Monday, May 5, 2025
Blog Page 1533

Review: Palma Violets – 180

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

No doubt Palma Violets are soon to be widely hailed as the next big thing, the ‘saviours of rock n’ roll’ here to save us all from the mere mortals that have been clogging the system for far too long, with their first offering: 180.

Playing secret gigs at an exclusive venue in South London and releasing a free preview of their forthcoming album seems to tie in with the modern dynamic of an indie ‘guitar band’, that NME claimed “it’s time to get very excited about” in May last year. However, all these biblical claims and acts of ‘indieness’ point to exactly what is wrong with the whole affair. It’s nothing new.

Introducing the album, ‘Best of Friends’ attempts to set an epic scene that is never quite met. The single, released last year, is easily comparable to anything from The Vaccines’ back catalogue with lazy lyrics such ‘I wanna be your best friend, I don’t want you to be my girl’ telling a clichéd love story with an equally clichéd sound that loosely resembles Babyshambles’ Down in Albion but with a slightly less sincere result. Tracks such as ‘Set up for the Cool Cats’ and ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ start with a more convincing atmospheric backdrop which is reminiscent of late ’60s psychedelic rock.

The Violets have been compared to a number of bands from this period and genre, and with good reason: the vocals on ‘Cool Cats’ could easily be those of Jim Morrison and the whole album has an air of the psychedelic to it with its loose grooves and echo-laden distorted riffs. With various easily made comparisons to Joy Division, Velvet Underground and other such indie royalty, reinforced by a fan club including Nick Cave and Bernard Cave (both spotted at a recent gig at Glasgow’s King Tut’s) Palma Violets’ prospects look promising. Pulp’s Steve Mackey at the head of production duties adds yet another level of legitimacy to what is, to all intents and purposes, a very listenable album by a band that I would definitely enjoy live. The problem is that it’s just all been done before, and smacks of a tried and tested formula that’s unlikely to stand the test of time.

Review: Chutney & Chips

0

Oxford’s annual Asian theater show, ‘Chutney & Chips’, was back at it last week, delighting crowds who streamed in to St John’s Garden Quad Auditorium for one of four performances. Nisha Julka’s original script combined traditional Bollywood tropes–love triangles, song and dance, and comic relief–artfully in a way that spoke to the Oxford audience. The core conflict in the production was about what it means to be both Indian and British; yes, just like “Bend It Like Beckham,” but situated at Oxford and in which the main characters don’t play soccer but rather act in a play. And though that sounds irreverently self-referential (oh, a play about characters who act in a play), the whole thing does–perhaps surprisingly–work. Chutney & Chips is enjoyable because it doesn’t take itself too seriously. 

The great strength of the production is the infusion of Bollywood into anything and everything. The thorough celebration of all-things Indian makes the thematic conclusion of the play never in doubt–Jeevan will, of course, reconnect with his Indian roots and get the girl that he loves. I found Chutney & Chips’s exuberance of India exhilarating  The costumes are wonderful rich and Indian to a T. The opening 10-minute Bharatanatyam sequence is well-executed and sets the scene for the rest of the play: there ain’t nothin more Indian than Bharatanatyam.

The token white characters (yes, Bollywood films have them too) had the innocuous names of Dave and Sonia. But Dev and Sonia are Indian names too, and Chutney & Chips makes a strong case against racial exclusivity: the point here is that anyone can be Indian, no matter the color of skin or accent of voice. Indeed, Chutney & Chips’s message of pan-Indian universalism is something that Indians themselves should take to heart–too often it seems that India is riven by internal rivalries: Hindu v Muslim, north v south, caste v caste, etc.

The strongest part of Chutney & Chips is how well song and dance was integrated into the production. From the opening Bharatanatyam sequence to the closing Harlem Shake, everything was just fun. Including, incidentally, the scene that used Some Nights by fun. The seeming randomness when dance would break out was just awesome: the needlessness of the dance scenes is what makes Bollywood Bollywood, and Chutney & Chips captured it perfectly. The best dance was the impromptu red repairmen dance at Bridge. It sounds ridiculous, and it was. But so good.

The use of music was strong as well. I wouldn’t want to take the music director in a round of Antakshari–I’d get hosed. Clearly these guys know their stuff, and they chose the exact right music for the right scenes. The wide range of music, from classical Indian to Western pop, was excellent. Even better was how the music was integrated into the plot. I don’t know of a better song than Pretty Woman for that moment when Dave met Sonia, and Jeevan’s strumming of Ladki Bardi Anjanni Hai was perfect.

I enjoyed the simple sets and props. The totality of props included a few tables, chairs, a bed, and a broom. But even these items tell a story. For example, the set director somehow found an old palang to use–a cheap bed to Western eyes, but so much more to Indians in the know. I nearly gasped when I saw it rolled on to stage: I mean, that’s what I sleep on when I go back to India.

The acting was varied throughout the performance. The highlight, no doubt, was the passionately comedic performance of the character Mukesh (Johnny Lever beaten at his own game, dare I say). Continuing with the ‘play-within-a-play’ motif, Mukesh is told that he is the breakout character in the play-within-a-play. While that’s not true, Mukesh certainly was the breakout in Chutney & Chips. He was sassy and sexy, and you can’t beat unzipping blue coveralls to expose a full tux underneath (very Bondish). The other strong performance was the bit piece of Jeevan’s high school girlfriend’s over-protective older brother. He gets to beat up Jeevan, and actually does. Those kicks hit real ribs, and I’d hate to see the bruises day-after. The fight was certainly better than the stale Bollywood fight scenes of the 80s.

Unfortunately, most of the emotional scenes (particularly when Jeevan confided in Rachana) didn’t seem exactly right. The actors had trouble expressing openness and love between one another. Luckily our amateur actors have at least 5 years to learn these emotions before their parents marry them off in arranged marriages. Paging Dr. Mukesh from Chandigarh.

I had two other criticisms of the performance. First, Chutney & Chips suffered from something that all Bollywood films and old Indian aunties can commiserate with: bloat. The performance was perhaps 15 minutes too long.

My second criticism is more substantive, however. Thematically, Chutney & Chips played it too safe. There is nothing outre in the three couples of Jeevan and Rachana, Chirag and Shivani, and Dave and Sonia. All are heterosexual, and each pair is racially homogeneous. Unfortunately while Indian film today is pushing boundaries on sexuality, race, and religion, Chutney & Chips was uncomfortably blase. Indeed, the only stirring of social criticism in the script is the portrayal of child marriage, though Balika Vadhu does a better job in that regard.

Chutney & Chips 2013 was a strong performance, and I look forward to the 2014 iteration. I will certainly be there, and I hope to see you too.

Photo Competition Winner! ANIMALS

0

CONGRATULATIONS to Bithia Large, winner of our ‘ANIMALS’ photo competition! Here’s her winning shot

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%7081%%[/mm-hide-text]

We had some lovely things in this week, so we’ve also picked a runner up. Congratulations Rachel Hutchings!

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%7082%%[/mm-hide-text]

Thank you to all our entries, we’ve loved seeing your interpretations of the themes throughout the term. As always, all of our competition winners can be found on the Cherwell Photo Flickr page 

Cherwell tries: real tennis

0

The general reaction to telling people that I was trying out Real Tennis was ‘you mean just tennis?’ or, as one member of Oxford University Tennis Club (OUTC) told me he often gets, an ironic ‘as opposed to fake tennis?’ Real Tennis is, in fact, what we know to be ‘normal’ tennis’s predecessor. Originally invented by the French aristocracy, the game moved over here in the medieval ages, developing in lawn tennis (now normal tennis). That is a lot of tennis.

Real Tennis is played on an inside court, of which there are only 45 in use in the world. The only court in Oxford is on Merton Road and is the second oldest court in England, dating back from 1798. Luckily I didn’t realise this until after playing, otherwise I would not have been whacking the ball around quite so haphazardly. Differing from what we know as Tennis, all courts are differently shaped, sized and structured but maintain common features, such as the kink in the main wall, known as a ‘tambour’, netted galleries, and a ‘grille’, a box-like indent in the wall, tucked in one corner. The whole thing looks like Picasso trying to draw a squash court: all angles and slopes.

To match the complicated court, the game also has complicated rules. These were somewhat simplified and dumbed down for me, but still a lot of smiling and nodding went on whilst I tried to process exactly what a ‘chase’ is and why it doesn’t involve running after the other player like its name suggests. One rule I did easily comprehend, however, is that unlike the tennis we know, the serve only happens from one side of the court- the ‘service’ end as opposed to the ‘hazard’ end (not as dangerous as its name implies).

Generally the point scoring works in the same way as Tennis does- 15, 30, 40 etc. but points can also be instantly won by hitting the ball into the grille, the ‘dedans’ (a netted space at the service end) or a certain part of the gallery. As if just hitting the ball over the net isn’t enough. Here is also where the ‘chase’ element comes in- if your opponent misses the ball and it bounces twice, the point at where the second bounce occurs is measured against lines on the floor. When the game reaches match point, the players change ends and your opponent must beat your ‘chase’- that is, the ball must double bounce at a point closer to that back wall than yours did. 

Needless to say, trying to remember all of this whilst tracking the ball which is careering off of various angles and surfaces is not easy. It is, however, apparently highly addictive. Some members train ten times a week, an impressive feat considering I’m pretty proud if I squeeze in more than one training session of squash a week, and even then moan that I’m doing too much exercise. The club is open to anyone, and has a mixture of older, more experienced players and students.

Having thought six years of playing badminton and a term’s worth of squash would help, I went in feeling confident. However, the heavy and powerful racquets means a requirement to lock the wrist when you play, and the ball does not need to be hit very hard. Six years’ worth of flicking the wrist to perfect a drop shot in badminton did me no favours here, neither did my tendency to whack the ball with a full squash swing, which simply saw it either fly unexpectedly far out of control or land in a heap just short of the net. It evidently is a game more concerned with skill and tactics than sheer power, the requirements which saw OUTC dominate over Cambridge in their Varsity match last weekend. 

Netballers in double Varsity win

0

Oxford University Netball Club had much to celebrate last Sunday as they recorded a historic double Varsity win on Cambridge’s home turf.

Kicking off proceedings was the second team match, between the Oxford Roos and Cambridge Jays. Despite Oxford retaining most of the possession, due to too many missed shots Cambridge were ahead by one goal after the first quarter. Oxford went into the second quarter with a renewed calmness and clear intention to do some damage. Far more patient play paid dividends with a frustrated Cambridge unable to turn over much ball. GS Annabelle Trotter had a particularly outstanding quarter scoring a risky long-distance shot with less than five seconds to go, leaving the Roos up 13-11 at half time.

The third quarter saw the Roos come into their own, with far more consistent shooting from the nippy pairing of Trotter and Captain Becky Waller. Lumbering defence by Cambridge allowed WA and Player of the Match Libby Stephens to sneak through some punishingly cheeky feeds to the shooters. At the defensive end, the circle looked far more confident, with Grace Buck and Ailsa Keyser swapping to play GK and GD respectively. Buck, returning from a long-term knee injury sustained at the 2012 Varsity Match, stole several rebounds from the Jays’ shooters with Keyser flying around the midcourt to make a series of sparkling interceptions.

The fourth quarter saw a strong fight back from Cambridge, and a return to some nervy play by the Dark Blues taking the score to a tense 25-25. However, following some solid defence by Jenkins and a memorable clean interception from Waller, Oxford won back the lead.

Showing a maturity and consistency which has been lacking in previous years, the final score was 30-27, with the 13-strong Roos squad deservedly ecstatic at their first win over the Jays in five years. 

The appetite of the strong Oxford supporting contingent had been whet following the tense hour of play. Raring to go for the Blues match, there was a real energy  within the crowd, which was bolstered by members of Oxford’s rugby, basketball and korfball clubs fresh from their own games.

Clearly feeling the pressure, the Blues’ match began at a blistering pace, with WA Sascha Eady getting away with some signature risk-taking feeds straight to the towering figure of GS Natalie Redgrave, who converted easily, helping to a 12-9 lead at the break.

Coach Trish Kilczynski asked the players to keep calm, but apparently her words didn’t quite ring clear – with balls flying off the baselines of both teams going into the second quarter. The contest between Club Captains Sarah Godlee (GA, Oxford) and Chloe Maine (GD, Cambridge) was scintillating, with both players fighting for every single ball, and Godlee winning several contact calls allowing her to score with a cool finish which has come to be expected of her over a standout year. The Cambridge GK, who had an extremely hard job against a shooter many inches taller than her, fought hard under the post, but any turnover she made was swiftly won back by Oxford’s defence and brought swiftly back to the attack.

Trailing by 7 points at the half-way stage, the Light Blues appeared to run out of steam in the second half and the match finally slowed down a little. Oxford’s quick-flowing ball movement and pace killed any chance of a comeback, building them a 10-goal lead. The final quarter saw Godlee move back to GA, shooting goals from all around the circle. Knowing they had the lead, the defence began to take some more risks, with fresher McLaren stealing several flys and England international Layla Guscoth making some incredible blocks on the shot: a feat that is rarely seen at this level. This athleticism and her command of the circle in partnership with Beaumont earned her the Player of the Match award from the umpires.

A slightly anticlimactic end to the final quarter saw Oxford extend their lead and maintain their high quality netball, the final score a magnificent 53-35. With a two-goal extension on last year’s record-breaking winning margin, and a positive fighting attitude instilled into the club by both captains, there is much to indicate that this is a new era for OUNC. With Captain-elect Eady taking the reins in Trinity Term, and Redgrave, who famously “doesn’t lose at Varsity” staying for another season, the Light Blues must already be dreading their return to Oxford for the prestigious Varsity Match next year.

Swapping Wahoo for Wembley

0

I have long been able to at first confuse, and then annoy, people in Oxford by referring to myself simply as a ‘City’ fan. When I ask for the City result, I am hit with any number of random scorelines from across the country. This is partly because I am simply not used to the need to clarify – back home ‘City’ is enough – and partly out of my own stubborn adherence to the habits of a lifetime. Down here, the assumption is usually that I have been tempted by the Sheikh’s billions into donning the sky blue of the ‘Etihad’. If not then perhaps Norwich, Birmingham, or, in the case of my misguided neighbour from the South West, that I had decided to join the Cider Army and follow Bristol City as they bump along the bottom of the Championship. Even Swansea has come up. It never occurs that it might be Bradford City I’m talking about. At least, it never used to.

Now I think the days of having my claret and amber scarf get me mistaken for a Harry Potter enthusiast are behind me. We have been on the world stage this week – even if our time there was spent getting absolutely hammered (I mean this in reference to the score on Sunday, but it’s probably a pretty accurate description of the state in which most city fans spent the weekend). When I got back to Oxford I half expected one of the hordes of tourists I was fighting through to recognise my shirt. Maybe they would want to ask me how James Hanson generates so much movement in the box when the rest of the time he’s about as agile as the Rad Cam. Or why our Chairman Mark Lawn looks so much like a marshmallow.

That, along with countless Bradfordian daydreams of an improbable Europa League run, proved to be a fantasy. Nonetheless, in the days following our high-profile obliteration I have tried to take the pragmatic, philosophical view. So were outclassed in every conceivable way by a team operating on a plane that Gary Jones can barely even dream of. So our first and last shot on target was a tame effort in the 88th minute. So it was a record margin of victory in a League Cup Final (I’m going to end this list before I get upset again). So what? I have seen my beloved local side play at Wembley in a major cup final. I have seen them beat three premier League sides. I have seen our ground full for the first time in a decade.

And yet. As I sat on Sunday night in a strangely quiet London boozer, surrounded by fellow City fans ruefully nursing their pints, it was difficult not to look back with regret on what might have been. We were so close.  Probably closer than we’ll ever be again in my lifetime. You can’t walk away from Wembley having seen your team get pumped without experiencing a sense of acute devastation, no matter the achievements that have gone before. In spite of the obvious gulf in class, we had beaten Wigan, Arsenal and Villa – I couldn’t help wondering at the start of the weekend if we couldn’t go all the way.

I got a train down on the Saturday morning so my first task was to cut through an all-consuming post Wahoo fug in order to get to the station in time. The week had been spent absorbing every piece of build-up and media analysis it is possible for a human being to read or watch. Biographies of Edward Gibbon didn’t get a look in unfortunately – Oxford life was postponed for the purposes of the biggest football match of my life. Walking through the tunnel and out onto the stand at Wembley really is an unforgettable experience, especially when you’re greeted by 30,000 Bantams. It’s worth remembering that our highest attendance in modern times was the 24,000 we had at Valley Parade against Arsenal, making Sunday one of the biggest ever gatherings of Bradford City fans. The giant banner remembering the 56 who died in the 1985 fire was a poignant reminder of how far we’d come. The last half hour became an opportunity to show our gratitude and pride in a team that had come so far, when the game was gone and all that was left to do was to ‘sing yer heart out for the lads’.            

But now that’s done, and the media will go back to covering Torres’ new hairstyle. Meanwhile there’s a job to do. We’ve got Dagenham and Redbridge on Wednesday, and we could really do with the three points.

Review: Mama

0

Mama began life in 2008 as a three -minute short, but in expansion to feature-length it has been a victim of mutation. Andres Muschietti has put his film on the rack and painfully stretched it until, weirdly, it has ended up as nothing at all – not scary, not sad, not clever…dragged out from what was ostensibly a clip.
And it shows.

The Mum-off between the mutated tree-woman (an estranged cousin of Pocahontas’ more benevolent Old Mother Willow; why she appears to
be half-tree is never actually explained.) and Jessica Chastain is developed without subtlety, and nowhere is the failure clearer than when the smaller
of the two insipid girls is taken by the woman, and you just don’t care.
Which you probably should, about the untimely death of an 8-year-old.

The film breaks the fundamental rule of horror by revealing its fear-figure within the first two seconds. And it’s like the moment when you realise Jeepers Creepers is a giant gorilla with wings, or that the girl from The Ring is just a slightly damp child in need of a haircut. But here it happens so early on in the film that you have yet to associate any fear with her. So there she is, for
the rest of the film, present without eliciting any response at all, other than confusion as to why her face has been CGI-ed to resemble a self-portrait of the sort found on class tea-towels from primary school. A face only a
Mama could love.

And it’s just. So. Bad. Like the love child of Helena Bonham-Carter and one of the aliens from Signs. In a dress. And not in a scary way. In the sort of anti-climactic way which, instead of compounding an already paralysing sensation of fear, totally obliterates any notion of horror or even interest you might be experiencing.

The Woman in Black is the winner of this game of hide-and-reveal: fleeting glimpses and fragments, creepy handprints and unidentifiable noises right up until you’re too scared lift a finger, let alone turn it off or leave the room. A really good fear-figure has to lurk in the shadows, appearing only when you’ve
already slapped your disproportionately sweaty palms to your increasingly contorted face more times than is appropriate for your age-range.

The key is the mask: Jigsaw has his puppet, and his lackies in hogheads, Mr Texas Chainsaw has his skin-mask, there’s the bag-on-headchild of El Orfanato (another of del Toro’s ‘production’ collaborations), so why couldn’t this one stick to the tried and tested fear gear?

The lack of suspense caused by a premature reveal denies the audience any real climax: leaving it frustratingly unsatisfied, not only by the promise of del Toro’s touch, which is absent throughout the film, but also by an emotionally impotent final scene, and a very real sense of wasted hours.

Plight of the Screenwriter

0

Ever heard of William Nicholson? Apparently he’s a screenwriter. A pretty successful screenwriter. The screen writer of Gladiator and Les Miserables in fact. So, why isn’t his name plastered over all the posters? Didn’t he write the damned things?

Screen writers, Nicholson said in an OUFF talk this week, have a hard time. Want to be a screenwriter? Think about it carefully. We highly intelligent, emotionally sensitive types probably haven’t got a chance. Screenwriters need to be able to take a lot of rejection. “Be prepared to have your work ripped to
shreds, criticised, ignored.” Heartening stuff.

Nicholson left Cambridge with a degree in English Literature, having invested his time in “learning to not be clever”. He subsequently spent 15 years trying to be a latter-day Proust, with a day job at the BBC, before finally giving up on his high-brow dream and turning to TV. Writing for TV, he muses, has an interesting future. “TV serials can work like novels; they have the time to really develop character in a way that a two-hour film simply can’t.”

Once you’ve been in the industry you develop a sort of zen. Every director has made an awful film (even Stanley Kubrick – did you see Eyes Wide Shut?); every director is hoping to make a great one.

Nicholson was the third screenwriter brought onto the Gladiator set. A remarkable number of films, he tells us, start filming without a decent script. The producer picks a screenwriter, and later a director, and then the actors appear, and the crew, and everyone assumes that at some point in that process the script will become ready. Sometimes it just isn’t. 

On Gladiator, working alongside filming, Nicholson got to see which parts were working and which weren’t. They soon realised Joaquin Phoenix was great, he says, and expanded his part.

“Writing a screen play is not about dialogue; it’s about the story. It’s creating pictures on paper. Some write screen plays like nineteenth century novels, others just write noises.” “Write quickly”, he advises. It doesn’t take weeks to perfect a sentence. And you’ll be drafting and redrafting quite a bit.

“What I do,” he says, “is listen to the criticism my scripts are given, and realise
that yes, maybe those bits aren’t working.” But what he does not do is listen to anyone else’s advice about how to fix those bits; that’s his problem to solve.

“Screenwriters, at least for Hollywood, are underrated. In TV they get a bit more credit. The director swings onboard and takes it as his, or her, movie. But the direction doesn’t really matter,” Nicholson quips. “What you need is a good script, and good actors. And with that, the director doesn’t need to do much.”

Of course, there are truly great directors – he doesn’t deny that – but let’s all spare a thought for the screenwriter.