Saturday 18th April 2026
Blog Page 1481

Review: The Play That Goes Wrong

0

Having seen Mischief Theatre’s latest production Peter Pan Goes Wrong last month, I jumped at the chance to see an earlier work, The Play That Goes Wrong, on its national tour last night.  The production was a sell-out hit at the Edinburgh Fringe and has enjoyed two consecutive runs in the West End.  

In an unforgiving but entertaining take off of “am-dram” theatre, the audience is treated to the (fictional) Cornley Polytechnic’s latest production, The Murder at Haversham Manor.  The performance is a complete disaster from start to finish, with forgotten lines, in-cast fighting, injured actors, mixed-up sound cues, prop disasters and repeated catastrophes involving the set.  

The (real) actors do an admirable job of portraying the totally ridiculous plot whilst managing to keep it funny.  Most of the audience were in hysterics throughout, and there were several impromptu rounds of applause. There was no weak link in the eight-strong cast, with particularly standout performances from Dave Hearn, Lotti Maddox and Rob Falconer.

The set design was as impressive as the acting itself. Its ingenious construction provided the perfect complement to the calamitous turn-of-events, with scenery falling and platforms collapsing with impeccable timing.  It was so convincing that I genuinely feared for the safety of the actors on more than one occasion.

The only thing that slightly dulled the experience was that, having watched both of Mischief Theatre’s current offerings, it felt like I had watched the same show twice.  Apart from the fact that The Play That Goes Wrong was being ‘staged’ more self-consciously , there was little discernable difference between the two in terms of tone, humour or characters; and some of the jokes were identical. On one hand, the company are clearly onto a winning combination and perhaps it is wise not to mess with this receipe for success. On the other, a little variety is never a bad thing. It would be great to see this very talented company experimenting outside of its comfort zone. 

All in all, a hilarious piece of theatre that is well worth watching.  The Play That Goes Wrong is on at the Oxford Playhouse until the 1st February, or you can see them in one of the cities on their nationwide tour.

Taylor named new rugby captain

0

Rhodes Scholar Jacob Taylor, a student at Keble College, has been elected OURFC Captain for 2014. His election came after a marathon six hours of voting and discussions. This makes Jacob the sixth Australian to lead the Blues since 2000. The full-back has represented Sydney University and was vice-captain of the Australian’s Seven’s team for the duration of the 2011 IRB circuit.

Jacob follows on from John Carter, who led the Rugby Club for three years and was at the forefront of the Blues’ three consecutive victories in the December Varsity match against Cambridge. Living up to this precedent will be a challenging task for the new captain. However, the Australian has the necessary experience and more importantly, the support of the his squad to address this challenge.

Taylor told the school/university rugby site In At The Side that, “It is a huge honour to be elected by my peers.  I’m excited about the opportunity and motivated by the challenge of maintaining OURFC as a place where individuals can flourish and teams are successful.” 

Jacob is currently studying for his Masters in Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology and is in the process of applying to continue his studies with a DPhil in Neuroanthropology. He will lead the Blues for the first time on Wednesday night at Iffley Road against the British Army. The match kicks off at 7:15pm. It is sure to be an exciting contest.

Students protest cuts to homelessness budget

0

Today students took to the streets to condemn the County Council’s decision to cut the Housing Related Support fund in Oxfordshire. The proposed cut is part of the council’s wider plans to save £64 million over the next four years, and would reduce the current housing budget from £4m to £1.5m.

Nick Mutch and Lily Taylor spoke to the protestors.

Several students tweeted their support.

 

Interview: Chris Hadfield

0

For a man who might be the most celebrated astronaut since Neil Armstrong, Chris Hadfield is exceptionally modest. When I speak to him at a signing for his new book, An Astronaut’s Guide to Life, he is amiable and approachable. Only his uncommonly firm handshake betrays the strength and control which he undoubtedly gained from thousands of hours of intense training.

“I’ve lived most people’s childhood dream. I’ve piloted 70 types of vehicle, gone on three separate space missions, and space walked twice. I’ve had so many of the richest and most rewarding experiences of life and I count myself as extremely fortunate.

“If I was to follow a life like this with regrets and concentrate on the things I missed out on, I think that would be a very sad way to go through life. It’s certainly not a way I’m going to do it.”

Like millions of others, Hadfield was inspired by the Apollo 11 moon landings, but he is among only several dozen to have risen to the rank of Commander of the International Space Station. I ask him what, besides plain determination, allowed him to become one of the very few to achieve such a lofty goal.

“If you have a great goal that you’re working towards, people tell you to visualise success, but the reality is actually the opposite. Instead imagine that everything goes as wrong as it possibly could at every step. Visualise and make plans based on the idea that everything is going to go wrong, so that when you come to execute your plans you’re ready for anything that can possibly be thrown at you. Make sure you have a rigorous attention to small details.

“We have a joke among us that there is no major problem in space that a good astronaut can’t make worse! When I first decided I wanted to become an astronaut, aged nine, Canada had no space program of any kind. So I prepared my high school, college and career as a military fighter pilot with that goal in mind.”

In 1983, when NASA first invited Canada to fly astronauts on the Space Shuttle as part of the Canadian Astronaut Program, his planning paid off, allowing him to be one of only four Canadian astronauts from a field of over 5000 candidates.

Hadfield stands out from other astronauts through his engagement with social media and attempts to humanize the experience for people back on Earth. He meticulously documented each and every detail about life in space, from the magnificent to the mundane. He credits his son Evan for introducing him to the possibilities social media provided to share his experiences. He used Twitter to provide over a million followers with awe-inspiring photos from the depths of outer space, and participated in two of the most popular ‘Ask Me Anything’ sessions in the history of Reddit. He also filmed the first ever music video in space, a cover of David Bowie’s Space Oddity, as well as interviewing the Canadian actor William Shatner from orbit.

“What you learn to understand about space is that, while the technical details are interesting and have their place, what people mostly care about is the human experiences and feelings, the minutiae of how different space is.”
His videos record everyday events made extraordinary by the otherworldliness of outer space; one is an explanation of how it feels to cry in space, where water coalesces in a pool over the eyes in the absence of gravity. His observations provide a captivating personal perspective on his travels into the unknown: the smell of space after a spacewalk is like gunpowder, to his mind, for instance. He also tells of how Australia is the most interesting looking country of them all from space.

Considering that he is well known for bridging the gap between scientific exploration and artistic endeavour, I ask him what particular works of art best replicates the feeling of space exploration. He calls Gravity, Alfonso Cuaron’s celebrated film, “visually stunning; I don’t know how they managed to capture the visual aspect of being in space so completely.” But, he adds, “it’s inaccurate on the technical details, although I don’t think that’s a problem.

Apollo 13 is the film that is easily the most accurate portrayal of all facets of spaceflight; the director went to significant lengths to give a historically and technically accurate portrayal, down to the individual pieces of dialogue.”
We move to discussing some of the more practical political issues surrounding space. When questioned by Reddit users, he described the privatisation of space as the, “right and natural way of the future.” I ask him what he thinks about the possibility of space travel being privatised in the future.

“Privatisation is the natural historical progression and I have no problem with that. If you take any comparable industry such as air travel or railroads they initially need a collective organisation to set up infrastructures and create frameworks for them to operate. They need an initial large investment by a government, but will slowly transition to a state where they are primarily the ground of private enterprise.

“We are at the cusp of the transition where most of the major advances in space are going to come from private enterprise. We’re starting to see it now with the SpaceX dragon and we’re going to see more of it soon with endeavours like Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic.”
I offer another commonly cited concern. As spaceflight gets cheaper and more accessible, is he worried about the weaponization of space by the Earth’s militaries? He tells me that is like asking whether we are worried about the militarisation of the sea. “The idea that space will somehow be treated differently to anywhere on Earth just isn’t realistic.

“There is a tendency to romanticize the idea of outer space. But the idea that space is some new beginning or blank slate is wishful thinking. We have never been peacefully united on the ground, and there isn’t a reason why being higher up will somehow make us behave differently. It’s just a little bit silly.”

Next, I question him about his emotional response to the isolation of being in space. “It’s not an experience comparable to anything most people experience, and, especially in the beginning of space flight, astronauts could have trouble dealing with their emotional responses.”

He mentions Buzz Aldrin, who wrote about falling into a deep depression for years upon returning to Earth after the first moon landing. This meant that it became important for Hadfield to try and connect his life aboard the space station much as possible with his life on Earth.

He explains that having the guitar he famously played Space Oddity on, or the laptop that he used to document his travels with, served a purpose beyond mere entertainment; they also became a way to reconnect with life back on Earth and defeat that supreme sense of isolation.

This is a man who, after such an exceptional career, manages to retain a great mix of humanism and pragmatism. He might have retired, but he continues to make his mark on this world by sharing with us what he has learned from the time he has spent outside it.

This desire to communicate the importance of space travel has defined Hadfield’s career. As he wrote shortly after the Challenger disaster, where the space shuttle broke apart just seconds into its flight, “As each of the fallen crew would tell you, exploration of the rest of Creation is fraught with complexity, challenge and risk, yet the benefit of understanding is infinitely worth the cost.”

We need to rethink the treatment of international students

0

I arrive in London on a midnight plane with my parents and sister. We walk up to the immigration counter and present our passports to the border control lady. She asks us a few questions that could be taken for a casual attempt at conversation. So far, so normal. Then she asks for our fingerprints — my sister’s and mine. She doesn’t ask  for my parents, because they’re tourists, but she asks us, because we are foreign and we live here.

An act of translation took place when I arrived in the UK three years ago. I became ‘international’. Not Singaporean, not ethnically Chinese (though sometimes that’s all some people can see), neither the president of my high school’s drama club, nor a girl who had been used to feeling attractive and generally well-liked. I became part of an amorphous, catch-all group defined not in relation to what we were, but what we were not. British students were ‘home’; we were the away team.

Taking our fingerprints at the gate was, on one level, entirely standard procedure, ensuring that we were who our visas said we were. But it was also an act that connoted suspicion and surveillance. It was an act that said, we know who you are, we know where to find you, and tabs must be kept on you because you do not belong here.

When I was a freshers’ rep for Exeter, we talked about the international students that no one ever sees, because they’re hidden in their rooms or hanging out with other students from their country. Everyone who talks about this unanimously agrees that it’s a shame that ‘international students don’t feel more like they’re part of the college community’ this is always phrased so as to point the finger at no one. But nobody talks about how this is rooted in the very system our university and this country employs. In spite of the fact that Oxford pursues a strategy of drawing ‘students and staff of the highest international calibre to the university’, no effort is made to dispel the impression received upon arrival  that international students are fundamentally unwelcome in this country. We are shut out from the financial safety net provided by our university or college bursaries, even as we are batteled every term for a contribution to them. We pay extortionate fees that simultaneously fund the education of home students and segregate us from them. Such are the contradictions of a migrant’s life.

I don’t have much more money than the average Oxford student — my university education comes out of my father’s retirement savings. Yet Oxford is privileged, in the global market for education, to have a near monopoly on the highest standards of learning in my subject; the price I pay for my time here is not that which I am happy to pay, but that which I have to pay.

There seems to be an unspoken assumption that international students are funded by wealthy benefactors, be it their parents or a scholarship board, and that they can therefore afford the extortionate overseas tuition fees. I challenge this notion: I can scarcely afford it, but I am paying it nonetheless. Over the past two years, my fees have quietly increased about £1800 from the original £18,620. If I were a home student, an increase of this size would undoubtedly have sparked a protest. But as an international student, I inhabit an artificial group with little solidarity or protesting power.

The psychological impact of what can seem like mere cosmetic differences is profound. The price international students pay to come to Oxford is not measured only in pounds, but in the years we miss of our aging parents’ lives, the siblings whose adolescence passes us by, and the friends at home who grow distant and strange. As a result, although we receive the same education as everyone else, our time here holds an ocean of meaning that separates us from home students. Our past lives have been sacrificed for the present. When the stern time limit on our visas expire, we will once again be leaving the place and community which we have tried to make our home. This is of course the inescapable plight of all migrants, but the lack of understanding and support shown by a university which claims to ‘offer environments which are…characterised by a defining and enduring sense of community’ is both uninspiring and hypocritical.

The energy that freshers’ reps put into making our colleges welcoming places fails to gloss over the deep, systemic apathy and antipathy towards foreigners that is so acutely felt. Is it any wonder few international students choose to invest in their communities here? The contradictions implicit in our higher fees send a message that is difficult to reconcile with the professed ‘friendliness’ of our colleges: we’d like you to contribute and conform, but not to belong.

Any international student who hopes to be accepted as part of their college community must try to forget about that which separates us from our friends, but no one can avoid the periodic reminders that we have given an inordinate measure of power over our lives to the government of a country that does not welcome us.

A recent trend in scholarship across disciplines has been to emphasize recovering and giving voice to the experience of marginalised and silenced communities; in our classes, we are taught to question structures of privilege and power, and we learn that blissful ignorance perpetuates injustice. It is with great joy that I see friends championing issues of homelessness, feminism, LGBT rights, poverty and more. But the greatest contradiction of my time at Oxford has been felt in the gap between the way we theorize about inclusiveness and the everyday experience of inhospitality and apathy that international students face.

Oriel disaffiliates from OUSU

0

Following a referendum carried out last term to disaffiliate from OUSU, Oriel College JCR has confirmed today their decision to break ties with the central Student Union.

This decision follows a long-lasting dispute over the JCR’s constitution after a motion was passed to sever links with OUSU last term. In the referendum, 76 out of 125 voters were in favour of disaffiliating from OUSU, with 37 against and 12 abstaining. But with only 60.8 per cent of the vote, the motion did not achieve the two-thirds majority necessary and was pronounced to have failed. However, issues were raised at the time concerning the validity of abstentions in such a vote. 

In a motion passed last Sunday, the JCR appointed an independent adjudicator, Dr Paul Yowell, a Law tutor at Oriel who specialises in constitutional law, who was to produce a report on the referendum, which was to be binding. The JCR meeting also passed a motion to explore a more general constitutional revision. The fellow is thought to have presented his report this week, only one week after he was tasked with the job, validating the motion and thus confirming Oriel’s break with OUSU. 

In a joint statement, the Oriel JCR President and Vice President last week said, “There were procedural issues stemming from a lack of concrete guidance in the JCR constitution, from which we are keen to move on in a constructive manner. In order to do so the JCR has asked an independent adjudicator to review the referendum and provide suggestions, which the JCR has agreed to accept as binding.”

Chief among the reasons for the decision to disaffiliate are the financial costs of running a student union which is preceived as providing little returns to the Oriel student body.

In an email sent to Oriel students on Sunday Night, Ianthe Greenwood, Oriel JCR President confirmed that “the motion to disaffiliate from OUSU for the remainder of the academic year passes”.

The email also included an explanation by Dr Paul Yowell, the independent adjudicator, highlighting his position, “The relevant provision in the JCR Constitution, provides: ‘Any referendum must be passed by a two thirds majority of all those voting in the same referendum’. It is my opinion that this language refers only to those who cast a vote either in favour of or against a referendum, and that the phrase ‘all those voting’ does not include someone who indicates the intention to abstain from voting. Thus, in deciding the outcome of a referendum vote, abstentions should not be counted as part of the total votes cast for determining whether the requirement of a two thirds majority is met.”

A second-year undergraduate at Oriel who seconded the original motion to propose a referendum told Cherwell, “It’s an unspoken fact that we all know OUSU is dominated by certain political cliques who use petty factional politics to further their own ends. I’m surprised they think they’re fooling anyone when these people claim its legitimate democracy, or that we can change anything from participation, as you will just be shot down. They can do this all they want, but not in our JCR’s name.”

OUSU President, Tom Rutland, was quick to point out last week that even if Oriel chooses to break links with OUSU, individual students remain affiliated with OUSU regardless of their JCR or MCR’s affiliation status.

“The common room affiliation model is largely outdated, and is a leftover of the age where OUSU was funded primarily by common room affiliation fees. These days, disaffiliation only results in that common room losing their votes at OUSU Council – thus silencing their members,” Rutland said.

“Given that OUSU Council’s voting membership is almost entirely made up of JCR and MCR representatives, the best way to effect a change in policy is to stay affiliated and have your members’ voices count at OUSU Council.”

Trinity is currently the only college disaffiliated from OUSU. Stuart Sander, JCR President at Trinity commented, “Trinity disaffiliated in 2007, during a period which saw a spate of OUSU disaffiliations. Following funding reforms which meant that OUSU affiliation did not directly cost JCRs money most of the disaffiliated colleges trickled back, so for the last few years Trinity has been the only disaffiliated JCR.” 

Trinity hold a referendum each year on whether to re-affiliate, and last Trinity term the JCR voted overwhelmingly to remain separate from OUSU. 

Graduate recruitment on the rise

0

UK graduate recruitment at top employers is on the rise in 2014 with vacancies for this year’s school leavers reaching record levels since 2007, according to the Standard.

Employers are set to raise graduate intakes by 8.7%, the biggest rise for 4 years, says one study by High Fliers Research. This is a big improvement given cuts in graduate vacancies during time of recession, followed by small rises/falls in graduate recruitment since. At the University of Oxford, the university reports that, nearly 95% of all leavers are in work or further study six months after leaving.

A study of 100 leading employers in the country found that employers in 11 out of 13 major employments areas will take on more graduates in 2014, with the largest rises in the public sector, accounting and professional services firms, investment banks in the City, retailers and engineering and industrial companies, which aim to recruit 1,200 extra graduates combined this year.

The median starting salary remains unchanged for new graduates at £29,000. Though a quarter of top graduate programmes will pay new staff with more than £35,000 and 10 organisations offering at least £40,000.

The report highlights graduate employers are offering record levels of paid work experience and internships this year to university students and recent graduates. Over half the recruiters highlighted in the research that those who had no previous work experience are unlikely to be successful.

Martin Birchall, Managing director of High Fliers Research said, “This very significant increase in graduate vacancies at Britain’s top employers means the job prospects for graduates leaving university this year are the best they’ve been since the start of the recession seven years ago.

“And there are more opportunities than ever for university students to get paid work experience with the country’s most sought-after graduate employers – together they are offering over 11,000 paid internships and work placements this year for first and second year undergraduates.”

Charlie Parkes, a first year PPE student at New College, commented that, “for me that’s a good thing.” Another student at New College added that, “I am delighted, I feel much more confident about my future.”

‘Quenelle’ controversy a cause for concern

0

Race storm by race storm, the comfortable fallacy that English football is immune to racism is being eroded. First Suarez and Terry, now Nicolas Anelka. The controversy surrounding the West Brom striker centres on his performing the ‘quenelle’ during a match in December.

This gesture, resembling an inverted Nazi salute, was popularised by the French ‘comedian’ Dieudonné M’bala M’bala, a man whose tasteful comic repertoire includes such classic gags as the ‘Shoananas’ song, a charming little number whose title is a portmanteau of ‘Shoah’ (the Hebrew word for the Holocaust) and ‘Ananas’ (French for pineapple). Other highlights of this visionary’s oeuvre include dancing onstage dressed as an orthodox Jew whilst throwing out Nazi salutes and shouting ‘Israheil’, and referring to Holocaust remembrance ceremonies as “memorial pornography”. He has been convicted of anti-Semitism eight times. Anelka claims the gesture was nothing more than a show of solidarity with Dieudonné, a close friend. In other news, Paolo di Canio is not actually a fascist; he just really likes Mussolini.

Apologists claim the quenelle is anti-establishment, not anti-Semitic. Photos depicting the performance of the gesture at Auschwitz, the Berlin holocaust memorial and the Jewish school in Toulouse where three children and a rabbi were murdered in 2012, suggest otherwise.

Moreover, insofar as the gesture is anti-establishment, that ‘establishment’, for Dieudonné and his following, is synonymous with the sinister ‘Jewish lobby’ that runs the world. Dieudonné’s subscription to this ‘Protocols’-esque view is clear enough in his stand-up routine. Thus, here, ‘antiestablishment’ is inseparable from ‘anti-Semitic’. The quenelle, then, is an anti-Semitic gesture.

There has been considerable frustration at the time it has taken for the FA to conclude its investigation into Anelka’s actions. However, this outrage seems misdirected; there are aspects of the controversy which are worse than mere bureaucratic inefficiency. Take, for example, the frankly pathetic response of ‘Kick It Out’, the anti-racism campaign part-funded by the FA. For weeks, the organisation stayed silent, until heroically breaking ranks on 15th January to proclaim that it was “very frustrated” at the investigation’s slow pace. ‘Kick It Out’ did not condemn Anelka’s actions; this, we are told, is protocol. What, then, is the point of a campaign that aims to change people’s perceptions, but whose only public role is re-affirming the decisions of the organisation that funds it? ‘Kick It Out’ needs to be as bold as its name suggests.

Far more worrying, however, is West Brom’s reaction. Even after the implications of Anelka’s actions had become clear – following caretaker manager Downing’s initial claim that complaints were “absolute rubbish” – the club remained unmoved. In a statement, they merely “acknowledge[d] that Nicolas’ goal celebration has caused offence… and has asked Nicolas not to perform the gesture again”, offering no apology. The same lack of contrition, indeed, applies to Anelka himself. If, as he implies, he is not an anti-Semite, why has he not displayed the common human sensitivity to apologise for the offence caused by what he, surely, considers to be one great big misunderstanding? The silence, in this case, is offensive in itself.

Football, it seems, will never learn. No matter how many games he is banned for, Terry will still be ‘captain, leader, legend’ to the Chelsea faithful; Suarez will remain the hero of the Kop. In continuing to support and play Anelka, and refusing to express disapproval until their hand is, inevitably, forced, West Brom seem bent on perpetuating this twisted tradition – a tradition in which footballing ability trumps all

Women’s Blues give Brookes a bashing

0

The onslaught started innocuously enough. After eight minutes of largely uninspired football between Oxford University Women’s 1st team and their cross-city rivals from Brookes 1sts, the latter were awarded a free kick just over the halfway line. The ensuing restart was mis-hit, however, and fell straight to the feet of Lucie Bowden. Capitalizing on the error, Bowden sent a clever ball down the middle to Tina Gough, who was through on goal only to be abruptly halted by an impressive tackle from a backtracking Brookes defender.

The Oxford side built on this show of intent, and soon enough the Blues were ahead, with Gough latching onto a mistake made by the Brookes goalkeeper and putting them into a 1-0 lead.

A 1-0 win would have been sufficient enough. However, much to the joy of the hearty hundreds who came out to Iffley to watch the renewal of a crosstown rivalry on Saturday evening, the Oxford women continued to play on top form. By the time the full-time whistle blew, the Blues had run roughshod over their opponents, to the tune of an easy 6-0 victory that marked their fourth straight win in a run going back to last term.

The Blues seemed energized by their opening goal and firmly stamped their authority on the game in the proceeding moments, reeling off a five-minute stretch of possession in which Brookes failed to clear the ball out of their own end. That stretch was finally ended in the 15th minute, when Brookes’ attacking midfielder threaded a neat pass through three defenders to an on-rushing striker. But her path to the goal was stopped by an aggressive Anna Green, who sprinted to the edge of the box and easily smothered the attack – and Brookes’ only real chance of equalizing.

Two minutes later, the Blues doubled their advantage, with Gough again finishing the job. This time, she ran down a looping ball over the top of the defence on the right side and coolly slotted a left-footed shot just inside the far post.

With Bowden and Gough wreaking havoc down the right with a series of neat exchanges, it seemed only a matter of time before the latter would pick up a hat-trick. Sure enough, she did so, tapping home an easy rebound in the 68th minute to open the second half’s scoring.

Further goals, courtesy of Laura Jennings and Mandy Rojek, made it 5-0. Yet this still was not enough for the Blues, who continued to send numbers forward and scored a sixth goal with under ten minutes to play when a glorious Gough pass Jennings through on goal with a glorious pass, where Jennings tucked away her second of the evening.

In the end, it was such a thorough performance from the Blues that head coach Sarah Queralt found little to criticize. “It was all plusses today, there’s very little we can work from the negative point of view,” said Queralt. She also singled out the performance of Bowden and newcomer Katharine Nutman for their cohesion in the central midfield for praise.

Despite the Blues’ convincing victory, their inner-city rivals remain two points clear in their BUCS division with three fixtures to go. The Blues and Brookes are not done with each other just yet either, as the two sides will meet once again on 12th February in the Last 16 of the BUCS Midlands Conference Cup