For the interview as it appeared in the paper, see here
Blog Page 1762
The Hothouse – Actor’s blog, Week 1
Student productions of Pinter plays are like embarrassing covers of Radiohead tracks by that obnoxious religious family down your road. Heavy-handed and accidentally over-sexualised. The only dramatists who suffer similar butcherings at the hands of undergraduates are Shakespeare (three hours of versed droning, offset only by the prospect of a good snog or a nice bit of mutilation) and Chekhov. At least with Shakespeare there’s the well-trod route of the experimental revamp. “Let’s set it in the 50s!” they say, “I just love the clothes from that era! That atmosphere of repression and austerity lends itself so well to Measure for Measure/ Romeo and Juliet/ The Merry Wives of Windsor”. It’s frequently asinine, but it usually involves cutting some of the play, which is always welcome.
The main problem students have with Pinter is that he comes with a complex of clichés. Chief among these are the (snore) Pinter-pauses. Everyone asks about these, because everyone’s heard about them. This is irritating because the plays themselves make unobtrusive, if frequent, use of pauses. I mean, pauses aren’t that unusual in drama. Or in life. It’s just a cessation of dialogue, after all. People in every art form, and in reality, do momentarily stop talking. But no, they say, no – Pinter turned the pause into an art-form, a mode of expression in itself. Thump, thump, thump, snap. Students are particularly poorly equipped to deal with issues like this because, across the humanities and sciences, we’re pushed towards analysis, not synthesis. We’re trained to talk about the patterns underlying the play, its causes rather than its effects. This is death to theatre, whose focus is always on effects, on the character which springs from the raw material of the text. Analysis can trick you into acting badly while Doing Everything Right. You know how a certain line should be said, know how to contort your face at a certain moment, know when to shout and when to whimper. Big whoop. The Ox Stu says it’s “the finest student show we’ve seen in years”. You’ve got the play right in the palm of your intellect, and you’ve squeezed it until the pips squeaked. You know, deep down, that you’ve killed it, that what you’re doing is fake, a sham, an insult to the text. But hey, what does it matter? You can go and have a natter with your friends in the pub while you try to ignore that whirring sound at the back of your head, where the play is spinning in its shallow, sandy grave.
Pinter’s plays make this phenomenon particularly difficult to repress. He plays with ambiguity, with verbal idiosyncrasy. Idioms which flow so freely in casual conversation catch in his character’s mouths. Everything is more meaningful, more laden with Thought, than it is in more naturalistic drama. I know how to do this line, you think, I’ll lower my voice and sexily growl. That’ll be funny. It makes sense of it, you think. And you go on making sense, and making sense, and the character wanders off, and it’s not supposed to matter because the Oxford Times said that you had a “demonic charisma”. Thump, thump, thump, snap.
So why bother? If you’re attempting to properly act, to act with truth and imaginative courage, fully embodying someone you aren’t but might have been, then why not go for an easier playwright? Like Dennis Kelly. Or Simon Stephens. There’s less room to fake it with them – people frequently say precisely what they mean. You might just get some Proper Acting done. Well, because Pinter is the master. It’s challenge impossible for the arrogant to resist. Arrogant because you know you can do it better, do it properly, overcome the insuperable odds. That’s what we’re trying to do. I’ll be blogging for the next three weeks to let you know how we’re getting along.
Matt Gavan is starring as Root in The Hothouse, by Harold Pinter, Oxford Playhouse from 1st-4th February.
Review: Howler – America Give Up
America Give Up combines the history and influences of indie rock in one high-energy, cocky little package to be consumed easily. The lazy comparison is with an early Strokes and the raspy voice and leather jacket of Howler’s frontman and figurehead, Jordan Gatesmith, certainly bear a certain debt to Julian Casablancas. However, Howler are more than just a Strokes, Jesus and Mary Chain or Ramones tribute act. The influence of these bands (and many more, going right back to the 60s and before) can certainly be felt throughout the album, but Howler have come up with some frankly fantastic tunes for a debut album.
The classic themes of teenage angst, the elusive girl and, naturally, driving a car into a river come effotlessly to the young band and sound all the more sincere for it. When Gatesmith asks, ‘Where will you be in 2023? In someone else’s arms?’ he’s using the tried and tested, time-honoured formula of singing about love and sticking a decent riff behind it. This formula is particularly evident on those songs that are used on the album from their earlier EP – namely ‘This One’s Different’, ‘Wailing (Making Out)’ and ‘Told You Once’ – which are on the album in a scratchier, more raw version than those familiar with the EP will remember.
Howler get away with sticking to the formula by producing excellent songs from it – the riffs are catchy and punky and the lyrics honest. It’s unusual to come across a debut so full of energy where every song is of high quality, even if the songs offer little originality. A possible exception is the track ‘Pythagorean Fearem’ which, among the distorted vocals and sounds, is reminiscent of early music from The Horrors, who moved on to produce expansive pieces of music on their two previous albums.
The rest of the album is a thrashy, hand-clappy, growly voiced collection of songs that show a lot of promise. Much like the Maccabees, The Horrors or Primal Scream, this band deserve the time to develop. Howler are a band that offer much for both sides of the ‘guitar music is dead’ debate – they give little that’s new, but equally they’re very good at what they do. This isn’t an album that’s going to change anyone’s minds. Fans of The Vaccines or The Strokes are going to love this album – it builds on everything that’s great about indie music. Those that are muttering that nobody sings about politics anymore aren’t going to have their minds changed. From the standard of songwriting, Howler are definitely a band that are worth giving the time to truly find their feet. Every song is worthy of being a single. For now they’re a band that have all the looks, all the hype, and are going to live up to it with this album for indie fans. Come summer, we’ll all be standing in an overflowing tent singing ‘I’m so tired of making out’ back at Gatesmith and grinning. Because if they can write songs like this at nineteen, they’re a band with huge potential.
4 STARS
Drinking lessons for Univ undergraduates
Students at University College attended a compulsory alcohol awareness meeting on Thursday 12th January. The Dean, Professor Michael Collins, said in an email to the JCR that this action was a response to “incidents at the beginning of term” and would warn students of “the risks associated with the misuse of alcohol.”
He noted that “excessive alcohol consumption’ is ‘a problem that sadly is not confined to Oxford undergraduates” and said that drinking too much can lead to calling for the emergency services – “an important, but overstretched, public provision for which there can be more serious and, crucially, far more essential calls.
“I want to ensure that our undergraduates, and especially those living in College, are aware of the dangers of consuming alcohol, not only for themselves, but also so they can identify potential problems.”
This action comes in response to incidents which occured at the first bop of last term. Two Univ freshers were briefly taken to the John Radcliffe hospital due to excessive alcohol consumption. The Dean commented at the term, ‘no student was detained in hospital.’ In an e-mail to all first years the Dean also noted that more than thirty bins around the college were filled with vomit.
A JCR Officer commented that the action was “Reasonable rather than fair. I think it’s probably a good idea to remind Univ, especially freshers, about boozing. However it was a small group who got smashed because it was their first weekend at university and got caught up in the excitement.
“Drinking was only really an issue early on in the term and people have learnt their lessons by now. The meeting is too long after Freshers’ Week to have an effect.”
When asked why the sessions are not just for those who misbehaved during Freshers’ Week, Professor Collins said, “This would involve identifying not just those who have been seen to do so, but those who have not, or those who are potentially ‘at risk’.
“There is also the major aspect of corporate or collegiate understanding and responsibility, and my primary goal is to ensure everyone’s safety for the future. The Univ JCR Officers have been fully supportive in these aims.”
Thomas Cole, a Univ undergraduate, commented, “Some may regard themselves burning at the stake of fresher martyrdom, but I think the majority of people are adults and have had nineteen years or so to grow up. For those who take it seriously, I’m sure there is something to be learnt.
“I feel the people who got out of hand were those who tended not to drink before and seemed to have a chip on their shoulder about it. The Rugby Club and I know we are lads, and have not drunk excessively to prove it.”
Another second year added, ‘As far as I can tell, most Univ students are already aware of alcohol. I’m glad to see the college spreading the word, but I’m not sure it’s necessary.’
The two hour course, at which students were warned about wasting the time of the emergency services, was described by English student Juliet Roe as ‘the worst talk I have ever been to in my life.’
Culture’s calling
Susan D’Arcy reveals the most interesting cultural places to visit around the world, whether you are interested in music, art, dance, archaeology, architecture, or just looking for somewhere a little bit different…
Oxford library fine figures revealed
Oxford University’s libraries accrued almost £130,000 in library fines last year.
Universities across the country amassed fines totalling £50 million, While Oxford’s takings are significantly more than that of universities such as Imperial College London, who collected just £26,703, they remain some way off the £1.8m amassed by the University of Leeds.
When asked how the money is spent, a spokesperson for the Bodleian Libraries explained, “The money goes into the general library income stream,” adding, “It remains within the libraries but is not directly allocated to any particular purpose.”
The Bodleian’s standardised fining service charges 20p per day for standard overdue loans, £1 per day for short loans and 50p per hour for overnight loans. Students with debts exceeding £10 may not borrow again until the debt is cleared.
The findings also revealed that Oxford has the second highest number of missing books across all UK universities, with a total of 20,923 books currently unaccounted for.
Mike Heaney, Executive Secretary of the Bodleian libraries, defended the number of missing books, explaining, “Oxford appears among the top simply because the overall numbers of items in the libraries is so huge (13 million).’ He said, “The figure represents 0.15% of stock (i.e. 99.85% is present and correct).
“Oxford is in the good position of having most of its stock recorded in the online catalogue and so the status (on shelf, missing etc.) is known.’ He added that most books classed as “missing” were not in fact stolen or unreturned, but instead “simply misplaced on the shelves.”
Hannah Cusworth, the OUSU Vice President and Access and Academic Affairs Officer, praised the figures, stating, “Oxford’s libraries are fantastic and as the figures provided by the Bod show we’re doing well compared to other universities, both in terms of the sheer number of books we have and the rate that are missing.” In response to the statistics regarding fines, she argued that, “Library fines are annoying but they encourage people to return books on time and [anyone] who has ever searched across Oxford to find that key book for an essay knows how important that is.”
First year, Roseanna Allnut, suggested that “only persistent offenders should be fined”, and that the Bodleian should consider offering a “pizza delivery service straight to library desks” in order to increase studying in their libraries.
LMH hosts Film Premiere
LMH will next week play host to the first UK screening of new film Salmon Fishing
in the Yemen, starring Ewan McGregor, in aid of Oxford based charity Refugee Resource.
Based on a book by Paul Torday, the film stars Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt. The narrative centres around a fisheries expert who is approached to help realise a sheik’s dream of bringing the sport of fly-fishing to the desert.
The film is set for general release in March, before which a star-studded London premiere will take place, but this event will be the first time it will actually be shown in the UK. There are scheduled to be two screenings followed by question-and-answer sessions with the writer, Simon Beaufoy, with proceeds from tickets going to Refugee Resource.
The charity works with refugees coming newly to the UK, often pairing them with a mentor, and aims to “improve well-being and facilitate the integration of refugees and asylum seekers — mainly in Oxfordshire — by providing practical, social and psychological support.”
Slumdog Millionaire writer Mr. Beaufoy, a graduate of Oxford University and resident of Jericho, expressed his attachment to the charity to the Oxford Mail saying the charity did “incredibly important work providing people who arrive from all over the world with support.” After hearing that the charity was low on funding, Mr. Beaufoy decided to show his support by way of the charity screening, for which tickets will be sold for £30-50.
Sue Snelders of Refugee Resource said that it was “amazing” that this would be first time the film was shown in the UK and that it was “very generous” of Simon Beaufoy.
Neither Mr. Beaufoy nor the charity revealed whether there would be any celebrities at the event. Ms. Snelders revealed that “we may have to put on some security for guests on the night,” however Franc Strazzeri of Mr. Beaufoy’s agency told Cherwell that “it is not a première, so it is unlikely, in my opinion that there will be any of the talent there.” He added however that he could not comment with any certainty.
Refugee Resource would not comment on the event to Cherwell directly because they had not been cleared to do so by LMH. The screenings will involve one matinee and one black tie evening event on the 15th January.
Undergraduate to stand for election
Robin McGhee, Liberal Democrat and history student at St Anne’s, has announced his candidacy for Oxford City Council.
McGhee said, “We ought to be better treated in a city whose reputation and excellence rests on the university and its students. As an Oxford undergraduate myself, I understand what matters to Oxford students.”
Elections will take place in May, when 24 of 48 council seats will come up for re-election. The council is currently controlled by Labour, with the Lib Dems in second place.
Fellow Lib Dem Duncan Stott, a recent graduate from the University of York, will be standing in the Carfax ward, and will be campaigning against the council’s proposals to limit the number of shared houses available in Oxford.
As well as promising to conduct his campaign with “fizzing enthusiasm” and “veritaserumic honesty”, and to pay more attention to student housing needs, McGhee will run on an anti-tuition fees ticket, in contrast to the Lib Dem leadership. He told Cherwell, “I believe that university education is a right open to anyone good enough, and that we should not have to pay through the nose while the very existence of the tutorial system is under question.”
Finalist Steven Wenham expressed doubt regarding the influence of local councillors, saying they “are in no position to set government or university policy.” Hertford student Rhys Owens added, “Anti-tuition fees is a completely unrealistic ticket to run on, at the moment tuition fees are a necessary fact of life, and that’s not altogether a bad thing.”
Ben Hudson, of Regent’s Park, commented, “His attempt should be seen as a publicity stunt to show the legitimacy of free education as a reasoned and reasonable option, rather than a genuine attempt to make a reformist grab at power.”
It is not without precedent for students to stand for local elections: one of the existing councillors for Holywell, Mark Mills, was elected to the position while studying at Teddy Hall in 2008.
McGhee is confident that being a councillor would not affect his studies. “I’d be a postgrad, and like all postgrads I’d use the rest of my time to wallow in my chaste and debt-ridden misery.”
We need to talk about Ed
Ed Miliband’s in trouble. The victim of a leadership election that made him head of a party
whose MPs voted for someone else, the centre of a fratricidal tragedy with Shakespearean
potential (they voted for his brother), and leader of the Opposition in a time when the key
debate is about how not to spend money. He came home for Christmas, found the Student
Loan’s run out, and watched his big brother get all the family’s attention. New Year didn’t
bring much fun either. A veritable lynch mob of Labour figures lined up to articulate in their
own words exactly where he was going wrong. But this wasn’t just a parade of the disowned
and disgruntled with their own axes to grind. There was a common and worrying theme; a
cry famously used against John Major by the last electorally successful Labour leader, Tony
Blair: weak, weak, weak!
“He has flickered rather than shone, nudged not led” – Lord Glasman, Labour Peer and ‘policy guru’
Leadership was always going to be tricky for Ed. Lacking the support of his own MPs he’s
had to make some serious concessions to stay in control. In his desire to avoid the true ‘son
of Brown’, Ed Balls, the other Ed decided to appoint Alan Johnson as his first Shadow
Chancellor. By his own admission, Johnson was clearly unsuited to the role and left at the
first available opportunity. Too weak to decline a second time, Ed M. had to give Ed B. the
role and Yvette Cooper Shadow Home Secretary, giving Mr. and Mrs. Balls the plum pair of
jobs around the Shadow Cabinet table. Having leadership rivals so close would be bad news
alone, forgetting the fact that Ed Ball’s association with the Blair/Brown era could come to be
one of the biggest problems for any future Labour Party.
In Opposition, Labour has failed to make the opinion poll gains that might be expected given the country’s economic situation, division within government and the time in the Parliamentary cycle. A key reason often given for this in opinion polls is that would-be voters still blame the previous administration for the current economic situation. The question of whether Mr. Balls is right or wrong now continues to be asked through the lens of his link to the past. A past in which Mr. E Miliband also had a ministerial association. But there is hope.
Unwanted at the top of the table he may be, but Ed did manage to re-write party rules meaning he can appoint his own shadow cabinet, rather than have it voted in by the Parliamentary Party, something his predecessors were always denied. Equally, a kind observer would write-off the full fifteen months it took to appoint a new chief of staff as a way of ensuring the best candidate, not the long list of people who turned down the post. The one person Ed knew didn’t have a job at the time (brother David) was quite possibly busy plotting the his downfall; there are plenty in the party that would support it, with him as successor.
“Ed Ball’s highly pertinent arguments…are being drowned out in the public’s mind by his leader’s
misguided anti-business rhetoric.” – Tim Allan, former advisor to Tony Blair
Ed also struggles to look and sound like the leader he needs to be. Often portrayed as Wallace
(at least he’s not Gromit), Ed Miliband doesn’t seem to be able to set himself up as the future
Prime Minister. Instead, he can fall into a complaining, even whingeing, tone, especially
in the House of Commons. Analysing events with the tone of a frustrated outsider, and
aligning yourself with the proverbial ‘man on the street’ (or as Ed’s more probably aiming
for ‘squeezed middle in the suburb’) can be an admirable and, if done well, extremely potent
way of defining policy. Get it wrong and you’re the interrupting younger brother all over
again.
When he sets the agenda, rather than criticising it, success does come. Ed is one of few
to be thankful for the phone hacking scandal that closed a successful national newspaper and continues to rock one of the world’s biggest media empires. A fast reacting Ed’s dealing with
the issue, including calling for a public enquiry, managed to gauge the public mood perfectly,
making many in Westminster, especially the Prime Minister, look ‘on the back foot’.
“We cannot get to 2015 and an election with the public and the media asking the question: ‘Who is Ed Miliband?’” — Alan Johnson, Former Labour Cabinet Minister
Public polls bring mixed messages for Ed. If he’s looking to appear centralist (and he mostly
claims he is) then the YouGov Spectrum Poll of October might not be too welcome reading.
On a scale of minus 100 (very left wing) to plus 100 (very right wing), it gives him a score
of minus 42 (at the 2005 general election Tony Blair stood at plus 7). His personal approval
ratings have also been criticised, plummeting to minus 32 at the last count by YouGov (9th
Jan), compared to David Cameron’s score of plus 13 at a similar time in the same post.
But despite this it hasn’t been all bad news for Labour under Ed. They’ve won (or, rather,
held onto) five by-elections since he became leader, for example, and gained eight hundred
councillors.
‘Ed Miliband has sensibly given himself the space to develop policy. The question is now what he
puts into that space.” Tony Blair
But the Labour position on a number of issues remains vague: cuts are required, but not too
fast, and where isn’t hugely obvious either. It is up to the leader to shape this message for the
public. Perhaps the real concern for Ed Miliband in 2012, however, isn’t so much how he’s
saying things, but what it is that he wants to say. On his election to leader he was quick to try
and ditch the ‘Red Ed’ label, assigned partly as a result of him winning on the back of union
votes. As the New Labour movement showed in 1997, and subsequently, this is essential
to winning Downing Street. The Labour party simply cannot be seen to be definitely left
wing.
As Tony Blair recently pointed out, Ed needs to ‘fight from the centre’; that’s where
the swing votes (and many of them) lie. To his credit, Ed did make a start on this with the
beginning of his crusade for what he calls the ‘squeezed middle’: ‘Word of the Year’ (surely
words?) in 2011 by the Oxford English Dictionary, no less. These are the people who’s votes
all political parties are fighting for; those who work hard but do continually find it more
difficult to live as well as they have done in the past. Many also fall into the ‘aspirational
middle and working class’ that was so successfully targeted by Tony Blair and Margret
Thatcher. But they are not interested in the complex and almost philosophical argument about
good and bad capitalism. And they are suspicious of greater government intervention (Ed
wants to target ‘vested interests’ such as the big energy companies).
Ed Miliband’s public demands a clearer narrative about what he stands for and, most importantly, a direct pathway to how it will deliver them jobs, security and the increased standard of living their parents had come to expect. He also needs a better image. As William Hague proved, however
good your brain and politics, people’s perceptions are shallow. If you don’t give a first impression of being Prime Minister, you probably won’t be.
