Monday 14th July 2025
Blog Page 1969

Reviews: Toy Story 3

No, it is all true, the hype is not an over-exaggeration, this is one of the best films out this summer. As we all know, Pixar have created films that rival the great Walt Disney in both originality and beauty. ‘Toy Story 3’ sees the end to the series that made Pixar’s name back in 1995; no creative expense has been spared in making it the best of the trilogy and one of the best Pixar films to date.

The film opens with an exciting imaginative adventure scene followed by a heart warming montage showing the interaction and love between Andy and his toys. When the dust settles, however, the audience find themselves back in Andy’s room: a lot of time has passed and things are very different. Nothing has escaped the change: Andy (still voiced by a now grown-up John Morris) is grown up and leaving for college; the puppy Buster has his fair share of grey hairs; and Andy’s toys are left half forgotten in his old toy box. Although many of our favourite toys are still in this film, such as Woody, Buzz and Jesse, to name a few, some are also missing. The ones that are still around have not changed: they still want to be played with and long for Andy’s attention. This childlike want is heartbreaking to watch. It is also clear that the toys are slowly becoming jaded as time passes; so begins the start of the message that Pixar is trying to tackle. The film aims to deal with loss of purpose and how we feel when we are looked over or no longer needed.

The solution presented to us and the toys is to try and live with no purpose, no responsibilities, no owners. Andy’s toys find this weight-free existence at Sunnyside Daycare where the toys have no owners and so have no no heartbreak. However, Sunnyside is a lot more sinister than it first appears.. It is here that the story starts to pick up pace with many action sequences, moving speeches and funny one-liners as well as introductions to many new characters, both toys and human.

This final instalment of the ‘Toy Story’ franchise easily has some of the best characters in it. We have the return of old favourites: Rex who is still as clumsy as ever; Ham who is voiced by Pixar good-luck charm John Ratzenberger; the Potato Heads with their alien adoptive children; slinky dog; the cowboy’s horse Bullseye; and of course Woody and Buzz, the film’s favourite duo. However there is also some female talent with Jessie the cow-girl and new comer Barbie. Both girls easily keep up with the male toys in both action and comedy. On top of these characters the audience are introduced to many more at Sunnyside Daycare such as Stretch, Chunk, Dollie and a host of others all voiced by famous Hollywood veterans such as Whoopi Goldberg and Timothy Dalton. The head of this host of new toys is Lots-O’-Huggin’ Bear (Lotso for short) who with the soft voice of Ned Beatty and bright purple fur, seems at first a kind and wise caretaker, but is in fact a ruthless warden who controls Sunnyside with intimidation and fear. He wields this fear with the help of Big Baby, his Lenny like accomplice who is strong, yet follows Lotso with blinding faith. Big Baby is a frightening character that harks back to the terrible creations found in Cid’s room in the first film. However easily the most stand out new character is Michael Keaton’s Ken, the embodiment of the metro-sexual man. With his All American smile, indignation at being called a ‘girl’s toy’ and expansive wardrobe that would make Carrie Fisher jealous, Ken could certainly be an idol for the modern man (a character some might relate to). The fashion montage in his walk in wardrobe is certainly a highlight of the film and makes him an immediate favourite with everyone watching. The great thing about all Pixar characters, and this film is no exception, is that they are not one dimensional. The good guys have flaws and annoying habits while the bad guys have relatable motives that cause them to act as they do. In this way these animated toys have are more realistic than something you might find in a M.Night Shyamalan production.

In typical Pixar fashion it’s not just the characters that have matured and improved since the previous film. The animation is easily the best ever, with beautiful bright colours, made more detailed by the 3D effect (although the jury is still out as to quite how much this improves the cinematic experience, in this reviewer’s opinion). Along with the animation, the emotional balance has been perfected with lots of jokes, both physical slapstick for the kids and witty quips for the adults, as well as lots of poignant moments and realisations. The film shows that a purposeless life is empty and that we never lose our purpose or importance, we simply grow out of old ones and start new ones. However along with the maturation Pixar has not lost its childlike humour with subtle in jokes and homages. Andy’s Mum’s car still has the licence plate A-113, which is subtle dedication to the classroom where many Pixar artists discovered their dream of animation. Many of the action scenes inside Sunnyside come from famous escape films such as ‘The Great Escape’. One of the new toys is Totoro, the mascot of the Japanese film studio Studio Ghibli with whom Pixar are on great terms. They also hint at previous jokes from the older ‘Toy Story’ films, such as ‘the claw’ and riding Buster like a horse, but these jokes have changed with time and are the funnier for it. There are probably many more in-jokes that first time viewers may not notice and, with this in mind, it’s worth going to see the film again and again to discover the plethora of hidden jokes and references. The movie also starts with a fantastic short film called ‘Night and Day’, which plays around wonderfully with the fusion of sound and vision and is easily one of the best short films Pixar has done in a long time.

‘Toy Story 3’ is the perfect end to a magnificent trilogy and will leave every member of the audience feeling warm, a little weepy, but fully satisfied with the ending. The film creates laugher and tears in both children and adults and yet no one is ashamed of this. The only thing to regret is that we did not show our own toys this much affection when we still had them.

Matt Isard

Woody, Buzz, Mr. Potatohead, Rex – these are just a few of the adorable characters that throw most of us right back into childhood and remind us of how magically fun the original two Toy Story films were, before bringing us right back to the present day and wowing us once again. Like their owner, Andy, you’ve probably grown up by now and will have headed for college. But, somehow, hearing ‘You’ve Got A Friend In Me’ playing to the sound of a Tom Hanks-voiced cowboy won’t just make you happy through the memory of being a kid. It will also make you happy right here and right now. Surely that’s not allowed? Surely only children can enjoy Pixar films this much? Toy Story 3 blows such prejudices out of the window, and that’s credit to how stunningly feel-good it is.

The premise is simple: times are changing. As Andy vacates his room, his family of old toys worry that they are headed for the bin. Andy actually intends to store them in the loft but, through an unfortunate sequence of events, they all end up destined for a play school where – as fresh donations – they expect to be cherished by a group of new children. They’re all ecstatic at the prospect, except for Woody. He can’t help but look at the name of his owner written on the bottom of his boot, and realise his and their obligations lie elsewhere. They must head back to where they belong.

When daycare turns out to be far from heaven, the other toys soon come round to a similar way of thinking. Barbie might be happy now she’s met Ken, but for everyone else, not only are the new kids maniacally young, hurling them around like anarchists, but all the toys there are governed by a seemingly benevolent, but in reality totalitarian, strawberry-smelling pink bear. He tweaks Buzz’s configurations so he becomes a straight-faced prison patrol guard, and when accompanied with the monkey on watch as eyes in the sky and robots encasing the perimeter with flashlights, our favourite toys seem destined to a life in confinement. Only through a perfectly apt and crazy adventure do they flee and successfully escape, heading back, naturally, to Andy’s bedroom where he once again can decide where he wishes their services to lie.

Like all Pixar films, it’s bright and beautifully colourful but this film is not solely a visual experience. Toy Story 3 also brings the biggest and most genuine of smiles to the audience’s faces for the length of its duration. From Woody being hurled into a play-time session in which the other toys explain they ‘do a lot of improv,’ to Buzz being programmed into Spanish mode in his post-police patrol phase, making him devilishly romantic as he dances around to woo cowgirl Jessie, it’s all wonderfully, phenomenally joyful stuff. There’s no other way of putting it.

That improv group joked about heading for Cannes. Perhaps that was a little ambitious, but I’m pretty sure they’d have been as pleasantly surprised as we’ve been to see their dreams come true when Toy Story 3 deservedly premiered at Edinburgh last month. With Pixar’s newest masterpiece, they have approached that holy grail of cinema: a perfect trilogy. Just keep it as Toy Story 3, full stop. Not Toy Story 3 3D.

Jacob Williamson

19

0

The number 19 doesn’t have a lot of significance in our culture or in our language. It’s a bit more than 18, not quite 20. Very rarely will people try to get a 19% in anything, or spend less or more than $19, or follow 19 guidelines. It’s just one of those odd numbers that’s rarely used.

It’s a little strange to think about this, because if you consider the matter carefully, there’s not much significance attached to being 19. When you reach this particular age, nothing really happens. All throughout childhood, birthdays are celebrated, building in significance – at 16, you can drive a car. At 18, most of the world opens up to you – you can vote, for one thing. And at 21, in the United States, you can legally drink.

But when you turn 19, the occasion is rather anticlimactic – there’s usually not as big of a celebration as there was when you turned 18. For the first time, your birthday is just a little less important than it was last year.

I turned 19 this past Monday. I had a lovely birthday. Friends and family sent good wishes from across the country, and indeed, across the Atlantic. But nothing changed that day. There was no aspect of life that became newly available to me.

It wasn’t until my birthday was almost over that I finally realized what turning 19 means. It may not seem important on the day itself, but it marks the last year of being a teenager. You get seven years to be a teen, and those seven years are in many ways the most formative ones of your life, in which you make choices that may define you for decades to come.

The teenage years are hard to categorize. In books and at the movies, on television and in the lyrics of songs, being a teenager is portrayed in countless renditions. For some, they’re the best years of life, and it’s all downhill from the moment you hit 20. For others, they’re some of the worst, and life only begins after high school and college are over. They can be fantastic or dismal, fraught with emotions ranging from delirium to depression and anxiety to elation, and often they’re a roller-coaster ride through each and every one of those feelings.

But whatever the experience is that you’ve had, you’re only a teenager once. On your 19th birthday, the clock starts ticking; you’ve got just one more year until this phase of your life is behind you. So the best thing to do is probably what I was told just a few days ago. Enjoy every moment, and don’t underestimate what you can get out of this last year of being a teen.

University donor’s oil company fined for toxic dump

0

Oxford University has accepted more than £3million in donations from Graham Sharp, a St John’s College alumnus and co-founder of Trafigura, an oil trading company that was convicted last Friday of criminal charges over a 2006 environmental scandal.

Trafigura was fined £840,000 by a court in the Netherlands for illegally exporting tonnes of toxic waste and disposing of it in the Ivory Coast. 30,000 people are believed to have fallen ill as a consequence of the disposal.

The company has previously paid £32m compensation in an out-of-court settlement to those who required medical treatment. In another settlement, £100m was given to the Ivory Coast government to help clean up the waste, although Trafigura did not officially admit its liability.

The prosecution against Trafigura, which is considering an appeal, argued that the company had put “self-interest above people’s health and the environment”.

Trafigura co-founder Graham Sharp retired from the company in 2007, and established the Helsington Foundation, a trust that has given the university £3.25m to fund a new summer school programme at Oxford to help students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

The University announced the donation in April 2009, and the summer schools started earlier this month. The programme, which currently has 500 places, is set to replace the Sutton Trust summer schools, and aims to offer 1,000 places by 2014.

Sharp said of his donation, “I want to help with initiatives that reach out to those pupils who have ability and aspirations but aren’t able to fulfil those aspirations. I named the foundation after the outward bound centre I went to with my old school – a place that helped widen my education.”

Sharp graduated from St John’s College in 1983 with a first-class honours degree in Engineering, Economics and Management.

A spokesperson for the university said that the Helsington Foundation is “entirely independent of the company with which Mr Sharp worked”.

Oxford student favourite to win Big Brother

0

An Oxford undergraduate has found fame this summer as a contestant on the reality television show Big Brother.

Edmonds, a 19-year old Mathematics student at St Anne’s, entered the Big Brother house as a “halfway housemate” on July 10th along with two other new contestants.

Edmonds is backed by bookmakers as one of the favourites to win and become the show’s 11th champion. He is well liked by his fellow housemates and was one of the only two contestants not to receive any nominations for eviction this week.

So far during the series Edmonds has cooked a liver and custard pie, stripped naked with another contestant when trying out fake tan spray, and taught his housemates how to play Sudoku. On Friday night, he and fellow housemate Corin, 29, faced another task where they had to sing the Dirty Dancing duet Time Of My Life in front of the Big Brother crowds.

He told friends at Oxford that he wanted to apply for the show because it would be a good life experience. Once he reached the final audition stages Andrew was forbidden from talking about the show with others, and his entry into the Big Brother house was a surprise to family and friends.

His college wife, Jenny Cearns, commented, “The whole situation is bizarre. But I’m really looking forward to writing to our college kids now.”

Edmonds received his prelim results from Big Brother this week, and was ecstatic about his pass mark of 69.2. He passed Maths A-level at the age of 13 and is hailed as a “genius” by the other housemates.

But his College wife says there is more to this mathematician than meets the eye.

“Within a week of me meeting him, he ran across Oxford stark naked, with some gaffa tape wrapped around himself, which only just covered his modesty,” said Cerns.

“I chased him across Oxford trying to get him back, and when I caught up with him I found him trying to order a kebab and being turned away from the van.”

Robin McGhee, a History student at St Anne’s, said, “I lived next door to Andy last year. He was always one for a banter, which, let’s face it, he has rather lived up to on Big Brother.

“He recommended me the excellent film Good Will Hunting, which is about a maths student who takes over the world. Freud would have a field day with that one.”

Edmonds has already been added to the St Anne’s notable alumni list on Wikipedia.

To watch Andrew’s audition video, click on the link below:

http://www.channel4.com/bigbrother/video/2010/Jul/9/andrew-s-profile/play.c4

Favourite Geoffrey Hill elected Professor of Poetry

0

Keble College alumnus, Geoffrey Hill has been appointed to the post of Oxford Professor of Poetry. Hill was favourite for the position and secured more than three times the votes of his nearest rival, Michael Horovitz.

Following the introduction of new online voting procedures, over 2,500 votes were cast by Oxford graduates and tutors between 21 May and 26 June to elect a successor to Christopher Ricks. The last poet to hold the position, Ruth Padel, resigned last May after less than a fortnight when it emerged that she had alerted journalists to allegations of sexual harassment made against front-runner Derek Walcott.

However, this year’s contest also descended into controversy when the only woman candidate, Paula Claire pulled out of the race, complaining that Hill benefited from obsequious coverage in the Oxford Gazette, the university’s official journal. The University denied any favouritism.

Hill will start his five year term this autumn on an annual stipend of £6,901. As well as giving a public lecture every term, Professors must also “encourage the art of poetry in the University”, according to the University’s regulations.

An award-winning writer, Hill follows in the footsteps of W H Auden, Paul Muldoon and Seamus Heaney who served as Professor of Poetry since the post was created in 1708. As well as his collections of poetry, notably King Log and Speech! Speech!, Hill has published several books of essays and taught at universities in the UK, US and Nigeria.

Dr Seamus Perry, deputy chair of Oxford’s English faculty board, which hosts the chair, said: “We are glad that so many people wanted to vote under the new arrangements for the election of the Professor of Poetry; and are simply delighted that a poet of Geoffrey Hill’s eminence has emerged victorious.

“Besides being a great poet, he is also a critic and lecturer of great distinction and we look forward to his lectures over the next few years as the 44th Professor of Poetry.”

US Industrialist funds new Oxford School of Government

0

A Soviet Union-born, US businessman has donated £75m to Oxford University to help fund the creation of a new finishing school for international statesmen.

Leonard Blavatnik, 53, whose fortune is estimated at £3bn, has given the University the money for the planned £100m School of Government, which would be built in the university’s new Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, a former hospital site in the city centre.

The proposals are currently under formal consideration, but if the scheme is agreed by the university, it will open in 2012, offering a one-year Master’s degree.

It is hoped that the school will create over 40 academic posts and rival the Kennedy school of government at Harvard.

Mr Blavatnik, who features on the Forbes Top 100 Billionaire Rich-List, is founder of Access Industries and made his money in oil and other industries. The university has described his donation as “one of the most generous philanthropic gifts in the University’s 900-year history”.

There has been a correction to this article: Mr Blavatnik is not Russian but a U.S. citizen. Apologies for the mistake (Ed).

Queen’s College bomber jailed for arson

0

Animal rights campaigner Mel Broughton has been given a ten-year jail sentence after being found guilty of plotting arson attacks against Oxford University buildings.

A jury at Oxford Crown Court convicted the 50-year-old, from Northampton, of conspiracy to commit arson.

He was also found guilty of owning an article with intent to destroy property.

Judge Patrick Eccles QC passed a 10-year sentence, to be reduced by the two and a half years Broughton has already spent in custody.

Broughton was originally convicted of the offences by a jury in February 2009, and successfully appealed his conviction in February this year. The Court of Appeal ordered that he should face a retrial, where he has been found guilty for a second time.

The campaigner, who spearheaded animal welfare group Speak, was protesting about plans to build an animal research laboratory in Oxford, backed by the university, when he made homemade bombs out of water bottles and sparklers.

One of them, placed on the roof of Queen’s College cricket pavilion in November 2006, ignited and caused nearly £14,000 damage to the building. A further two were planted at Templeton College in February 2007 but failed to go off.

A University of Oxford spokesperson said: “The University has always accepted the rights of protesters to voice their objections within the law.

“However, we will continue to work with all relevant authorities to protect staff and students from criminal activity of any kind.”

Radical revamp approved by Council

0

A Bodleian Libraries project worth £5m, designed to upgrade space within the central Bodleian site, has been approved by the Oxford City Council.

The project, which is due to start in the Radcliffe Camera in October, aims to improve library services and to facilitate disabled access, allowing readers with limited mobility access to the Radcliffe Camera for the first time.

Library services may be restricted until the work is completed in late spring 2011. However, a Bodleian Libraries spokesperson said that ‘every effort’ would be made to minimise disruptions to students and readers.

‘We recognise that the Radcliffe Camera is extremely popular with students and we intend to keep the Upper and Lower Reading Rooms open to readers throughout the building project as much as possible,’ said Sarah Henderson, Head of Communications for the Bodleian Library.

Renovation plans include opening up the tunnel that connects the Radcliffe Camera and the main library of the Old Bodleian building, which will be known as the Gladstone Link.

‘The tunnel and conveyor have had an important role in the mythology of Oxford over the last sixty years – many people believe there is a maze of tunnels underneath the libraries,’ reads a Bodleian Libraries press release.

The project also outlines the installation of platform lifts in the Radcliffe Camera as well as in the Old Bodleian main building, and the adjustment the paving level in the Old Schools Quadrangle.

It is said that the quad was once been level with the doorways in the square, but the surface was dropped to accommodate a new drainage system.

These plans were first unveiled in April and submitted to the Council for review on Tuesday 13 July.

The project is lead by Purcell Miller Tritton, which has previously worked on other Grade 1 buildings including St Paul’s Cathedral, Kew Palace, and the British Museum.

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.