Wednesday 25th June 2025
Blog Page 1693

Album Review: Europe – Allo Darlin’

0

Allo Darlin’ tackle important issues. The video to ‘My Heart is a Drummer’ shows two people in oversized cardboard hearts playing table tennis. Their lyrics include ‘I sent you a postcard from Berlin, of a fat man eating a sausage’. Europe doesn’t strive to be serious, but it possesses a quality superior to any ‘twee-pop’ stereotypes.

This is not an album simply evoking idyllic summer days and the happiness of youth. The refreshingly clean instrumentation veils in an almost euphoric haze some of the real sentiments present. In ‘Tallulah’, the sparsest song on the album, Morris’ pessimism and pain are most manifest. She wistfully reminisces over previous summer outings, ‘It’s been a long time since I’ve seen all my old friends’, yet still attempts to be optimistic: ‘I really love my new friends feel I’ve known them a long while’. However, negativity permeates through Europe, providing contrasts with the happiness and making Allo Darlin’s music far more intricate and enjoyable than that of many twee-pop acts who describe the world with an offensively fanciful view. They possess a realistic nostalgia and a clear understanding of life’s ability to fluctuate from exhilarating to oppressive.

Excessive layers of instruments do not dominate, the playful guitar sings alongside Morris, wandering off to higher reaches before reconnecting in a charming manner. Violin, reminiscent of Lanterns on the Lake, mirrors the lyrics’ sadness, while steel guitar complements positive images. Morris’ voice combines the charm of Zooey Deschanel’s with an aching vulnerability, making her less Hollywood and more human.

Allo Darlin’ have maintained the endearing warmth and excitement of an over-populated genre yet kept a firm understanding of life and included a wide spectrum of emotions. Europe is an exquisite summer record that pleases in the background and intrigues upon closer inspection.

Four stars

Review: The Tempest, Magdalen

The Magdalen Players’ production of The Tempest was forced indoors on Wednesday night
by the constant drizzle that seems to have recently descended upon us. The last-minute move
to the college auditorium left the actors still putting together the set as the audience arrived. It
was a particular blow as this light-hearted staging of Shakespeare’s last play would have been
ideal for a balmy evening in the open air of the President’s Garden.

The production’s main twist framed Prospero not as the exiled Duke of Milan, but as the usurped ringmaster of a Milanese circus, left to while away the years with card tricks on his mysterious island. He was complemented by a hyperactive and juggling Ariel, striped costumes and an accordion and guitar duo, with engaging results that also reflected the play’s conceit of its characters as entertainers.

With all the high spirits, the staging’s chief weakness was its neglect of The Tempest’s darker side. Dylan Townley’s top-hatted Prospero was a little thin, and lacked the bitterness of a man who has been left marooned for half a lifetime by his own brother, while Antonio (Archie Cornish) and Sebastian (Cameron Quinn) looked far too approachable to be convincing cold-blooded killers.

In its comedy, however, this jaunty Tempest really shone. Andrew Wynn Owen excelled as the kindly Gonzalo, relentlessly positive but ever so mildly senile. Sam Plumb’s camp Trinculo was equally well done, giving such a startlingly natural delivery that I started to wonder if he’d gone off script and was boldly improvising on Shakespeare. The decision to stage the play as an upbeat and masque-like spectacle may have cost it some depth, but made for a charming summer production which will hopefully return to the open air where it belongs.

FOUR STARS

Review: Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Brasenose

0

Though unafraid of Virginia Woolf, Edward Albee’s play did, at points, have me jumping out of my seat. Take the pig-headedness of a drunken brawl, and filter it through some intellectual minds; douse this with the age-old issue of being boxed inside an unhappy marriage, and finally add the cherries on top – two awkward guests who are (at first) as tight-skinned as onions. Plus masses of alcohol, of course. This is the cunningly brutal cocktail that our performers had forced us to down along with them in their absurd pageant.

The craziest (and in my humble opinion, most exciting) part of this performance was the way you almost feel present: George and a Martha might well be mentally clubbing each other to death in front of you. At first, you almost feel like you’re intruding. A front-row seat meant that at points I was literally sitting a few inches away from George. Being squeezed into a room about the size of a luxurious living room, with curtains drawn against the cheerful, sunny view of Brasenose, you are lulled into a false sense of security. From the word go, you’re locked into place by the easy bickering (or bellowing), the interrupting and the talking over one another – you follow it at the same pace as any other conversation. If you actually read the script, I’ve no doubt you’d pick up a billion more stinging puns than the few thousand that flew back and forth like pins – but you wouldn’t get the same hot-cold concoction of hard fear as you watch four real people let loose on each other. Sound exaggerated? There was even a fight scene.

Although you do end up leaving your cosy seat more than slightly traumatized, Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? isn’t just a truckload of insanity and malice being tipped onto your head. Jokes, and good ones too, are thrown in so casually that it’s hard to believe it’s scripted. And don’t forget those die-hard practical jokes, too – nothing adds more flavour to sheer horror than humour.

A laugh or no – this play was certainly a scream.

 

FOUR STARS

Review: Court, BT Studio Theatre

0

Billed as ‘an original law drama’, Hanzla MacDonald’s new play Court certainly is that. It follows the trial of Suleyman Jones (Tim Schneider), a recent convert to Islam, who is being prosecuted for assisting with seven suicides while sojourning in an Indian mental asylum. He is flanked throughout by his dirt-obsessed lawyer, Adil Aziz (Ibrahim Khan), and the troubled lesbian Prosecution, Harriet Macaulay (Fi Johnston). Then there are the manifestations of both lawyers’ guilty consciences: a skittish convict named Mickey Turner, and Harriet’s father, Paul (both played by Gabriel Nicklin). You’d be forgiven for any confusion in attempting to reconcile these seemingly disparate elements.

Court takes us between past and present, real and imagined, and everything in between. Without effectively used alterations of lighting state, the audience would no doubt have been lost in this complex script. Unlike many writers in Oxford, MacDonald is not a novice: two of his plays have been professionally staged at Coventry’s Belgrade Theatre, and that experience is easily detected. The dialogue feels like it was written by someone comfortable with their own voice, and not – thankfully – like a poor-man’s Pinter. Sometimes, however, MacDonald himself is too pervasive, giving lines laced with that authorial smugness which comes through when A Clever Thing to Say is put in a mouth which doesn’t suit it.

In playing ‘a sort of narrator’, Schneider’s background in stand-up is evident. The assurance with which he chats to the audience ably glides over the initial unease emanating from the stalls, yet he employs a sarcastic knowingness which, though a mainstay of comedians, jars here. Perhaps it is intentional that he never quite connects with his fellow performers, but it renders the story somewhat disjunctive. The performance is overly cynical, ramming home an artifice which precludes any care about the outcome of Suleyman’s trial (in which his life is at stake). Khan struggles to give anything meaningful to a character who serves mostly to feed us clever turns of phrase and discourses on the similarities between dirt and law, though manages to sustain a sinister affability throughout. Similarly, Johnston (beyond some first-night jitters) never quite manages to show any emotional truth with which we could engage. By contrast, Nicklin’s vivid characterisations bring a welcome bolt of energy and excitement to proceedings. It is testament to his skill that, when he burst into the scene having switched role, it took me a while to realise that it was the same actor (despite the costume change being minimal). The prevailing dissonance between actor and character is nowhere to be seen here, allowing him to drag an otherwise rather languid play into a genuinely dramatic penultimate scene. Sadly, he highlights what could have been if director Eamon Jubbawy had pushed the rest of his cast to play the journeys of their characters faithfully and without reserve.

We are instructed to ‘call it meta-theatre; call it mental theatre’, and Court is undoubtedly at its best when it abandons the intellectual pretensions of the former and descends into the abject surrealism of the latter (the recounting of Suleyman’s journey to Islam, from ‘circumspection to circumcision’, is a highlight). Were these sections placed within a narrative which allowed the characters – not the playwright – to take centre-stage, Court could really engags with the themes which it touches upon but refuses to speak meaningfully about. As it is, we are left with a confusing ‘conceptual muddle’.

THREE STARS

Euro 2012: England’s Known Unknowns

0

As the clock ticks down to the start of Euro 2012 and another England managerial era begins so too do the selection guessing games. Will Roy Hodgson’s mantra be out with the old and in with the new? Form over reputation? Or substance over style?

 

Ben Foster (West Bromwich Albion)

Despite announcing his international retirement last May, the 29-year-old has played an integral role in ensuring that the West Midlands club sits comfortably in mid-table. Overlooked for England’s 2010 FIFA World Cup squad, his agility, command of the box and experience would make him a more than adequate back up to England No.1 Joe Hart.

 

Kyle Walker (Tottenham Hotspur)

This year’s PFA Young Player of the Year has benefited hugely from a sustained and successful spell in the first team under the guidance of Harry Redknapp. Defensively assured, the 21-year-old excels when in a forward position. He provides much needed width with his pace and directness and has a lethal right-footed shot in his locker.

 

Ryan Shawcross (Stoke City)

A tough tackling, no nonsense central defender known for his physicality and commitment, the ex-Manchester United player has been a pivotal figure for Tony Pulis’s team during the club’s four seasons in the Barclays Premier League. His growing maturity and leadership on the field was rewarded with the 24-year-old taking over the club captaincy last season.

 

Phil Jagielka (Everton)

Since his move from Sheffield United in 2007, the central defender has been a mainstay in the Everton backline alongside Sylvain Distin. With doubts cast over the futures of John Terry and Rio Ferdinand, he’ll be hoping to rekindle his successful relationship with Joleon Lescott whom he partnered in defence in his debut season at Goodison Park.

 

Leon Britton (Swansea City)

An extremely tidy, reliable and skilful midfielder, up till January of this year he had a remarkable pass completion rate of 93.3% in the Barclays Premier League – better than any other midfielder in world football. The diminutive 29-year-old has linked up well with striker Danny Graham and has offered a creative outlet for the Welsh side.

 

Michael Carrick (Manchester United) 

Overshadowed in the media by fellow midfielders Paul Scholes and Antonio Valencia, the steady and assured Carrick has been an unsung hero for Sir Alex Ferguson’s side this season. Despite being overlooked by previous England managers, the 29-year-old should come under consideration to play alongside either Gareth Barry or Scott Parker in the holding midfield role.

 

Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain (Arsenal)

The winger-cum-attacking midfielder has risen to prominence this season with a series of impressive cameo appearances that have earned him plaudits from fans and pundits alike. The 18-year-old possesses blistering pace, physical tenacity and has an eye for goal. His fearlessness on the big stage and the “Unknown Quantity” tag could be the perfect tonic for England.

 

Scott Sinclair (Swansea City)

Energetic, tricky and direct, the 23-year-old is enjoying the best form of his life at the Liberty Stadium. The winger has represented the National Team from U17 upwards and his ability to cut infield thus drawing defenders out from their normal positions and freeing up more space for other players gives his game an added dimension.

 

Grant Holt (Norwich City)

The Canaries’ talisman has performed well above expectation this season. Far from being a simple target man, the 31-year-old’s bulky physique, constant movement and aerial threat make him difficult to defend against. He’s the second top scoring Englishman in the Barclays Premier League this season and his lack of international football should not count against him.

 

Andy Carroll (Liverpool)

It has taken a little longer than expected but the Gateshead-born striker has been unplayable of late. His strengths lie in his ability to hold the ball up and bring others into the game as well as his heading talent. Whilst the long ball game is predictable, there’s no doubt that the 23-year-old is a game changer.

Twitter: @aleksklosok

The fundamental freedom

0

Designated by the United Nations in 1993, 3 May was World Press Freedom Day, something that you might have missed in last week’s news. Journalists in Britain arguably ignore the event with good reason; as a country we are proud of our tradition of respecting the public’s right to criticise, which predates any official guarantees first set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Over a century ago the archetypal Victorian radical teetered on soapboxes flinging pamphlets to the crowd (when he had one) and today’s savvy hacks use hidden microphones and cameras to expose up-to-no-good politicians.

The situation, to generalise, exists in a similar fashion throughout the rest of the developed world. Ever since Henry Demarest Lloyd published articles exposing corruption in business and politics in 1880s America, the culture of bold investigative journalism in Western Europe and the United States has been a regular source of scandal, capable of administering strong doses of accountability to those living in the public eye.

Yet the value of a free press is easily taken for granted. The United States has historically avoided the routine pursuit of journalists’ sources, but after winning an historic election with promises of radical reform, Barack Obama’s administration has gone on to prosecute more government ‘leakers’ under the Espionage Act than any previous administration. In the U.K., the Leveson inquiry into press standards constitutes a government-mandated probe into the behaviour of a profession already ring-fenced by super-injunctions and some of the world’s most repressive libel laws. As a knee jerk reaction to the excesses of a badly behaved press, it inferred the end of press self-regulation; a universally accepted ideal and the strongest measure of a society’s willingness to embrace unfettered freedom of expression. Any perceived shift away from this framework would set a worrying precedent that will resonate around the world.

War and economic crisis make it unsurprising that so few column inches are devoted to the shocking combination of extreme violence, impunity and pernicious legislation that results from an absence of freedom of expression in the majority of the rest of the world. The headlines too often direct focus elsewhere. Yet press freedom advocates have been unwavering in calling a free press the essential right necessary for accountability and a free society. The economic rise of the Gulf States and China has not correlated with any greater regard for human rights. Sanctions on Myanmar are likely to be revoked after its recent opening, yet press censorship and human rights abuses reportedly continue. Ensuring that the structures of power exist within a framework of accountability remains the essential role of a free and independent press; taking it for granted is the first step towards losing this hard-won privilege.

About The Town #1

CherwellTV takes to the streets each week to find out more about the general public. 

This week, we ask what talent people have.

Interview: The Rain Starts A-Fallin’

0

Hannah Blyth speaks to Rory Platt, the writer and director of The Rain Starts A-Fallin’, Kate Legh the producer and Emily Stewart who plays Kate.

The Rain Starts A-Fallin‘ is being performed from the 15th to th 19th of May at the Burton Taylor Studio. 

The mystery at the heart of the financial crisis

0

The problems at the heart of the financial crisis are awfully complicated. Or so we are told. In recent years, the discussion seems to have focused on the inadequacies of mind-boggling mathematical equations, the tangle of regulations impeding the implementation of capital requirements or the ring fencing of domestic retail banking. But in fact, one of the most serious problems is wonderfully simple: shareholders have been unable to hold their banks to account. And yet for all its simplicity, it remains unsolved and virtually untouched.

Over the past 20 years, the proportion of banking profits going to shareholders has decreased, while the proportion going directly towards salaries has increased. Not only this, but in the lead up to the financial crisis, banks continued to expand their balance sheets, reduced their capital ratio and invested in ever more risky assets. Nowhere is this more evident than at the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), which from 2000-08 rapidly rose to global prominence as the world’s largest company by assets (£1.9 trillion). These executive strategies may have been in the CEOs best interest, but shareholders suffered and banks were consistently underperforming their FTSE100 rivals. The RBS Annual Report of 2009 illustrates this point clearly.

Why did they let this happen? If anyone could give me an answer, it was Professor Sir John Vickers, Chair of the independent Commission on Banking, Warden of All Souls and economist extraordinaire. I found him in an intimate room on the upper floors of the Ashmoleon, where he was giving a talk on his latest take on the banking crisis. There I asked him how he would explain the apparent passivity of shareholders in the lead up to the crisis. “Why they tolerated more profits going to remuneration rather than shareholders seems inexplicable”. However, he volunteered to try to explain all the same. In part, Vickers believes the reason why such risky behaviour was tolerated was that shareholders appeared to get the upsides form those investments without suffering the downsides. Many shareholders were all too aware that their banks were ‘too big to fail’ and that in case of emergency, the government would have to bail them out.

But there is also a more sinister explanation for this trend, which is the tacit collusion between the elites in the financial sector. For all the talk of free markets, power remains surprisingly concentrated in the hands of banking executives, fund managers and insurers. These individuals have approved riskier strategies and higher pay packets in the name of self-interest.  ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ seems to be the underlying philosophy. All too often, the board of directors have been populated with the same small crowd of executives who have an interest in partially ignoring the shareholders’ interest so as to create a norm which they can replicate at their own financial institutions.

But all that is changing. On 27th April, 32% of Barclay’s shareholders failed to support the remuneration report which approved a payment of over £20m to their chief executive, Bob Diamond, last year. Last Thursday, 54% of Aviva’s shareholders voted against their pay report and 37% revolted against that issued by UBS.  For too long, shareholders have been asleep at the wheel. It is time to wake up.

 

No Minister – hearts and young minds

0

What do teachers in Britain today have in common with the miners of the 1980’s? Both, in their respective times, represented an organised political bloc that did its utmost to resist Conservative policies. At the 2010 annual party conference, Michael Gove said that “the Conservative party is now the party of the teacher” and that he had no desire to “go back and re-fight the old battles of the 1970s”. And yet the current changes to Ofsted inspections are evidence of both a lack of confidence in already embattled educators, as well a desire to break them as a political force.

In what other profession are workers as rigidly observed and criticised whilst receiving so little support as those who chose to “do something amazing” and teach. No one challenges the need to inspect schools. However, the current system places unreasonable demands on professionals who are already stretched to their limits. During an inspection, a teacher must be able to give evidence of constant learning occurring for every pupil in said class for the duration of the hour long lesson. Sound difficult? More like impossible. With such difficult and poorly defined goals, it is often left to the whim of the inspector to decide on a pass or fail.

The actual labels given by an Ofsted inspector have also been re-engineered to meet political ends.  This January the term “satisfactory” was dropped in the favour of “requires improvement”. In isolation the change appears acceptable, as Michael Gove commented; we should strive to push our schools to be more than satisfactory in a world that places ever greater demands on our students. However, this change is more a case of political expediency than idealism. It all ties back to the government’s desire to push as much of state sector education as it can into the private sphere. By moving the goal posts, the Gove has pushed more schools into the ‘failing’ category and as a consequence, this has encouraged many into becoming academies. In addition to this, no notice is taken of the fact that a bad rating, rather than encouraging improvement, will often do just the opposite. A failing school will often fall into the trap of the self-fulfilling prophecy of failure, as it may no longer be able to attract pupils who are successful or from a background that is conducive to success.

This is to say nothing of the additional stress placed upon teachers, who in schools undergoing special measures face twice-termly inspections.  The disruption to the schools daily routine does little but damage the education of its pupils. Morale is important to any workforce and constant inspection gives the impression that one’s skills are not trusted and a feeling of being undervalued. This is breaking the will of many educators and driving them from their profession.

Professions that still retain a degree of political conscience and awareness are a dying breed. Aside from being a convenient way to push forward its education reforms, targeting teachers and by extension the state sector in this way offers it the chance to break the will of one of the last few organisations with the numbers and the power to stand against government policy. In this way teachers today are just as much victims of government agenda as the miners and northern communities were under Thatcher. Some say they are a vested interest, some argue that they are unreasonably resistant to change. But ultimately they are civil servants concerned who refuse to see the well-being of their students as a card to play in the game of politics.