Thursday, May 1, 2025
Blog Page 1723

Pictures from a beautiful mind

0
Laid out on a table, surrounded by ordinary household objects, is a naked young woman, one hand dangling tentatively above her smooth white stomach. A young man gazes down her body and she is watched from the sides by a crowd of curious and accusing eyes.
A young, half-naked woman is running through woods, one arm outstretched as if to strike, face contorted into a scream of rage, while in the background a besuited man dances with two creatures that are simultaneously trees and naked women.
Penny Wedding and The Rage of Syrinx are just two paintings from a collection of fantastical images that have emerged over the last 40 years from the mind of Kit Williams, surely one of the most imaginative artists at work in Britain today. ‘It’s as if years and years ago I was locked away in a windowless room, and I’ve had to paint my way out of it. The windows are paintings through which you can go into another world. It turns out that it’s the inside of my mind, that the other world inhabits.’
This other world is rich with imagery from nature and people, myths and legends, all painted with a meticulous attention to detail and the brightness of fairytale illustrations. Williams tells me, ‘I do not understand how abstract work works. My work is about people and how people think.’ He compares art to a swimming pool, where the modern artist is paddling in the shallow end, while he swims in the depths of storytelling.
The detail in Williams’s work is all the more extraordinary where it has expanded beyond the confines of the flat, rectangular canvas. When he couldn’t afford to frame his early work, the ever-inventive Williams turned to marquetry, gluing thin wood veneers onto a wooden background. The first frame made this way was assembled from a ‘make-your-own-galleon’ kit from a craft shop.
‘It released me from the rectangle!’ Williams enthuses, ‘I was free then, I could go anywhere!’ And he went to mirrors, hinges, and secret doors, to the wing of a bird continuing into the wood of the frame, and even into 3D. When he was too poor to stop painting during two months backpacking around India in the 70s, Williams created a sphere inside a globe, that he kept fastened shut with an elastic band in his backpack while the oil paint dried.
There is a vast and fascinating body of work that could be discussed; however, when agreeing to be interviewed, Williams suggested that I choose just a few paintings that ‘caught my eye’. In 1979 Williams’ book Masquerade, a pictorial riddle which held the key to finding a golden hare buried somewhere in the British countryside, captivated the nation, and treasure hunters up and down the country searched for the prize for two years. However, Williams, tired of the media storm that enveloped him during the furore and afterwards, retreated deep into the Gloucestershire countryside where he could not be disturbed, now only exhibiting privately at his house. Our discussion was not to focus on the ‘same-old’ questions, but on the works that captured my attention.
When I saw Penny Wedding, the vulnerable, skinny young woman laid out like a meal, I couldn’t help but think that she was about to be raped. Williams wasn’t put off by my interpretation, but pleased. ‘With all my paintings, you have to be drawn towards it, and repelled from it in equal measure. And that’s what becomes exciting. Just being drawn towards something is “chocolate boxey”. Just being repelled by something is Tracey Emin, is Damien Hirst.’
Of course, the painting was far more complex than that. Williams said that his work was usually the ‘marriage’ of disparate ideas. A phrase or concept will ‘intrigue’ him, but ‘most often doesn’t have enough substance in it to make it work; so I store it in my memory. It might stay there for a day, a week, a year, ten years.’ Eventually another completely different idea arrives, and the painting is born.’
Penny Wedding, Williams told me, was a good example of the ‘two ideas’ – the first to arrive was ‘stored away’ for eight years. This was the penny wedding, a Scottish highland tradition in poor communities, where guests would place a penny in a wooden bowl. Everyone could afford it, and so the wedding was paid for.
The Irish and Welsh Celtic tradition of ‘sin eating’ brought the painting to life. Williams explained, ‘When someone dies they are laid out, before the wake. The sin eater, who is a person in the village, is invited to the house. He or she is given a meal, roast taters and everything, set upon the coffin … So when he leaves, he takes the sins of the departed with him – he’s eaten the sins. The soul of the departed can go to heaven.’
Yet these two strange tales gave rise to a painting depicting neither. The picture is of a bride who is an outsider, marrying into a poor fishing community where, as in Williams’ childhood, a room above a shop is hired for the wedding, and the presents laid out on the table. However, Williams explained, ‘She is not stark naked lying among the wedding presents. It’s how she feels – to be inspected by the whole family, to be quantified, to be judged.’
Meanwhile, the groom at the other end of the table can do nothing but look on helplessly, while his family, the leering grandfather, the jealous brother, the vain cousin, in the moving wooden doors of the painting, gossip and sneer, perhaps commenting on how thin the bride is. ‘The model was wonderfully skinny, with nipples like fried eggs on the table’, Williams told me.
The second painting that caught my eye, The Rage of Syrinx, has a wonderful immediacy: you can’t fail to be drawn to the young woman flying through the painting in a hurricane of rage. Here Williams was inspired by an Ovidian myth. But like all Williams’ paintings the story he tells is very much his own. In the original tale, the mischievous man-goat Pan pursues a young wood nymph, Syrinx, chasing her into a river bed, only to emerge with an armful of reeds, with which he invents the panpipes. However, in Williams’ mind, the tale has moved on. Syrinx is getting married and Pan has crashed her wedding, causing her fit of anger.
Williams tells me that Pan was always depicted by the Greeks with an erect penis, to show  that he was a ‘shameless hussy’. And sure enough, within the wooden frame, shaped like a screaming mouth, is the satyr. ‘I think this is the only erect penis in marquetry in the world. It’s yet to be disputed!’, Williams tells me with a grin.
And, again, as with all Williams paintings, there are multiple meanings. He tells me that it is about pre-nuptial anxiety – losing the ring, the bridesmaids eloping, the hair that looks like a bed of reeds – but also about women feeling that they are ‘entrapped in a silken cage’, like Syrinx’ caged petticoat (a real one was created specially by Williams for his model to wear). I ask him whether he is qualified to say this, as a man. His eyes once again twinkle wryly, ‘It’s passive observation’, he laughs.
And I realise, having discussed only a few paintings, that we have whiled away over an hour. While Williams’ rich, narrative work may not to be to everyone’s taste, to hear him talk of it is to catch a glimpse into an inventive, imaginative and utterly unique mind. 

Laid out on a table, surrounded by ordinary household objects, is a naked young woman, one hand dangling tentatively above her smooth white stomach. A young man gazes down her body and she is watched from the sides by a crowd of curious and accusing eyes.A young, half-naked woman is running through woods, one arm outstretched as if to strike, face contorted into a scream of rage, while in the background a besuited man dances with two creatures that are simultaneously trees and naked women.

Penny Wedding and The Rage of Syrinx are just two paintings from a collection of fantastical images that have emerged over the last 40 years from the mind of Kit Williams, surely one of the most imaginative artists at work in Britain today. ‘It’s as if years and years ago I was locked away in a windowless room, and I’ve had to paint my way out of it. The windows are paintings through which you can go into another world. It turns out that it’s the inside of my mind, that the other world inhabits.’

This other world is rich with imagery from nature and people, myths and legends, all painted with a meticulous attention to detail and the brightness of fairytale illustrations. Williams tells me, ‘I do not understand how abstract work works. My work is about people and how people think.’ He compares art to a swimming pool, where the modern artist is paddling in the shallow end, while he swims in the depths of storytelling.

The detail in Williams’s work is all the more extraordinary where it has expanded beyond the confines of the flat, rectangular canvas. When he couldn’t afford to frame his early work, the ever-inventive Williams turned to marquetry, gluing thin wood veneers onto a wooden background. The first frame made this way was assembled from a ‘make-your-own-galleon’ kit from a craft shop.‘It released me from the rectangle!’ Williams enthuses, ‘I was free then, I could go anywhere!’ And he went to mirrors, hinges, and secret doors, to the wing of a bird continuing into the wood of the frame, and even into 3D. When he was too poor to stop painting during two months backpacking around India in the 70s, Williams created a sphere inside a globe, that he kept fastened shut with an elastic band in his backpack while the oil paint dried.

There is a vast and fascinating body of work that could be discussed; however, when agreeing to be interviewed, Williams suggested that I choose just a few paintings that ‘caught my eye’. In 1979 Williams’ book Masquerade, a pictorial riddle which held the key to finding a golden hare buried somewhere in the British countryside, captivated the nation, and treasure hunters up and down the country searched for the prize for two years. However, Williams, tired of the media storm that enveloped him during the furore and afterwards, retreated deep into the Gloucestershire countryside where he could not be disturbed, now only exhibiting privately at his house. Our discussion was not to focus on the ‘same-old’ questions, but on the works that captured my attention.

When I saw Penny Wedding, the vulnerable, skinny young woman laid out like a meal, I couldn’t help but think that she was about to be raped. Williams wasn’t put off by my interpretation, but pleased. ‘With all my paintings, you have to be drawn towards it, and repelled from it in equal measure. And that’s what becomes exciting. Just being drawn towards something is “chocolate boxey”. Just being repelled by something is Tracey Emin, is Damien Hirst.’

Of course, the painting was far more complex than that. Williams said that his work was usually the ‘marriage’ of disparate ideas. A phrase or concept will ‘intrigue’ him, but ‘most often doesn’t have enough substance in it to make it work; so I store it in my memory. It might stay there for a day, a week, a year, ten years.’ Eventually another completely different idea arrives, and the painting is born. Penny Wedding, Williams told me, was a good example of the ‘two ideas’ – the first to arrive was ‘stored away’ for eight years. This was the penny wedding, a Scottish highland tradition in poor communities, where guests would place a penny in a wooden bowl. Everyone could afford it, and so the wedding was paid for.The Irish and Welsh Celtic tradition of ‘sin eating’ brought the painting to life. Williams explained, ‘When someone dies they are laid out, before the wake. The sin eater, who is a person in the village, is invited to the house. He or she is given a meal, roast taters and everything, set upon the coffin … So when he leaves, he takes the sins of the departed with him – he’s eaten the sins. The soul of the departed can go to heaven.

Yet these two strange tales gave rise to a painting depicting neither. The picture is of a bride who is an outsider, marrying into a poor fishing community where, as in Williams’ childhood, a room above a shop is hired for the wedding, and the presents laid out on the table. However, Williams explained, ‘She is not stark naked lying among the wedding presents. It’s how she feels – to be inspected by the whole family, to be quantified, to be judged. Meanwhile, the groom at the other end of the table can do nothing but look on helplessly, while his family, the leering grandfather, the jealous brother, the vain cousin, in the moving wooden doors of the painting, gossip and sneer, perhaps commenting on how thin the bride is. ‘The model was wonderfully skinny, with nipples like fried eggs on the table’,Williams told me.

The second painting that caught my eye, The Rage of Syrinx, has a wonderful immediacy: you can’t fail to be drawn to the young woman flying through the painting in a hurricane of rage. Here Williams was inspired by an Ovidian myth. But like all Williams’ paintings the story he tells is very much his own. In the original tale, the mischievous man-goat Pan pursues a young wood nymph, Syrinx, chasing her into a river bed, only to emerge with an armful of reeds, with which he invents the panpipes. However, in Williams’ mind, the tale has moved on. Syrinx is getting married and Pan has crashed her wedding, causing her fit of anger.

Williams tells me that Pan was always depicted by the Greeks with an erect penis, to show  that he was a ‘shameless hussy’. And sure enough, within the wooden frame, shaped like a screaming mouth, is the satyr. ‘I think this is the only erect penis in marquetry in the world. It’s yet to be disputed!’, Williams tells me with a grin.And, again, as with all Williams paintings, there are multiple meanings. He tells me that it is about pre-nuptial anxiety – losing the ring, the bridesmaids eloping, the hair that looks like a bed of reeds – but also about women feeling that they are ‘entrapped in a silken cage’, like Syrinx’ caged petticoat (a real one was created specially by Williams for his model to wear). I ask him whether he is qualified to say this, as a man. His eyes once again twinkle wryly, ‘It’s passive observation’, he laughs.

And I realise, having discussed only a few paintings, that we have whiled away over an hour. While Williams’ rich, narrative work may not to be to everyone’s taste, to hear him talk of it is to catch a glimpse into an inventive, imaginative and utterly unique mind. 

 

Dramatic Decorum and Interval Alcohol Etiquette

The Playhouse is a wonderful place. They show plays. Not only do they show plays, but they have a bar. Two, in fact: one on each floor. Twice the fun. And they also have intervals, in which you can visit said bars. And you can take your drinks into the auditorium with you. So, all things considered, it’s pretty wonderful.
The question is, though, what to drink? Chances are, if you’re reading a student newspaper, then you are a student yourself and so are over eighteen. You may even have been eighteen for quite some time. This means that you can legally purchase alcohol. So that means no lemonade or J20. You’ve got to do it properly. 
 Beer and cider are, quite obviously, off the cards. Alcohol is a diuretic and that pint that you chugged will need to come out sooner rather than later, leaving you with an unpleasant choice. Do you scramble to get out and rush to the loo, annoying people and missing half the second act, or, do you sit there, growing ever more uncomfortable as what feels like the upstream contents of the Hoover Dam attempts to force its way out of your bladder?
Clearly, this is not the way to go. Neither, however, is wine.  When considering the interval drink, one needs to bear in mind that alcohol is often just as important in improving the dramatic climax of the second act as anything that actually happens on stage. Wine is simply not strong enough to do this to a satisfying extent. Moreover, red wine is warming and makes you drowsy; likewise, whisky is a no-go.  Whilst it is strong enough, a malty warmth combined with the hot and stuffy environs of any theatre will, inevitably, send one snoring. So, what are we left with? Rum and coke?  Classy. Jagerbomb? Where do you think we are? Bridge?
Clearly, there is only one drink equipped for the task at hand, and that is the gin and tonic: cold enough to refresh and awaken without leaving you with caffeine jitters; large enough to quench your thirst yet not enough to send you rushing off to the toilet; alcoholic enough to make the second act that little bit better yet not so strong that it blurs into a vague mess. Clearly, the gin and tonic has it all.
Fundamentally, the G&T is a very simple drink, with four crucial elements. Gin, tonic, ice and lime. And it has to be a lime. Simply nothing else will do. Because we say so. There has to be enough ice or else the whole thing turns into a warm, sticky mess, and that completely defeats the point. 
Tonic is a very simple matter: you will be given a tiny bottle of tonic water (always Schweppes), and be invited to add it to taste. Chances are you’ll pour it all in regardless: you paid for the whole bottle, didn’t you? 
Then, we come to the main event. The gin. More often than not, unless you get a choice, it’ll be Gordon’s. Everywhere has Gordon’s. An ad campaign from a few years back explains their position rather well. Ill-advised flirtation with Gordon Ramsey’s inexplicably creased mug aside, their tagline was excellent: “The G in G&T”. How good is that? They’ve commandeered half of a two-letter acronym, ampersand notwithstanding. Tanqueray doesn’t stand a chance; T&T sounds like an investment bank. Bombay Sapphire pretends to be blue, and once out of the bottle, it isn’t. Which is very disappointing.
Enough of our blather. The best way to experience this king among beverages is to have one for yourself, and we urge you to do so the next time you are making interval chit-chat at the Playhouse.  And the quinine in the tonic will stop you from getting malaria.  Need we say more?

The Playhouse is a wonderful place. They show plays. Not only do they show plays, but they have a bar. Two, in fact: one on each floor. Twice the fun. And they also have intervals, in which you can visit said bars. And you can take your drinks into the auditorium with you. So, all things considered, it’s pretty wonderful.

The question is, though, what to drink? Chances are, if you’re reading a student newspaper, then you are a student yourself and so are over eighteen. You may even have been eighteen for quite some time. This means that you can legally purchase alcohol. So that means no lemonade or J20. You’ve got to do it properly. 

Beer and cider are, quite obviously, off the cards. Alcohol is a diuretic and that pint that you chugged will need to come out sooner rather than later, leaving you with an unpleasant choice. Do you scramble to get out and rush to the loo, annoying people and missing half the second act, or, do you sit there, growing ever more uncomfortable as what feels like the upstream contents of the Hoover Dam attempts to force its way out of your bladder?

Clearly, this is not the way to go. Neither, however, is wine.  When considering the interval drink, one needs to bear in mind that alcohol is often just as important in improving the dramatic climax of the second act as anything that actually happens on stage. Wine is simply not strong enough to do this to a satisfying extent. Moreover, red wine is warming and makes you drowsy; likewise, whisky is a no-go.  Whilst it is strong enough, a malty warmth combined with the hot and stuffy environs of any theatre will, inevitably, send one snoring. So, what are we left with? Rum and coke?  Classy. Jagerbomb? Where do you think we are? Bridge?

Clearly, there is only one drink equipped for the task at hand, and that is the gin and tonic: cold enough to refresh and awaken without leaving you with caffeine jitters; large enough to quench your thirst yet not enough to send you rushing off to the toilet; alcoholic enough to make the second act that little bit better yet not so strong that it blurs into a vague mess. Clearly, the gin and tonic has it all.

Fundamentally, the G&T is a very simple drink, with four crucial elements. Gin, tonic, ice and lime. And it has to be a lime. Simply nothing else will do. Because we say so. There has to be enough ice or else the whole thing turns into a warm, sticky mess, and that completely defeats the point. 

Tonic is a very simple matter: you will be given a tiny bottle of tonic water (always Schweppes), and be invited to add it to taste. Chances are you’ll pour it all in regardless: you paid for the whole bottle, didn’t you? 

Then, we come to the main event. The gin. More often than not, unless you get a choice, it’ll be Gordon’s. Everywhere has Gordon’s. An ad campaign from a few years back explains their position rather well. Ill-advised flirtation with Gordon Ramsey’s inexplicably creased mug aside, their tagline was excellent: “The G in G&T”. How good is that? They’ve commandeered half of a two-letter acronym, ampersand notwithstanding. Tanqueray doesn’t stand a chance; T&T sounds like an investment bank. Bombay Sapphire pretends to be blue, and once out of the bottle, it isn’t. Which is very disappointing.

Enough of our blather. The best way to experience this king among beverages is to have one for yourself, and we urge you to do so the next time you are making interval chit-chat at the Playhouse.  And the quinine in the tonic will stop you from getting malaria.  Need we say more?

 

Welcome to the House of Play

The Oxford Playhouse is undoubtedly the most esteemed theatre in Oxford, showcasing the very best of amateur and professional theatre. It  originally stood in what is now the Oxford University Language Centre, opposite Somerville College. The Oxford Playhouse was established in 1923 by J. B. Fagan and Jane Ellis, a young but unknown actress from London, who, after having little luck securing major acting roles, resolved to open her own theatre. The opening production was George Bernard Shaw’s Heartbreak House. Shaw himself attended and he was reported to have congratulated Oxford on having a highbrow theatre at last. 
Before the present Playhouse opened in October 1938 (designed by Sir Edward Maufe of Guildford Cathedral and War Graves Commission fame), the Oxford University Dramatic Society staged its indoor productions at the New Theatre. It mounted only one major production at the Playhouse, in June 1938, after no college would lend its lawns. The production was The Taming of the Shrew and its musical was director E.R.G. Heath, Britain’s future Conservative prime minister.
The Playhouse has attracted many of Britain’s most distinguished theatre professionals, from Maggie Smith, who made her first public appearance here, to Susannah York, who gave her last. Alan Ayckbourn has been assistant stage manager and Susan Hampshire painted the ladies’ loos in 1956. In 1933 the Playhouse staged its first pantomime, Dick Whittington, in which the principle boy was played by none other than Joan Hickson, TV’s Miss Marple. Over the years Playhouse pantomimes have been a real hotbed of talent – Ned Sherrin has played a fairy, Nigel Lawson a chorus boy, and Tony Hancock a pantomime dame.
Perhaps the most famous performance at the theatre however, was in 1966 when Richard Burton, a former student of the University, and his wife Elizabeth Taylor, at the time the highest paid star in the world, returned to perform in Doctor Faustus. It was then that Richard Burton donated money towards the Burton Rooms, originally used as reading rooms, for rehearsals and the occasional performance. Then, in the late 1980s, members of OUDS and other University students established the venue as somewhere that they could regularly put on their plays, naming it the Burton Taylor Theatre.
The Oxford Playhouse is currently considered to house the very best of student theatre, and the upcoming productions in Hilary have aroused an unprecedented level of interest throughout the city. For this reason, Cherwell Stage bring you a taster of both The Hothouse and Mephisto,  offering our hot tips for the best of the season in both the Playhouse and the Burton Taylor, as well as taking a light-hearted look at the notoriously tricky business of ordering one’s drink in the interval. Enjoy.

The Oxford Playhouse is undoubtedly the most esteemed theatre in Oxford, showcasing the very best of amateur and professional theatre. It  originally stood in what is now the Oxford University Language Centre, opposite Somerville College. The Oxford Playhouse was established in 1923 by J. B. Fagan and Jane Ellis, a young but unknown actress from London, who, after having little luck securing major acting roles, resolved to open her own theatre. The opening production was George Bernard Shaw’s Heartbreak House. Shaw himself attended and he was reported to have congratulated Oxford on having a highbrow theatre at last. 

Before the present Playhouse opened in October 1938 (designed by Sir Edward Maufe of Guildford Cathedral and War Graves Commission fame), the Oxford University Dramatic Society staged its indoor productions at the New Theatre. It mounted only one major production at the Playhouse, in June 1938, after no college would lend its lawns. The production was The Taming of the Shrew and its musical was director E.R.G. Heath, Britain’s future Conservative prime minister.The Playhouse has attracted many of Britain’s most distinguished theatre professionals, from Maggie Smith, who made her first public appearance here, to Susannah York, who gave her last. Alan Ayckbourn has been assistant stage manager and Susan Hampshire painted the ladies’ loos in 1956. In 1933 the Playhouse staged its first pantomime, Dick Whittington, in which the principle boy was played by none other than Joan Hickson, TV’s Miss Marple. Over the years Playhouse pantomimes have been a real hotbed of talent – Ned Sherrin has played a fairy, Nigel Lawson a chorus boy, and Tony Hancock a pantomime dame.

Perhaps the most famous performance at the theatre however, was in 1966 when Richard Burton, a former student of the University, and his wife Elizabeth Taylor, at the time the highest paid star in the world, returned to perform in Doctor Faustus. It was then that Richard Burton donated money towards the Burton Rooms, originally used as reading rooms, for rehearsals and the occasional performance. Then, in the late 1980s, members of OUDS and other University students established the venue as somewhere that they could regularly put on their plays, naming it the Burton Taylor Theatre.

The Oxford Playhouse is currently considered to house the very best of student theatre, and the upcoming productions in Hilary have aroused an unprecedented level of interest throughout the city. For this reason, Cherwell Stage bring you a taster of both The Hothouse and Mephisto,  offering our hot tips for the best of the season in both the Playhouse and the Burton Taylor, as well as taking a light-hearted look at the notoriously tricky business of ordering one’s drink in the interval. Enjoy.

 

An exploration into Orpheus In the Underworld

0

Orpheus in the Underworld is an operatta by Offenbach, being performed with the english translation by Geoffrey Dunn at the Sheldonian Theatre next week.

Hannah Blyth speaks to the conductor, Ben Holder, and leading lady Julia Sitkovetsky about its humour, best bits and the practicalities of a performance involving such large numbers.

Orpheus in the Underworld is on at 8pm on the 2nd and 3rd of February. Tickets are available by calling 01865 305305.

Blagging the news: healthcare reform

0

Mrs Jones: While we must all tighten our belts in times of trouble, it seems awfully hypocritical that the Tories promise to safeguard the NHS and then promptly demand cuts of £20bn in the next four years.

Mr Jones: Well yes my dear. With the medical profession lined up against the reforms, the government does not seem to have taken its listening exercise seriously.

UK Healthcare Reform

What:

When the government promised to ringfence the health budget in 2010, you may well have taken comfort in the knowledge that the Tories would be steering clear of our beloved NHS. But just like every government before them and every government yet to come, the coalition can’t resist having a little tinker. The £1.4bn ‘tinker’ of the NHS is being pushed through at a time when savings of up to £20bn have been demanded over the next four years.
The plan aims to take away power from expert ‘bureaucrats’ and give GPs and clinicians more responsibility in allocating the healthcare budget – after all, if you’re smart enough to do medicine, you’re probably pretty good at business administration too.

Who:

The health minister, Andrew Lansley, is taking the lead on these reforms, which he developed during his time in the shadow cabinet. In yet another misjudged political manoeuvre, Nick Clegg has backed the plans.
Despite putting things on hold last spring to ‘listen’ to government critics, ministers seem determined not to let the hostile opinions of doctors, nurses, clinicians and policy experts spoil the party. This week however, the reforms are back in the headlines after even the government’s own MPs have spoken out. A Conservative-led cross-party select committee on health has said the reforms will inevitably lead hospitals and trusts to cut services.

Sound bites to wow with:

‘Introducing free market solutions to healthcare promotes a fundamental conflict of interest between provider and user and leads to over-provision of services.’
‘Decentralising healthcare provision will inevitably lead to a postcode lottery, where standards of care will vary hugely from one area to another.’

Don’t say:

‘Why don’t we just model our healthcare system on the United States?’

Misanthrope: The 2012 Olympics

0

I want to make it quite clear that I am not a patriot. I don’t feel that surge of pride when I order chips abroad, loudly and in English. I don’t approach groups of American tourists, defiantly talking about “water bottles” in received diction. And I can only think of two occasions when I’ve sipped tea with a protruding pinkie.

But, despite myself, at the mention of the London 2012 Olympics I feel a desperate urge to wrap myself in a Union Jack and catch the first double-decker bus down to Buckingham Palace. And no, it’s not because that’s where they’re hosting the women’s beach volleyball. It’s because I can’t ruddy wait to have the second greatest four-yearly sporting event in the world (the football world cup would never need CGI footprint-shaped fireworks to make people watch it) in our very own Blighty – and watch us balls the whole thing up with consummate mastery.

Just the build up to the games has revealed the spectacular capacity of Great Britain for lukewarm achievement. Take the Olympic Stadium. It has been charitably described as a “bowl of blancmange” by some. And it’s not even a big bowl. In fact, with a capacity of 80,000, it’s smaller than just about every college (American) football ground.

OK, fine. So our Games won’t be as ostentatious as Beijing ’08. But who wants ostentation anyway, in times like these? No, what we want is efficiency. An understated games that goes off without a hitch. Obviously it was with this in mind that some genius came up with the idea of giving athletes free use of London’s public transport. Usain Bolt is very quick, but not even he will be able to win the 100 metres when he’s stuck at Tower Hill because of signal failure on the District Line. In fact, transportational issues are so high on the list of potential fuck-ups, that the Games’s organising committee has already resigned itself to mitigating the disaster, rather than averting it. Thus, they have made early efforts to recast the inevitable gridlock on London’s roads in a more glamorous light, anticipating a “perfect traffic storm” for the summer of 2012.

Look out world. 

5 Minute Tute: Sub-Saharan Africa

0

What are the biggest challenges currently facing sub-Saharan Africa?

Africa has is biggest ever opportunity, which is to harness the commodity booms and new resource discoveries for sustained development. Historically, natural resource booms have often been a curse, giving rise to the politics of plunder: the few expropriating what should benefit the many, and the present generation burning up what should also benefit future generations. The challenge is to avoid repeating that sad history. The repeat of history is the default option, but it is not inevitable. For example, Germany is the best-managed economy in Europe because it used to be the worst, but learnt from its mistakes. Africa needs to do what Germany did: legislate the key decision rules; build dedicated institutions that implement the rules; and most important, build a critical mass of citizens who understand the issues and defend the rules and institutions. As the strikes in Nigeria demonstrate, Africa’s citizens are not yet up to speed in their true interests.

What is the evidence that aid to sub-Saharan Africa works?

Aid has got a lot better, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. Its future is in the small, impoverished, fragile states which without aid would simply fall apart. But to date in these societies aid has often merely kept the country on life support. What is needed is to use aid more strategically in developing the economy. In particular, this means supporting decent international firms to come into the country: without them such countries will probably remain impoverished. So aid needs to become both more focused on the plight of the least successful societies, and at the same time, more commercial.

Is recent Chinese investment helping the region’s development?

On balance, yes. The Chinese are not saints: they are primarily interested in helping China. But they are motivated by the notion of ‘win-win’, or projects which generate mutual benefits. This is not charity, but as a result it is less patronising, and it gives the Chinese a genuine motivation to stick with projects until they are successful. That said, at its worst, Chinese investment is indeed helping crooked regimes to remain in power.

What should outsiders who want to help sub-Saharan Africa do?

Both social enterprise and private enterprise now offer outsiders ways of being really useful to Africa. At its best, social enterprise brings the practices of effective organizations to environments which lack them; enabling poor people to gain access to services and products that would otherwise be the preserve of the privileged. After years of neglect, private enterprise is at last interested in African opportunities. Of course, some private enterprise is part of the plunder machine that has looted Africa. Reputable companies have until recently shied away from being tainted by what they perceive as corrupt environments.  Because young people are not willing to tolerate corrupt practices, they are the ideal workforce to enable decent companies to do business in Africa without damage to their reputations. As with social enterprises, Africa sorely needs what effective modern organizations can bring.   

 

A third state, and now a third victor

0

Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary. Faced with waves of what would be considered obstacles to any normal candidate, including his serial adultery, his wildly oscillating political positions and an endorsement from Chuck Norris, he has outlasted the other non-Romnies to not just squeak past Mitt but trounce him by a margin of 14%. This is a man who was forced out of the highest position he ever held by his own party (whom he would later describe as ‘cannibals’), who divorced one of his wives while she was suffering from cancer, and who, most gravely of all for a Republican, once tried to raise awareness about climate change.

Pundits keep on describing the search for a ‘real’ conservative to replace Mitt Romney, who is probably quite accurately suspected of being more interested in low corporate tax rates than home-schooling and gay-bashing, but Gingrich’s win suggests different forces at work. For one thing, he would be one of the most radical candidates to stand for President in decades. He routinely predicts World War Three. He seriously advocates colonising the moon. He would ignore the judiciary if it disagreed with him. He writes alternative histories and children’s books about American exceptionalism. Slightly demented policies have long been a byproduct of the Republican obsession with ideological purity, but this is something different.

Gingrich’s appeal is, I think, not the actual content of his policies or even the values they represent, but their sheer wide-eyed radicalism itself and the maniacal confidence with which he expounds them. His ascent is perhaps the climax of the Republicans’ protracted, messy divorce from reality, and their retreat into a fantastical world in which shadowy ‘elites’ wage proxy wars against middle America in hospitals, schools and gay bars.

You have to place yourself within this imagined dystopia to really understand Gingrich’s appeal. His apocalyptic warnings that American civilisation itself is nearing collapse start to make sense if you believe that everything you hold dear is under constant siege. His snappy, aggressive debating is suited to a political war zone, while Romney, with his constant smile and tiresome practicality just doesn’t seem angry enough. Romney promises to get Obama out of office. Gingrich promises to ‘knock him out’.

That aggression, and that macho contempt for anyone who does not believe in him is what gave Gingrich the edge in South Carolina. Sure, Ron Paul has radical plans to dismantle the modern financial system, but he views supporters of the status quo only as idiots; Gingrich one-ups him, claiming that they are actually evil, or agents of the ‘secular-socialist machine’, to be precise. Rick Santorum has plenty of hatred in him if his policies are anything to go by, but it never quite shows through; it is, after all, hard to look outraged wearing a sweater-vest.

Gingrich’s skill is to take the kind of gutsy anger that once powered Sarah Palin’s brief flight in the polls  and marry it with enough intelligence to carry his points beyond mere rants into something with at least the feel of a political vision. His style is radicalism for its own sake; that is, there are no real plans, only a constant sense of righteous anger about to be unleashed upon the establishment. He has replaced political principles with abstract nouns, like ‘greatness’ and ‘civilisation’. Even the Tea Partiers, crazed though they may be, at least have a concrete goal of cutting spending.

Yet with a meticulously compromising President in power, who brought Republicans into his cabinet, adopted Republican plans for his modest healthcare reforms and even maintained Republican tax cuts, why do so many Americans buy in to claims that he is the socialist anti-Christ? I suspect, in part, that among the patriotic middle-aged, a kind of nostalgia has been growing for the days of the Cold War and the single, simple enemy that the ‘Evil Empire’ provided as a foil to America’s heroism.

By the patriotic middle-aged, I mean in particular the generation old enough to remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, but too young to fully remember the Vietnam War, the generation raised on the purest narratives of American greatness. No satisfactory replacement has ever been found; even the once-trumpeted War on Terror has produced only a spluttering, ceaseless trickle of deaths, and whatever victories have been won remain half a globe away, intangible for most Americans. It’s that deep longing for simple divisions between good and evil that has pushed Gingrich to the front.

Of course, he will never likely be President; his mental state and approach to decision-making have been tactfully described as ‘erratic’ by members of his own party. Yet he is not just another ‘traditional values’ candidate buoyed by rural voters, but the first to directly represent the Republicans who grew up with the mythology of the Reagan era, and live now within the terrifying news-world created by Fox.

That’s what makes Gingrich worth paying attention to – he represents not a set of policies or values, but a mindset, a schizophrenic worldview in which every problem is a conspiracy and every solution a chance to ‘rebuild civilisation’. Newt is not the first politician to be crazy, but he may be the first man in history to make craziness into a passable political brand. And he is worth following for it.

Speaking in Tongues – Part 2

0

Speaking in Tongues was written by Rob Williams and produced by Loveday Wright and Tom Moyser. 

The Cast, in order of appearance, are:

The Apologist – Dave Ralf 
Micheal – Richard O’Brien 
Louise – Charlotte Geater 
David – Rob Williams 
Jennifer – Sarah Whitehouse 
Terry – Jack Hackett 
Billy – Tom Moyser 

Press Preview: The Man Upstairs

0

The Man Upstairs is about a man struggling to distill a modicum of meaning from the banality of everyday life.  The play begins with a troubled professorial type going by the name of Arthur luring a bystander to a rooftop to give him a hand at ending it all. Zoe, said bystander, unsurprisingly refuses, and in her attempt to dissuade Arthur from the irrevocable, is drawn into a dialogue with the supposedly intriguing and mercurial Mr. Arthur Hallam. Arthur is the quirky professorial type (though not a professor) whilst Zoe is a naive student.

Over the course of two days, Zoe and the audience are given a number of insights into Arthur’s life, including the facts that he has a wife who he doesn’t think is worth mentioning, that he’s addicted to self-pity and most generally that he’s a bit of a dick. From what I saw in the press preview, writer Tim Kiely has made a valiant effort, yet I feel he ran into trouble writing lines for Mr. Hallam. The problem I think he ran into is that when trying to write about a character who’s manic enough to commit suicide, you inevitably end up trading authenticity for good theatre. As a result, Arthur isn’t the most believable of characters, and unfortunately neither is his relationship with Zoe, who clearly gets something from her time with Arthur that I must have missed. whilst I had problems suspending my disbelief, I did in all fairness only see three scenes, and with a longer exposition I may have been convinced. I felt the play was strongest when Arthur wasn’t involved, with some excellent dialogue between Zoe and Helen, Arthur’s wife. Indeed I was completely convinced by Helen’s wistful reminiscing about her early relationship with Arthur, and actress Caitlin McMillan deserves plaudits.

Vyvyan Almond made a courageous attempt at playing Arthur, bringing to life a particularly funny analysis of ITV’s Loose Women but failed to make me forget the limitations of the character, which once again, given the brief nature of the preview, may well have been an impossible task. Overall I enjoyed The Man Upstairs but am left thinking that writer Timothy Kiely has bitten off ever so slightly more than he can chew. Just slightly though, and slightly is still worth a viewing.

3 STARS