Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 1573

Look, but don’t touch

0

Wandering down Ship Street, next to the far more conventional Heroes’ café, it is Unicorn’s window, brimming with a sea of dust-coasted books, garments and accessories that first catches your eye. From what I recall, the display hasn’t changed in two years and its disorganization means that everyone but the most tenacious of shoppers and the most perseverant of vintage obsessees is immediately deterred.

If the shop is open, which is by no means a certainty, you will find yourself occupying an uncomfortably large capacity of the three-foot floor space, with Iva, Unicorn’s founder and sole worker for thirty years. It is Iva that lends Unicorn its multiple idiosyncrasies.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6609%%[/mm-hide-text]

Having crossed the threshold, it is hard to know where to begin. The shop is always in a state of transition and frequently resembles some sort of modern art installation, but it has, in recent times, improved. Last year the clothes were half on the floor and half on the rails in a disorganized jumble. This year, however, rails have been ordered by garment type, but are so overloaded that it renders browsing impossible and I have twice been in the shop when a rail has collapsed under the weight.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6610%%[/mm-hide-text]

To her credit, Iva really does know her stock and will quickly dive into a pile of trench coats and mismatched handbags to dig out the bowling hat that you’ve requested, but the problem with her sales technique lies in the fact that she never really seems keen on selling anything.

Indeed, as I ask for the hat’s price she tells me that it doesn’t suit me and that it is designed for a man’s head. My companion is told that the dress she has yet to try on (there is no fitting room) won’t suit her body shape. You can’t help but feel you have gone shopping with your mother. Whilst Iva’s approach is a breath of fresh air against a backdrop of overly sycophantic and false flatteries from the mouths of other shops’ assistants, honesty is not always the best policy, especially given the slim pickings of Oxford’s vintage scene.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6611%%[/mm-hide-text]

Whilst I’m sure there is some gold to be discovered amongst Unicorn’s produce, the overwhelming feeling that you are invading Iva’s walk-in wardrobe does little to facilitate hours of browsing. The on-the-spot, extortionate pricing, characteristic of so much vintage merchandise nowadays is also enough to discourage you from making a purchase. You will not regret a trip to Unicorn, but go with the desire to buy only secondary to that of acquiring hilarious anecdotes from the shop’s unpredictable owner.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6612%%[/mm-hide-text]

Preview: Angels in America

0

 Cherwell’s Verdict
“Angelic performances break up some heavy material”

Set in New York in the 80s, Angels in America sees a community of young homosexual men being torn apart by the AIDS crisis. The art, however, of this script is that in every scene when you might want to cry, you’ll want to laugh too. Humour pervades the play, which – cunningly – only serves to make the terror of the situation all the more horrific. Playhouse student shows often play it safe. Recently we’ve had Arthur Miller’s A View from the Bridge – not his greatest play, but one that features on GCSE syllabuses. There’s been Sondheim, Pinter, Chekhov – all of them household names. But now Oxford will see something genuinely unusual: Angels in America, a three hour play that verges on opera, by Tony Kushner.

The cast bring the comic quality of the script across excellently. Nor do they ham it up and descend into pantomimic camp to portray homosexuality, even though every male character is homosexual and every actor heterosexual. The relationship between Prior Walter (played by Ed Barr-Sim) and Louis Ironson (Arty Froushan) was believable; it was tender, too.

The script’s exploration of the politics surrounding the AIDS crisis manages to be both delicate and bludgeoning. During the main plot issues are alluded to, implied and suggested, but the sub-plot – that of Roy Cohn, a vicious McCarthyist lawyer (played by Barney White), as his diagnosis is revealed to him – treats the politics of the situation like an essay topic to be explicated and laid bare. This sub-plot is at least saved – as much as it can be – by White’s compelling performance and the historical interest (Cohn was a real person).

Angels in America had just over a week to go till opening night when I saw it, and it was shaping up impressively. All the actors – not just those already mentioned – were performing at a very high standard; all that seemed left to do was to polish the scenes so that they would shine, rather than just glow. The technical side of things sounds promising – not only do we get flying flats, we’ll have a flying actress too. The music, which, opera-like, will be played throughout the play, is entirely original and is currently being recorded. Nor will their director, Jack Sain, pare down the energy any time soon; “it is good to be obsessive,” to use his own words. 

Preview: The Handmaid’s Tale

0

Cherwell’s Verdict
“Not Maid for the faint-hearted” 

If The Handmaid’s Tale is set in a world of suppression and autonomy, then the cast of this operatic version of Atwood’s novel is a far cry from the society they reproduce. With roles passed merrily around the group over the course of different scenes, musicians becoming actors and singers becoming dancers, the overall effect adds to the abstract atmosphere of the story whilst also rallying a tightly-knit and highly cooperative cast.

A group of enthused undergrads and postgrads have got together to write, perform and stage the production, which, whilst closely based on the book, exploits the full potential of the Jacqueline du Prés music room as a space for sound, dance, and visual effects. I am told that one moment of the opera will consist of all the pianos in the building being played simultaneously with the internal doors open to create a homogenous mass of noise, the floor of the acting space is to be a scrabble-board, and projections on the balcony will create various effects and backdrops.

The use of space is certainly highly original. I watched the on-going rehearsal from the stage looking down into the area usually used by the audience but wrongly assumed this was a temporary arrangement. The audience for this particular production will be treated to a place on the floor literally at the feet of the actors; later they will be moved up onto the raised stage where I sat and view the production at the eye-level of an actor, a surprisingly more engaging experience which cuts out the all too familiar situation of leaning backwards in the seat, squinting with an aching neck at the actors above. Yet the balcony of the concert hall is also put to use, and actors emerge singing and spitting from underneath the stage itself. ‘Spitting’ is no exaggeration unfortunately; within innovative and haunting melodies from all members of the cast (a duet between Ellen Timothy and Anna Appleby re-enacting the perverse ‘ceremony’ of reproduction in Atwood’s dystopia was particularly striking), is a slightly heavy-handed tendency for experimental musicianship.

Repeated words, stuttering consonants, wordless a capella and ad lib singing combine to make much of the music indistinguishable from the rest – you certainly won’t leave this opera singing your favourite tunes Gilbert-and-Sullivan style – yet this is hardly the point. Their aim is to shock, to experiment and to challenge, and in this they will almost undoubtedly succeed.

Union drops Nick Griffin invitation

0

A letter from the Oxford Union inviting MEP and leader of the British National Party Nick Griffin to speak in Thursday’s debate on same-sex marriage was published on an anti-fascist blog yesterday afternoon, prompting a hasty retraction.

The leader of the far-right party was asked to speak on the motion ‘This house would be glad to have gay parents’. In a statement released shortly afterwards, the Union “rescinded the invitation in no uncertain terms”, describing it as an “error.”

Griffin has reacted angrily to the Union’s statement on his Twitter account, railing against what he called “disgraceful cowardice”.

The letter, published at the Hope Not Hate blog, which monitors far-right activity in the UK, appeared to be written in the name of, and undersigned by, the Union president.

It promised Griffin that the Union would “guarantee [him] a great welcome in Oxford” and he could expect a keen audience, “many of whom are European”.

However, the Union claimed that a new Secretary’s Committee member, who had “arbitrarily sent out a batch of invitations to several people”, was responsible. It maintained that the letters had not been cleared by senior members, and said, “We stress that the invitation, though it may have looked official, was not signed off by the President, and was not made on behalf of the Oxford Union.”

As well as failing to rescind the request, the same committee member also sent out unapproved invitations to Mitt Romney and Lady Gaga. The Union resolved to take “disciplinary action” against the individual in question.

It is not clear how the letter was obtained. Hope Not Hate told Cherwell, “We’re making absolutely no comment as to where we receive any of our information on the far-right. However, we are glad that the Oxford Union has seen sense and rescinded the invite to Nick Griffin.”

The letter made reference to Griffin’s 2007 Union visit, describing it as “thought provoking and stimulating”. Griffin’s appearance alongside Holocaust-denying historian David Irving drew in hundreds of protestors, and a sit-down protest in the debate chamber resulted in clashes with security guards. Griffin compared the protestors to Nazis, and described them as a “mob which would kill”.

The Union stated that it “commends the work” of Hope Not Hate, which has since published clarification. In relation to the BNP, it said, “The Oxford Union does not wish to be associated with the BNP in any way whatsoever. We strongly disagree with their views. It is unfortunate and deeply regrettable that this miscommunication has occurred.”

Responding on Twitter, Griffin wrote, “Oxford Union debating society having surrendered to leftist threats & rescinded my debate invitation, now ‘commends the work’ of left thugs.”

He has threatened to turn up nonetheless, tweeting, “If I get back from parliament I’ll go anyway. As a life member of the Cambridge Union I have reciprocal membership.”

The Oxford Union confirmed this arrangement, stating, “As long as they are neither creating a disturbance nor posing a threat to others, no paying members of the Oxford Union, nor members of the Cambridge Union, who hold reciprocal membership, will be denied access to the Union and its facilities within opening hours.”

The news comes in the wake of arguments over another of the Union’s invitees this term, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

LGBTQ Society President Simone Webb commented, “[Griffin] isn’t the person to present the most well-thought-out arguments against same gender parents.”

“He was probably invited due to his controversial image. However, I think this is different in nature to Assange’s invite, as Griffin was being invited to a debate where his views would be explicitly challenged.”

Regarding Griffin’s vow, Webb suggested, “If anyone turns up to the Union who is not a member, guest or invited speaker I see no reason why they should be allowed in. But were he to be admitted, I am confident his views would meet with vigorous challenge.”

The debate, on the motion ‘This house would be glad to have gay parents’, will take place at the Oxford Union on Thursday at 8.30pm. 

 

Golden Globes: Round-Up

0

The Golden Globes are Hollywood’s hybrid event; a bit like the Oscars but also a bit like the BAFTAS, judged by the comparatively tiny Hollywood Press Association. However, they always make for an interesting night, slightly less grandiose than their weepier counterparts and with a history of entertaining hosts.

This year’s shenanigans were led by America’s comedy darlings, SNL team Tina Fey and Amy Poehler. Following the much talked about show hosted by David Brent, sorry, Ricky Gervais, they were a guaranteed success, prodding fun at the eternally mockable Hollywood acting circle whilst remaining light hearted and engaging.

Though the Golden Globes looks like a pretty good night out, it is more often considered to be the indicator of who is going to be giving an overlong speech come the Oscars. Apart from the TV nominees, of course. They probably won’t be invited. However, this year saw the field blown wide open as Ben Affleck won Best Director and his film Argo pipped the tipped Lincoln for Best Film Drama Award. (It’s ok, Stephen Spielberg. You’ll live.) Jessica Chastain deservedly took the Best Actress in Drama Award for controversial Zero Dark Thirty, whilst Christopher Waltz proved his ever growing popularity with a win for Django Unchained.

Nevertheless, some things seem set in gold, with Daniel Day Lewis scooping a Best Actor in Drama award for Lincoln (he’s probably still in period dress) and Les Misérables taking Best Picture – Musical or Comedy.

Awards aside, the most dramatic event of the night was not a fictional one, but a real and heartfelt speech from Jodie Foster, upon the reception of her Cecile B DeMille ‘Outsanding Contribution to Entertainment’ Award. This prestigious nod has previously been awarded to Alfred Hitchcock, Martin Scorsese and Walt Disney, with Foster becoming the second youngest woman to receive it. Having been in the public eye for 47 of her 50 years, Foster has dealt with her fair share of media invasion. From a stalker who attempted to assassinate President Reagan on her behalf, to continued debate about her sexuality, she dealt with these situations with dignity and elegance, the two key elements to her speech. The speech marks the first time she has publicly acknowledged her sexuality, and her dedication to both feminism and film makes her a wholly deserving recepient of the award.

Alongside Fey and Poehler, wins for Homeland, Adele, and TV series Girls, the Golden Globes went a long way to highlighting the female success stories in Hollywood. Here’s to the girls. 

 

Golden Globe Awards 2013

Picture, Drama: “Argo.”

Picture, Musical or Comedy: “Les Miserables.”

Actor, Drama: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln.”

Actress, Drama: Jessica Chastain, “Zero Dark Thirty.”

Director: Ben Affleck, “Argo.”

Actor, Musical or Comedy: Hugh Jackman, “Les Miserables.”

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Jennifer Lawrence, “Silver Linings Playbook.”

Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz, “Django Unchained.”

Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, “Les Miserables.”

Foreign Language: “Amour.”

Animated Film: “Brave.”

Screenplay: Quentin Tarantino, “Django Unchained.”

Original Score: Mychael Danna, “Life of Pi.”

Original Song: “Skyfall” (music and lyrics by Adele and Paul Epworth), “Skyfall.”

 

TELEVISION:

Series, Drama: “Homeland.”

Series, Musical or Comedy: “Girls.”

Actress, Drama: Claire Danes, “Homeland.”

Actor, Drama: Damian Lewis, “Homeland.”

Actress, Musical or Comedy: Lena Dunham, “Girls.”

Actor, Musical or Comedy: Don Cheadle, “House of Lies.”

Miniseries or Movie: “Game Change.”

Actress, Miniseries or Movie: Julianne Moore, “Game Change.”

Actor, Miniseries or Movie: Kevin Costner, “Hatfields & McCoys.”

Supporting Actress, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Maggie Smith, “Downton Abbey.”

Supporting Actor, Series, Miniseries or Movie: Ed Harris, “Game Change.”

Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award: Jodie Foster.

 

The feminist question

0

To have your cock cut off and then plead special privileges as women – above natural-born women, who don’t know the meaning of suffering, apparently – is a bit like the old definition of chutzpah: the boy who killed his parents and then asked the jury for clemency on the grounds he was an orphan.”

This is how Julie Burchill chose to characterise transsexual inequality in Sunday’s Observer. The piece was a follow-up to a fight between her long-standing friend and fellow journo, Suzanne Moore, and the “transsexual lobby”. In its deceptively plain and respectable typeface, the piece exemplifies the problem of populist feminist debate: introspective, self-referential, and happily couched within the gentility of leftist Comment sections, feminism is defined in the public consciousness by a small set of loudly proclaimed representatives. The debate is small and insular, and founded on the preservation of small and insular groups of interest. It’s reflective of a political sphere in which black women have their own distinct and separate niche, as though middle-ground feminism is effectively synonymous with a middleclass, white majority.

The recent history of feminism goes some way to explaining this state of affairs. Women in the media have, in the past few decades, admirably and doggedly kept women’s issues in the spotlight, and in referring to themselves as feminists, forwarded the idea of feminism as an integral element of daily politics. Yet as a result, the evolution of feminism as a public entity has been shaped largely in the discussions of a narrow media elite. The vast majority of the public aren’t interested enough, committed enough, or possessed of enough time to explore the happenings of global feminist activism, or youth feminist blogging, or intellectual feminist criticism. They get their feminism from the media, to the effect that the “ivory-tower” accusations so often levelled at leftist media come to colour the image of feminism; and feminism has plenty of that, without the Observer’s help. When “the issues” are referred to – rape conviction rates, the gender pay gap, or similar – the term “feminism” does not feature. It is used, instead, in pieces like Burchill’s, debating the internal politics of a self-defined world. As a result, feminism becomes easily separated from the issues, to the detriment of that great mass of activists who do their incredible and essential work under the unhappy banner of “feminism”.

Part of the problem is the nature of “feminism” as a political entity: neither disparate nor united; unsupported by a concrete agenda, or even common policies. The term means something different in every instance of its use. If a word is, in operation, defined largely by the way in which it is understood as opposed to the meaning intended, then “feminism” is almost always lost in reception. It’s paradoxical, then, that feminism has got a reputation for exclusivity partly because it is so diverse and universal. It’s impossible to find cohesion in an ideology that encompasses the interests of half the world’s population.

The answer is not to try. Cohesion isn’t necessary in feminism, any more than it is possible. Unity, community, must be maintained though, even where agreement is not. So often the “core principles” of feminism come down to debates between essentially compatible camps; which not only perpetuates a detrimental public image and detracts from the important interests of the warring parties, but also obfuscates the ideology of the movement as a whole.

Julie Burchill has made the feminist debate about herself and her cohort, pitting a false, generalised “us” against a false, generalised “them”. But the interests and opinions of transsexuals as individuals within a movement differ no more widely to the “average” feminist, than “average” feminist’s opinions differ to one another. A broad church must respect the individuality of its followers, and help unite the inevitable groupings it contains. Burchill, in attacking any interest that chooses to group beneath feminism’s banner, is guilty of defaming the larger, already embittered, company.

Feminism is founded on an immoveable principle of equality. If any element within the whole is seen to hold preference or primacy, or if any element is set below the rest, then the entire ideology is undermined.

Review: Midnight’s Children

0

★★★★☆
Four Stars

Salman Rushdie is in the dog-house. His recent memoir – an aggrieved portrait of ten years evading homicidal fundamentalists, written, oddly, in the third person – has been raising literary hackles. The notorious author claims the New York Review of Books is afflicted by a kind of post-persecution narcissism, which has boiled over into the snobbish nastiness of a Disney villain. He is suffering, apparently, a malfunction of “compassion”. I don’t know anything about what Rushdie is like as a man, but if evidence were needed of said compassion, his new film would be an excellent place to start.

Rushdie’s novel of 1981, Midnight’s Children, has hit the big screen. Refracting the many painful chapters of Indian history through the mystical life of a changeling boy, Saleem Sinai, it is a sweeping vision of warring nations as much as a raw cross-examination of individual choices. This is point blanc panorama – as Rushdie-esque a paradox as you might hope for. Though shot with an ironic resignation to fate, it is nevertheless an optimistic clarion call, reaffirming the hopes and dreams born at independence.

Midnight’s Children isn’t as disorientating as The Satanic Verses; for one it doesn’t take long to grasp what the hell is going on. What is going on? A roller-coaster spin through Indian history. We’re lead through hospital wards during partition, opulent colonial mansions, slaughter-scenes at the secession of Bangladesh, the slums of ‘70s Bombay, and torture cells in the emergency years. Through it all the protagonist Saleem’s unlikely life turns out to be a wearily self-conscious metaphor about hope living amongst us. But, you know, who cares? It is, at least, refreshingly eccentric.

Surprisingly, Midnight’s Children is performing poorly at the box office, and the critical reception has ranged from lukewarm to politely interested. Undeniably, the gaudy magic-realism brings the film close to an uncomfortable sense of slum-glamour, and a number of promising figures – including a whole host of mystic children – retreat from view almost as soon as they’re introduced. But I suspect the real reason for the film’s meagre audiences is that nobody seems to have heard of its existence. Which is a shame, because it does exist, and it should be seen.

For fear of interruption by Rushdie’s various shrill detractors, the film was shot in awkward secrecy in Sri Lanka. Iran, unfathomably, tried to prevent filming taking place at all, and the Sri Lankan president had to intervene. They needn’t have worried; apart from a violently severe portrait of Indira Gandhi, there’s little controversial about this film. Self-consciously pluralist and unashamedly dreamy, Midnight’s Children is sensitive and humane, and speaks volumes about its writer’s capacity for compassion. Tell that to the New York Review.

The nudist life laid bare

0
Dame Helen Mirren has won countless awards for her contributions to film and theatre. Yet her talents do not end there: she was also crowned the ‘Naturist of the Year’ in 2004 by the USA Naturist Society. It seems that nudism is, somewhat covertly, in vogue: the actor Matthew McConaughey, of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days fame, earned sixth spot in the celebrity naturist rankings when he was allegedly caught by the police playing the bongos naked in his own home. McConaughey expressed no remorse; indeed, in an interview with the Daily Mail he admitted “my nude-bongo-playing days are far from over. I did it 500 times before the cops showed up and I still do it now.” Irresistible comedy aside, McConaughey embraces naturism for what it is: complete and unabashed self-acceptance, bongos or no. 
 
What about those of us with less famous bums, tums and thighs? Nudism’s philosophy has always been one of innocence. The idea of nudism as sexualised or erotic goes against the fundamental point that nudists make. Nudism isn’t showing off your body, it is showing off your acceptance of yourself. 
 
Now, I would class myself as a relatively naked person. I walk around my room naked; much to the chagrin of my family, I walk around the house naked. Apparently, it can be “woefully unpredictable.” However, while my nudity is an indication of comfort in my own home, I wouldn’t take it to a picnic, or a beach, or anywhere else for that matter.
 
To me the idea of going on a picnic with a bunch of other naked people seems a little out of the ordinary, and not only because I don’t like the idea of eating naked. The closest I’ve come to a nudist experience was on a family holiday in Spain, when the nearest beach to the hotel also turned out to be an over–fifties nudist beach. Needless to say, no one in my family took their top off.
It did make me wonder, though: there lay hundreds of wrinkly old Spaniards, sprawled out on this nudist beach, and not one of them was interested in anyone else’s body. They played beach ball, ate their picnics, and sunbathed totally nude, and it didn’t seem to make any difference that there was not a scrap of bikini in sight. They were utterly at ease.
 
I spoke to Daryl Jones, a leading member of the British Naturism Society’s youth sector, who wholeheartedly agrees that self-acceptance is the fundamental philosophy behind nudism. In a recent BBC documentary, My Daughter the Teenage Nudist, he was unembarrassed and encouraging in his celebration of nudism, saying, “It is the best thing I’ve ever done… it’s opened my eyes up, to see people for what they are, to see the human body for what it is, to see how our clothed society restricts so much of everyday life.” He makes the point that nudism is by no means sexy or pornographic. It is liberating for him and many others, and is a form of release, he believes, that lets people access their basic selves. 
 
It’s a funny thing, though, the ‘Teenage Nudist.’ I had always imagined nudism to be the preserve of liberal-minded friends of people’s grandparents, much like my wrinkly Spaniards. Yet Jones is upbeat about the future of young British nudists. “I’ve just done a national convention for British naturism. I’m busy with it nearly every weekend. There is so much going on…I think I’ll always be a naturist.”
 
As far as his personal life is concerned, he has encountered little hostility. “It’s definitely enhanced my life and relationships and has helped me become more proud of who I am. A lot of people’s hostility is because of a lack of understanding.”
 
Surprisingly, though, we seem almost prudish in an age where it’s generally acceptable for a teenage boy to watch porn and a teenage girl to shop at Ann Summers. Sex sells. Nudism does not. When you remove the sexual element from nudity, all that tends to remain is embarrassment. The biggest problem for nudism in Britain is this prudery, maintains Jones. “Nakedness is not in our culture. One of the main reasons people say they can’t do it is their own lack of confidence in the way they look or their body shape. It’s just not about that.”
 
So what are we doing today to ensure that people who are lucky enough to feel comfortable in their own skin get some air-time? Globally, it seems, very little. The USA has no federal law that either allows or prohibits nudity, so it is left up to the discretion of individual states. Alabama, for instance, is a bastion of conservative prudishness, banning any lobbying on behalf of nudism altogether.
 
The UK seems somewhat more relaxed: although public nudity is a criminal offence, and I doubt anyone will ever be able to nip to Tesco in their birthday suit, specific nudist areas such as parks and beaches throughout the UK show that there is a certain degree of tolerance. 
 
Prudish thought is, however, mystifying in a European context. So much of European art, past and present, depicts mankind at his most naked. This is for all sorts of reasons: to show the power of the human body, innocence, or perhaps a connection with nature. Or is it simply because the ancients were utterly comfortable and unquestioning about the naturalness of being au naturel? It is wrong to assume that ancient Athenians simply strode about their daily business in the nude, but it is significant that many of their institutions were unquestioningly performed without a second thought about baring all. Exercise, for instance, was practiced oiled up in the gymnasium, a word which itself derives from the Greek for naked, gymnos. Perhaps we overstate the importance of nudity in ancient civilizations, since we are only left with a few ruined and nude fragments of them. What is for certain, however, is that there seems to be some sort of limiting influence on our acceptance and ease with public nudity in the West today.
 
More recently, nudity has been used to shock. The play Equus, in which Daniel Radcliffe appeared naked on stage, was ample evidence of this. Audiences were partly horrified and partly thrilled. I saw it myself; front row, middle seat, to my great embarrassment. I was conscious that there was an element of the daring, both in the production and in those who went to see it. The middle classes were proud of themselves for being quite so brave. Radcliffe told the New York Times in an interview at the time “it never really was an issue. I don’t know why, it probably should have been. I am terribly self-conscious.” Nudity in the play was supposed to, and indeed succeeded in, shocking audiences. Although admittedly it was the sexual violence of the scene that was disturbing, there is no doubt that the hype around on-stage nudity gained the play both fame and infamy. 
 
Historically, it seems that the Victorians are principally culpable for English prudishness: nudity was considered obscene, to the extent that even male nipple exposure at public beaches was indecent. Victorian attitudes limited the progression of nudity well into the twentieth century. In 1925 Captain Harold Hubert Vincent founded the Sun Ray Club and publicly preached nudism. He proposed a march through Hyde Park by some two hundred naked men and women. The response? Outrage. He acquired several convictions for soliciting donations as well as for using insulting language. 
 
Nudism and ideology were closely associated throughout Europe in the early decades of the twentieth century. In 1925 an organization in the Soviet Union called ‘Down with Shame’ held mass nude marches to dispel former ‘bourgeois’ mentality. Nazi Germany revered and even idealized body culture as a symbol of the natural strength of mankind and incorporated the idea of nudism into health and fitness ideals.
 
It seems that this mass ideology and exposure has been most successful in gaining national acceptance. Germany has taken the lead, perhaps as a lasting impact of Nazi nudist philosophy. The Freie Körper Kultur organizations were ahead of the naturist game, setting up mass events like nudist bike rides well before the World Naked Bike Ride was established in 2004. This event is themed ‘dare as you bare’, which suggests that there is still as sense of danger or controversy about being naked in public, even in a crowd and on a bike. 
 
The American photographer Spencer Tunick has tried to counter this idea in his work, while simultaneously appealing to the mass impact aspect of the nudism campaign. Among his first major installations, Tunick shot pictures of a crowd of 500, all naked, in London’s Selfridges. Art has always had something of a penchant for the nude. Life models, for instance, are an accepted and necessary part of artistic study. However, it is the vast scale of nudity and the familiar public setting that provide some of Tunick’s most effective shock tactics. 
 
But they still remain shock tactics, it seems. It is, then, a sad fact of modern culture that as long as nudity has connotations of indecency, and any displays of the naked human body have to be ‘organized’ by marches and confined to specific spaces, we remain confused and embarrassed about being ourselves. Daryl Jones has undoubtedly been persuasive, and his efforts to ‘convert’ me have made some impact, but really, will I ever take it further than my bedroom door? I somewhat doubt it.

Comprehensive welfare must end

0

Benefit reform is a seemingly never ending saga that is often muddled by people on both sides of the debate, who let passionate feelings obscure rational thought. The hoo-ha that came to light last week was the stuff of the old and the young, specifically winter fuel allowance and child benefit.

 

The question is this: should benefits be means tested or should everyone be entitled to such support? David Cameron, normally a sunflower in the dreary field of turnips that make up our House of Commons, chose to leave winter fuel allowance untouched. Meanwhile our canary Lib Dem friends, apparently forgetting their less-than-perfect record on keeping promises, tweeted that means testing might be a good idea after all. 

 

I, for one, think that there is little wrong with means testing such things. The starting point here is to ask ourselves whether everyone really needs this support? 

 

Many people currently in receipt of it do not. It is madness to keep on giving things to people who do not need them. It seems there is little meaningful difference between this financial leg-up and, say, bursaries at Oxford. Not everyone can have one because they simply cannot be provided for everyone; they are necessarily restricted to those who need them most. Many would love to have one, but sadly they cannot. C’est la vie. If welfare is to remain comprehensive then those whom it should help will be the ones left disadvantaged. 

 

The reality is that there are a lot of people for whom winter fuel allowance is far from an optional extra. 35% of single pensioners and 15% of pensioner couples are in fuel poverty. Many pensioners face a difficult choice between food and heat. We need to ask ourselves what the most pressing problems are, and what needs to be done about them. 

 

So long as these problems prevail it is ridiculous that those who do not need support, or even those for whom it helps but is not necessary, still continue to receive it. The New Labour culture of giving everyone everything is all very sweet, but it’s not at all viable – particularly when we face a spiralling national debt that is, to a certain extent, the result of their own reckless spending and bad financial housekeeping. 

 

Many argue that once we start rationing who receives what, we are on a dangerous path, and that ultimately everything, from education services to healthcare provision, will be jeopardised. But these fears should not stand in the way of progress. Instead we should take these examples as an indication that the matters should be handled with care and delicacy, and that all parts of society should be considered. 

 

We are only going to be able to address this issue properly when we understand that the best way of repairing our broken economy and damaged society is for those who are privileged to help bear the burdens of those who are less fortunate. This is ever more the case during times of financial strain such as those we are currently experiencing. At these times a punch in the face for one person can be a tap on the hand for another. Until this is grasped, the root of the problem will remain untreated and will become ever more pressing. 

 

We are not “all in this together” and we won’t be until those who can make sacrifices finally do so. The government has realised that for many households child benefit is unnecessary and has acted accordingly. It’s now time that they follow suit with winter fuel allowance and say that for many pensioners it is a welcome gift but not used for its intended purpose. 

 

Total equality may be a commendable aim, but ultimately pragmatism will prevail. The answer to this particular conundrum is pure and simple common sense.

Review: Byron

0

The trouble with the modern hamburger is that there are two very distinct species, and that all too often, the gulf between them seems unbridgeable.

On the one hand you have the specimens served up in American fast food emporia – or worse, in kebab vans. These greyish discs are tasty but leave you feeling faintly sick and ashamed.

On the other hand you have the ‘posh burger’. This will probably be venison rather than beef and served with homemade tomato and onion chutney rather than ketchup. It will come in a golden brioche roll not a bun, and be served with thrice-cooked Maris Piper potato wedges, rather than chips. Delicious but somehow incongruous – a bit too try-hard, and somehow not properly a burger.

What Byron manages so successfully is to combine the gastronomic pedigree of the ‘posh burger’ with an authenticity which bistros and gastropubs just can’t provide. The atmosphere and decor – exposed brick and tiled walls – is that of a retro, Midwestern American diner. Yet the beef is ethically sourced from small Scottish farms, and the burgers are, as they should be, cooked pink in the middle.

To details: the menu is simple but effective. Each burger has a one-word title (Classic, Cheese, Skinny, Chicken, etc). The Cheeseburger comes with the option of five different cheeses, and we went for the blue cheese topping, which melts gloriously into the succulent beef. If you fancy a break from beef, the chicken burger, char grilled rather than fried, was a slightly daintier but still highly satisfying option. The Byron burger was perhaps the highlight – served with dry cure bacon, mature Cheddar and the restaurant’s signature tangy ‘Byron sauce’.

The side dishes are in many cases as good as the burgers. We weren’t sure about the ‘French Fries’ which were a bit too stringy even for a burger joint. Order the ‘Skin-on chips’ instead which are more than substantial enough. Far and away the best side dish are the intriguing ‘Courgette Fries’: juicy courgette deep fried in crispy batter, these were the perfect accompaniment to the burgers.

For liquid accompaniment, we went for milkshakes. I personally found the strawberry a little too ‘real’ (a bit like eating a pudding alongside your main course) so would recommend the vanilla.

Byron operates a 20% food discount Monday to Thursday, available to anyone with a Bod card, so make sure to time your visiti accordingly. Next time you’re craving a burger, steer well clear of the overrated Gourmet Burger Kitchen, and give Byron a go.