Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 1780

Cherwell on this day through the ages

0

This Monday heralded the end to Freshers’ Week and the beginning of the battle of the blues. We refer not to our various annual sporting fixtures with the other place, but rather to the interminable fight for our health that plagues us so as undergraduates, teasing us with a brief revival in the 4th week before the true colours of 5th week are plain for all to see. You’re going to be snotty for the rest of your time here at Oxford folks, and we don’t just mean towards Brookes.

Of course, nothing has changed there. In 1925 Cherwell reported, “Autumn fashions in influenza, as variable as Paris evening dresses, have already manifested themselves. This year’s attack takes at first the form of an ordinary chill. On top of this, jaundice is more than likely to appear. Cherwell readers should send for medical aid. Non-Cherwell readers should be left to stew in their own juice.” What I’m sure they forgot to add was “Oxstu readers should be actively exposed to germs”.

In the spare time when you’re not overdosing on aspirin, beware, ladies, of the traps laid by Oxford men. In 1965, we received a letter from a new member of St. Hugh’s. She said, “My only alternative to being unattractive and unintelligent is to be a Notorious Exception.” People are less likely to be so vague and forgiving in modern-day parlance.

A particularly good example of why the women need to keep their wits about them is a 1975 letter from a certain N.J. Greer of Worcester College, stating simply “Dear Sir, I like naked ladies”. Oh, would that we could return to the good old days of public humiliation, when “frape” was taken to the grander stage of the editorial section and not just privy to your circle of esteemed “friends”.

We finish, then, with a reassurance that politicians are only elected as disposable blunderists. We have, from 1985, a quote from the Tory Oxford City Councillor Mrs. Nonnie Tiffany who, while discussing proposed reform of the social security system, suggested that “the unemployed should learn to manage their budgets better, and could save money by eating more porridge.” Let’s hope our current crop of politicians are thinking along more enlighttened lines.

5 Minute Tute: The Art of Polling

0

Q: What does polling actually entail?

A: Polling is simply that branch of market research concerned with testing people’s opinions and attitudes towards a part or whole of the political process. It used to be done using face to face interviewing, but to save cost and time it has been replaced by telephone and, latterly, online interviewing. The process of conducting a political poll varies from company to company but we pollsters all set out to model the prospective voting behaviour of people by measuring propensity to vote, how people will vote who are likely to do so, and then try to account for people who are reluctant to say whether or how they would vote. There is also a knack to weighting the sample to ensure it is sufficiently representative of the voting public. When you see a poll published in a newspaper it has (or should have) there- fore gone through several stages of weighting to be demographically and politically representative, and the ‘don’t knows’ will have been removed.

 

Q: How has polling changed over the years?

A: The art of polling has changed as a result of technology and changing voter behaviour. The media wants its polling done as quickly and cheaply as possible, which has accelerated the adoption of new technology. So, as telephone use increased, so did its use as a cheaper alternative to face to face interviews. We have more recently had to adapt to the wider use of mobile telephones and the internet has again helped with both speed and cost. Aside from political polling, these methods lend themselves more to some uses than others. Voters have changed too and at any one time there is likely to be differential willingness among various voter groups to admit their voting intentions. This used to be the ‘shy Tory’ phenomenon but Tony Blair post-Iraq and Gordon Brown changed all that.

 

Q: How accurate can polling be?

A: When done properly, it is extremely accurate. Assuming the absence of other methodological factors, on a sample size of 1,000 people, 19 out of 20 polls will be accurate to within about 3% points of the ‘true’ figure. In practice, every polling firm wants to be the most accurate and so we all review our methodologies regularly to give ourselves the best chances of success. This is underlined by the fact that we tend to be remembered more for our failures than our wins. For instance, most polling companies over-estimated the Liberal Democrat vote share in the 2010 General Election but the accuracy for the two main parties’ vote shares was exceptionally good. That accuracy doesn’t stick in people’s minds for long though.

 

Q: How important is polling to the democratic process?

A: Politicians take it extremely seriously. When the polls are against them, they revert to a well-rehearsed script: “On the doorstep people are telling me that we’re doing much better than the polls indicate”. But we know full well they are relying on their own polling data to help steer their campaigns! Political parties themselves are heavy users of private opinion polls, notwithstanding that the media is stuffed full of the things. Parties use them to test their popularity and help hone and target their campaign themes and messages. Whether or not polls are helpful to the democratic process is another matter. Every few years someone raises the old chestnut of whether their publication should be banned in the run-up to elections. Aside from the fact that the internet renders such a ban obsolete, it would likely lead to bookmakers and perhaps investment banks or wealthy individuals commissioning their own polls and trading off the back of the results. A ban would put a premium on knowledge, but it would be bad for the democratic process to allow some groups access to such information and not others.

 

Andrew Hawkins is the Chief Executive of ComRes

Should gay marriage get the go-ahead?

0

David Cameron’s announcement at the Tory party conference that he supported the introduction of same-sex marriage was great news for supporters of equality, but it was greeted by dismay from various predictable sources: churches, the Conservative party’s right wing (some delegates walked out of Cameron’s speech at that point), and so on. One particularly dangerous request came from junior defence minister Gerald Howarth, who was quoted in the Telegraph calling for a free vote on the issue when it comes to parliament.

Cameron must resist this demand. Free votes are held where MPs have genuine reasons not to want to vote along with their leadership on a matter of conscience. But not all consciences are equal. Where there exists some sort of argument on either side of an issue (like capital punishment), it makes some sense to let MPs exercise their judgement. But parties should not give members of parliament infinite scope to inflict their bigotry or stupidity on the rest of us. Indeed, they don’t: we have a whip system where MPs are strongly “encouraged” to toe the party line in the majority of votes. This system should quite clearly be brought to bear in the case of gay marriage, for the very simple reason that every single argument against gay marriage would be dismissed by a vaguely intelligent person after a moment’s thought.

Think about the arguments against gay marriage. “Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman”: this is both false (polygamy, anyone?) and irrelevant (that something has always been done a certain way clearly doesn’t mean we should keep doing it, otherwise we should have never abolished slavery). “This redefines marriage”: irrelevant (yes, it does change the definition of marriage, the definition needs changing, that’s the point). “Same-sex parents are worse”: both deeply questionable empirically, and irrelevant, as adoption agencies can decide the best parents for a particular child on a case-by-case basis, and because adoption by same-sex couples is already legal anyway. “The Bible doesn’t allow for same sex marriage”: irrelevant, because we’re not forcing Christians to marry other people of the same gender, and the days when the Bible could dictate the lives of non-believers have thankfully been consigned to the dustbin. “Same-sex relationships are less stable”: again probably false, but also irrelevant, as we don’t apply that standard to heterosexuals, plenty of whom end up getting divorced.

There are simply no reasons to oppose gay marriage that constitute a legitimate grounds for restricting people’s freedom and equality. So why not whip MPs into voting for it? Such a move would obviously not be undemocratic: virtually all laws are made in this way. Cameron has already taken an admirable stance on this issue. It would be a shame if such a progressive move were put at risk when literally every argument against it is spurious.

Preview : It’s My Party

0

Francis (Max Reubs Walsh) McPantyliner celebrates his 18th birthday at home with his ex-cage fighter step mum, ‘I bought a shotgun Melvin’ and some kid who’s only there for the ladies. This sitcom galaxy is held beautifully in place by three attractions: one boy wants friends, one friend wants women, one woman wants boy. Reubs gives a relaxed performance as this OCD, fragile kid who just wants some mates. Mummy cougar sharking on baby bad boy is taken to a level rather less restrained than in Mamma Mia’s ‘Does your Mother Know’, with Mandy (Michael Scott) eventually grabbing the pubescent boy’s hand, placing it upon her ample bosom and growling, “cop a feel,” at the gangster clad teenager, at least 20 years her junior.

Scott, the more muscular, manly male of the group is a feminine force of raw sexual magnetism on stage. A hairy thigh is always snuggling its way along the sofa towards the adolescent and refusing to be subservient to its master, a leopard print dress. Scott’s Northern accent lends itself beautifully to the frustrated female whose proliferation of BAH-STUD’s fire rage at the audience at her lot in life and repressed love for her dweeby stepson. Following not so yummy Mummy’s sucker punch, Said (Alex Harvey) eats carpet and she storms off upstairs with her hairy bum grinning at the audience as she goes.

Said (typical teenager) is confused. He wants sex, but not with Mummy. He’s read ‘The Seagull goes to the Beach’, but not Chekov. When asked what IT’s like with him and his gal, his response: MOIST. Harvey is natural, effortlessly cheeky, in fact, even when silent his lips do the acting for him (watch when you go and see it).

Suicidal Melvin (Matthew Dow) does less is more very well. His dry delivery of just a string of numbers; ‘9…9…9…9…9…9…9…9…9…9…9’ makes for a side-splitting utterance. But he was so amusing that he even made himself laugh. Corpsing is always funny though. I don’t know why it’s such a thespian cardinal sin. Actor makes audience laugh, audience makes actor laugh: a win-win situation.

I only saw the start, so in Week 3 I might be saying that the second half did indeed ‘shit all over the ambience’ but if the next part is as LOL as Fortuna Burke’s press preview I’ll be wetting my pants instead.

Failure – and how to narrowly avoid it

0

What do you do if you want to see pirate-local councillor hostage banter, Mr Kipling as a Latino cake-lord and singer/songwriter hill-billies who could have been extras in ‘Deliverance’? Go and see the Oxford Revue, of course.

The premise of the show’s introduction sounds promising (Max Fletcher in just his boxers, oblivious to the audience, until he puts on his glasses) and I can only hope that they get the timing down to a tee and the quality of the various films spot on. This and the general plotlines are what make up the Oxford Revue for me – a seeming attitude of freedom from the reception of the public, almost a take-it-or-leave-it image.

But again, for me, it was this very nature of the sketches that is my biggest criticism of this show. The absurdity of the situation and characters went far beyond the general, if not faint, realms of recognisability found in other, more mainstream, sketch shows. Don’t get me wrong, the show did on many occasions provoke genuine laughter and I would like other people to experience their humour, which to some extent is extreme and hence sidesteps what I have just called the ‘mainstream’ crowd. Yet the problem is that these extremes aren’t capitalised on enough and consequently the scenes aren’t quite bizarre, just not quite ‘standard’.

Though they were thorough in all characters, they weren’t always original: I couldn’t help being reminded of Zapp Brannigan from ‘Futurama’ in the character of the ship captain; elsewhere, I recognised the infamous ‘Family Guy’-style flashbacks. I’m not sure this latter device worked as effectively as it does on TV; the switch from current to extemporaneous scenes was a bit sluggish and it wasn’t initially obvious what they were trying to achieve.

The acting in sketches is generally done well. Nick Davies is absolutely sure of each of his various characters and has, perhaps with his height or American accent, a considerably powerful stage presence. A few of Fletcher’s accents went a bit wayward but his Spanish, at least, was convincing. It was the enthusiasm of both performers that filtered through and really made the timing

The duo work well together and look remarkably comfortable with being on stage. I think the overall comedy, however, could be improved if there were a more striking difference between the two comedians and their personae. I’m not suggesting getting someone else in, but simply creating a starker contrast without coming across as too ridiculous and forced. See what you think.

‘Failure, and how to achieve it’ –  2.5 stars

BT Studio, 21:30, Tues-Sat 3rd Week

Review: Will Rory and Tim sell out?

0

   A former collector of football replica shirts, an ex-director of the Oxford Revue and a guy, once described as a ‘massive lemon’, they both knew from school, are all members of what is collectively, and more commonly, known as ‘Rory and Tim’. Using what is essentially a blank canvas of a set, the team act out a series of sketches that are humorously thoughtful and have a certain light and charming poignancy to them.

  They began the set with three characters discussing books submitted for the Manbooker prize and used two idiotic characters to express their opinions, but I wouldn’t want to ruin the brilliance of the scene by revealing the simple premise they play on. One of the other sketches was set in a boxing weigh-in between Mark ‘the Metaphor’ Carlton and Louis ‘the Literal’ Feydou at the Hyperbowl, where the former threatens ‘I’ll punch you in the soul’ and the latter merely states ‘I’ll punch you in the chest’. What you will notice on seeing this production, and I strongly recommend going along, is the sly audacity of the writing; it seems to dare to put into script our own observations of several, perfectly plausible, situations. How many times have you wondered what a situation would be like if you took it completely literally? Or how an awkward situation could be made even more awkward? This is what they do and they do it with real vigour and passion.

   It is difficult to say, however, whether the fact that the characters lack any psychological depth is a problem to the overall idea, considering the nature of sketch comedy. I was trying to work out whether it is the situation making us laugh or the characters they have created. Indeed, the cunning word play and unexpected twists are cleverly done. Yet, from the point of view of their acting or potentially just their character development, there is a bit of a void, despite the precision of their timing. Theirs is certainly a rather intelligent comedy, but maybe the physical performance could be injected with something more to really lift it.

   The team is ultimately based around whatever characters Rory and Tim are playing in the scene, but there is also the third actor, Iain Stewart, who is deployed as both ‘whipping boy’ and handy extra. In his own words ‘I’d rather be the idiot than the guy who is called in to do the housework’; however, I think this takes away from the subtle importance of his role. Without him there, the two others themselves would be overpowering, abrasive and potentially lost. Though they tried to persuade me otherwise, the image of Karl Pilkington in ‘An Idiot Abroad’ repeatedly came to mind.

   From watching them rehearsing before the set, their serious attitude towards their art was obvious; the switch from characters to analytical self-critics was interesting to watch as it really emphasised the work that goes into the performance. Matthew Perkins is their director, apparently a new feature of their rehearsals, and it is perhaps through this extra pair of eyes that every sketch is rigorously polished.

   I had a chance to meet them after their show and to find out a bit about their life and thoughts on comedy. Having all three gone to St Paul’s school, Rory was in the Oxford Revue when Tim was auditioning at the same time as Iain. Contentiously, Tim got in but Iain didn’t make the call-backs. Eventually, Rory decided that he had had enough of directing and decided to join forces with Tim to write sketch shows. They then set up ‘Sketch Club’, a core team of people who accept proposals for sketches from anyone and which rivals the Oxford Revue’s ‘Audrey’. And their reasons for doing it seem altruistic, Rory explains: ‘a couple of years back, if you didn’t get into the Revue, that was your only chance to perform and that’s not very much the case now.’

   They both seem very determined to write and perform the comedy that they want to do, sticking to what could be called a slightly alternative style; “Comedy now is pumped up – ‘How I met your Mother’- t here’s 20 minutes of bright glitz. There’ll be some joke, but it won’t be very funny and it will happen and life will continue.” It seems like the standard ‘backlash’ attitude towards mainstream culture but it’s encouraging to see such fervent individualism. However, they naturally still do harbour thoughts of becoming big on the London circuit and hope to project their brand of ‘Rory and Tim’ to higher levels.

   Despite having had a few disastrous evenings in London and having their show cancelled in Edinburgh, the duo say that this summer has given them the confidence to think about the potential reality of achieving these higher levels. Though Tim described themselves dryly as ‘mostly talentless’, apparently they’ve received some very positive comments from the audience feedback sessions at their Free Fringe slot.

   I was curious as to the reasons they went into comedy and so I asked whether someone had told either of them that they are genuinely funny and suggest that they go into stand-up. Rory replied that it happened all the time, although he did add that, “I don’t think I had, at least in my teenage years, the ego or the arrogance to go ‘You know what? I’m funny’”. As a result, it was this drive from others that made him do stand-up at school and here he is now. Tim has a different story: his childhood was spent relentlessly watching comedy and he eventually felt under the illusion that this was how the real world actually is. Though he was more an actor at school (and in fact still is, performing soon in a play called ‘Posh’), it was not until university that he became interested in this noble art. He explained that it was Rory’s dad who had encouraged him to go specifically to St Anne’s college, citing ‘his [Rory’s] admittance as evidence of lack of standards.’ 

   Such a close relationship was obvious both when performing and during the interview, leaving me to assume that this closeness helps with the dynamic between them. Though Rory still does stand-up by himself, they both confess that better comedy is more often written in groups and when I asked them why they like working together, their response was “because you can’t do sketches on your own. And there’s safety in numbers.”

   The two do apparently get annoyed with people who think that they should be constantly amusing to all, asking them to make them laugh, or assuming that any conversation they have with them is going to make it into their sketch show. “That’s not how it works” is Rory’s usual response. On a more intimate note, they did complain of sometimes not quite recognising their own existence. According to them, there was a period last June when they were doing so many performances that it was sometimes difficult for them to live in the real world.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the time I spent with Rory and Tim (and Iain, I suppose) and my final comment would be to reiterate that their writing puts on stage the ideas that are usually just stuck on the tips of our tongues. And when I asked them what their final comment would be, Tim eagerly replied “I’m single now”.

 

‘Rory and Tim Will Never Sell Out’ – 4 stars

BT Studio, 21:30 Tues-Sat 2nd week


Shakespeare Disappear?

0

   The Shakespeare Schools Festival is a project that allows schoolchildren the opportunity to put on half-hour versions of Shakespeare plays in professional theatres around the country. It involves 600 schools and 12,000 young people, so this is no after school drama club but a huge project, and one that brings together pupils from every kind of school. 

   I spoke to recent Oxford grad, Will Hooper from the Festival. He told me how the project allows children to engage with Shakespeare in a totally different way from how they would in the classroom, how it allows the pupils to connect more with Shakespeare and understand the way his plays can be reinvented and found to always be exciting and engaging. Hooper highlights the additional benefits – besides the obvious cultural ones – as better social skills and literacy.

   The problem arises with the question of funding – with whom should the responsibility lie for paying the £700 registration fee for a project like this? The press release rather vaguely says that teachers have ‘fought hard against budget cuts’ to get the registration fee- does this mean that they have been negotiating with those at their various schools who control the budget, or does this mean they have been raising money in other ways? Mr Hooper was unable to answer my question as to where he thought the responsibility for funding this project ought to lie. I would suggest that the responsibility for paying does not and ought not to lie with the individual teachers. Obviously there is no funding from the arts council, since they seem to be pulling funding from theatre projects all over the place, but if more cuts in general look like they are looming, it is going to be the arts in schools that lose out.

   On the website for the Festival, there are testimonials from teachers involved with the project about what it has done for their schools, and what it has done for the pupils in terms of making Shakespeare accessible and, as the press release puts it, ‘[staking] their claim to their cultural heritage’. The list of patrons is impressive and includes Dame Judi Dench, Kevin Spacey and Sir Tom Stoppard. The project is affiliated with the National Theatre. Backed by prominent people and institutions in the world of theatre, and reaching a huge number of children and schools, this is something that could really make a difference by providing an opportunity not just for pupils to get to know Shakespeare better, but to rediscover themselves as performers and get involved with one of the most central part of our country’s cultural history. 

   The Festival project is aimed particularly at disadvantaged schools. The kind of schools, one would imagine, that if there was any more of a budget cut would lose the ability to pay the registration fee, and whose pupils – who are (one would imagine) those least likely to be able to get involved in performing Shakespeare – would be least able to raise the money for it amongst themselves. Reading Shakespeare in the classroom is one thing, but it is far more accessible and exciting when it is performed. As Mr Hooper suggests, when simply read off the page there can be a lack of excitement among the pupils, but when they have a chance to act it out and really get involved with it, there is a hugely positive response. The danger is, I think, when the money gets tight, things that are “non-essential” get cut, but it would be an incredible shame if pupils were to miss out on something like this for the sake of money. 

   Over and over again, it is the generation going through education now that is being told it must cut back and miss out because of the money mistakes the generation before us have made. I sincerely hope that this project is able to continue and money can still be found.


For more information, head to www.ssf.uk.com/registered

Playing the beautiful game

0

Elegantly clad in a cocoa-brown dress, with foxy red hair and subtle make-up, it is clear that Dr Catherine Hakim is a woman ‘bien coiffée’. This is probably necessary for the research fellow, who has just published a book called Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. Hakim claims that her idea of erotic capital is completely new. She defines it as a broad combination of ‘beauty, sex appeal, skills of self-presentation and social skills.’ This weapon is more potent for women because there is a male sex deficit. In plain English, men at all stages of their lives want sex much more than women and value looks more highly when selecting a partner. The fairer sex should scrap any silly ideas that beauty is superficial and worthless, and proudly exploit this valuable bargaining tool in all areas of life, be it the workplace, public life or at home.

The criticism of Hakim’s main theory has fallen into two opposing camps: either, she is stating the bleeding obvious – we all know that looks are important; or, her ideas are worryingly passé, proposing a return to the era of our grandparents, where women were admired for their lustrous hair and hour-glass physique, rather than for their brains. The argument of the latter slightly undermines that of the former. Maybe there is a point to calling a spade a spade.

The predominantly female critics, taking the moral high ground, have missed the point. Clearly beauty has economic and social value. As Hakim tells me over lunch, nonchalantly spearing vegetables with her fork: ‘This is the way the world works. Saying the world should be a different place cannot be a starting point. I want to give women an edge in any way possible to readdress the power balance.’

Hakim seems to have anticipated the two main rebukes when she argues that Feminism splits into two groups, those that value erotic capital and those that value human capital (one’seducation and career). It is true that women are not encouraged to aspire to both in Britain, unlike for instance, our friends across the Channel. ‘Here, the only message you ever get is that beauty is skin-deep, shallow, superficial,’ she says bitterly. This book isn’t a how-to-guide on how to work those womanly wiles. Hakim is calling for an attitude change.

So does she call herself a feminist? ‘Yes, of course.’ This response may surprise some readers, because, in many ways, Honey Money goes to show that Feminism has become a dirty word. In one of many sweeping generalisations, she writes ‘Feminists argue that there is no real distinction between marriage and prostitution.’ The crusade against Feminists makes you wonder for whom Hakim is actually writing. ‘Everyone’, she insists, ‘both men and women.’

Unfortunately, Hakim’s views on the Feminists are frankly conservative compared to those on prostitution, which she showcases as a stellar example where the financial value of erotic capital can reach its full potential. She celebrates the economic and psychological benefits of prostitution for the workers, completely downplaying the problem of security and trafficking. For Hakim, these girls are empowered, not exploited. Anyone who disagrees is brainwashed by a patriarchal society, which stigmatises selling sex.

The book seems to openly encourage young female students to turn to the sex industry to help fund their tuition fees: ‘the preponderance of university students and graduates among these women is strong evidence that beauty and brains are often combined and work together.’ Prostitution is the smart option for the average female student, didn’t you know?

Hakim prefers to refer to call-girls as ‘party girls’, as if to insinuate that girls who do not prostitute themselves are not as adventurous as girls who do. ‘But they are fun girls!’ she gushes breathlessly. She’s piqued my curiosity. Has she spoken to anyone working in the sex industry? ‘No’. Did she not consider that to be an important part of her research? ‘I just relied primarily on the literature – that way someone else has done the work.’ Then how can she know what it is like to work as an escort? ‘I just know,’ she repeats several times. I sincerely hope she isn’t toying with romantic ideas that call-girls are all ‘party girls’ based on Holly Golightly from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, who is presented as an iconic example in her book.

Given Hakim is urging women to adopt a more ruthless, business-like approach to their erotic capital, I ask if she thinks women should behave more like men. ‘Yes, women should be more professional, and professionalism is more like the way men behave. Men are rational and practical. You can always do business with a man. Women treat each other so badly in the workplace. They have no team spirit!” It seems fair to say that we do have something to learn from the other sex.

We move on to a discussion of the reviews published on her book so far. It is clear that this is a sensitive subject, especially owing to one Guardian article. ‘No man would write that kind of article, ever. No matter how much they disagree with you, they wouldn’t bring emotion in. Women find it easier to attack another woman than attack a man.’ In agreement, I point out that in the storm of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn trial, British journalists took greater pleasure in criticising Anne Sinclair’s decision to stand by her man than her husband’s peccadillos.

In Money Honey, Hakim bombards the reader with numerous statistics illustrating how common it is for men to commit adultery. So I ask if this is another instance where we should accept the world as it is. ‘I am a social scientist. I am not concerned with morality.’ I don’t mean in terms of morality, I say, but rather in terms of bringing about the greatest happiness. Eventually, after a hesitant pause, Hakim replies, ‘women should turn a blind eye’.

As I leave the LSE, I find myself unsure what to make of Hakim and her book. I can’t help but wonder if she was merely implementing her erotic capital philosophy when she laughed so excessively at a borderline-funny tale. Her aggressive, bolshie  style of writing undermines the thought-provoking parts. Her theory of erotic capital was first advanced in an article published last year in the European Sociological Review and I found myself wondering how the two would compare. As suspected, everything in the 248-page book can be found in the 20-page article, written in a far more neutral and less irritating manner. I would recommend reading that instead.

Do you like plays? They do

0

How many people can claim to have set up a business at our age? Not so many. Most of us graduate and moan about the lack of employers champing at the bit to take us on.Yet the former is exactly what recent English graduates Imogen Sarre and Olivia Edwards have done; and the latter may happen all the less because of it

How many people can claim to
have set up a business at our age?
Not so many. Most of us graduate
and moan about the lack of employers
champing at the bit to take us on.
Yet the former is exactly what recent
English graduates Imogen Sarre and
Olivia Edwards have done; and the
latter may happen all the less because
of it.
Following the massive success of
their first venture, Oxford Theatre
Review (OTR) – which has firmly established
itself as an integral part of
the Oxford drama scene since its inception
in 2008 – the pair launched
Ed Fringe Review (EFR) this year at
the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Based
on the same model as OTR, 44 lucky
representatives from the universities
of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham
and Bristol were invited to attend
and appraise any and all student
and Free Fringe shows across the festival
in August. Two student reviewers
were sent to each production on
the company quest to ‘find the real
Fringe’.
So well conceived and presented
was the business plan that these
innovative young ladies cooked up,
they secured corporate sponsorship
from RBS (the overall sponsors
of the Fringe itself), who are largely
to thank for the bright red jumpers
that quickly began to attract attention
across the city and became the
hallmark of the Ed Fringe Review
brand.
Indicators of the company’s success
this August are the statistics
that show that over 250 amateur
productions were reviewed twice
over, with over 70,000 page views
counter from over 15,000 visits to
the website over the three-week period.
In fact, such was the popularity
of the site that it couldn’t quite
handle the hits, suffering two days’
worth of downtime, its only glitch.
The winning formula led to much
needed media attention and critical
reception for many under-publicised
shows. Who knows how many
young stars are now in the ascendant,
rescued from obscurity by EFR
coverage? It certainly goes some way
towards providing relief from unemployment
– but that’s not all. Writing
for the team offers participants the
chance to showcase a palpable body
of work, with each user to be assigned
their own profile page containing
links to past contributions.
Reviewers are able to demonstrate
their writing skills and commitment,
controlling their own image
and making a name for themselves.
The question is, what’s next for the
team? Phoning from a Cambridgebound
car with Olivia, Imogen confirms
that replica site of OTR are being
launched simultaneously in the
EFR team’s constituent university
towns, providing a national framework
of student reviewing which
aims to enable many more to develop
skills and encourage dramatic
debate.
After Cambridge, they’ll be heading
north to Durham and then back
down to Bristol, all the while crashing
with various friends on their
mission (to which they’re dedicating
a solid year of their lives).
An interactive community will see
liaisons between branches, beginning
with an inter-university radio
script competition. The hope is that
ideas, traditions and practices will
migrate, each environment offering
something new. Oxford’s Cuppers
may see itself spread, while Cambridge’s
centralised ADC location
(with bar) may attract more covetous
attention. Durham could particularly
benefit, with untold numbers
of wonderful College performance
spaces unknown to people not from
that particular one, while info on
Bristol’s productions – usually limited
to the drama faculty – will be
better advertised.
The response to my one critical
question – how can inclusiveness
and accessibility be paramount
when they’re setting up shop in arguably
the most elite, privileged
universities in the country? – is honest
and considered; “A lot of universities
could learn from how well developed
[these ones] are.[They] need
to learn how it’s done well first.”
Spreading even further is most definitely
not off the cards, then, for this
ambitious duo.
Will the enterprise take off? Will
the Directors’ friendship last the
test? I hope so – we’ll have to wait
and see. One thing’s for sure: this
writer will be proudly sporting his
kitsch red jumper for some time to
come.
For more information on the
company, or to sign up, head over to
www.oxfordtheatrereview.com

   Following the massive success of their first venture, Oxford Theatre Review (OTR) – which has firmly established itself as an integral part of the Oxford drama scene since its inception in 2008 – the pair launched Ed Fringe Review (EFR) this year at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Based on the same model as OTR, 44 lucky representatives from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Durham and Bristol were invited to attend and appraise any and all student and Free Fringe shows across the festival in August. Two student reviewers were sent to each production on the company quest to ‘find the real Fringe’.

   So well conceived and presented was the business plan that these innovative young ladies cooked up, they secured corporate sponsorship from RBS (the overall sponsors of the Fringe itself), who are largely to thank for the bright red jumpers that quickly began to attract attention across the city and became the hallmark of the Ed Fringe Review brand.

   Indicators of the company’s success this August are the statistics that show that over 250 amateur productions were reviewed twice over, with over 70,000 page views counted from over 15,000 visits to the website over the three-week period. In fact, such was the popularity of the site that it couldn’t quite handle the hits, suffering two days’ worth of downtime, its only glitch.

   The winning formula led to much-needed media attention and critical reception for many under-publicised shows. Who knows how many young stars are now in the ascendant, rescued from obscurity by EFR coverage? It certainly goes some way towards providing relief from unemployment – but that’s not all. Writing for the team offers participants the chance to showcase a palpable body of work, with each user to be assigned their own profile page containing links to past contributions. Reviewers are able to demonstrate their writing skills and commitment, controlling their own image and making a name for themselves.

   The question is, what’s next for the team? Phoning from a Cambridge-bound car with Olivia, Imogen confirms that replica sites of OTR are being launched simultaneously in the EFR team’s constituent university towns, providing a national framework of student reviewing which aims to enable many more to develop skills and encourage dramatic debate.

   After Cambridge, they’ll be heading north to Durham and then back down to Bristol, all the while crashing with various friends on their mission (to which they’re dedicating a solid year of their lives). An interactive community will see liaisons between branches, beginning with an inter-university radio script competition. The hope is that ideas, traditions and practices will migrate, each environment offering something new. Oxford’s Cuppers may see itself spread, while Cambridge’s centralised ADC location (with bar) may attract more covetous attention. Durham could particularly benefit, with untold numbers of wonderful College performance spaces unknown to people not from that particular one, while info on Bristol’s productions – usually limited to the drama faculty – will be better advertised.

   The response to my one critical question – how can inclusiveness and accessibility be paramount when they’re setting up shop in arguably the most elite, privileged universities in the country? – is honest and considered; “A lot of universities could learn from how well developed [these ones] are.[They] need to learn how it’s done well first.” Spreading even further is most definitely not off the cards, then, for this ambitious duo.

   Will the enterprise take off? Will the Directors’ friendship last the test? I hope so – we’ll have to wait and see. One thing’s for sure: this writer will be proudly sporting his kitsch red jumper for some time to come.

For more information on thecompany, or to sign up, head over to www.oxfordtheatrereview.com or www.edfringereview.com

Going Wilde for Dorian

0

 Adapted from a new text which includes some sections originally censored for excessively homosexual undertones, this exciting new version of Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Grayis a noble effort to transfer this most beguiling of novels onto the stage, recalling, intentionally or not, Shakespeare, Greek tragedy, the problems of ageing female BBC presenters and, of course, the whole question of censorship in literature. One of the characters remarks that ‘it’s bad for morals to see wooden acting’, and – thankfully for the actor who gives this hostage to fortune – there is little woodenness in evidence in Dorian.

dapted from a new text which
includes some sections originally
censored for excessively
homosexual undertones, this exciting
new version of Oscar Wilde’s The
Picture of Dorian Gray is a noble effort
to transfer this most beguiling
of novels onto the stage, recalling,
intentionally or not, Shakespeare,
Greek tragedy, the problems of ageing
female BBC presenters and, of
course, the whole question of censorship
in literature. One of the
characters remarks that ‘it’s bad for
morals to see wooden acting’, and
thankfully for the actor who gives
this hostage to fortune, there is little
woodenness in evidence in Dorian.
From the scenes previewed, particularly
engaging were those featuring
Jordan Waller as Lord Henry Wotton
and Jamie McDonagh’s Dorian. In the
first scene, Lord Henry appears overbearingly
camp and creepy yet strikingly
erudite, a deeply unsettling
combination, while Dorian is naive,
simultaneously wooed by and wooing
the visiting aristocrat. Waller’s
Wotton is probably the strongest
performance (although not everyone
had as much stage time in the
preview, so comparisons are probably
a little unfair). The ‘dichotomous’
character of Lord Henry, as Jordan
put it, requires a hugely impressive
emotional range, which he deploys
with aplomb. Ziad Samaha as the Picture
handles very effectively a daunting
role with involves having ‘lots to
do and nothing at all’, a hurdle overcome
through what we are starting
to recognise as the textbook Samaha
combination of smouldering looks
and an air of dismissive superiority
over everyone in the room. It is
a compelling performance that can
only be enhanced by his being surrounded
by a huge frame and shorn
into the likeness of McDonagh.
There were a few tantalising vignettes
featuring the scene-stealing
chorus, a tragedy-inspired innovation
of Lucinda Dawkins and Adam
Scott-Taylor, the directors and adapters,
used to cover the huge chunks of
dialogue-free prose in Wilde’s text.
Sybil Vane’s (Nouran Koriem) intentional
impression of a bad actress in
the second scene I saw was very convincing,
although unfortunately the
subsequent encounter between her
and Dorian had the capacity to send
the real audience into the same embarrassing
slumber affected by the
chorus on stage: by next week there
will need to be much more life in her
perhaps overly-long speech to match
the energy and pace of McDonagh’s
Dorian.
Chatting to the set designer afterwards,
it was clear that she and her
team have put in a huge amount of
work to meet the whims of directors
Lucinda and Adam: from what they
described, it sounds like it could be
a great sight, full of the opulent, garish
vividity that one would expect
from Wilde, draped in velvet and
floored in marble. I am looking forward
to seeing it!
Dorian wasn’t perfect, but it was
an engaging and exciting production,
striking the right balance of
high drama, emotional engagement,
homoerotic flirting and entrancing
looks from the male leads. It looks
set to draw in a big crowd

   From the scenes previewed, particularly engaging were those featuring Jordan Waller as Lord Henry Wotton and Jamie MacDonagh’s Dorian. In the first scene, Lord Henry appears overbearingly camp and creepy yet strikingly erudite, a deeply unsettling combination, while Dorian is naive, simultaneously wooed by and wooing the visiting aristocrat. Waller’s Wotton is probably the strongest performance (although not everyone had as much stage time in the preview, so comparisons are probably a little unfair). The ‘dichotomous’ character of Lord Henry, as Jordan put it, requires a hugely impressive emotional range, which he deploys with aplomb. Ziad Samaha as the Picture handles very effectively a daunting role with the epigram of having ‘lots to do and nothing at all’, a hurdle overcome through what we are starting to recognise as the textbook Samaha combination of smouldering looks and an air of dismissive superiority over everyone in the room. It is a compelling performance that can only be enhanced by his being surrounded by a huge frame and shorn into the likeness of McDonagh.

   There were a few tantalising vignettes featuring the scene-stealing chorus, a tragedy-inspired innovation of Lucinda Dawkins and Adam Scott-Taylor, the directors and adapters, used to cover the huge chunks of dialogue-free prose in Wilde’s text. Sybil Vane’s (Nouran Koriem) intentional impression of a bad actress in the second scene I saw was very convincing, although unfortunately the subsequent encounter between her and Dorian had the capacity to send the real audience into the same embarrassing slumber affected by the chorus on stage: by next week ther ewill need to be much more life in her perhaps overly-long speech to match the energy and pace of MacDonagh’s Dorian.

   Chatting to the set designer afterwards,it was clear that she and her team have put in a huge amount of work to meet the whims of directors Lucinda and Adam: from what they described, it sounds like it could be a great sight, full of the opulent, garish vividity that one would expect from Wilde, draped in velvet and floored in marble. I am looking forward to seeing it! Dorian wasn’t perfect, but it was an engaging and exciting production, striking the right balance of high drama, emotional engagement, homoerotic flirting and entrancing looks from the male leads. It looks set to draw in a big crowd at the Playhouse in 2nd week.

 

3.5 stars

Oxford Playhouse, 19:30 Wed-Sat 2nd Week