Friday, April 25, 2025
Blog Page 1577

Why we love to bash the Tabs

0

Even typing the phrase ‘Cambridge-Oxford rivalry’ into Google, in preparation for this piece, prompts a prickle of annoyance: why should the Tabs take primacy in the word order?

It’s indicative of the utter irrationality of the enduring Oxbridge rivalry. In historical terms, the ill-feeling sprang out of the circumstances of Cambridge’s founding, when a group of Oxford University scholars got into conflict with townspeople and were forced to flee Oxford, setting up shop in a nearby market town. Cambridge University was the result – our tumultuously conceived younger sibling, fated to that role since 1209.

For Oxbridge Freshers – indeed, for anyone not involved in University sports – the whole thing is farcical. Just another instance of the two universities’ proclivity to elitism and navel-gazing. Even if you do follow rowing, it’s hard to feel furious enmity in the Veuve-Cliquot-sipping world of Henley. And forget academic rivalry: no one in their right mind can get wound up about league tables. Most of us find it hard to care sufficiently about collections.

That was my attitude, anyway…until the Varsity Rugby match on Thursday. We were all a bit taken-aback by the hoardes of indoctrinated 12-year-olds, chanting such appropriately intelligent phrases as: “I’d rather be a leper than a Tab”. Even the little flags placed by each seat (“I’m a Dark Blue”) failed to stir ardour. But after a pint of Magners at half time, and a beautiful try by Keble’s Sam Egerton, suddenly even the most reserved spectators were screaming sentences featuring both expletives and the long-eschewed word, “Tabs”. Suddenly, we were – are – Dark Blues.

Having undergone the transformation, I find myself bearing a new and previously abhorred character feature. I really do feel ‘f*** the Tabs’.

So what is it that causes such animosity to emerge, rapidly and apparently unbidden? Why should not Durham or UCL be our partners in the fray? Partly, of course, it’s historical: the first Varsity match was in cricket, in 1827; the boat race was established two years later.

But there are deeper explanations for the continued endurance of such primal sentiments. A 2010 paper by psychologists at the Universities of California, New York and Washington, on rivalry between NCAA basketball players*, identifies “relational dependency”; essentially, intense similarity between competitors often results in a far more personal sense of rivalry. You need to beat the rival who is most like you. This can even be suggested to reflect a sense of internal competition; in some ways, it becomes a battle with an externalised self.

It’s hardly a ground-breaking revelation that the Oxford-Cambridge rivalry might, maybe, be born of similarity. In acknowledging that the competition should surely lose its visceral nature, yet the intimacy of the rivalry is so ingrained (and helpfully underscored by group mentality and identity) that rationality get lost in the mass of Jack Wills kits.

Meanwhile, in defining success as the failure of the chosen rival Oxbridge neglects competition with other top universities. The competitive binary starts to look less elitist, more pig-headedly circumscribed. Imperial, UCL, Edinburgh, LSE; they’re all fighting for turf. The steady rise of the Russell Group is accompanied by anti-Oxbridge popular feeling, for the media loves an alumni-slating-his-alma-mater piece.

And if that wasn’t depressing enough: how often do you find yourself subjected to a tirade by a non-Oxbridge student, insisting their courses are equally as demanding; equal, in fact, in every way? While they rant, a hefty wedge of your consciousness mulls on Bristol’s superior graduate employment rates. While your companion asserts their two-books-a-week workload and the tough task of juggling their social life, the dreaming spires begin to take on a nightmarish, Escher-esque aspect in your mind’s eye…

This, then, is perhaps the real cause of the durability of our rivalry with Cambridge. The damn Tabs get it. They get that “doing Dickens” for 5th week does not mean doing Bleak House; it means doing the entirety of Dickens. Or at least working yourself into an asylum in a bid to fake it. They get the whole thing about living in an environment of pressure, where your success in anything from an 8th week essay to a collegiate rugby match comes to dictate your definition of self. They get that vacations are for guilt, Park End is for guilt, sleep is guilt, and that if guilt could be aggregated, Oxbridge would hold more than the Catholic Church and upper-middle-classes combined.

Which is why they merit competition. If there’s anything a ravening Oxbridge-type loves it’s a bit of self-flagellation, and competition with your closest sibling offers just that. So whether screaming abuse at a Varsity match, or disdainfully assessing your Cambridge friends’ reading list, remember that affection runs beneath the animosity. And also that while we can at least drink our pain away, Cambridge only has, like, one bar.

Typewriters at Dawn

0

Zoe Heller recently attracted attention in the literary world, not for a new novel, but for her scathing review of Salman Rushdie’s much-awaited new memoir, Joseph Anton.

Heller damned Rushdie’s grandiose style and “lordly nonchalance” in a lengthy essay in the New York Review of Books. Yet Rushdie isn’t likely to be overly fazed by this attack. He has been part of a number of high-profile disputes with other novelists and appears used to confrontation. During a 15 year long feud with John Le Carré, Rushdie described him as a “pompous ass” and following another critical review by John Updike he lambasted Updike, saying, “Somewhere in Las Vegas there’s probably a male prostitute called ‘John Updike.’”

But in a rather anti-climactic way, most of these feuds end up in awkward reconciliation at a book festival. Rushdie praised Le Carré at Cheltenham literary festival this year, whilst V.S. Naipaul and Paul Theroux, who also had a 15 year fight, shook hands at Hay festival in 2011. Naipaul had put a copy of one of Theroux’s books that had been personally dedicated to him up for sale, and Theroux later published Sir Vidia’s Shadow, a vindictive memoir describing Naipaul as a racist and an egotist. Naipaul, seemingly spoiling for a more one-sided fight, has since attacked Jane Austen and her “sentimental sense of the world.”

It seems that as far as literary feuds go, they don’t make them like they used to. Wordsworth and Coleridge’s relationship was ruined forever by a mixture of addiction and conflicting poetic ambition, leaving Wordsworth to describe his former best friend as a “rotten drunkard." Rimbaud and Verlaine’s stormy relationship ended with Verlaine shooting Rimbaud in the wrist and a subsequent two year spell in prison. Whilst no violence was involved, Truman Capote’s dismissal of Jack Kerouac’s work as "that’s not writing, that’s typing", was painful. Even worse was Ernest Hemingway’s criticism of William Faulkner’s work  "Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?"  a line far more scathing than anything Heller said of Rushdie.

Perhaps the most dramatic modern day literary feud is between the two giants of Latin American literature, Gabriel Garcia Márquez and Mario Vargas Llosa. The two friends had a falling out that lasted for 30 years, apparently over a dispute concerning Llosa’s wife. Llosa punched Márquez in a Mexican cinema and he appeared in public with a substantial black eye. The fact that the pair never aired their dispute in public served to make it more mysterious. Yet even in this case, the two writers managed to eventually reconcile their differences.

But even if real literary battles are rare these days, those looking for snipes can always turn to the Hatchet Job Award for the most unforgiving book review. The prize is a book-shaped cake with an axe plunged into it. Classicist Mary Beard was a close contender for her cutting review of Robert Hughes’ book on Rome. She rubbished the entire second half of the book, deeming it to be “littered with howlers”. Mark Twain could have been a more worthy recipient of the award for his criticism of Jane Austen, making Naipaul look like an Austen fan in comparison. He said of the literary giantess, "Every time I read Pride and Prejudice I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shin bone." Literary insults just aren’t the same anymore.

The British Comedy Awards 2012: blasts from the past

0

Like good tea, bad weather, and even worse teeth, good comedy is something often associated with Britain, and I for one fully subscribe to (at least) the latter. Of course we’re funny – think of all the funny people we’ve produced, the funny performances and the funny writing. Britain this year might be characterised by economic crisis and a misogynistic Church, but it’s all okay because we’re still really good at the jokes and stuff.

Cue The British Comedy Awards: notoriously shambolic and frequently unforgiving, they are essentially a lock-in for Britain’s best comedians, and we lucky people get to watch the chaos that ensues. Or at least that’s what we expect when we commit a whole two hours to watching an awards show peppered with people who get paid to be funny.

Everything seemed in order this year. Jonathan Ross – check. Jonathan Ross’ questionable goatee – check. Bingo card of risqué (or merely tasteless?) jokes – check. Why then did I begin to find Channel Four’s adverts for other shows more entertaining than the program itself? (15 Stone Babies is clearly a must see; titles like that deserve their own awards show.)

The problem appears to be the nature of the awards themselves: thanks to a reshuffle of categories, it felt as though there were around three comedians and, at a push, four shows spread over all of the nominations. In any awards ceremony it is difficult to establish clear categories, and even harder to find justifications for what ultimately turn out to be arbitrary divisions between types of broadcasting. For example, Julia Davis’ macabre period piece, Hunderby, was nominated for both Best Sitcom and Best New Comedy Programme, and to everyone’s surprise scooped ’em both. Hunderby may be excellent, and is definitely new, but it isn’t a sitcom. It seems like perhaps it needed to be chucked into that category because there is no longer a category for comedy-drama. 

Most annoyingly, the Entertainment Personality award had solely male nominees. This meant that brilliant comics such as Sue Perkins were defined by their panel show appearances, rather than their own creative contributions. What’s more, Jonathan Ross had the audacity to make a joke about it. Yes, these are the comedy awards, and yes, they should be edgy, but pissing off the entire room was not a great way to start. Even the painfully predictable Savile jokes got more laughs than that. Equally, the clips of British Comedy Awards past was a screaming reminder of how hopelessly inadequate this year’s offering really was. Smart move, Mr Director. 

But Wossy’s eternally irritating presence, along with the almost non-existent structure, didn’t make the evening a complete waste of time. There were some bad bits, but there were also the bad-but-brilliant bits. One of my favourite things about the awards was the increasingly bizarre parade of presenters they draft in. Though nothing will beat the pairing of Vivienne Westwood and Pamela Anderson in 2009, producers this year certainly tried, with Cuba Gooding Jr (bored? low on cash?), Joan Collins and characters from Facejacker taking the stage. 

One of the nominees for Best New Comedy was Steve Coogan’s Welcome To The Places of My Life. Don’t get me wrong, we’re all happy to have Alan back. I was even happier when (after losing the award) Coogan still had it in him to lead the audience in a classic AHAAAA. Yes I did join in, but any character with a catchphrase so ‘classic’ probably shouldn’t be up against new comedy. 

In fact, the awards didn’t really seem to be about new comedy at all: the highlights of the show were the moments which featured comedians we grew up with, the ones that my generation probably shouldn’t have been allowed to watch (I am eternally grateful for lax parenting). Reeves and Mortimer received a thoroughly well deserved Writers’ Guild Award; the montage of their work showing everyone how playful surrealism should be done, and their acceptance speech bringing silliness and fun back into the program. 

In keeping with this focus on comedians from long ago, and perhaps most memorable, was the recipient of the Outstanding Achievement Award. How I have missed that beard, that bling and those bloody awful sunglasses. It was Ali G who brought the show to its close, and watching a classic character take on current affairs was a huge treat. However, it says a lot that the final note of this year’s show was a ten-year-old creation. 

Though many newer comedies were overlooked, Cuckoo and Fresh Meat to name only a couple, it appears that if British comedy has anything, it is longevity, or at least a tendency to wait a good long while before celebrating its best. But I’ll let you know in ten years time if Jonathan Ross starts being funny. 

The 2012 Winners

Best Comedy Entertainment Programme
Harry Hill’s TV Burp

Best Sketch Show
Cardinal Burns

Best Sitcom
Hunderby

Best New Comedy Programme
Hunderby

Best TV Comedy Actor
Peter Capaldi – The Thick of It

Best TV Comedy Actress
Rebecca Front – The Thick of It

Best Male Television Comic
Lee Mack

Best Female Television Comic
Jo Brand

Best Comedy Entertainment Personality
Charlie Brooker

Best Comedy Breakthrough Artist
Morgana Robinson

The Writers’ Guild Of Great Britain Award
Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer

The British Comedy Academy Outstanding Achievement Award
Sacha Baron Cohen

The 2012 King/Queen of Comedy
Jack Whitehall

Professor inspires wave of charitable donations

0

The charity Giving What We Can has inspired hundreds of people from around the world to pledge charitable donations totalling 62.4 million pounds since being founded in 2009 by a professor at Oxford University.

Dr Toby Ord, founder of Giving What We Can (GWWC) and a fellow at the Department of Philosophy, pledged in November 2009 to give away everything he earned over £20,000, targeting the charities which could do the most with his money. He started the organisation to encourage others to donate part of their annual income.

The organisation, which now has 296 recorded pledges, gained support quickly with philosophers Peter Singer and Thomas Pogge signing up within months. Supporters pledge to “give at least ten per cent of what they earn to whichever organisations can most effectively use it” for life.

In 2013, GWWC expects another busy year. William Crouch, Vice-President of GWWC and a DPhil student at St Anne’s College, said, “I think that GWWC will thrive. 1000 members and half a billion dollars are two big targets in my mind, and I think that both are achievable in the next few years.”

He added, “It was inspiring to see someone doing so much, and being so enthusiastic about it. No other charity I knew of was motivated by the question, ‘how can I do the most good?’

“GWWC draws on the latest research from health and development economics in order to make its recommendations. Economists do randomised controlled trials, to work out how different interventions compare in terms of the benefit to human wellbeing.”

The organisation works out which charities are most productive, and recommends them to its members. Noting that “some charities are up to 1000 times more effective than others”, GWWC researchers find out the number of “quality adjusted life years (Qalys)” per pound for each charity.

At present, the charities recommended are the Against Malaria Foundation, the Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World.

Originally launched in Balliol College, GWWC’s largest branch is in Oxford and has since raised £15 million.

According to Ben Hoskin, manager of the Oxford chapter, “As the movement was founded here, virtually all the early members are from Oxford. This strong community is self-perpetuating.”

The organisation aims to be accessible to thrifty undergraduates: over 40 per cent of those who make pledges are students. GWWC have a special pledge designed for students, which commits only one per cent of income until graduation.

Stephanie Crampin, the organisation’s Communications Director and an undergraduate at St Hugh’s, emphasised the importance of students: “Even though students might not have an income, Giving What We Can thrives off the creativity, energy and time that they put in. The organisation has been very successful here in Oxford because of students’ receptiveness to our ideas and their genuine passion to do as much good as they can.”

Most of the organisation’s branches are affiliated with universities. After Oxford, chapters were founded in Cambridge, Rutgers, Princeton, and the University of California, San Diego.

Despite the high number of Oxford students involved, not everyone has been so keen to get involved. Guy Ward, a first year lawyer at Corpus Christi claimed, “It seems risky to commit to a lifetime of giving – you never know when you could hit on hard times.”

But Rebecca Hannon, a first year physicist at Balliol, said “It’s a really generous idea. It would be good to know you’re making a difference.”

 

Review: Aladdin and the Magic Lamp (North Wall)

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

Upon taking my seat for Creation Theatre’s production of Aladdin and the Magic Lamp, my expectations were low to say the least. Childhood memories of pantomimes replete with excruciating slapstick, ageing TV actors in drag, and ruthlessly enforced audience participation, had lent the form a hefty stigma in my mind. Thankfully Creation Theatre were able to alleviate my prejudices and, most importantly, stage an enjoyable two hours of pantomime.

The success of Aladdin and the Magical Lamp lies in its simplicity. The small but strong cast of seven are afforded roughly equal stage time and thus divided the jokes, melodrama and songs between them. Consequently, the stale parade of pantomime stereotypes such as the hero, dame, village idiot et al is avoided; instead each character is given a little freedom to develop. Refreshingly, familiar characters assume new depths: the Genie of the Lamp remains mystical but is also hilariously deadpan, the Sultan is regal but also quaintly camp and Aladdin himself begins the play as, by his own admission, “a wretch, a good-for-nothing and a murderer”. The comedy too is effective in its subtlety; time after time the melodrama is escalated by extravagant language and overblown theatricality, only to be brought sharply to Earth by a witty, deflating punch-line.

The production’s musical numbers, often used successfully to aid the run-up to a punchline, are generally successful but work best when the entire cast is involved: the Princess and Aladdin’s duet strikes a rare bum note. Both actors were flummoxed by the suddenly empty stage and sterile melody, substantiating the Sorcerer’s subsequent remark that “love is a cheap illusion”. Indeed, as is often the case, the villain’s role is the most intriguing and Timothy Allsop seizes this opportunity with aplomb. His Sorcerer dominates the beginning of Act Two as a deranged megalomaniac, expressive eyes radiating insanity.

This delectable darkness, however, was swiftly curtailed in favour of a prolonged conclusion that consists of a farcical sequence of betrothals, reconciliations and predictability. We all knew a happy ending was imminent, but surely that should have encouraged a short and sweet finale, rather than this sugary overdose? In particular, the “abject poverty” of the Sultan’s subjects, as sung about in Act One, was instantly forgotten once Aladdin had ascended the social ladder himself. In one significantly ironic blow, both genies are freed from their magical slavery whilst the wage slavery of the peasantry is perpetuated.

Perhaps pantomime is no place for a critique of the feudal system and anyone who expects to find one has clearly just completed eight weeks of his English degree. Nevertheless, transcending that boundary between maturity and simple entertainment is something that Aladdin and the Magic Lamp does well. Yet it raises an important question: who exactly does Creation Theatre think their pantomime is for? The subtlety of its characters and humour was admirable but would probably stretch a primary school-age audience too far. Conversely, whilst an adult audience would enjoy elements of the production, its status as a pantomime is surely enough to discourage a significant number from purchasing tickets in the first place. A pleasurable and unadulterated experience it certainly is, but whether it makes commercial sense is another question entirely.

Aladdin and the Magic Lamp runs till 5 January at the North Wall Arts Centre

Sports Short: Best and Worst of Varsity Trip Stash

0

Practical, yet ridiculous; flamboyant, yet functional: these were the criteria top Varsity stash had to meet. It was all well and good wearing a jovial Christmas jumper knitted by your nan, but the thermal qualities of said item were not going to withstand the -20 degree chill felt by the Varsity Trip this December.

Top Stash

The more it looks like you have been rummaging through your parents’ wardrobes, the better. Take this jacket for instance. Seemingly emblazoned with graphics created by some of the earliest computers, and coloured by a palette straight from the 80s, it is a great example of how retro you should go.

This all-in-one is rewarded for similar reasons. Garish yet warm, as the criteria implies, it was one of the finest items spotted all week. Looking like the perfect outfit for a Freshers’ UV party, this bold number was right at home on the pistes.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%6467%%[/mm-hide-text]

Worst Stash

Special mention has to go to this Aztec print dressing gown. Seen in motion, it is true that there was a certain degree of elegance to it billowing out behind its owner. Yet when the snow fell (and fall it did) one can only dread to imagine how wet and useless this garment became. Having an uncomfortable sodden rag tied around your waist could only have been a detriment to the skiing experience.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%6465%%[/mm-hide-text]

The Varsity Trip’s official ‘stash’ was increasingly getting out of hand as the week went on. With t-shirts, sunglasses and, most annoyingly, cowbells, being handed out left right and centre, the novelty of the ‘Varsity Trip’ brand quickly wore off. Thus to go all out and drop €45 on a canary yellow Varsity onesie was a tragic decision. To wear it on the slopes was a suicidal one. Not only did its wearers stand out as beacons of keenness, this choice of skiwear was about as useful as a chocolate fireguard.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%6466%%[/mm-hide-text]

Been there, done that, got the offer

0

Term is over. Cars stuffed with double duvets for single beds, full-length mirrors and boxes upon boxes of fancy dress deemed by all back home as excessive (they just don’t understand) have long since made the trek back home. It’s Quality Street and box sets agogo from hereon in.

But wait. “What’s that sound?” I hear you cry. That, reader, is the sound of whimpering en masse. For at the end of Michaelmas our rooms are not filled with conference guests wondering why the hell the company couldn’t shell out for the Hilton, but teeny tiny Sixth Formers quaking in their plimsolls. For them ‘tis the season to shape the course of their future. It is to them that we must spare a thought. Do they know it’s Christmas time at all?

Having now experienced the mental boot camp from both sides of the barbed wire, I have taken it upon myself to collate a by-no-means definitive list of survival tips for our prospective college family descendants. Here goes:

  • Boys – don’t dress overly smartly. This is a sure-fire tell that you are very posh or very not and makes you stick out like a sore (albeit immaculately dressed) thumb. Even those of us who don’t know our Georgio Armani from our George at Asda from looking will be able to tell which you are from the moment you open your gob.
  • Similarly, depending on whether you’re at a Christ Church or a Wadham, don’t follow suit and play yourself up or down. No-one wants to know which house Daddy jetted you off to to give you your Virgin Galactic ticketsand no-one wants to hear about the time your foster parent saved up to give you a piece of coal and a satsuma for your combined birthday-Christmas. Exaggeration makes people want to kill you.
  • Do make friends. In retrospect, bonds formed at interviews may have more in common with Chilean miners than BFFs but they’re a pleasant distraction at least. Also, on the off-chance you all get in, it makes Freshers Week that wee bit less awkward.
  • Don’t make ‘special’ friends – on the off-chance you both get in, it makes Freshers Week that wee bit more awkward.
  • Don’t mention the stonking great elephant in the room that is A Levels; there’ll always be one bright spark who’ll make you feel worse about yourself. If there wasn’t, it was probably you. And everyone wanted you dead.
  • Don’t try and talk the Oxford jargon. You get your Twat Licence when you get your offer, never before.
  • Don’t make the older years feel old. This year, upon compiling a Music Intros quiz for the applicants’ daily organised fun, the question “Will they even know who the Spice Girls are?” made me single-tear.

This is just a selection of the many, many tidbits these poor babies will need to take into account for their interview period to feel less Gaza, more Maga and I haven’t even begun to touch on what to do in the interviews themselves (blow jobs and cash are probably the two safest methods). Please feel free to add your own pointers; together we can make a pamphlet to be given to all interviewees upon arrival along with their Ethernet cable and indecipherable college map.

Anyhoo, let’s just be thankful that the recent suggestions to make the admissions system “a bit more Battle Royale” didn’t get past the proctors. 

Applicants: may the odds be ever in your favour.

Local prejudice: West Oxford MP opposes equal marriage

0

During term I don’t have much time to get excessively angry about politics. Why watch a smug David Cameron and an irritating Ed Miliband slog it out at PMQs in a battle of half-wits, or plunge myself into despair by watching Question Time, when I could waste my time far more constructively by reading the latest criticisms from my tutor on OxCort and weeping into my library books? Perhaps we should all try and find the time however, to wind ourselves up over things slightly closer to home, and I’d like to take this opportunity to flag something up.

According to an article in the Oxford Mail, and a letter she has sent to a constituent, Oxford West and Abingdon’s Tory MP Nicola Blackwood, who won the seat by a whisker in 2010, is due to oppose legislation on Equal Marriage. This is not the first time I have been irritated by Blackwood and behind the cultivation of a somewhat moderate image lie some questionable opinions, such as siding with the likes of Nadine ‘Mad Nad’ Dorries on abortion issues. On Equal Marriage, in my opinion, her opposition to the legislation is first of all objectionable, and second of all, likely to put her in disagreement with the majority of her constituents, most especially the student population.

In response to a letter from Dr. Ed Long, Blackwood describes herself as ‘not an enthusiast’ for the change, saying that she does ‘not believe in legislation for the sake of it or where it will produce unintended consequences’. She justifies this by arguing that ‘the proposed changes will confer no additional legal gains other than those already conferred by civil partnerships’ and that ‘an unintended consequence of this legislation will be the risk of legal challenges, whether to domestic courts or the ECHR, on the basis of human rights law to religious organisations who for different reasons may choose not marry same-sex couples’.

One might be tempted to ask whether these ‘different reasons’ might include a bit of good old fashioned prejudice but for the time being this is beside the point. To me, this all mostly sounds like a load of hot air. If Blackwood thinks that the legislation is all about ‘legal gains’ for same-sex couples then she is completely missing the point. The idea behind Equal Marriage as I see it is to do away with the whole ‘equal but different’ scenario whereby there is one sort of marriage for heterosexual couples, and a different kind of ‘gay’ marriage or civil partnership for same-sex couples. It isn’t so much about giving anyone more legal rights but about society recognising marriage as an equal institution for everyone whether you are gay or straight.

Furthermore, the legislation is about allowing those churches and religious groups who wish to carry out same-sex marriages to do so, and those organisations who have expressed their strong opposition to the idea, such as the Church of England are excluded from the proposed legislation. If there are organisations, such as the Quakers, who wish to carry out same-sex marriage I fail to see what right Ms Blackwood has to stop them. If she is so concerned about challenges to those who choose not to marry same-sex couples, then she should surely also be concerned about preventing those who wish to.

Nicola Blackwood claims that in opposing the legislation on Equal Marriage she is representing the ‘majority’ of her constituents who have ‘contacted her so far’. I am reluctant to believe that the majority of those living in Oxford West and Abingdon are against Equal Marriage and I suspect that it is certainly not representative of those students at Worcester, St Hugh’s, Lady Margaret Hall, Somerville, St Anthony’s, Green Templeton, St Cross and Wolfson colleges which form a part of her constituency.

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

I loved The Lord of the Rings movies like they were my unborn triplets, so when news of a Hobbit movie broke, I found myself damp with excitement. With Guillermo del Toro signed up to direct, what could go wrong? Well, several years later, what we have is another Peter Jackson movie, though it has del Toro’s fingerprints all over it, which explores Middle-earth in roughly the same manner as his previous three movies (except for King Kong and The Lovely Bones. duh). The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is like putting on your favourite old slippers and then stabbing an orc in the face with a blue sword.

Martin Freeman takes on the role of Bilbo, and he’s as far away from Slough now as it’s possible to be. He is certainly plausible as a younger version of Ian Holm (who introduces the film in a prologue with Elijah Wood) and seems to enjoy his romp across Middle-earth, even though it mainly consists of him standing frowning whilst the dwarves act like complete dickheads. Which brings me to the dwarves, a seemingly interminable gang of short, fat troglodytes led by the most human-looking member, Thorin Oakenshield. They’re played by a strange variety of British TV and stage actors (the most famous of which seemed to be Ken Stott and James Nesbitt) and are certainly an unusual centrepiece for a major blockbuster, but one that only seemed to grate about 15% of the time.

Sir iMac is back as Gandalf, and seems to be having fun with the role, as he leads his band of misfits towards the Lonely Mountain, via familiar sights like Rivendell (where we get to check in with Elrond and Galadriel – they seem well) and the caves where Gollum lives. Gollum’s return is very welcome, although the ‘Riddles in the Dark’ sequence is dragged out for about fifteen minutes.

Which brings me to The Hobbit’s central problem. For a film that is only one third of a very slender book, it’s colossally long: about 2 hours 45 minutes. You’ve got to wonder whether anything at all was left on the cutting room floor: every piece of superfluous detail is kept in, meaning you’ll be hard pressed not to feel that this could quite easily have been 45 minutes shorter.

But that’s a small(ish) price to pay for the technological advances that this film marks. The 48pfs 3D marks the demise of ghosting that has made previous 3D experiences so frustrating (James Cameron must be kicking himself). It might grate on the eye to begin with, because of our familiarity with the motion blur of 24fps, but once you give it a chance then you’ll find that this is the most immersive 3D experience this side of SeaWorld. Though it has all sorts of problems with it, if there was ever a movie that’s worth the admission fee (plus a Coke to keep you going throughout the film, so you don’t have to resort to drinking your own piss for survival) then this is it.

This film should both delight and frustrate Lord of the Rings fans, leaving them champing at the bit for the next two instalments.

Cambridge skiers edge out Oxford in Varsity races

0

A severely weather-affected programme of ski races between Oxford and Cambridge in Val Thorens, France, ended in narrow overall victories for the Light Blues men and women.

There was great individual success in the Dark Blues camp, with Kirsty Dixon (Keble) and Jamie Reid (Oriel) winning both their Giant Slalom and Slalom races. But the scoring system required four good finishes in each race to carry the day and a combination of injuries and failures to complete the course took its toll on both match results.

Clearly disappointed, OUSSC President Max Denning commented after the races: ‘Oxford skied valiantly in this year’s instalment of the world’s oldest annual ski team competition. Unfortunately when it came to race day, the Tabs won by a nail-bitingly small margin – perhaps the smallest in living memory.’

Ski racers live on the edge: though nothing beats the feeling of hurtling down a mountain to the sound of a roaring crowd and cowbells they know that with just one mistake all the practice and hard work can go to waste. And so the last thing the Varsity skiers needed were relentless blizzards, merciless white-outs and heavy snowfall. In normal competitive skiing, the Varsity course would not have been considered safe or suitable. But this is Oxford v Cambridge and the show must go on.

The races were postponed for two days and this at least allowed racing to take place in clear visibility. Course conditions always dictate race strategy and the racing line: after days of snow, the teams were forced to attack the Giant Slalom and Slalom courses so as to avoid the piles of powder that surrounded the course. A course of this difficulty required a narrow, high line to seek out the best of conditions on the ‘Stade’ slope of Val Thorens.

But sticking to this line was more than a matter of maintaining speed. Given that a metre of fresh snow had accumulated on the surrounding piste, straying more than a few centimeters from the racing line not only put the racers at risk of missing a gate but also of finding themselves ski-less – or worse, injured. Despite their best efforts, this was the inevitable outcome for a number of racers and unfortunately there were some serious injuries amongst both the Oxford and Cambridge camps.

In the end despite the outstanding individual performances from Kirsty Dixon and Jamie Reid, Oxford men came second by 8.76 seconds in the giant Slalom and first in the Slalom by 5.82 seconds which meant they lost the overall match by only 2.94 seconds. In the women’s Giant Slalom Oxford came second by 6.14 seconds and in the Slalom came second by 20.58 seconds leading to an overall defeat by 26.72 seconds.

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG%%6456%%[/mm-hide-text]

Following the races which he won overall by a massive eight seconds, Oriel’s Jamie Reid was philosophical about his team’s defeat: ‘Despite the team winning the slalom, a number of our key skiers had fallen earlier on in the GS, and the deficit proved just too big to close, with Cambridge winning overall by only two seconds.

‘Still, it was a very competitive race in tough conditions with the soft fresh snow quickly turning the course into something resembling a luge track. I’m confident that we can bring it home next year, with our Blues team bolstered by the return of ex-Captain Joel Ward, who has taken a year out to train in Austria.’

When asked about the massive turn-out of supporters in the resort, OUSSC President Denning commented: ‘The majority of people head on the Varsity Ski Trip to enjoy the sweaty clubs, beautiful weather and to make snowmen with carrots in all the wrong places. But for some of us the trip also stages the pinnacle of University ski competition – the Varsity Match. Although the weather played havoc with the match with delays and difficult conditions Oxford skied valiantly.’

On the process of selecting the team Denning could not have been happier: ‘Team captains were pleased to see many more skiers turning up to our race trials than for the Other Place.’

Denning could also have taken pride in the sheer number of Oxford Students who turned up – from this observer’s standpoint, we may have lost the matches but we outnumbered the Tabs at least two to one in the bars and clubs.