Hannah Blyth speaks to Francesca Petrizzo, the adaptor and director of Othello, Moritz Borrmann who plays Othello and Alex Stutt who plays Iago, about their upcoming performance in which they have relocated the play to the Cold War period.
29th February to 3rd of March and Corpus Christi’s Al-Jabir Theatre. Tickets are available fromhttp://www.wegottickets.com/ft/ruKmgzRErf
Stepping into the House of Lords is a bit like stepping back in time. From the wood panelled ‘Women Peers’ toilets (just past Baroness Thatcher’s coat hook), to the three person cage lift that rattles up and down the belly of the Houses of Parliament, everything has an air of grandeur that feels long since lost in the modern world. Lord Paddy Ashdown is all too aware of the anachronistic nature of the institution, expressing his “outrage” that the Lords is still an unelected second chamber of Parliament.
“You can’t not be a Lord now,” he tells me. “Even if you behave appallingly badly you still stay a Lord. It’s an incredible thing. I think it’s a ridiculous place.” However, Ashdown is not one to waste an opportunity. As he explains, “I play my part here because since I’m here I ought to play my part for the party.” And it is this mix of principles and pragmatism that seems to characterise Ashdown throughout my interview with him – dedicated to serving his country, while fully aware of the practical limitations of being a Liberal Democrat politician.
The eldest of seven children, born in New Delhi to an army nurse and Indian Army officer, but brought up mainly in Northern Ireland, Ashdown’s path to politics is certainly not the usual one. After spending thirteen years in the Royal Marines, serving in Borneo, the Persian Gulf and the Far East, Ashdown moved to Geneva under the auspices of representing the UK to the various UN agencies there, while working in a “shadowy part of the foreign office [MI6]during the night”. It was a “fascinating job”, and a life that Ashdown describes as his “halcyon days”. What then made him leave all that to go into politics?
“I can’t answer that question without sounding particularly pompous and self-righteous”, Ashdown laughs, before plunging into an explanation of what, in his view, was wrong with Britain in 1974: the power of the unions, the three day week, the two elections in one year. This made him realise, he says, that he wanted to do something more for his country. “I said to my wife, ‘What a ridiculous thing, what a terrible way to waste your life living a sybaritic existence, if you weren’t doing something that was of benefit to your country.’”
It was a decision that Ashdown describes as “idiotic” and “irresponsible”, but also “the best” decision of his life. Going into politics though, as Ashdown admits, was not only “insane”, but “doubly insane to go in as a Liberal [when] the party was at 5% in the opinion polls”, and even more so to attempt to win Yeovil, a seat which had been held by the Tories since its creation in 1918.
But win it he did in 1983, after eight long years of campaigning, and shortly before becoming leader of the Liberal Democrats from 1988 until 1999. For a politician who was drawn into the profession by his ideals, does he think that the Lib Dems have compromised too much by going into coalition with the Conservatives? Ashdown is adamant. “Absolutely not. If you want any evidence go and speak to the Tory right, they’re bloody furious. I actually think that the Liberal Democrats have held this Tory party and firmly nailed it to the centre ground.”
It is when he is talking about coalition politics that Ashdown’s synthesis of beliefs and pragmatism is clearest. There is no point in being a Liberal, he tells me, “if you are just prepared to be a cosy, fluffy pet at the side of British politics. Our job is to take power and get power and use power for purposes in which we believed. And to take the compromises and tough decisions necessary to do that.”
Compromise, then, it seems is the lifeblood of Britain’s third party. But isn’t there fear within the Lib Dems of being consigned to the political wilderness at the next general election, as the polls seems to be indicating? “Of course there is,” Ashdown responds, “you’d be fools if you didn’t [worry].”
He continues, “There are going to be headless chicken tendencies in any party. But anyone who seriously believed that there was a political dividend to be delivered from this in the first year, or the second year, or probably the third, was just not living in the real world. If there is a dividend to be delivered in this it comes in the year before the election.”
Since Ashdown assures me that he believes that the Lib Dems will get their political rewards, you can’t fault his optimism. He is also unrestrained in his praise for Nick Clegg, describing his judgement as “outstanding”, adding that Clegg’s “capacity to remain a fully paid up member of the human race in the face of the shit that he’s had to face is astonishing.”
Ashdown is unsurprisingly a touch more measured in his praise of Cameron, saying, “I don’t think he’s as strong at resisting his right wing backbenchers as he should be if he was going to be a really good Prime Minister, but I think he’s a very competent Prime Minister. And I think he’s a decent man.”
Ashdown admits that, along with other former Lib Dem leaders Sir Menzies ‘Ming’ Campbell and Charles Kennedy, he was initially “very dejected” with the coalition deal. He attributes this, along with his change of heart to becoming “a passionate supporter” of the coalition, to misunderstanding what he believes Clegg saw clearly from the beginning: that the Conservative parties of Cameron and Thatcher were very different.
Ashdown also leaps immediately at the chance to praise the coalition government, describing its judgement as “spot on”. On Cameron’s veto of the EU fiscal treaty, however, Ashdown does not hesitate in calling it “completely disastrous’ and “a profound failure to understand what is necessary for Britain”.When I ask whether he thinks that Britain’s future remains within the EU Ashdown’s answer is simple: “Absolutely, where else would it be?” As our discussion ranges from Europe to the American elections, Ashdown’s command of every issue we touch on is clear, and all the more impressive given that he never even completed A Levels, much less university.
Toward the end of our discussion, a man introduced to me as a “Suffolk radical”, Lord Andrew Philips, pokes his head into Ashdown’s office, asking for Ashdown’s help to get him “in” on an Iran discussion group. While my putative journalistic query about the nature of this group is, understandably, rebutted (“Mind your own business!”), Ashdown still doesn’t hesitate to give me his views on Iran. Though events have moved significantly since we spoke a few weeks ago, his affirmation that “sabre rattling is just not sensible”, and that we “need to be playing a much more subtle game with Iran than we currently are” still seems far more realistic than the shock headlines in the press of late.
As for his own future, Ashdown maintains that he has “no particular desire” to be a government minister, and even said to Blair that he wouldn’t join the cabinet in a Lib-Lab coalition. “I’m very happy as I am”, Ashdown tells me, citing writing his seventh book, his role as President of UNICEF UK, his continued interest in Bosnia, where he served as UN High Representative from 2002-2006, and his garden as keeping him busy beyond his role in the House of Lords. No small feat for someone now in their 70s, but then Ashdown has “never been terribly attracted to carpet slippers”.
Ashdown does admit that he would’ve liked to have been Prime Minister, half jokingly telling me, “It really spoiled my whole afternoon when I thought ‘I can’t be Prime Minister because none of you bastards voted for me!’” Despite this blemish on an otherwise unsurpassable CV, Ashdown is still certain that his greatest achievement has been not in Bosnia but in being an MP, “because there is no privilege in the world greater than serving your community.”
Am I the only one getting a sense of deja vu? Grainy satellite images of weapon development sites, endless video footage of bearded men in lab coats and dubious terrorist links – this all feels rather 2003. Almost nine years have passed since the catastrophic invasion of Iraq and it appears we are none the wiser. After 100,000 civilian casualties, $750bn of expenditure and seven long years of war, Iraq is only marginally freer and considerably more unstable. Talks of air strikes against Iran shamelessly forget our recent history.
The conflict between Iran and the West is hardly new. Most recently, the assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist in early February had Mossad’s fingerprints all over it. Retaliatory attacks on Israeli diplomats earlier this month in India and Georgia were widely attributed to Iran. Threats by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz were met by the US conducting its biggest ever amphibious military exercise. Just yesterday an Iranian battleship provocatively entered the Mediterranean Sea.
The development of nuclear weapons has been at the heart of tensions and provocative claims have been flying around in the last few weeks. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reported that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor and Israel’s Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, claimed that Iran will soon be conducting its uranium enrichment activity in an underground facility making it invulnerable to attack. But for all these strong words, we have yet to be shown any convincing evidence that bomb-making is taking place. In fact, 16 U.S. intelligence agencies in 2007, reportedly repeated in 2011, said they don’t believe Iran has decided to become a nuclear-weapons state. Sensitive military intelligence of this nature is, of course, confidential and many sources can only be quoted anonymously, but are we really willing to trust anonymous intelligence reports after they disastrously failed us in 2003?
One thing we can ascertain is that the media on both sides of the Atlantic are working themselves into a frenzy. On Wednesday, Sky News claimed that Iran and Al Qaeda ‘have established an operational relationship amid fears the terror group is planning a spectacular attack against the West.’ The Daily Telegraph published a similar story attributing the link to what ‘officials believe.’ Coverage on the other side of the Atlantic is more extreme and even Foreign Affairs jumped on the bandwagon with a piece entitled ‘Al Qaeda in Iran: Why Tehran is Accommodating the Terrorist Group.’ Much like with Iraq in 2003, news reports shamelessly paint Iran as the root of all evil and a serious aggressive threat to Israel, Britain and the United States.
But there is a crucial difference between the coverage of Iran and Iraq: whereas in 2003 the media outlets followed the drumbeat set by the British and American governments, the media today seems to be set on war despite conciliatory views expressed by Washington and London. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a television interview last weekend that it was ‘not prudent at this point’ to attack Iran. Similarly, the Foreign Secretary William Hague told Andrew Marr on the same day that any action against Iran ‘would not be a wise thing’.
So what is motivating such aggressive coverage? In part, the cultural shift towards the dramatization of American news reporting has increased the pressure on outlets to keep viewers’ attention and match the intensity of rival broadcasts. But more powerful is the influence of Israel and Israeli sympathisers in many of the agenda-setting American newspapers and television stations alongside an ever-present neo-conservative voice in US foreign policy circles. The Iranian conflict also fits nicely into an Islamophobic narrative that some have constructed to explain the threats to British and American security since 9/11.
The transatlantic media needs to reassess its position on the Iranian question. Above all, it has vastly overestimated the threat from Iran. In the past six months, a combination of stiff Western-backed economic sanctions, covert action by Israel and other nations’ intelligence agencies as well as the continuing Arab Spring have tested the regime’s ability to hold together the domestic constituencies that keep it in power. Furthermore, its pathetic attempts to assassinate Israeli and Saudi diplomats, continued defence and support of the bloodthirsty Syrian regime, a slew of incompetent economic policy moves and a dangerous bluff over closing the Strait of Hormuz all suggest Iran is not nearly as formidable an opponent as many believe.
News outlets have also overestimated the desirability of an airstrike. Iran is a major oil producer and rests right by the most important petroleum and gas supply lines in the world, from the Strait of Hormuz in the south to the Caspian Sea in the north. An oil price shock could destroy the delicate economic recovery in Europe and the United States. No one wants a land war, but once bombs and missiles start flying, it is hard to see where the conflict might end. An air assault is more likely to consolidate support for the current regime and invigorate the nuclear program.
I got off the train at Oxford on Thursday onto a platform crowded with British soldiers returning from Afghanistan. Their faces looked as drained as their helmets looked worn. Years after a glamorous intervention, the costs of modern warfare remain high. Let this not be forgotten too quickly.
Why do you think the Conservatives’ support has remained relatively high, despite spending cuts and continuing high unemployment?
I think the Tories are ahead for a variety of reasons that include the voters’ willingness to blame the Lib Dems more than the Conservatives for unpopular coalition policies which they opposed when not in power, student tuition fees, for example. Contrary to the frequent complaints of frustrated right-wing Tory MPs and activists, their own party dominates the coalition and David Cameron talks with an optimistic ‘I’m in charge’ tone, one which voters respond to until they turn against a government. This hasn’t happened – yet.
On the crucial political and economic judgements which will decide the coalition’s eventual fate, voters seem more persuaded by the narrative it has promoted since day one: that a return to sound banking and fiscal prudence is the priority which will create the best conditions for growth, and that Labour’s alternative, one which seeks a less austere balance between growth and fiscal retrenchment, is wrong. It helps that Ed Miliband hasn’t made much of a personal impact and Ed Balls is widely mistrusted as the brains behind Gordon Brown who got us into this mess.
It may be unfair, but life is very unfair at present. In reality the coalition has solved one problem, market confidence, at the expense of creating another, flat-lining growth, which is starting to undermine, yes, market confidence.
Do you think that the Conservatives’ support will stay steady as government austerity continues?
That depends on a lot of factors, including many far beyond the coalition’s control. George Osborne is already blaming the protracted Eurozone crisis (on which his policy and Labour’s have been both similar and broadly correct for several years) for the problems of the UK economy. It’s true, up to a point, but not what he said in opposition.
Has Britain bought into Cameron’s ‘Big Society’?
No. It might have been more acceptable and boosted the voluntary sector in positive ways if the boom had continued. When it didn’t the Big Society was used to justify cuts or the transfer of social functions to voluntary agencies – just at a time when vital state support for such activities was being cut back. That’s what the Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) told me when I asked it in the PM’s own Witney constituency just up the road from Oxford. So the big idea, which was always a bit airy-fairy, got tainted by reality on the ground.
Do you think that the Lib Dems have made the government’s policies more centrist?
In a few areas, yes, and the Lib Dems have also prevented the Tory Right exercising more influence than it might have hoped for – not to mention having 20 more jobs in government. Europe is the obvious example, tax policy too. If you were Cameron would you prefer to depend for power on the herbivorous Lib Dems or the carnivorous Euro-sceptics ? Precisely.
Do you think that we will see a coalition government at the next election?
The two parties will probably – probably – fight as rivals with the Lib Dems not ruling out a coalition deal with Labour and the Tories not cutting local deals to help Lib Dems save their seats. That’s what EU parties do in states where PR voting systems create coalition politics as a matter of design. For some reason which has always escaped me it’s thought to be more democratic. Watching Danish coalition politics via the TV series, Borgen, has not changed my mind – far from it.
Michael White is Assistant Editor of The Guardian, having written for them for over 30 years, and was Political Editor from 1990-2006
In a small piece on the BBC website this week, I discovered that a naturist walking in a “popular Yorkshire beauty spot” has been convicted of a public order offence and fined £315. He was stopped and arrested by an off-duty police officer who noticed the “disgusted look” of a woman walking her dog. Apparently the chivalrous officer in question “could tell [the woman] was upset about something.” The presiding judge commented “I note with some interest that he would not walk with his clothes off in the city centre of Leeds … on this occasion, a lady was clearly distressed by what she had seen going on.”
This is fantastically idiotic. It’s a ridiculous waste of public money for starters, but more than that, the judge’s comments are plain stupid. As far as I can tell, being in the great outdoors is part of the point of naturism. You wouldn’t wander round the Rad Cam in just your swimming trunks, but that doesn’t stop it being perfectly acceptable on the beach.What is really maddening, however, is the idea that this lady was actually disgusted. Are we seriously implying she’s never seen a naked man before, or maybe that she has some kind of aversion to willies? Either way she should be barred from any kind of museum or art gallery, lest it offend her delicate sensibilities. I heard a young boy ask “daddy, what is orgies?” at the Ashmolean last week. Clearly he’d survived the onslaught of naughty bits with his wits intact. Apparently, this disgusted lady would not be able to achieve the same feat.
If the naturist were doing something sexual, then fine. Maybe you can be disgusted when he gets out the KY Jelly and a novelty-sized cucumber. But a man wandering round with his knob out? In an age where sex is used to sell every consumer product you care to mention? Grow up. That wasn’t disgust. Shock, maybe. Surprise, perhaps. But I refuse to believe that anyone growing up in modern society can be disgusted by a penis in public. And if you are, get over it. It’s a stupid day indeed when we need the courts to protect us from seeing our own bodies.
Mrs Jones: Dearest, it is not without some consternation that I note the persistent popularity of that unsavoury daughter of Jean-Marie Le Pen across the Channel.
Mr Jones: This sort of economic climate does bring prejudice to the fore. But she hasn’t a hope of winning darling.
The French Presidential Election
What:
Whoever wins a majority of the popular vote on 22nd April will become the next French President. If no one wins an outright majority, the two highest polling candidates will face each other in a second round, to take place on May 6th.
Who:
There are a whole host of political parties in France, not least the bizarrely named ‘Hunt, fish, nature, traditions’, but three candidates have established themselves as frontrunners in this contest. Francois Hollande, Presidential candidate for the Parti Socialiste, and replacement for the disgraced Dominique Strauss-Kahn, currently has a sizeable lead over the embattled incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy. Sarkozy himself, the victor in the election of 2007, ended a period of entirely unjustified suspense by announcing his candidacy on February 15th, and has already begun his campaign for a second (and final) term in office. Thus far he’s promised to “restore a voice to the people” and to oversee a return to core values and “A strong France”. One can only wonder whom he’s blaming for the people’s loss of voice and strength, given that he’s been in power for the last five years. He’s also plumped for a bit of good old-fashioned homophobia and poor-bashing, in a bid to steal some of the votes from the third realistic candidate, the Front National’s Marine Le Pen, while trying to remain moderate enough to stave off competition from centrist rival, Francois Bayrou.
Soundbites to wow with:
“Hollande may be doing well now, but his predecessor, Segolene Royale (incidentally his former ‘private-life partner’), faded in the second round in 2007 after a similarly strong start in the polls.”
Don’t say:
“Wait, I didn’t realise Sarkozy was President. I thought he was just Carla Bruni’s husband.”
Spain’s new right-wing government faced its first large protests this week. Last May tens of thousands of ‘Indignados’ filled the Puerta del Sol in Madrid in support of the ¡Democracia Real YA! movement, progenitor of the Occupy movement which emerged later in the English-speaking world.
The square was the scene of protests again this week, which also took place in Valencia and Barcelona, but the current demonstrations are a reaction against specific government policies rather than the broader noises made last year.
Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s government recently unveiled a range of proposals to reform Spain’s absurdly inflexible two-tier labour market, as well as proposing tax hikes and swinging spending cuts in order to trim the country’s budget deficit.
The employed in Spain, which currently amounts to just 77% of the adult population, are split into two categories. Around two thirds are permanent workers on fixed contracts. Making these employees redundant is phenomenally costly as the maximum limit of severance pay is 42 months salary. These workers are largely insulated from recession, and some are even seeing generous pay rises through Spain’s centralised collective bargaining system. The other third are vulnerable workers on temporary contracts, disproportionately the young and the poor. They are easy to hire and fire, and employers expend little time or money training them.
This leads to a vicious cycle in which the two tiers drift further apart if the economy becomes weaker, and structural unemployment grows as employers refuse to take on new workers on permanent contracts while shedding the part-time workers.
José Luis Zapatero’s left-wing government, resoundingly swept from power last November, made some piecemeal changes. However, the system needs wholesale reform. The economic situation in Spain is diabolical, with the IMF predicting that GDP will shrink 1.7% this year. While Spain’s national debt is not yet as severe as in Greece or Ireland, it has doubled since the start of the crisis and is growing towards the critical level of 100% of GDP. As the twelfth largest economy in the world, Spain’s future is critical for the Eurozone and the world economy.
Aside from an international economic upswing it is difficult to see a way out of the current predicament. The key issue underlying the current Eurozone crisis seems to be that setting fiscal and monetary policy in different places is fundamentally inconsistent. The political will to keep the failing Euro project ongoing is proving resilient. The Spanish left ought to find a voice independent of the bellicose trade unions and accept the need for labour market reform, before fighting against the gratuitous and undemocratic austerity reforms imposed by Brussels which are failing to help elsewhere. These vital structural changes must come about before arguments against Rajoy’s other reforms are taken seriously.
If you’ve been to the theatre at any point in the last twenty years, chances are you’ve heard of John Godber. His characteristically biting, bittersweet plays have enjoyed enduring popularity among professionals and amateurs alike. His older plays are perhaps the most popular, and provide staple material for school and university drama, as exemplified by his prevalance on the Oxonian scene.
Godber is renowned for two things in particular. Firstly, in 1993 he was cited by the Plays and Players Yearbook as the ‘third most performed playwright in the UK, behind Shakespeare and Ayckbourn.’ Secondly, in his plays he demonstrates an ability to tap into something, to empathize with people regardless of their socio-economic background, drawing them into the theatre, a medium of entertainment they may never have previously considered. As well as writing, Godber directs: during our interview he was on a lunch break from rehearsal for Weekend Breaks, touring early this year across the country. Though he is most famous for his early plays, he has also penned adaptations of Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange and Bram Stoker’s Dracula, as well as an extensive filmography, ranging from episodes of Grange Hill in the late 1970s to filmed versions of his own plays.
When asked what first stirred his extensive interest in theatre, his answer is characteristically down to earth and comedic, making me feel slightly better about opening with a rather hackneyed line. ‘When I was about eight’, he tells me, in a strong Yorkshire accent, ‘I fell in love with a group of girls dancing. Great big teenagers.’ He describes how drama was compulsory at his school, believing that this ought to be enforced across the country, as it is ‘essential to creating three dimensional human beings’. Before he became a critically acclaimed playwright of the people, Godber was a teacher, which affected the way he wrote enormously. ‘I taught for five years in a rough comprehensive – I had to keep the kids’ attention. I had to design the lessons around them. Chekhov wouldn’t have worked.’ The titles of Godber’s most famous plays illustrate this in their brevity and simplicity: Bouncers, Teechers, Shakers. ‘I deliberately wrote short scenes, used short titles to make everything accessible,’ he adds. This ethos is once again reflected when I ask him about the popularity of his plays. ‘I’m just trying to reach as wide an audience as possible,’ he says. ‘Those plays were designed to draw in an audience from a very working class city. The titles are transparent. I wanted to bring people who didn’t have a degree in English into the theatre.’
Godber frequently discusses class as a factor in his writing style. When I question whether class barriers still exist in the 21st century, his tone becomes solemn. ‘Yes. More so now than ever. We have become much, much more class divided. And it isn’t just about culture; it’s about finance and opportunity. It’s worse now than it was in the seventies.’ It is through theatre that Godber seeks to tackle these issues. ‘Theatre chose me,’ he states, when asked why he sought to do so via the stage. ‘Theatre can break boundaries in different ways. It can get people into acting, into literature. At the beginning of my career, theatre was aimed solely at middle class audiences, graduate audiences. I wanted to break that mould. I wanted to bring theatre to people who thought it wasn’t for them.’
Given that Godber seeks to reach an audience that would not immediately be associated with an institution such as Oxford, perennially accused of elitism, it is perhaps surprising that the student community has displayed such a fondness for his plays, with a successful run of Bouncers in Michaelmas and Teechers this term. When asked about this, he is frank. ‘People put on your work for various reasons. Just because something has mass appeal, it doesn’t mean it isn’t particularly good. It’s the Spielberg effect. No-one took him seriously as a film maker until he made Schindler’s List, they just thought he made trashy movies. If people want to put Teechers or Bouncers on, or even some of my more autobiographical stuff, if a group of students want to put on a play then obviously it says something to them. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t put it on in the first place. I have no jurisdiction over that.’
Interestingly, it is Godber’s earlier work which is proving to be the most popular, within the Oxford drama scene at least, though this does appear to reflect a general trend. His newer, autobiographical work, the plays he claims he is ‘most proud of,’ despite receiving critical acclaim, are still to reach the popularity levels of plays like Up ‘n’ Under. I ask him whether he finds this frustrating. ‘Yes, of course,’ is his reply. ‘The play I’m working on at the moment is not as well known as some of my others. Yet. Bouncers, Teechers, Up ‘n’ Under, I wrote those plays for a theatre company, a theatre company I no longer work with, to keep that company alive. My particular penchant for German expressionism wasn’t going to do that. If I’d put that on in Hull in 1984, I would have closed the theatre. Even now, Brecht doesn’t do well in England. It’s about getting the balance right, between what you want to do, and what is safe to do. And since I left Hull Truck Theatre Company, I’ve become much more focused on what I want to do as an artist, rather than what I need to do to make a company work.’
We move on to discuss his work as a director. A prevailing criticism of writers who direct their own plays is that they are not suitably divorced from the text, and have problems with flexibility of vision given that their instrumental part in the play’s conception. Godber states he does not have this problem, as he is ‘naturally drawn to directing my own shows. I feel very comfortable directing my own work.’ He uses a core group of actors, and when asked whether he is influenced by them, he answers ‘Definitely. I mean, they’re essentially an unofficial ensemble, people I work with all the time. I ask them if they want to do a show. We’ll go have a coffee and sort it out. I know who I’m writing for, and I’m always looking to push the limits of their performances. There’s a real security in writing for them.’
Godber’s plays are fast, funny and forever accessible. He succeeds in retaining humour while dispensing lessons in equality. It is this attribute that ensures the enduring appeal and popularity of his plays, and one cannot help be impressed by his unashamed frankness and commitment to the breakdown of social barriers that have sadly become firmly established within the theatrical world. Anyone with a vague passion for theatre would surely agree that in order for its survival sustained relevance is crucial. Availability and accessibility are therefore incredibly important. Godber has recognized this, and as a result his plays exhibit equilibrium: he balances creativity with commercial popularity, while easy, affable humour is not forsaken in an ongoing critique of social injustice in modern British society.
Broken Hearts Club
24th February, Baby Love
Join the iconic clubnight as it celebrates its sixteenth birthday in style. Attractions will include sweets, songs and maybe a smoke machine.
Tickets £3 before 11pm, doors 10pm.
Grow Anthology launch
25th February, Oxford Hub
Oxford Students’ Oxfam group launches their new poetry anthology, GROW, with a theme of food sustainability. Featuring Caroline Williams, cake and caesuras.
Free entry, 8pm-9.30pm
Little Dragon
26th February, O2 Academy
The biggest new electro band on the block come to Oxford, supported by R&B act Holy Other.
Tickets £13.50, doors 7pm
Upstairs Downstairs
26th February, BBC1
If you’re suffering from Downton withdrawal, then top up your Toff levels with the second series of the BBC reboot. In this second episode, Lady Agnes distracts from bad news by throwing a dinner party.
9pm, on iPlayer soon after
Return of the Uke
26th February, Holywell Music room
Oxford Uni alumni and Ukulele virtuoso Andy Eastwood makes his first return to his old stamping grounds for a concert based around that much maligned instrument. Worth a l-uke.
Tickets £12.50/£10.50, doors 8pm
Rory & Tim Are Three
26th February, The Wheatsheaf
Following their sell-out BT show, Rory & Tim return to the Wheatsheaf for their last ever Oxford show with an hour of brand new material. Results may vary.
Tickets £3, doors 7.30pm
OUDS open mic night
26th February, The Cellar
Go with OUDS to celebrate the end of Hilary, the New writing festival and life. Featuring spoken word artists, stand-up comedians, bands, singers and a DJ, all performers from Oxford and beyond are welcome. If you just want to watch, then sit back, have a drink, and enjoy the best talent the city has to offer
Tickets £3 before 11, £5 after, doors 9pm
New Writing Festival
28th February – 3rd March, BT studio
OUDS presents a collection of new writing from the Oxford drama scene, including Antarctica, written by Robert Williams and The Tulip Tree by Oliver Mitchell.
Visit oxfordplayhouse.com/btsstudent for details
The Boy with Tape on his Face
1st March, Oxford Glee club
Fresh from his critically-acclaimed Edinburgh run, the Kiwi Chaplin brings his unique, whimsical and hilarious take on mime to Oxford Glee club. Prepare to be speechless.
See http://www.glee.co.uk/oxford-comedy for details
1. Why the 80s?
Synths are everywhere you look. The colours are bright, the prints all clash, the politicians are hated and nobody has any money. Sounding familiar? Well, probably not, as few of us were alive for any substantial part of the decade that began with the death of Lennon and ended with fall of the Berlin Wall. News reports have abounded which compare the current recession with the recession under Thatcher in the 80s, and the Tory government’s decision to make enormous cuts are reminiscent of Thatcher (Milk Snatcher)’s controversial economic policies. Even the riots of last year seem to imply that the classic UK problems with class are as strong now as they were in the 80s.
Based on this evidence, one could be forgiven for believing that the years between 1980 and 1989 were a time of unremitting misery, Maggie, and Metallica, but extensive historical research by our team has revealed that there was in fact much in these years worth salvaging – namely big hair, MTV, hip hop, a disregard for the flattering aspects of fashion, a national love affair with a princess, and retro computers (let’s face it, who can afford an iPad at the moment?). The economics and politics seem to be evoking the ghost of the 80s, so, like any culture section worth its salt we have taken it upon ourselves to conjure a revival out of thin air. The Pinter revival, the prevelance of electronic music and the recent film about Thatcher’s younger years are our inspiration, but we feel there’s still more to be done to bring back the true spirit of the 80s. It would be a shame to be broke without the bright colours, or deal with cuts without croptops. So follow us in digging out your scrunchies and getting down like a yuppie (knowing what that is is not a prerequisite) in order to brighten what is already a somewhat doomladen 2012.
After all, the 80s saw the invention of the internet, synthetic skin and video games. They were clearly onto something.
Barbara Speed
2. Synthly the best
Here’s a confession that’ll shock anyone who knows me personally: I used to really, really hate almost every single song from the 1980s. (I used to listen to a lot of Pink Floyd and Yes, so I thought the seventies were The Golden Age Of Music. Blame my dad’s record collection). Well, I’m now (slightly) older and (slightly) wiser, and as a result I’ve come to see the (slightly) bigger picture. Here’s the thing: most pop music is crap. So it shouldn’t be a total surprise that lots of pop music from the 80s is crap. But I’d like to put it out there that the best music from that much-maligned decade is better than the best music of, say, the last ten years.
Here’s an example: last week I saw a roomful of people going nuts to the Grace Jones version of ‘Love is the Drug’ from 1986. Is ‘Party Rock Anthem’ by LMFAO still going to be a floor-filler in 2040? I’d hazard a guess that the answer is ‘no’ – and if I’m wrong, God help us all. Quite apart from all the incredible and influential alternative music that the 1980s managed to produce in between episodes of Dynasty (Cocteau Twins, Pixies, Swans…), their pop is better than our pop. And in 30 years that skittery dubstep-lite rhythm that’s all over 95 percent of top ten songs today will sound even more dated than the whole Stock Aitken Waterman synths-and-drum-machines thing. Trust me on this one.
James Manning
The 80s was, undeniably, a decade of change. Music was no exception and the dynamic social climate led to some of the most respected and popular artists of all time. And Rick Astley. Legendary performers Michael Jackson and Madonna found their feet in the 80s, along with Prince and other purveyors of what was dubbed ‘contemporary R&B’. The decade also saw Bruce Springsteen release some of the greatest rock music of the modern age, with the seminal Born in the USA. But without sounding pretentious, the real value of the era lies away from the mainstream. Bands like the Pixies laid the groundwork for the grunge boom of the 90s and punk was taken to new places by Hüsker Dü and The Replacements.
Crucially, the 80s saw the emergence of two genres that would change music forever; hip-hop and electronica, as technological advances gave musicians hitherto unthinkable methods of production. Today, elements of these two genres are ubiquitous in popular music, with electro-influenced pop and (admittedly poor) hip-hop dominating the charts of recent years. While the defining images of the 80s may be of big hair, trashiness and cultural excess, it was unmistakeably then that the foundations of our music scene were laid. Maybe the direct relevance of the 80s has waned, but their influence lives on in the acts which delight our ears today.
Adam Piascik
3. Speaking of Spielberg
The films of the 80s have always been among my favourites. Back to the Future, Ghostbusters, the later two Star Wars films, the inimitable Airplane, An American Werewolf in London, Die Hard, The Princess Bride, Stand by Me, Who Framed Roger Rabbit – I mean, what a decade! For my money, it was one of the most exciting periods of filmmaking, and also a period of innovation, particularly in special effects. Tron was released in 1982, with groundbreaking CGI visuals that paved the way for the digital mayhem that dominates the multiplexes today (for better or worse).
And, of course, there’s Spielberg. The (original) fantastic Indiana Jones films came out in the 80s and revolutionized action storytelling, while E.T. overcame the odds to become one of the highest-grossing films of all time. This was probably Spielberg’s golden age but unfortunately his 80s style doesn’t work so well in the present day. The Indiana Jones fourquel, while fun, didn’t really carry the spirit of the originals, and Tintin was full of exciting Jonesian action but little of its heart. By contrast, the sobfest War Horse was positively mawkish in a way that E.T. never was.
Spielberg is just an example, but he’s indicative of a wider malaise as 80s directors fail to live up to their earlier success. And yet, weirdly, a revival of 80s filmmaking doesn’t seem to need the 80s filmmakers. This decade has been the darling of indie filmmakers for some time (see The Squid and the Whale, Adventureland), but now the blockbusters are getting in on the act. Tron’s basic CGI got an update last year in the long-awaited sequel Tron: Legacy, and Spielberg himself was homaged in J.J. Abrams’ original and heartwarming Super 8. The kids who watched films in the 80s are growing up and trying to make films that they would have watched as a kid: original, non-cynical and exciting films, with a heart that later films have lacked.
I don’t hold high hopes for an 80s revival – these homages to that decade are few and far between and are not even universally well-received. Still, in an age of franchises and brainless action they are a welcome relief, and a reminder of a past age where films really meant something to people.
Huw Fullerton
4. The Fall of man
Everyone loves the 80s That, I believe, is the rationale behind my superior’s decision that Cherwell ought to forgo a spread on the Olympics, or something much more relevant, in favor of covering the ‘80s revival’ we are currently undergoing, and have been, for the last ten, twenty years.
As stage editor, I really ought to be writing an article on Stoppard or Ives. But I have chosen to neglect these worthy genii, and turn my attention instead to the much less palatable Mark E. Smith, the only constant member of The Fall, a band often categorized as post-punk, though I’d personally opt for post-modern punk; pretentious perhaps, but then, the man has more in common with Beckett than Morrissey.
Upon announcing my intention to senior editorial to devote an article to The Fall, I was understandably met with quizzical looks and queries about Genesis Chapter 3. After clarifying, I was informed that dedicating a whole article to one band (or rather, one man) was deeply stupid. In my attempt to placate, I assured them that all would become clear; for The Fall, you see, are emblematic of the 80s, and er, I’ll put something about theatre in as well. Unfortunately, as any Fall fan will tell you (check The Guardian blogs), this band are about as far from yuppie culture and new romanticism as one can get.
Smith earned his cult following by trashing both, à la Copeland or Mamet. He soundly avoided anything that could have come close to commercial success in the age that gave us MTV, but remained the favorite of one John Peel. The Fall (despite the claims of aforementioned Guardian blogs) are not the best band in the world. They are not even the best band of the 80s – their musical ethos is neatly summed up by ‘if you’re going to play it out of tune, then play it out of tune properly’. Yet they are superbly listenable, combining arid wit with social observations and sheer nonsense.
The 80s will forever be associated with consumer driven counterculture, but it also spawned several subversive foils, and it is these that The Fall, with their wonderful weirdness and disdain for all things trendy, epitomize. Look them up.
And if anyone mentions 80s revival, remember , as Smith himself said: ‘Ours is to not look back, ours is to continue the crack’.
Charlotte Lennon
Though everyone but Haruki Murakami seem to be avoiding the decade as a setting for their novels, this year has a lot of anniversaries and reappearances from our favourite 80s writers.
Last week, 24 years after Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses was published and 23 after the fatwa against Rushdie was issued, four writers read passages from the novel at the Jaipur Literary festival in a show of solidarity with the novel. Rushdie did not attend himself, having been warned of the possible presence of several hired assassins.
Umberto Eco, the popular 80s author, recently published The Prague Cemetery, which seems to have disappointed everyone who read it and expected something as daring as the earlier novel. Don DeLillo, whose award-winning White Noise came out in 1985, has recently published his first collection of short stories, the fantastically named Angel Esmeralda. And Jeannette Winterson, whose 1985 semi-autobiographical novel Oranges are not the only Fruit was published to popular acclaim, has written a memoir, Why be happy when you could be normal? This year is also the 30th birthday of everyone’s favourite British teenager and diarist, Adrian Mole. Surely there can be no better pleasure in 2012 than reliving Adrian’s 13 ¾ year-old miseries as he wriggles in constant anguish and embarrassment, pining for the love of his life, Pandora.
Christy Edwall
7. Sweeney’s still cutting it
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by Stephen Sondeheim has not really had a revival: it’s never been off the stage in the first place. Having premiered in London 1980, it’s travelled to Broadway and back several times (including a production which had no orchestra but where all of the characters simply played the instruments on stage), been made into a film with everyone’s favourite psychco, Jonny Depp, and most notably been performed last year by my own secondary school in Portsmouth. Luckily, for all of those who missed out on this appalling production, a thoroughly good one transfers to the West End in April, starring Michael Ball, fresh from donning a frock and ginger wig as Edna Turnblad in Hairspray (not an obvious choice for a homicidal maniac) and Imelda Staunton as his pie making accomplice. From asylum loonies to a self-flagellating judge (they didn’t show that bit in the film) this play literally has it all and has quite rightly received rave five star reviews (that is, apart from the Daily Torygraph, who think Ball looks something like David Brent from The Office). Anyway, enough of my rambling. If life gets you down, go see it.
Daniel Frampton
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy