Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Blog Page 1735

Birmingham University Injunction

0

Birmingham University has recently been granted an injunction that criminalises any occupation of university property for the next year.

The injunction follows a recent occupation of an abandoned campus building and other protests which have resulted in sanctions against students.

Tessa Gregory, a solicitor at Public Interest Lawyers who is acting on behalf of Birmingham students, described recent events as being ‘a shameful attempt by the university to prevent students from exercising their lawful right to protest.’ A Birmingham University spokesperson claimed that the injunction would have no effect of the right of student protest on campus; ‘it merely covers the unauthorised occupation of campus or buildings.’

Other universities have also resorted to legal action to end occupations. Sheffield University have recently withdrawn a similar injunction last week after successful negotiations between student occupiers and university authorities. Students at Royal Holloway were also threatened with a high court injunction, although the occupation ended before the university resorted to such action.

Asked to comment on the Birmingham injunction and Oxford’s response to a future occupation, an Oxford University spokesperson stated that the University ‘fully supports people’s right to protest, as long as it is within the law. We do not support occupying University buildings as a means of protest. Any response to a particular protest would depend on the circumstances.’
In November 2010 the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford was occupied by a group of students as part of a wider protest against public sector cuts. The protest ended after more than 24 hours when the police managed to break through a door.

The National Campaign Against Fees and Cuts has placed the blame on the increasing privatisation of higher education. They say that certain principles, such as freedom of expression and democracy on campus, are being lost, as ‘high paid university executives are cracking down on all forms of dissent on universities’ campuses.” They will ‘fight this draconian injunction in court’ as well as disregarding the injunction in practice by organising more protests at Birmingham University.

Blagging The News: Republican primaries

0

Mr Jones: I must say, Romney’s narrow victory at the Iowa Caucus doesn’t surprise me. I’m just shocked at the speed with which Gingrich’s star waned and Santorum’s waxed!

Mrs Jones: I’m of the same mind, my dear. What with Romney taking first in New Hampshire, he’s a shoe-in for the nomination in Florida.

Are you perplexed by potical postulation? Desperate to keep up with the Joneses, but at a loss for what to say at the dinner table? Cherwell is here to help you perfect your chit-chat.

What:

Candidates compete against each other in each of the 50 states, to see who will eventually be nominated as the Republican candidate for the Presidential elections in 2012 at the Republican National Convention in Florida. The Iowa caucus, a series of meetings, which took place on January 3rd, is the first of these showdowns. Most of the rest of the contests, including New Hampshire which took place on Tuesday, are primary elections.

Who:

The front runner is Mitt Romney, who won both Iowa and New Hampshire. Apart from Jon Hunstman, whose campaign we suspect has peaked with a third place finish in New Hampshire, Romney is the only sane candidate. Others include Ron Paul, who is running to become President of a government that he vehemently opposes in principle; Newt Gingrich who, apart from having a ludicrous name, has managed to recover his campaign (ish) after being abandoned by his entire staff; Rick Santorum, who has taken a break from opposing all things gay, to almost win the Iowa caucus. Cripes. Oh, and Rick Perry who is batshit mental. Some consolation can be found in the news that Sarah Palin wannabe Michele Bachmann dropped out of the race after polling a dismal 5% in Iowa.

Soundbites to wow with:

‘It just goes to show how unrepresentative the Iowa straw poll is. Michele Bachmann has pulled out of the race, despite winning there.’

‘Although Republican candidates have to appeal to a significant core of conservatives and evangelicals, elections are always decided in the centre – Romney’s the only one who can challenge Obama.’

Don’t say:

‘Rick Perry’s social views really encapsulate the values of compassionate conservatism.’

‘Newt Gingrich is a family man.’

Corpus Christi cans OxStu

0

Corpus Christi’s JCR has voted to suspend its subscription to the Oxford Student.

The decision comes after the student publication produced a series of articles concerning the “debauchery, anti-Semitism and nepotism” witnessed at the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA)’s recent events and gatherings. Certain members of Corpus’ JCR, who featured heavily in these articles, feel that the newspaper targeted them unfairly.

Corpus Christi’s JCR president, Kezia Lock, told Cherwell how the JCR’s decision to unsubscribe resulted from the direct and disruptive nature of the paper’s attack on certain JCR members. “These stories were not factually accurate. Some JCR members went in to counselling following the publication of the articles.”

Lock has branded the OxStu’s behaviour as “unfounded harassment” which could be avoided “if the OxStu abided by the Press Complaints Commission’s standards and ethics, which they say they do but clearly don’t.”

The Oxford Student has fought back in defence of their journalistic integrity. OxStu editors Nick Megaw and Laura Simmons told Cherwell that “none of our reporters deviated from the PCC code of conduct, and all stories printed in the paper were based on verifiable facts and checked by lawyers, and thus we consider any accusations of libel or harassment offensive and unfounded.”

The motion to unsubscribe from the newspaper passed with an overwhelming majority. Those proposing the motion declared that “The Oxford Student on a regular basis publishes potentially defamatory articles about our college and its members. It is comprised of student journalists desperately trying to make a name for themselves. It shows little journalistic rigour or integrity.” Felipe Monge Imedio, proposing the motion, stated that “it is morally wrong for us to finance attacks on our own college.”

A JCR member seemed to share Imedio’s sentiments, commenting, ‘Cherwell is to The Oxford Student what a crystal phial of aged Cognac is to a beaker of tepid cat urine. The former exudes elegance, and sparkles with effortless sophistication and tantalising finesse; the latter is rancid, unsubtle, and unappealing to all but the crudest of observers. Corpus, it follows, has shown a commitment to taste and quality, which other colleges would do well to imitate.’

Jim Everett, another Corpus JCR member, made a speech during the meeting in favour of terminating the JCR’s subscription, saying, “Corpus is a welcoming and close-knit college and we cannot accept unfounded personal harassment of our members.” Everett has claimed that other Corpuscules believe that other colleges should stand up against the bullying of individuals in the press. “Such harassment is not just levelled at Corpus members.”

The JCR President Kezia Lock has circulated a draft letter to be sent to the newspaper detailing their reasons for unsubscribing.

However, Lock’s letter remarked that the OxStu is not the sole target of the JCR’s criticism, and suggested improvements that the student press could make. “If you ensured your writers actually subscribed to the code of practices and conduct outlined by the Press Complaints Commission, rather than merely asserting that they do, other individuals will be protected from going through what some of our JCR members had to and such poor journalism will not be published in the future.”

Lock said that while the JCR is not under the illusion that its unsubscribing will “cripple the OxStu economically,” the money saved will go to the charity Reporters Without Borders.

5 Minute Tute: Nigel Farage

0

1) What is Euroscepticism?

The word makes it sound like it’s people who are sceptical of this idea of a United Europe but who have yet to make up their minds, perhaps. That’s why the word ‘eurorealist’ is being used more and more by younger people.

But for the ease of understanding and perhaps to keep it easier for the media, it’s come to mean people who don’t trust the EU and want to change our relationship with it. Thus it doesn’t just include people who want to withdraw and replace our relationship with a free trade deal but people who perhaps think that we can remain inside and renegotiate treaties.

2) What do Eurosceptics think the UK’s relationship with the EU should be?

Well, once again that rather depends on the definition and the different clauses in that. I can only answer for me in that I want the UK to withdraw from the EU and replace the current situation with a free trade deal and friendly relations with our neighbours. Fundamentally, I do not want the UK to be a second class European country, I want her to be a first class global one and that can’t happen whilst we remain in the EU.

3)  Wouldn’t withdrawing from the EU damage the UK’s international standing?

Quite the reverse. Right now, we don’t even have a seat on the World Trade Organisation. How is that any good for our international standing? Of course there are other things which could help such as stopping pointless, costly wars which maim and kill our young men and women but we should be out there dealing with the world, not with a group of countries who are introspective and have a declining influence.

4) How much do you think Euroscepticism in the UK will be boosted by the current Eurozone crisis?

The figures already show a trend which was on the increase has just had a real boost. Before the EU was something that was ‘over there’ and it was all to easy to ignore the every day effects it has on our lives, particularly with a political class and media happy to perpetuate that. But now it’s all over the news, it’s costing us money and of course we’ve seen two democratically elected governments kicked out and replaced by ones which the EU considers to be suitable. Whatever you think of politicians like Berlusconi or, say, Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister – and what a disaster that was – the people had the choice to kick them out through the ballot box. That’s what this country did. I’m sure if we were ever given the option on voting for the EU leaders they’d be surprised at the reaction from the people who they prefer to ignore.

5. Has David Cameron’s veto made a difference to UKIPs support and Britain’s long term future with the EU?

I was pleased with David Cameron’s insistence that there be no new Treaties which would not provide safeguards. However I do not think that any Treaty which grants more power to the EU is in the country’s interest nor do I give much value to ‘safeguards’ or ‘red lines’. The simple fact is that the EU wants to put a stop to these Anglo-Saxon ways of international finance as they are ‘not British’ and indeed the desire to control, regulate and fundamentally ban hedge funds was proposed in the European Parliament by a German MEP in 2006.

The generation gap

0

Old and young have been pitted against one another, presumably since the first day a human being actually actually made it to retirement age. The young have always been sent to toil, fight and otherwise suffer to defend the elder generation, and a set of comforts that they too might enjoy one day. And now, as at every other time of strain, the young across the world have had to shoulder the bulk of the burden. In the UK the bill for higher education has been handed to students with barely a second thought, while any cuts to pensions must make it through lengthy negotiations. In France and Spain almost half of all twenty-somethings languish jobless, while their parents remain well-paid and unsackable.

The division is most extreme in America, where almost ever major issue is a clash between young and old. Obama’s attempt to extend health insurance to the young met with bitter opposition from well-off old people; the values of an older generation and the laxer morals of the young continue to provoke vicious clashes. Yet politicians tend to reach out to each group only through euphemism: conservatives lament the passing of time, while liberals prefer to talk of the future. The Tea Party and the Occupy movement are drawn almost exclusively from old and young respectively, and instead both implausibly claim to represent all ‘real’ Americans.

The question, then, is whether this long, sprawling economic crisis, by exacerbating the divisions between old and young, will lead politicians to break the taboo and actually talk about generational conflict. It seems unlikely, not least because nakedly pandering to a particular group of voters tends go down badly even with those voters themselves. Self-interest looks best when dressed up in a grand narrative, a tactic that has reached a zenith of absurdity on the America right, where any attempt to channel spending to under-50s amounts to a socialist conspiracy to end Western civilisation.

The patchwork of values that has for so long sustained indulgence of the old is wearing thin. The state today is expected to provide on the basis of need, not age. The mantra about having worked hard all one’s life rings hollow when that work was for private gain; though no politician would survive long calling for television and fuel subsidies to the elderly to be cut, they would hardly fare better calling on the young to be proud to serve their elders, an exhortation that would have seemed quite normal only a few decades ago.

Still, the young remain weak as a political group, not least because of our tendency not to bother voting. Whatever disadvantages we may suffer as a group are masked by the fact that our individual lives are, in general, constantly getting better, as we receive first paycheques and find first homes, but the latent tension remains. The odds of a youth political movement emerging to promote investment in education and reforms to pensions are therefore quite negligible, but a more honest discussion of the conflicts of interests between young and old may not be far off.

Start as You Mean to Go Wrong

1) Every year as January 1st rolls around, we all try to think of interesting yet achievable New Year’s resolutions to improve ourselves or broaden our horizons. Every year I fail to last more than a week.

Starting out with overzealous determination has in the past seen me actually join a gym, cut out chocolate, cut out crisps, cut out most of the foods that I enjoy but someone, somewhere is telling me I’m not allowed. One year I just vowed to try to be a ‘nicer person’ – clearly a year lacking in creativity and willpower. Come the first day back at school faced with a 7am alarm, an empty box of cereal and a freezing cold bus journey, that one went swiftly down the pan, as the bus driver can attest to.

I guess the sentiments behind New Year’s resolutions are generally to be admired — well-worn encouragement to eat healthily, exercise and generally try to be a better person can’t really be faulted. Or can it? It’s Christmas, I’m on holiday, just starting to settle in to that well deserved, luxurious bubble of having absolutely nothing to do when suddenly I’m pelted from all sides, not only with the realisation that collections are looming and that I’ve procrastinated away an entire month in front of the BBC’s (seriously disappointing) Christmas TV schedule. But also with the demand to stop enjoying myself and start belittling myself. Because really, the basis of any New Year’s resolution is essentially that; find something wrong with yourself and ruthlessly determine to change it. Furthermore, the feeling of self loathing is tripled by the inevitable failure to resist the family sized Dairy Milk bar at the bottom of the shopping bag or to drag yourself to the gym after working an 8 hour shift in the middle of the January sales.

So this year, like all the others, after realising I just cannot be bothered with the trauma of making a New Year’s resolution, I am not going to make one. Or maybe I will, I’ll make a handful of them. My New Year’s resolutions are to eat as much chocolate as I want without vomiting, make no effort to choose the vegetarian option in Hall to try to be healthier, exercise as little as possible and drink an excessive amount of alcohol throughout Hilary. All of which are fully achievable and will no doubt make me feel a lot better about myself.

2) On New Year’s Day, I had a revelation. I felt like utter shit. My head was pounding, my mouth tasted of sick, my tongue was furry, my eyes were blurry and my voice was gone along with my dignity. My tired, twenty-year old body wasn’t standing up as well to New Year frivolities as my lithe, teenage one had. This was my plan.

Give up the drink. Give up the grey mornings spent staring at the dull porcelain of the toilet and the mourning of headaches and pains and anxiety and paranoia. Give up forgetting what has happened the night before. Give up the disgraces and embarrassments. Give up the damaging of your finances, so often multiplied by poorly judged rounds. Give up the tiredness. Give up the long walks in a confused, lost state around areas you have known all your life. Give up putting on weight and damaging your teeth and the bruises sustained in fights. Give up the apologies made without any memory of what is being apologised for. Give up the sad realisation that the only time you can converse well with other human beings, laugh and feel like you have a connection to other people is when you have had at least two pints. Give up the horrible soul-searching over whether you owe or are indeed owed drinks. Give up the random chats with members of the public who at the time seem highly talkative and very engaged in conversation but are just bored and sober. Give up the drunken texts to parents or teachers or exes. Give up the frapes and apologising for the damage done by frapes. Give up the competitive conversations the next day about how much everyone drank. Give up the discovery that you can’t remember what the music was like. Give up the unbelievable struggle of working the next day. Give up the saddening feeling of having to lie on a doctor’s form because your mum is looking over your shoulder at the alchohol consumed section.

If there were this many reasons to give up anything else, you’d give it up too.

3) I’ve always been proud of my college. I admit it has its flaws- for example we’ve no spires, or gargoyles, or chapel or classic architecture, which defines most Oxford colleges. However, despite its lack of popularity, the Gatehouse building (if you’ve seen it, you’ll try to forget it) and our ‘humble’ campus (some of the staircases used to be the St John’s servants’ quarters), the one thing St Anne’s does have, and prides itself on, is its food. We like to eat. And we’ve won awards, you know. The time where the sustenance of our hall is at its best, when the cuisine is at the peak of succulence, when our kitchens are abundant with mouthwatering odours, is inevitably at our formal hall.

I was innocently talking to a friend at Queen’s about this exclusive event, and it got me to thinking that perhaps 2012 is the year where I will escape my cosy college comfort zone and have a taste of what you other colleges have to offer. So, reader, you’ve heard it here first; this year I resolve to eat at every Oxford College Formal Hall.

My first barrier for this ambitious challenge: I only know about ten people from different colleges. The second barrier: I don’t own enough fancy clothes. The third barrier: I have 24 weeks of Oxford term to try and squeeze in the other 37 college’s formals. Lets remain optimistic – it’s do-able right? All I have to do is somehow accumulate 37 new friends, each from a different college and persuade each ‘new friend’ into allowing me to tag along to dinner without gaining a reputation as the girl who invites herself everywhere (we all know one).

My bank balance will take a serious hit from my future 37 dinners, not to mention my waist size, but for the good of Cherwell, and of 2012: bring on the courses.

4) I’ve tried all the obvious resolutions: go to the gym every day, hand in all my work on time, don’t have Hassan’s on my way home every night. Invariably they decline throughout January until it’s third week and they’ve become: go to the gym once this term, hand in all my work at some point before finals, alternate evening meals between Hassan’s and Macdonalds, for variety’s sake. So this year, I’m jumping on my parents’ bandwagon and going for the slightly more pragmatic, although still highly beneficial, approach.

Firstly, I’ve decided to really make an effort to really avoid inappropriate moments. Seemingly simple, yes. But the breadth of this resolution means that firstly, it’s a good talking point. And, more importantly, I can choose to define its success as I see fit. It might seem that there’s not much involved in this, however, I can assure you that if I’d been as determined as I am now to stick to this last year, I would have avoided a not insignificant number of red-faced moments. If only I’d checked the ‘To:’ box on that e-mail that I sent to my tutor, not my tute partner, stating that: ‘I have no idea what I’ve even said in this essay. I’ve read an article and a half and I think one of those was about the wrong text. Please save me in this tute.’ I coud have saved myself a very miserable hour discussing why exactly it was that I’d only read half a relevant article. If only I hadn’t accepted the dare to walk into the Christ Church pizza van and try to teach them exactly ‘how I’d do it’ if I were a chef. Which I,of course, am not. I think I’ve made my point: with a little more consideration, my year could prove much less humiliating. And if it doesn’t work, then at least I’ll have some good sconce-fodder.

Secondly, I’m going to go to all of my lectures this term. Well, you need to have something unattainable, for tradition’s sake.

Twenty-Twelve: New Year, New You

0

Twenty-twelve – a New Year and the dawn of a new term. The time is nigh for morale-boosting team talks, substituting procrastination for a super-human work ethic, and going all Usain Bolt on your rivals to leave them cleaning your dust out of their eyes. It’s resolution time, and for those looking for something more achievable this term than “revise for collections”, “actually enjoy a night at No. 9” or “write a whole article without mentioning the MGA 3rds”, Oxford sport has mountains on offer this Hilary to help you work off those Michaelmas mince pies.
Hilary term is the perfect time for those who haven’t been involved in college sport to get stuck in.

It’s a time when finalists will start thinking twice before leaving the library, and turkey-burdened regulars are no longer dead certs for the starting line-up. The cornucopia of sporting options available really is limitless: if there is nothing in your college which takes your fancy, start up a new team. Even if it turns out to be a complete flop at least you can exaggerate the bejesus out of it on your CV.

As well as the surplus of college sport available, the scope of opportunity for personal exercise at Oxford is equally expansive. Why not build on that 3am sprint to a kebab van by jogging blissfully along one of Oxford’s many riverbanks? Why not unlock your bike for more than a last minute dash to lectures by braving the ‘alternative’ Himalayas of Portmeadow’s nature reserve? Why not exploit your skinny dipping talents by diving in at the deep end at Iffley’s swimming pool (but please do remain decent)? Or at least try throwing a few darts between sips.

A few colleges also provide gyms on site, and although often primitive they are always conveniently located and definitely sufficiently equipped. The prospect of pumping reps alongside the next Martin Johnson may seem intimidating to some of us mere mortals, but you won’t always be surrounded by people who say ‘don’t worry, it’s not an airstrike, it’s just my massive guns’ every time they flex a bicep. If you choose your times carefully college gyms can be great hangouts and a great way of getting out of the Oxford bubble for a few hours, offering a brilliant way of easing out all the stress from those 9ams you occasionally frequent.

Those colleges that don’t have their own facilities often provide discounted or free membership to the Iffley Road sports complex, so make sure to check with yours if interested. Even without a discount the Iffley gym is great value – with the Jack Wills sale less generous than expected this year, many Oxford students may find the £57 a year (gym only) a much better use of their Christmas savings.

So get out there, give something new a go, and reap the rewards of regular exercise in your academic and social lives. And if the thought of applying your body in an active sporting environment really is all a bit too much, well there’s always cricket to be played in Trinity.

The Closest Thing to Magic

0

She’s had the kind of enviable pick ‘n’ mix media career that countless English graduates dream of: a radio show, satirical news programme, fashion columnist, presenter of the occasional award show and now published novelist. Like the over achiever who’s always let off by the teachers when caught smoking round the back of the bike sheds, it seems she’s the woman that can do everything. And all whilst effortlessly retaining that coolest girl in school vibe. With kooky, funny and clever as her calling cards it’s easy to see why everyone wants to be friends with Lauren Laverne.

Having been one of the very few that actually do fulfil their teenage dreams of being propelled to stardom via their high school band, Laverne spent her late teens ‘on Top of the Pops, being in the studio writing songs, which was always my favourite bit, and touring the world’. She was lead singer and guitarist of the indie band Kenickie — belting out acerbic punky songs about the experiences of youth, with a choppy blonde bob and razor sharp eyeliner. Most memorable was their song ‘In your car’, whose twangy, bolshy chorus — including the pre-chorus “yeah yeah, yeah yeah” — seemed to have come joyfully out of a jar labelled ‘90s adolescent experience’. For her, the best bit was ‘getting the opportunity to be a band who played to our peers. We were a bunch of 17 year olds playing to other 17 year olds which is a particular kind of special.’

When I ask about the lows that seem to, inevitably, come with fame at such an early age Laverne remarks, ‘I suppose we were exposed to things I would flinch at the idea of my teenage goddaughter or little cousins coming into contact with, but I’m not sure whether another path would have been any more innocent in that respect!’ And indeed, not only did she not succumb to the usual child star trail of wild illegal antics concluding in a position on the line up on Never Mind the Buzzcocks but, when the band split after 4 years, managed to slip seamlessly into a faultless television career.

From initially presenting various music shows, Planet Pop and CD:UK amongst many others, Laverne soon became a panel show staple. She then spent 4 years on The Culture Show with Mark Kermode where she interviewed everyone from Beyoncé to Sarah Millican with her trademark dry wit and ‘regional’ straight talking. Her favourite interviewee is Paul McCartney. ‘He did a private gig for us on the roof of a windmill on one occasion. That was quite a nice way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. I don’t know about worst – I’ve had difficult or taciturn interviewees but I don’t take that personally. I take the view that people are who they are and that’s fine. Not everybody is Noel Cowerd, nor should they be.’ I ask about interviewees that surprised her: ‘I was expecting Lou Reed to give me a hard time but we got on like a house on fire – which was a massive relief as I am a big fan of his.’

Laverne landed the 10 — 1pm weekday slot on BBC 6 Music, springing passionately to its defence when the station was threatened with closure in March 2010 along with the Asian Network due to BBC cost-cutting plans. ‘Music is the closest thing we have to magic in the world. Pop music – in the broadest sense of the phrase – is one of Britain’s most vital cultural exports. 6Music nurtures, documents, celebrates and educates people about it. I am the station’s biggest fan. It’s a hard time for the arts at the moment. I am concerned - for smaller organisations as well as large ones like the BFI’ (British Film Institute).

Laverne’s enduring support for the music industry and the arts as a whole are only the thin end on the wedge of her political interest. She co-hosted Channel 4’s Alternative Election Night in 2010. Laverne’s hometown of Sunderland is considered a Labour safe seat. And presumabley she was cheering along as the Houghton and Sunderland South constituency retained the tradition of being the first seat to declare its results.

Although her political interest has undoubtedly developed since her time as indie girl rocker Laverne certainly has a reputation for being outspoken. She memorably referred to the Spice Girls as ‘Tory Scum’ after Geri Halliwell saw fit to call Thatcher ‘the original spice girl’. Her passion hasn’t wavered: ‘It’s a good thing to be politically conscious, to vote, to be involved in the way the country you live in is run. That’s not to say you have to ram your opinions down everyone else’s throat. I would never say that about the Spice Girls now. I was a moody teenager responding to a rather fatuous comment one of them had made about Margaret Thatcher at the time.’
Despite the empty Clapham high street and newfound short life expectancy of police cars, Laverne does find positives in the increasing amount of political awareness or, at least, involvement, ‘As I see it, it’s a combination of things. We’re in a recession – hardship and inequality politicises people but there are also mechanisms allowing people to make themselves heard more easily these days – technological tools that are changing the way people can exchange opinions, protest and disseminate information and news stories.’ This is clearly a reflection of Laverne’s role on 10 O’Clock live. And, despite criticisms of it, surely the fact that an, albeit satirical, news programme is on prime time TV aimed at young people is something quite telling.

Laverne seems to slip effortlessly between categories — from sparky presenter on pop music shows to political commentator. All the more impressive then that Laverne doesn’t seem to feel the need to pigeon hole herself. She’s one of a sadly small number of women in the media that doesn’t seem to fear being thought vacuous if she wants to do a programme on fashion, or that she can’t have a voice in politics if she does so. Thankfully, as she told the Guardian: ‘I take a no-brow approach to culture’.

Lauren Laverne will be presenting 10 O’Clock Live from 8th February.

Art-inerary: Hilary Term 2012

1st week

1st Week
WRITE TO BE PUBLISHED: 
A workshop with Nicola Morgan
Blackwell’s Bookshop,
Thursday 19th January
£20 registration1st Week

WRITE TO BE PUBLISHED: A workshop with Nicola Morgan

Blackwell’s Bookshop

Thursday 19th January. £20 registration

 

2nd Week

GROUP 2012: New writers group est. by Blackwell’s, Hersilia Press & The Oxford Editors

Blackwell’s Bookshop 

Tuesday 24th Jan, 7pm

 

3rd Week

 KEEPING TIME: TAMARIN NORWOOD

A Study in Choreography, Instruction and Transcription

Modern Art Oxford

 

4th Week

 VISIONS OF MUGHAL INDIA: THE COLLECTION OF HOWARD HODGKIN

Ashmolean  

5th Week

GUERCINO: A PASSION FOR DRAWING —THE COLLECTION OF SIR DENIS MAHON

Ashmolean

6th Week

CAROLINE MAAS: Exhibition from a local printmaker 

O3 Gallery at Oxford Castle

7th Week


YOU ARE WHAT YOU WEAR: Dress and Costume in Renaissance and Baroque drawings 

Christ Church Picture Gallery

8th Week

AUDIOGRAFT : Festival of sound, art and contemporary music

Modern Art Oxford 

Silence remains golden

0
Right now, silent film is the talk of the town. Scorsese took as his inspiration for Hugo the psychedelic fantasy and visual trickery of Georges Melies’ experimental films at the turn of the century. The long stretches of original footage Scorsese included stole the show. The Artist, a quite incredible 100 minutes of silent, black and white melodrama celebrating the late silent era, received six Golden Globe nominations and is expected to perform very well in the UK box office this month. French director Michel Hazanavicius cited as some of his inspiration a number of sensational silent dramas, including Murnau’s Sunrise (1929), John Ford’s Four Sons (1928), and Chaplin’s City Lights (1931). 
The reason behind such a revival of interest is hard to descry. Perhaps the attraction to silent film is dependent on some level of estrangement, the age-old selling point of nostalgia and the ‘vintage’. As we occupy the 100-year mark since these films were made, the enthusiasm with which we greet any big anniversary is clearly present. The current appreciation of early special effects — stop motion, time lapse, multiple exposures — could either represent a longing for earlier simplicity and charm in this current age of breathtakingly expensive CGI, or a recognition of a similar time of technical discovery and excitement to our own. 
However both Hugo and The Artist zone in on the melancholic passing away of the silent era, a sad but inevitable side-effect of transient popular tastes, and indeed we are unable to watch silent footage on a modern screen without the awareness that there is no talking. The films originally from this era are nonetheless magnetic because of what they can do, not what they can’t. The great three physical comedians of the 10s and 20s — Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin — embody this joyful exhilaration as they explore the possibilities of their medium though their scrambling, dangerous and occasionally horrifying stunts (combined with some startlingly intimate and subtle acting). The most sophisticated example of this genre is probably Lloyd’s Safety Last! (1923), but Buster Keaton’s short films are always dense, funny and astonishing. The films remain immersive, perhaps more so than talkies due to the level of audience participation required — you are forced to strain your imaginative ears to fill in the gaps, and, as some modern adverts have twigged, a sudden silence can be more arresting than the rest of the clamour put together. 

Right now, silent film is the talk of the town. Scorsese took as his inspiration for Hugo the psychedelic fantasy and visual trickery of Georges Melies’ experimental films at the turn of the century. The long stretches of original footage Scorsese included stole the show. The Artist, a quite incredible 100 minutes of silent, black and white melodrama celebrating the late silent era, received six Golden Globe nominations and is expected to perform very well in the UK box office this month. French director Michel Hazanavicius cited as some of his inspiration a number of sensational silent dramas, including Murnau’s Sunrise (1929), John Ford’s Four Sons (1928), and Chaplin’s City Lights (1931). 

The reason behind such a revival of interest is hard to descry. Perhaps the attraction to silent film is dependent on some level of estrangement, the age-old selling point of nostalgia and the ‘vintage’. As we occupy the 100-year mark since these films were made, the enthusiasm with which we greet any big anniversary is clearly present. The current appreciation of early special effects — stop motion, time lapse, multiple exposures — could either represent a longing for earlier simplicity and charm in this current age of breathtakingly expensive CGI, or a recognition of a similar time of technical discovery and excitement to our own.

However both Hugo and The Artist zone in on the melancholic passing away of the silent era, a sad but inevitable side-effect of transient popular tastes, and indeed we are unable to watch silent footage on a modern screen without the awareness that there is no talking. The films originally from this era are nonetheless magnetic because of what they can do, not what they can’t. The great three physical comedians of the 10s and 20s — Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin — embody this joyful exhilaration as they explore the possibilities of their medium though their scrambling, dangerous and occasionally horrifying stunts (combined with some startlingly intimate and subtle acting). The most sophisticated example of this genre is probably Lloyd’s Safety Last! (1923), but Buster Keaton’s short films are always dense, funny and astonishing. The films remain immersive, perhaps more so than talkies due to the level of audience participation required — you are forced to strain your imaginative ears to fill in the gaps, and, as some modern adverts have twigged, a sudden silence can be more arresting than the rest of the clamour put together. 

Â