grounds that he doesn’t debate with Israelis. Of course this was a rather extreme incident, yet it is in many ways the logical conclusion of a doctrine which attacks co-operation between Israeli and non-Israeli scientists, academics, businessmen and artists. Whilst aiming to only target the policies of the Israeli government, the outcome has been that ordinary Israelis, regardless of their political opinions, have been fair game for boycotters. The irony is not lost that a movement which aims to fight inequality and social injustice actually promotes both. The boycotters, in effect, endorse apartheid.

The boycott movement recently received headlines in relation to Scarlett Johansson’s work with the Israeli company SodaStream. SodaStream employs over 500 Palestinian workers at their principal factory at Ma’ale Adumim in the West Bank. Were the factory to be closed down (as many boycotters have demanded), all of those Palestinian workers would lose their superior wages and working conditions and be forced to enter the poorer job market in the Palestinian Authority.

After Scarlett Johansson appeared in a recent SodaStream advert, she was forced to end her work with Oxfam. In her statement defending her brave decision, Johansson stated that she was “not only committed to the environment but to building a bridge to peace between Israel and Palestine, supporting neighbours working alongside each other, receiving equal pay, equal benefits and equal rights.”

She could not be more right. Anyone who is serious about a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must understand that in order for peace to be sustainable, Arabs and Jews must work with each other, trade with each other, talk to each other and ultimately live with each other. Boycotts do nothing of the sort – they drive the moderates on each side further apart and in fact accelerate segregation.

The apartheid analogy has also been applied to Israel’s security barrier. Whilst walls may separate, they can also save lives. It is not an insignificant fact that the number of Israelis killed in suicide bombings dropped significantly after the erection of the security barrier in the early 2000s.

Moreover, it is only in the urbanised areas that the fence has been transformed into a wall. Over 90% of the security barrier is a fence. Between January 2000 and July 2003, the height of the Second Palestinian Intifada, there were 73 suicide bombings inflicting over 2000 casualties.

It was in this context that the barrier was constructed. Since then, there have been 12 major attacks. This goes to show the misrepresentation of some of the more important aspects of Israel’s security needs.

In my opinion, there is nothing as odious as comparing the racist, totalitarian laws of South Africa to the difficult but often necessary security measures implemented by the State of Israel. Frederik de Klerk, the man who jointly ended apartheid with Nelson Mandela, has said the same.

The Israeli people, like the Palestinian people, have their own history. The trauma of the past 66 years has solidified unending animosity between two national narratives – both retelling the same series of events, but with very different memories.

Anyone who tries to convince you that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a simple moral issue is deeply misguided. On that account alone, the apartheid analogy is truly unhelpful.

As a student body, we all have a duty to normalise discourse surrounding Israel. The political situation in Israel is deeply complicated and there are no easy answers. But we cannot deny that it is a thriving democracy with all the diversity and freedom of expression one would expect in any western European nation.

In no other country in the Middle East, would you witness everything from Islamists to secular Communists debating in the nation’s parliament. The sciences, culture, academia, business – all things at which Israel excels – aspire to universal values which transcend national differences.

These are not things that can be simply boycotted. This is not the time to call an entire country an apartheid state. 2014 is the time to rethink Israel.

Interview: Martin Keown

0

I meet Martin Keown at the Oxford Union just a few hours after Arsenal’s drab, goalless draw against Manchester United at the Emirates Stadium. I wonder how long it will take for the uncompromising centre-half’s old club to dominate conversation.

The answer is straight away, as the former Gunner is keen to offer his two cents on Arsenal’s title credentials, perhaps relieved to be able to talk about the subject seriously for a change this season.

“It seemed like Arsenal [against Man United] were just managing their energy levels. You’ve got to go for it, commit more players forward. There’s no reason why Arsenal can’t win the title but when they’ve gone to Old Trafford, when they’ve gone to the Etihad, they’ve not played with a great deal of confidence. You’ve got to be arrogant, you’ve got to have it in your body language, and then it comes out in the manner of your play. And that’s the thing that worries me most – I just feel that they need to believe in themselves more.”

Gunners fans need no reminding that the last time Arsenal lifted any form of silverware was back in 2005 when they won the FA Cup in Cardiff.

Keown, on the other hand, played a key part in the most successful period in the club’s history. After joining as a youth player in 1980, he left the club in 1986 only to return 7 years later. The arrival of Arsène Wenger as manager in 1996 saw Keown become a multiple Premier League and FA Cup winner; indeed, his last season at the club was an historic one, as Arse- nal went through an entire league campaign unbeaten, earning the nickname ‘The Invincibles’.

So what is the root cause of Arsenal’s nine- year trophy drought? For Keown, it ultimately boils down to money. “We’ve got to go back a long way. You’ve got to talk it through those eight or nine years. You look at when Arsenal used to wrestle dominance away from Man Utd, and then Chelsea came in with a lot of money to spend. Money made a difference. Arsenal had to compete with that. With the expenditure on the new stadium, they weren’t able to invest in quality players who were the finished article. They had to go for a policy centred on youth. In a way, it’s been enough to keep Arsenal in the picture, to keep them in the Champions League, but we’re now waiting for the trophies to come.”

However, the former defender does see a brighter future ahead for the club, with patience ultimately being the key. “I think the Özil signing was a major move, a change of direction, a bit like the Bergkamp signing, both in monetary terms and the ability he brings to the table. But that’s just the start.

“We don’t want to be losing Arsène Wenger – we’ve seen what’s happened with Sir Alex Ferguson leaving Manchester United. It’s about building towards the future. We’re asking the Arsenal fans to be patient, maybe for another couple of years.”

By mentioning Arsenal’s northern rivals, Keown is of course referring to Manchester United’s disastrous start under new manager David Moyes. The Scot left Everton after ten years to take up the daunting challenge of becoming Ferguson’s successor, and the Merseyside club particularly interests Keown given that he played for them for four years. Though the Toffees have arguably improved since Roberto Martinez was brought in to replace Moyes in the summer, Keown insists that Moyes must earn some credit for the club’s rude health. “I think over ten years, he brought real stability to Everton. They were compact, difficult to beat. They then started to play with expression, with the full-backs starting to get forward. This has now been developed by Martinez where the wingers are attacking with much more freedom and imagination. Perhaps he needs that at Old Trafford. But you’ve got to say that the reason that Everton are so strong and solid at the back and the way that they play as a team is down to the previous manager. Ultimately it’s a combination of the two managers.”

With the World Cup in Brazil fast approaching, much has been made of whether England manager Roy Hodgson takes a gamble by selecting a squad which favours young, talented, yet ultimately inexperienced players – of which there are many in the Premier League – or whether he sticks to the experienced players who have competed in previous international tournaments, yet who have failed to deliver.

Keown insists that if England are to be successful in Brazil, equilibrium is crucial. “There’s a balancing act to be had. I think Roy will name an extended squad which will involve youth and experience. The likes of Ashley Cole will be gauged in training since he’s not playing much for Chelsea at the moment so he’s not getting the levels of fitness. Lampard also isn’t playing the amount of football he would have done in the past so there’s a possible question mark in that area. Do you take the likes of Ross Barkley along? Does Henderson come in? Does Sterling play a part?

“We haven’t seen Andros Townsend since the Montenegro and Poland matches, he’s hardly featured. But he got us there. So there’s all those decisions to be made, and I think Roy Hodgson is experienced enough to make them.”

Following his retirement from the game in 2005, Keown is now performing a balancing act of his own – he can be regularly seen offering his expert analysis as a pundit on BBC’s Match of the Day, whilst commuting to London Colney in order to coach Arsenal on a part-time basis. However, his principal area of focus currently lies closer to home. “At the moment, my son plays for the Reading Under-21 team – I need to be able to watch him and help him. If I was in a full-time role as a coach at one club and based in one place only that could be difficult, but I probably would like to get back into it in some capacity. We’ll see what happens.”

Many Oxford students may very well be aware of the fact that Keown – born and bred in the city – once coached the Oxford Blues football team. Looking back fondly on his experience, Keown indicates that he could be tempted to return to the role in the future. “I wouldn’t be averse to doing it at all. In fact, this year I did consider it. I did it for a whole year and really enjoyed it. I put players into positions that they didn’t necessarily want to play in, but by the end of the season I think they realised that they were getting games in the first team. The most important thing is that we won the league, which hadn’t been done for a while. As for the Varsity match, I don’t think the Cambridge fans enjoyed me being there! But it was a great experience and we tried to take it seriously.”

Before his talk at the Union, Keown still has time to offer his predictions on one of the most unpredictable Premier League seasons in recent years.

“I went with Chelsea at the start of the season and said Man Utd would come second so that’s not going to happen! So I’ll still back Chelsea, followed by Man City, Arsenal and Liverpool. If you asked me who was going to go down, I think Fulham look pretty well doomed. Hull could be in a spot of bother too; Steve Bruce has got previous of almost capitulating after Christmas. Cardiff don’t look good either. Sunderland are interesting because they’ve done incredibly well since Poyet joined but have gone back into the bottom three and they’ve got to dig deep again, and that can be difficult. There’s a long way to go.”

As for his thoughts on the World Cup, Keown can only see one winner. “It’s got to be Brazil.”

Is England’s ‘New Era’ a false dawn?

0

In the last couple of weeks the ECB has drawn a firm line under a period which saw English cricket enjoy prosperity, the likes of which largely hadn’t been seen since the 1980s. As well as winning three out of four Ashes series between 2009 and 2014, England came away from India with a series win for the first time this century, and won their first major limited overs trophy at the 2010 World Twenty20. But in the wake of a winter of humiliation this golden age judged to have ended, and seismic changes have already taken place.

The main headlines have rightly focused on the abrupt sacking of Kevin Pietersen last week, England’s highest aggregate run scorer both in the latest Ashes series and in history. After much media wrangling the ECB finally re- leased a statement on Sunday explaining that it was important that Captain Alastair Cook could rely on all players “pulling in the same direction and able to trust each other.”

This might seem sensible given Pietersen’s track record of irritating every dressing room he’s ever played in, but the language of this explanation is troubling. Having everyone working together is all well and good as long as it doesn’t deteriorate into an authoritarian regime where no discussion of tactics or planning can take place among the senior group of players. As was evident from last winter, Cook still has a lot to learn as captain. An open environment which encourages the experienced players such as Bell, Broad, and Prior to take some responsibility and help make decisions is what the ECB needs in the wake of such embarrassment.

Whatever the spirit of the dressing room, it is surely more important to have the most talented players playing as many matches as possible. I’m all for team cohesion but it can’t take priority over talent, form or record. Gary Ballance in his early career has come across as a model team player but when a Dale Steyn or Mitchell Johnson has just ripped out your top order, threatening to spark yet another England collapse, I know I would rather see Pietersen swaggering to the middle.

Geoffrey Boycott, one of the most vociferous critics of Pietersen’s style and maturity, was a nightmare to play with because of his overwhelming egocentricity. His teammates still found a way to accommodate him because of the sheer weight of runs he promised.

The timing is particularly odd when you consider the short term plans of this England team. With the World Twenty20 in March, a format which Cook has not played since 2009, wouldn’t the best thing have been to select Pietersen, arguably one of the most accomplished T20 players in history, and drop him for future test matches?

Another area which needs more explanation from the ECB is the departure of Andy Flower. In one sense this move, if really instigated by Flower rather than his employers, is understandable. Building a successful cricket team takes commitment; ideally a coach prepared to manage in all formats, and a lot of effort.

Flower has already been through this process once, leading England to number one in the world, and may feel that he doesn’t have anything prove by doing it all over again. The assumption on which this very reasonable decision rests is questionable because it depends on whether the 2013-14 winter really saw the end of Flower’s glorious era.

True, England have under-performed in recent months. They played dour but functional cricket in the summer Ashes, and capitulated completely in the return fixtures. But before this there were few signs of ill-health. New Zealand put up a good fight at the start of last year, verging on beating England on several occasions, but anyone who looks at their recent successes against India will see a team in resurgence who no one can roll over anymore.

The classic English trait of taking defeat as the end of the world seems to apply to the whole reaction to our recent losses. Many of the central issues accounting for Australia’s sud- den dominance can be explained simply by fatigue. Jonathon Trott’s stress, Graeme Swann’s increasing injury count, Cook’s jaded tactics, and a general loss of form could all have come about because of the hectic cricket calendar. Perhaps instead of sacking our best player and implicitly persuading a successful coach to leave office, the ECB should have been looking at changing their schedules, largely defined it seems by commercial arrangements.

This would allow the England players to properly recover from a demanding series like the last Ashes, and the peaks and troughs of recent results would become less pronounced.

This might be an international issue, but solving it would certainly help the English.

Preview: Night of the Absurd

0

Buy one, get one free: each Night of the Absurd promises to fill your evening with two plays and more existential lines than you can wring your world-weary hands at. Prepare yourself for a double bill of Camus’ The Misunderstanding and Sartre’s No Exit: two plays which were proclaiming the meaningless of life before it was cool.

The first half is given over to The Misunderstanding – a euphemism if ever there was one. The set-up is a mother and daughter who make ends meet by running a guest house. Murdering their visitors for their money, of course. And then along comes the long-lost son in disguise… The tension is teeth-grindingly high, even when the conversation turns to tea. In fact, all the conversations are tense, so after the fifty-sixth semi-subconscious ultra-profound absurdist double entendre, the jokes get a bit old. The characters are great to watch as walking philosophical doctrines; but in terms of psychology, they feel more like a scrap-book than a story. There are flashes of depth though, and some of them deeply sickening, but that also means there’s plenty of “oh no they didn’t!” moments.

After a quick interval, it’s back to the instruments of mental torture. And not just for us – No Exit imagines a hell without the pokers and fat-sizzling fires. Nothing but a room kitted out with Second Empire furniture, a paper knife, a bell that doesn’t work, and a locked door. And three very desperate human beings who have just started eternity. Sounds cosy, but everything soon crumbles into a very sophisticated, very brutal, and yet uncannily everyday verbal brawl. Technically, this is one of those plays where you find yourself lost in trying to sum up ‘what it’s about’. But this is a world away from Waiting for Godot: it’s relentless, it’s edge-of-the-seat, and it will sink its claws into your brain.

The material is heavy, yet the sets are light; the cast have given themselves a real challenge. In the bleak plays there isn’t much to hide behind. With just a dab of make-up and some furniture, all the drama is in the words and the gestures. Acting is tough anyway when you’re trying to pretend to be someone else; and with the absurd, it’s more like pretending to be someone pretending to be someone else. Each twitch and every tone can make a difference. There’s the potential to seem eerily flat; but there’s the reward of being more fleshy than life itself. Pembroke, break a leg.

 

 

 

Review: The Last Days of Mankind

0

There’s nothing quite like a full-throated bellow from an actor for dramatic impact. If the audience isn’t expecting it, shouting can bring home the rawness of an emotional moment in a powerful way. The problem with Die Letzten Tage Der Menschheit is that the characters are so stereotypically of the WWI military ilk that the jarring shouts never stop, and the play’s satirical look at the rabid bellicosity pervading Vienna during the First World War loses its impact in becoming predictable.

The play, written by the Austrian writer and journalist Karl Kraus in 1922, traces the experiences of a range of Viennese citizens – from jingoistic generals to a flirtatious female journalist looking to get in on the action on the front line. What’s startling is that Kraus actually used dialogue from contemporary documents when writing Die Letzten – a fact which seems at odds with the play’s stereotypical characterization: the army generals are pompous, narcissistic nationalists who thump their subordinates for entertainment and the solitary non-conformist pacifist seems in a constant state of disgust with life (no surprises there, then).

Some of the scenes were funny, but rapidly became repetitive in this two hour long production. This was the first time I’d seen a subtitled play, and it’s possible that the nuances of Kraus’s humour are simply harder to grasp when translated and awkwardly projected onto a screen at one end of the stage (the problem was exacerbated by the fact that the subtitles, as well as taking the audience’s gaze away from the characters themselves, were often out of sync with the actual dialogue, sometimes flickering back and forth as if confused about which scene was taking place). As the play progressed from its Catch-22-esque phase – the mad Austrian generals seemed drunk in the earlier stages on the idea of war – and moved into a more serious, less slapstick stage, so the scenes gained some political power. One particularly striking example was a scene in which two deserters are shot by their commanding officers, only to rise moments later and carry out the same action on the officers themselves – a reversal of roles which highlighted the army’s self-destructive actions.

Such glimpses of powerful symbolism were, unfortunately, rare in this rather clumsy production. Awkward staging meant that we could often hear noises coming from backstage, a reminder that, despite the actors’ fluent German, we were in the Burton Taylor studio, not an underground WWI bunker. Even the incessant assault of roaring, though aiming to bring the audience into the action of the play, had the opposite effect by highlighting what an inappropriately confined space the BT is for excessive amounts of yelling. Once this had died down the experience improved, and the play’s sudden movement into a bizarre expressionist ending at least compensated for the repetitiveness of the earlier stages of the play.