Monday 30th June 2025
Blog Page 1969

Something for everyone?

0

Ask any man about haute couture and he is likely to return a blank stare or appear incredulous. ‘No one, ever, is going to wear that.’ To be fair, that’s probably right; surely the people at Givenchy, for example, are not expecting any women to promenade this fall in bleached baboon fur. While the fashionable response to this – yes, even to the baboon fur – is usually ‘That’s not the point’, the close of this year’s fall haute couture shows in Paris provides good occasion to consider just what is the point, and whether this has any resonance beyond the exceptionally fashionable man.

Strictly speaking, the point of haute couture is to designate an elite calibre of fashion design. Since 1945, the Chambre de commerce et d’industrie de Paris [Paris Chamber of Commerce] has awarded the designation only to fashion houses that meet certain criteria: a house must produce made-to-order clothing for private clients, maintain a workshop in Paris with a minimum number of full-time employees, and present each year, in Paris, two collections of day and evening wear. (This last criterion is the reason why the fashion calendar includes two haute couture shows in Paris.) Only houses meeting these criteria can use the phrase haute couture in advertising or any other way.

Beyond this straightforward marketing function, the world of haute couture quickly becomes obtuse for most men. One reason is that haute couture collections are produced exclusively for women. (There is no requirement for this, but historically the fashion houses that qualified for haute couture status have focused on women’s clothing.) Haute couture also has its own jargon, just like any other specialized craft or practice. (The couturier has his bias stitching, the footballer his red and yellow cards.) With no chance to wear anything he might see on the runway, a man has little reason to acquire this vocabulary and is already twice-removed from the world of haute couture.

A third reason men (actually, everyone) might be oblivious to haute couture is that so much fashion writing (about haute couture especially) happens in language that is tired, overwrought and ludicrously indistinct. Fashion blogs and magazines are teeming with awful, ‘squishy’ English, none of which makes the ephemeral subject-matter appear any less frivolous:

“The combination of voluptuousness and severity could have bordered on an arch libertine sensibility, but barely brushed hair and fresh, girlish makeup added a vital lightness.”
(Style.com)

“THE CURTAINS HAVE BEEN DRAWN ON THE CELEBRITY MACHINE, THE PUPPETEERING STYLISTS RUTHLESSLY EXPOSED. THE DIEHARD FASHION CROWD HAS BEEN SOURED BY THE STARS’ NATURALLY BRUMMAGEM TASTES AND THEIR TENUOUSLY FASHION-RELATED HYPHENATE HOBBIES.”

(Jak & Jil Blog. Lest anyone think BLOCK CAPS do not count as an offence against good writing.)

Finally, there is the undeniable perception that men who are interested in haute couture are gay, and the unfortunate corollary that this label is a reason to avoid haute couture. This stereotype probably holds for fashion generally, and even a man like Scott Schuman, photographer behind The Sartorialist fashion blog and current beau of model-cum-photographer Garance Doré, is not immune. In 2008, I saw Mr Schuman give a presentation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, about new media in fashion. In the first ten minutes he twice referred to his past as ‘the only straight kid in the Midwest reading dress catalogs under the covers’. (Relax, Scott, no one thinks you’re gay, and we still love you.)

Seen in this light, so many blank or incredulous stares seem much less surprising. Why would any man be excited about something he could never wear, can’t understand and would be embarrassed, for reasons more or less admirable, to admit to if he could?

The answer, I think, lies in seeing haute couture less as clothing and more as art. (This is, in effect, what it means to say ‘That’s not the point’ when someone objects that haute couture is ridiculous because it’s unwearable.) To be sure, some haute couture is eminently wearable, but even a casual glance at most collections should make clear the impetus is overwhelmingly expressive, with functionality, possibly, an afterthought.

Take, for example, the baboon fur featured in the Givenchy collection. The fur is actually quite long, and bleached to make the white outfit, built mostly of extraordinarily intricate lace, feel Gothic. The model’s hair falls flat, mimicking the fur, and it is unsettling to wonder at the resemblance, especially when the model is placed in the ornate, gilded corner of a Parisian salon. We could be in some private menagerie of Louis XIV – how’s that for a commentary on haute couture?

An easier example is an exhibition of the late Yves Saint Laurent’s haute couture collections at the Petit Palais museum in Paris. Hundreds of outfits are on display to celebrate the famous couturier, including, near the end of the exhibition, an entire wall dedicated to his Le Smoking creations, which are female versions of the traditionally male smoking jacket. Dozens of outfits, all black, are suspended on a black wall near the black ceiling of the hall. The entire premise of Le Smoking is to appropriate a traditionally male image, and here we encounter an army literally bearing down on us. The black on black on black also makes the outfits somewhat hard to see, which is a brilliant curatorial gesture: ‘We don’t really need your attention.’

There is, then, something for everyone, even men, in haute couture. Just like any other art, some is good, less is exceptional, most is unmemorable (or at least one wishes it were so). It is also much better in person; pictures are no substitute for visiting a museum. (Alas, tickets to haute couture shows are impossibly scarce, but at least try a webcast.) Haute couture may be challenging to appreciate, but that’s usually a sign you are on to something special.

Review for OUDS Japan Tour "Taming of the Shrew"

0

From Elizabeth Taylor’s screeching Kate to Cole Porter’s campy musical number ‘I Hate Men’ to Heath Ledger’s paintballing Petruchio, The Taming of the Shrew often falls victim to the impetus to produce a new, never-before-seen take on Shakespeare’s classic comedy. But the Thelma Holt/OUDS Summer Tour production of The Taming of the Shrew has successfully resisted the pitfalls of anachronistic, postmodern interpretation and gives us a refreshingly faithful rendition of Katherine’s cursedness, Bianca’s sweetness, Lucentio’s lovelorness, and Petruchio’s capriciousness.

Let me be direct: director Alice Hamilton’s production is good. Very good. Her ensemble betrays no weak links and each of the players handled their lines with the grace and deftness that this battle of wills and wits requires. They also prove to be quite adept singers, with the choral interludes between scenes complementing the action and the tone of the piece. Ed Peace’s Katherine is not merely a perversely ‘cursed wench’; she gives bonny Kate the psychological depth she deserves, seeking her father’s love through negative attention with her hair-pulling antics. Petruchio, played by Jacob Taee, evokes in his audience the same love and play with language that the character exhibits. Most refreshing, however, is the production’s the treatment of Katherine’s speech in the final scene. It inevitably sounds a bit misogynistic to our postmodern, post-feminist ears; I braced myself for Pearce to play against the lines and somehow try to twist the text into the discourse of a prenatal suffragette. But the lines themselves won out and in all their anachronistic glory proved a testament to the strength of the relationship between Petruchio and Katherine that the text works so hard to engineer.

The lone shortcoming of this Taming? The sporadic appearance of modern clothes that jarred, probably intentionally, against the otherwise period dress. The producer kindly explained to me their role in gesturing towards the meta-theatricality of the text with the all but forgettable pre-beat in Shakespeare’s original setting up the familiar play-within-a-play trope. While I appreciate the sentiment, having Tranio turn up in a denim jacket and 80’s sunglasses, or Petruchio appearing in less than shocking wedding apparel (just a rather nice pair of red trousers and argyle vest), did not read as gesturing to anything other than perhaps a budget shortcoming. Combined with a confusing Brechtian pre-beat which features the actors wandering around staging mumbling their lines, this production only struggled when it strayed from its greatest strengths: its commitment to the play as it was originally staged in all its 16th century glory. But aside from these minor distractions, this Taming of the Shrew succeeds where most versions fail and delivers a truly enjoyable experience in the lovely Magdalen College Gardens. It can only garner the response of Petruchio himself after his tamed Kate’s final speech: ‘Is not this well?’

The show will be playing in Magdalen College Gardens July 21 through July 24 before commencing its tour of Stratford, London and Japan. Ticket details can be found on the website: www.tamingoftheshrew2010.co.uk.

Review: Splice

0

In May this year, the controversial geneticist Craig Venter oversaw the creation of the first ever synthetic life form, created entirely in a laboratory. It seemed that, for once, real life was one step ahead of Hollywood. Not for long though. With Splice, writer-director Vincenzo Natali has taken the idea and run with it, though perhaps not in the direction you might expect. The result is a horror movie that begins by dwelling on modern ethical dilemmas in science, yet disappointingly this contemporary relevance is not sustained. Natali creates moments of genuine shock and even grotesque beauty, but these are lost all too often in the dull predictability of this modern Frankenstein tale.

The plot focuses on two scientists and lovers, Clive (Adrien Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), who begin a secret project of ‘splicing’ human DNA with their previous hybrid creations under the self-delusion their efforts will ultimately cure diseases. They name their creation Dren, and its rapid growth and learning abilities ensure that it soon becomes a surrogate child to the couple, though this warped family unit ceases to remain harmonious. The casting here is fairly left-field, particularly in the case of Brody. Though he acts with confidence, it is fairly baffling to see the Oscar winner involved in what is essentially a big budget B movie and his considerable talents do seem wasted. Sarah Polley is equally solid, though her face is highly distracting – she seems to be some kind of illegitimate lovechild between Julianne Moore and Uma Thurman. Perhaps genetic splicing is to blame. Disappointingly, the characters here are fairly one dimensional (a flaw which the cinematic con known as 3D would do nothing to rectify), as Natali foolishly refuses to pursue the common feature of all great horror movies: the patient build up of characters and tension. The film is far less compelling, or even frightening, as a result.

Natali clearly knows his horror, however, and fills Splice with references to a huge variety of classics, including Alien, The Fly, and Rosemary’s Baby. Indeed, much of the film’s strength lies in its focus upon Elsa’s warped maternal instincts and the creation of a distorted and very Freudian family unit; it is in these moments that a pervading sense of creepiness infects the film to great effect, and it becomes an extremely skilful and intelligent horror movie, particularly in its surreal exploration of Carl Jung’s Electra Complex. Unfortunately, such moments are all too rare, and the film often seems utterly unsure of itself. Its biggest flaw is, ironically, a lack of horror – an element generally considered to be fairly crucial in the horror genre. Instead, much of the film is disappointingly bland, even banal. The script, directing, cinematography and score are all solid, but none of them exceptional. Natali might know his horror classics, but he fails to demonstrate the skill required to make one.

Feature: Newman College, Oxford

0

‘NEWMAN COLLEGE, founded 1892 in memory of the theologian John Henry Newman (1801-90). Located on the Woodstock Road between Somerville and Green Templeton Colleges on the former site of the John Radcliffe Infirmary, Newman is the smallest and perhaps the most appealing of Oxford’s Victorian colleges. The austere classical facade conceals a wealth of rococo gardens and a number of annexes whose gothic brickwork far outshines that of Keble and the Oxford Union. Newman has a well-deserved reputation as much for junior common room pranks – in one recent ‘rag’ the men’s eight bumped their great rivals Somerville in a banana boat – as for Norrington-table-topping academic endeavour.’
Excerpted from ‘Oxford: A Rough Guide’ (Dorling Kindersley, 1986)

Just in case you were wondering, I made everything in that last paragraph up. As anybody who has ventured further north than Husayn’s kebab van outside the Taylorian will know, there is no Newman College between Somerville and Green Templeton. There is, in fact, an attractive building which used to be a hospital and now backs out onto an enormous construction site. Rumour has it that the University is going to build its new Linguistics faculty there.

But it could so easily have been different. Theology may not grab many headlines today, but in a less secular age a hundred and fifty years ago it was as big as politics. Oxford was the site of a battle for the soul of the nation. The group of Anglican theologians who came to be called ‘the Oxford Movement’ were demolishing the individualist foundations of their Church. They saw salvation in the Via Media, a reconciliation with the teachings of the earliest years of Christianity. With Catholicism in its purest sense. They left an indelible mark on the University: John Keble had the great Legoland palace that is Keble College founded in his memory, while Edward Pusey had a PPH and a road.

Yet there is no evidence of the most brilliant of the Tractarians to be seen in Oxford, except a bronze bust in Trinity and a modest plaque outside St Aloysius, the city’s Catholic cathedral. John Henry Newman could have had it all. Newman College. The Newman Library. Hell, why not Newman Square down by OUSU and the Westgate? But in 1845 he overturned his life’s work – and jeopardised the credibility of the Movement – by converting to Roman Catholicism.

Never has there been such opprobrium since Anakin Skywalker went over to the Dark Side. Newman traded a reputation as one of the finest minds and certainly as the finest writer in the Church of his day in exchange for peace with his conscience. The deal worked out better than you might have expected, though: he received a Cardinal’s red hat in his own lifetime, and on September 19th of this year he will become the first Englishman to join the Communion of Saints since the seventeenth century.

It’s about time, then, for a new portrait of the man who did more than anybody else to bring Britain in line with Catholicism and the Church in line with modern science. Enter ‘Newman’s Unquiet Grave’ by John Cornwell. What this is not, in spite of its subtitle ‘The Reluctant Saint’, is a discussion of Newman’s beatification. What it is is a welcome attempt at a literary biography.

James Joyce may have thought of Newman’s ‘cloistral silverveined’ prose as the best ever written in English, but most modern readers will find even his more accessible works long-winded and oversubtle. Cornwell acts as a kind of oracle for Newman, decoding his major works into clear, simple English. It is a joy to watch him filleting important books like the ‘Apologia pro vita sua’ and the ‘Grammar of Assent,’ setting all the meat on the reader’s plate with none of the Victorian grease and gristle. He summarises Newman’s ideas beautifully, and yet he is always happy to let his subject speak for himself in moments where he is simply inimitable.

Cornwell is a vigorous writer in his own right; the front cover suggests a Channel 4 documentary (maybe Time Team), and he has the television presenter’s lightness of touch, leavening his intellectual account with a fair sprinkling of anecdotes. He is stylish, astute, and above all easy to read. Take his summary of the Apologia, for instance: ‘[it] becomes not just a history of his opinions, but a dramatised psychology of philosophy of mind, fraught with intellectual, historical and spiritual anxiety.’ His literary approach really comes into its own in sections on Newman’s presentation of himself and his influence on James Joyce.

That said, Cornwell can fall away into obscurity at times, especially when he is describing one of his pet theories about Newman and the Romantic poets. ‘Newman’s Unquiet Grave’ is also spoiled by some chimpanzee-level editorial mistakes, ranging from the petty – Cornwell manages to misquote a line of the Aeneid in two different forms in the same paragraph – to the downright bizarre, as every reference in the book to Newman’s spiritual home at Littlemore (near Cowley) has been replaced with the word ‘littletons’ [sic]. But in doing what he sets out to do – to present Newman’s thought to a new world with fresh importance and fresh urgency – Cornwell succeeds brilliantly. Newman has serious questions to pose to the twenty-first century, and you will find them at their most forceful in this book.

High-earning graduates will pay more, says Cable

0

A proposal for a graduate tax scheme made by Business Secretary Vince Cable has increased the possibility that recommendations submitted by OUSU and the NUS proposal could be implemented as a result of the Browne Review of higher education funding.

Cable’s proposal suggests that students should pay for their fees through the tax system, that high-earning graduates pay more than those on lower incomes, and that there should be no up-front tuition fees.

Students ‘almost certainly will have to pay more’ said Cable, adding that he had asked Lord Browne to look at the idea of a graduate tax ‘as a priority’.

OUSU welcomed Vince Cable’s proposals as ‘the most progressive and the most sustainable answer’ to the question of higher education funding.

‘Of course the devil is in the detail of any proposed graduate tax, and Oxford students will not be conned by high-flown rhetoric with no substance’ said President David Barclay. ‘However, this speech has shattered forever the complacent myth that fee rises are inevitable.’

Lesley Sims, Oxford University’s Head of the Planning and Resource Allocation, said that Mr Cable’s proposals were ‘fine’, but emphasized that ‘there are many ways in which it can be interpreted – too many people see it as the NUS Blueprint.’

Earlier this year OUSU made its submission to the Browne Review, supporting the NUS Blueprint for a graduate tax. According to the NUS proposal, the collection and distribution of funds would be centralised, and individual fees at the institutional level would be abolished.

However, Oxford also made a submission to the Browne Review, in which the university says that ‘we do not support a Graduate Tax, because we do not wish to make the University more dependent on national funding decisions, at a time when we could be taking greater responsibility for developing our own provision and funding arrangements.’

The university’s main proposal was an ‘income-contingent graduate contribution scheme’ in which institutions would have the right to set their own fee level. Although the amount that a student would have to repay would also be linked to earnings, this amount would be decided by each individual university.

‘If there is diversity in the university sector, it should be reflected in the fees,’ said Anthony Monaco, Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University. He also warned that ‘the problem with a graduate tax is that graduates could have to pay back amounts much larger than the fee.’

The Russell Group, in its own proposal to the Browne Review, also said that is necessary to ‘vary prices from institution to institution’ as well as ‘from subject to subject.’

Following Mr Cable’s speech, Dr Wendy Piatt, Director General of the Russell Group, said that ‘we do not agree that a pure graduate tax would be a better or a fairer system’, arguing that it would lead to overpayment on the part of the highest-earning graduates.

OUSU however, has said that variable fees would deter students from lower-income bands from applying, and that a graduate tax is the only scheme that would provide fair access.

‘Given Oxford’s history of able candidates being deterred from applying, we are keenly aware of the need for a new system which will allow students from every conceivable background access to a high quality and life-changing education’ said Barclay.

‘I hope that Vince Cable’s speech will have a large influence on the Browne review in combating what has until this point seemed an inevitable momentum towards lifting the cap on tuition fees.’

The results of the Browne Review are expected to come out in autumn.

Balancing the spirit level

0

A year ago The Spirit Level made a persuasive case for radical income redistribution. Since then it has been enthusiastically adopted as the new bible of progressive social democracy. A look at some of the language used by the Labour leadership candidates reveals that Ed Miliband, in particular, has been heavily influenced by the book, to the extent that he has constructed the core of his campaign around the issue of equality. Last week, however, saw the beginning of the backlash: centre-right think tank Policy Exchange published a 125-page critique of The Spirit Level called, rather ominously, Beware False Prophets. The pamphlet was written by Peter Saunders, professor emeritus of Sociology at the University of Sussex. Saunders’ pamphlet has already been vilified on the Guardian website by The Spirit Level’s authors as a ‘hatchet job’, and ‘racist’. The Spirit Level, then, has garnered strong reactions from both sides of the political divide – but what explains the remarkable impact it has had on political discourse?

Few issues are quite so divisive as the question of inequality; indeed, where you stand on this particular battleground is perhaps the ultimate litmus test of one’s political persuasion. The case for equality has been fought and re-fought for a very long time now, and in this respect there is nothing new about The Spirit Level. The book, however, does bring a rather novel weapon to the left’s arsenal – namely, the claim that inequality damages the rich as well as the poor – and then supports this with an abundance of empirical evidence drawn from impartial and reliable UN statistics.

The Spirit Level’s central thesis is that, as the gap between rich and poor widens, problems affecting the whole of society worsen. The book’s authors, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, produce graphs which seem to show scientifically that less egalitarian societies are afflicted by higher rates of crime, infant mortality, obesity, and lower life expectancy (to name but a part of the catalogue of social ills blamed on inequality in the book). Wilkinson and Pickett argue that, because of this, it would be in everyone’s interest to strive to create a society in which wealth was distributed more evenly.

No wonder, then, that The Spirit Level has enjoyed so much support and exposure: here is a book which provides a scientific basis for the policies that the left traditionally advocate, seemingly denying any counter argument through sheer weight of evidence. What is more, in a move that further reduces the possibility of opposition to their ideas, Wilkinson and Pickett argue that no one would lose out as a result of redistributive taxation: we would all be happier, healthier and safer.

The position of The Spirit Level, then, seems almost unassailable. Ed Miliband has certainly been won over: on July 12th’s Today Programme he said ‘what we’ve got to realise is that all of us, not just the poor, suffer from the gap that there is between rich and poor… the countries that are healthier, happier, more secure – they are the more equal countries…’. In a short interview in which he outlined his plans to replace the minimum wage with a ‘living wage’, and talked about the introduction of a ‘high-pay commission’ to reduce top salaries, he said that he would make increased equality ‘a central aim’ of his leadership.

Just four days before Ed Miliband made these comments, Beware False Prophets was published. In it, academic Peter Saunders questions Wilkinson and Pickett’s handling of data and the conclusions they come to. He writes: ‘the statistical analysis in The Spirit Level is heavily flawed. There are many instances where graphs are presented in which just one or two extreme cases are used to support unwarranted generalisations.’ Saunders’ paper provides a valuable dose of balance, and it should be noted that it does not attack the ideal of equality per se. He is not making a political argument – he simply casts a critical eye over Wilkinson and Pickett’s scientific claims. Sad, then, to see such a vituperative article on the Guardian website as their response.

In one sense it is strange that the debate about equality is now phrased in scientific terminology. Perhaps we should get used to this, though: I predict that the biggest consequence of The Spirit Level will be the growing use of empiricism as a political tool. It is only a matter of time before further books come out on the back of its success, mimicking its evidence-based approach to politics. Which leads us to ask – how much of this kind of political ‘science’ is actually rhetoric in disguise? It seems to me that supplementing what is essentially a political argument with a bombardment of statistics and leaden analysis risks missing the point: equality is, and always has been, an ethical issue.

It is a fairly grim state of affairs if the public are persuaded more by a supposedly scientific justification for equality than by an appeal to moral principles. The left will do themselves no favours by using dubious science as their weapon. They risk abandoning what should be their strongest armament of all – the moral high ground. Politicians like Ed Miliband should take great caution not to use The Spirit Level alone – persuasive though it undoubtedly is – as a blueprint for policy. They should distinguish between rhetoric and science, and should not be afraid to use the language of morality even though it may buck the current trend.

Kings of Leon at Hyde Park

0

Every band has to make sacrifices to make a career out of their music, but Kings of Leon’s story is perhaps more arduous than most. Living out of an ’88 Oldsmobile throughout a nomadic, itinerant youth; firing up a southern-rock group with your two brothers; pilfering your cousin from the very bosom of his Mississippi home and making him play bass, just to appease the stipulations of your record company. Fast-forward eleven years, and if your band, forged in such humble beginnings, was playing to sixty-five thousand revellers in London’s Hyde Park, what would your reaction be?

The final note of ‘Black Thumbnail’ has just rung out, and as his fellow band-members saunter off stage, Caleb Followill lingers behind, soaking up every last second of the scene before him. It’s just past ten, and a crimson sun is setting behind a rapt audience, his audience, every mouth screaming and every pair of hands clapping for his band.

The Kings played not only the headliner role, but also that of party organisers for their Hyde Park show. Yet despite a plethora of talented, upbeat sets from the likes of The Drums and The Black Keys, it was a relatively tepid atmosphere not in keeping with the stifling Wednesday heat which greeted the late afternoon warm-up acts.

Yet the semi-apathetic throng becomes a baying horde as KOL emerge from behind what appears to be a wall of crushed cars, before launching into the bass-laden ebb of ‘Crawl’. Caleb, sporting a Springsteen-esque light-blue denim jacket with an extravagant American flag on the back, then proceeds to creakily bleat out ‘Taper Jean Girl’ and ‘My Party’.

The Kings could perhaps be criticised for sticking to their most recognisable material, as a ravaging rendition of ‘Molly’s Chambers’ is followed by more tempered, slower performances of ‘Fans’ and ‘Milk’. Any slight disparagement I flirt with, however, is roundhouse-kicked to the floor by KOL treating us, in typical hot-headed fashion (and against the wishes of their management), to four new songs, ‘Immortals’, ‘Radioactive’, ‘Mary’ and ‘Southbound’, which seem akin to the arena-rock overtones of current album ‘Only By The Night’. The band also chooses to cover the Pixies track ‘Where Is My Mind?’

A pause, and then Matthew nonchalantly starts picking the instantly recognisable riff of ‘Sex On Fire’. There’s a rib-breaking surge forward, and a deafening, sixty-five thousand strong bellowing of the chorus. Jared pouts and swings his hips through ‘Notion’, sunglasses hanging from the neck of his T-shirt, and the Kings encore with a wailing recital of ‘Use Somebody’ and the ear-pounding ‘Black Thumbnail’, to rapturous appreciation.

Caleb flings his guitar picks into the audience, and stares disbelievingly at the legions of the Kings’ adoring subjects. A short while later, Nathan is updating his Twitter page. “London, you cheeky bastards,” he quips, “you just gave us the highlight of our career.” And the highlight of my summer, too.

Stop callin’, I don’t wanna vote anymore

0

With every additional chime as the telephone rings, the simultaneous urge to run away as fast as possible and to pick up the phone in order to scream at the cheery voice on the other end grows stronger. That phone’s ringing a lot more than it usually does – multiple times per day, every day, sometimes even on weekends. And the person on the other end of the line isn’t a friend, or a relative. It’s not a stranger calling to say you’ve won the lottery. Actually, they’re not even trying to sell you anything. They’re trying to get something more important than money from you – your vote.

It’s primary season for midterm elections in the United States, and in some states rivalries between candidates have reached an all-time high. But the candidates have not yet entered into the election ring, the bloodbath of mudslinging and slander that will develop once each party’s candidates for election for governor, senator, or representative are chosen. Instead, it’s a carefully orchestrated volley of propaganda, from signposts by the side of the road, to flyers handed out at sidewalk sales, to a never-ending barrage of phone calls.

Right now, these candidates are fighting simply for their party’s nomination. They want to convince voters that they’re better, not only than whichever candidate the rival party may choose, but than all of the others attempting to secure their own party’s nomination. And they can’t use the same tactics as in a general election, because when the dust settles at the end of the summer, the party has to get behind whichever frontman or frontwoman they’ve chosen, and it’s a little difficult to convince voters to support someone who’s had their dirty laundry exposed by a member of their own party.

So for those in each race, instead of focusing on what’s wrong with the other candidates, they must concentrate on why they’re the best for the job – at the very least, try to do so. And in order to do this, they employ brigades of staff and volunteers, whose sole task for days on end may be to make phone calls. Calls to loyal supporters, yes, but also to every other constituent who represents even the slightest chance at one more vote.

In order to gain their full support, candidates have to make sure voters will get themselves to the ballot box for the primary elections in the first place, as these elections, taking place on dates which vary by state throughout the summer, usually attract low turnout as compared to general elections in November, not even taking into account the lower turnout in any midterm election. So the purpose of these calls is not solely to gain votes; it is to encourage voter turnout in the first place.

However, winning votes is the goal. And to accomplish this goal, Republicans and Democrats alike will ring every voter in their district (for representatives) or in their state (for governors and senators) that is registered as a member of their party, and most will also contact voters registered as independents. In a state like Connecticut, for example, where as recently as 2004 unaffiliated voters comprised 44% of all registered voters, candidates must attempt to garner as much support from these independents as possible.

In my household of four people, three are registered voters (the fourth being a disenfranchised fifteen-year-old). Two are registered as independents, part of that 44%. The third is registered with one of the two major parties, but switched party affiliation several election cycles ago, having registered initially with the other party. And those lists of voters – let’s just say, candidates don’t always use the most updated versions. Consequently, we’re experiencing a torrent of phone calls.

It’s 10:19am. Ring, ring. First call of the day – from the office of Dan Malloy, Democrat, running for governor. An hour later, there’s another from Linda McMahon, Republican candidate for senator. By noon, it’s the team of Jim Himes, incumbent representative of the Fourth Congressional District. Less than five minutes after that one, the phone rings again, calling from the office of Ned Lamont, the other Democratic gubernatorial candidate. And so on.

By five o’clock in the afternoon, as government offices begin to close, we breathe a sigh of relief. Today alone we’ve answered seven calls. Tomorrow there will be more. One might think that each candidate would call once; but they call multiple times, asking on various occasions for each of the registered voters in our home, and sometimes even for constituents who either don’t live here anymore, or are not permitted to vote. The housekeeper who worked here three years ago, the former residents who lived in this house before my family did (nearly two decades ago, come to think of it), even a few times – accidentally, we hope – for that fifteen-year-old who’s not allowed to vote yet. At least for that one, they have an excuse – attempting to indoctrinate the young, perhaps. But a couple of days ago, there was a call for the dog. Now, we really hope that was a mistake.

We wait with bated breath for August 10th, the scheduled date for primary elections in Connecticut, after which a few days of relief may come. But we won’t be left in peace for long – soon we’ll be hearing from candidates for the general election, which will be just around the corner.

Said the Playwright to the Bishop

0

Last weekend the General Synod of the Church of England met to discuss the issue of women’s eligibility as bishops. Last weekend, newspaper headlines featured the appointment of openly homosexual cleric Dr. Jeffrey John as a nominee for the position of Bishop of Southwark. Last weekend, Drew Pautz’s play Love the Sinner closed after its successful two month run at the National Theatre. The National’s timing could not have been more appropriate in featuring the world premiere of Pautz’s play on the conflict within the Anglican church, as its leaders internationally grapple with the Church’s stance on homosexuality.

The play opens at a conference in an unnamed African country, with African church leaders denouncing the liberal policies of the Western Church, American Anglicans championing the Church ‘evolving’ with the times and a bearded Englishman, obliquely referred to as ‘Your Grace’, refusing to take a side. The story unfolds with a member of the Church conference having a homosexual encounter with a young African man who then turns up in London demanding asylum from the persecution he faces in Africa due to his sexuality. The experience of seeing Pautz’s play at the National’s Cottesloe Theatre was both riveting and refreshingly sympathetic to all the distinct voices and opinions present in the questions of the Church’s role throughout the world.

In a period when theatre is rising to address the issues sensationalized daily by the media, with examples ranging from the London success and New York failure of Enron: the Musical to the mixed response to David Hare’s commissioned play The Power of Yes on the current financial crisis, it is increasingly rare to find a piece of politically and socially relevant theatre that treats all perspectives as respectfully and artistically as Drew Pautz’s work. While I am eagerly anticipating Pautz’s next piece, Love the Sinner succeeded for me most in presenting a model of theatre with a social function that can gain recognition in London and beyond, perhaps even in Oxford.

In a university setting dominated by endless reprisals of Shakespeare’s canon, Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus and Chekhov’s depressed families, I wonder if Oxford’s thesps can be inspired by the young Pautz to produce their own versions of socially relevant theatre. Yes, we’ve all applauded Wertenbaker’s Our Country’s Good and Churchill’s multiple dissections of gender roles, but Pautz’s play appears to have provided more than just another politicized approach to discussing the meta-theatricality of theatre and performance itself. Didn’t Ibsen, Shaw and even Shakespeare write their masterpieces on the pressing social, political and ethical challenges of their times? I would challenge Oxford playwrights to do the same: pick up a newspaper and write a play based on a headline.

An upcoming OUDS production is already leading the way: Frank McGuiness’ play Carthaginians is being staged 4th week of Michaelmas in the O’Reilly Theatre and echoes The National’s timing with Love the Sinner with its retelling of the events of Bloody Sunday in the wake of the Saville report from this June. I hope we can see many more similiar departures from the standard fare of Oxford drama in the future.

The composer who painted music

Olivier Messiaen (1908-1992) was a French composer, organist, teacher, ornithologist, and synaesthete. Although he has yet to enter the mainstream, among musicians his reputation soars higher than the upper register of his instrument. And a year-long festival of his music, held in 2008 in venues across London to mark the centenary of his birth, at last earned him some popular recognition.

Messiaen is the only major composer in history whose style has never been closely imitated. One reason for this is the curious tonality of his music. Like most of his avant-garde contemporaries, Messiaen generally did not compose in major and minor keys. Yet unlike them, he chose not to join Arnold Schoenberg’s then-fashionable school of atonal “serialism”. He instead devised his own “modes of limited transposition”: jarring, luminous scales that had no harmonic precedent in Western music, and which he all but trademarked.

These scales are one of the features behind the “colourfulness” of Messiaen’s music. As a synaesthete, Messiaen “experienced” colours (though he emphasised that he did not perceive them visually) upon hearing certain harmonies, and cited Mozart, Wagner and Stravinsky as particularly “colourful” composers. By associating each of his modes with a different hue, he effectively “painted” his music. And often on gigantic canvases. Just listen to the skyscraping opening theme of the Turangalîla-Symphonie (1948), or to La Transfiguration de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ (1969), a piece scored for one hundred and eighteen instruments and a ten-part choir.

Though a devout Roman Catholic, Messiaen did not write conventional liturgical music. Instead, he studied Japanese gagaku, Indonesian gamelan, and Hindu and ancient Greek rhythms, and was inspired by the unusual colours and birdsongs of Bryce Canyon in Utah to compose his orchestral piece Des Canyons aux Étoiles (1974). Encouraged by his teacher (the composer Paul Dukas) to “listen to the birds”, Messiaen would embark on solitary nature walks, transcribing birdsong as he went. These strolls resulted in the Catalogue d’Oiseaux (1958) for solo piano, a collection of thirteen tone poems based on the songs of thirteen different birds. Even when writing religious music, he overlooked all the doom and gloom in the Christian tradition in favour of extolling with messianic joy the figure of Christ. Typical is the title of the organ piece Transports de Joie d’une Âme devant la Gloire du Christ qui est la Sienne (1933), which translates as “Ecstasies of a Soul before the Glory of Christ, which is its own Glory”.

One of Messiaen’s works stands apart from the others. Quatuor pour la Fin du Temps (1941), the “Quartet for the End of Time”, is remarkable for the circumstances of its composition. Working as a medic in the French army during World War II, Messiaen was captured by the Germans and imprisoned at the camp Stalag VIII-A. Among his fellow prisoners he found a clarinettist, a cellist and a violinist; with himself as pianist, he assembled an unconventional quartet and composed the Quatuor. The premiere was given on a freezing January day in 1941, before an audience of prisoners and guards, and the piano which Messiaen had received from the Nazis was out of tune and missing keys. The composer later recalled of the occasion, “Never was I listened to with such rapt attention and comprehension.”

Throughout his later career, Messiaen supplemented his composer’s income by teaching and serving as the organist at the church of La Trinité in Paris. Yet – drawing inspiration from his wife, the pianist Yvonne Loriod – he continued to compose. Of his late works, the oddly static Saint François d’Assise (1983) is notable for being his longest and calmest work as well as his only opera. It is a fitting coda to a totally unpredictable career, which ended in 1992 with Messiaen’s death by very old age.