Wednesday 19th November 2025
Blog Page 2021

Online Reviews – The Homecoming and The Lover

0

How is a Pinter play like a Greek tragedy? No, don’t look at me like that, it’s a serious question. Way back in GCSEs, we read Euripides’ Iphigenaia in Aulis and Harold Pinter’s The Caretaker. The one seemed choked with otiose formality, while my enduring memory of the other can be summarised in the following dialogue:

A: You don’t get proper pint glasses, like, yer know, the ones yer used to.

Long pause.

B: Too fucking right, chum.

Yet though these plays are on different linguistic planets, they have a hell of a lot in common. I found both equally boring then; now they buzz with the same kind of static electricity. If you read either script without engaging your imagination, both are lifeless, both made up of dead ribs of language with great cold gaps in between. But if a cast fills in those gaps with sinew and hot blood, supplies the characters with hearts and brains and eyes, both plays come alive as theatre in its purest form.

In 3rd week, the Burton Taylor will be staging two Pinter plays, The Homecoming and The Lover, in the round. Playing these scripts with an audience on three sides is one of the toughest tests of nerve an actor can face. You cannot just say the lines in these plays with your lips; every part of your body must speak. The director, for his or her part, must make sure that the silences sing or hum or throb as loud as the words.

Welcome to the glass chamber.

The Homecoming

This production is an unqualified success. It grabs you by the balls and clings on for dear life. It is tense, spare, and moving and chilling by turns. It is such an excellent piece of theatre that I find myself quite unprofessionally unsure of where to begin reviewing it.

Let’s start with a quick synopsis. Teddy has left his working-class family in north Lunnon to take a doctorate of philosophy in the States. He comes back after six years with a new wife, Ruth. The couple arrive in a household – perhaps ‘pack’ would be a more accurate word – of four men, dominated by the ageing patriarch Max. This family seethes with testosterone, and the middle son Lenny is spoiling to humiliate Max. Scissors, cheese sandwiches and glasses of water have become warzones. Ruth steps into this dogpit as the only woman in the house since the death of Max’s wife. At first she seems cowed, but through a subtle blend of sex and realpolitik she seizes power.

Will Hooper’s cast puts nothing between the audience and Pinter’s vision. This is raw, primal theatre. Watching the actors move about one another as the play unfolds is like following the balance of powers in nineteenth century Europe: the tiniest gestures are magnified to an almost cosmic scale. We are living in an arbitrary universe where all that matters is power, where logic has fucked off across the Atlantic, and the characters scream at one another with their bodies. Lenny, played with a welcome touch of Michael Caine by Dave Ralf, asks Max what the night of his conception was like.

‘…it’s a question long overdue, from my point of view, but as we happen to be passing the time of day here tonight I thought I’d pop it to you.’

‘You’ll drown in your own blood.’

‘If you’d prefer to answer in writing I’d have no objection…’

Cassie Baraclough’s Ruth is like an incipient thunderstorm in an azure dress. She radiates confidence, control and sex in an outstanding performance. Her husband, who stands to lose his wife and his family, is played sympathetically by Rhys Bevan, striking a perfect balance between pathos and detachment. There no cruelty in his voice when he says at the height of the drama, ‘you’re just objects. You move about. I observe.’ If there is a weak link in this grim iron chain, it is perhaps Max’s younger brother Sam, who does not quite convince, but this scarcely undermines the production. The whole unfolds with the inevitability and force of a Classical drama, and Pinter has turned demotic English into a vehicle as expressive as high tragic Greek. This cast do not miss a single nuance.

VERDICT: You can watch all this for four pounds. Beg, steal, borrow or get an overdraft extension, for these are four of the best pounds you will ever spend.

The Lover

The Lover is an altogether different play. It opens with an everyday conversation between an everyday husband and wife, when the husband casually asks, ‘is your lover coming today?’

Less structured and psychologically intense than The Homecoming, this play shines a Stasi-bright light on the face of the modern marriage. It does so with a great deal of success. Directing for the first time, veteran actress Ed Pearce has chosen to stage it with humour and a slightly dreamlike quality.

This plays to the strengths of the two actors. Matt Gavan looks a little flustered at first but has a fine line in spiked wit, and manages to add a bit of steel to his P.G. Wodehouse-like character. In the scenes where he is called upon to muster some menace he takes control of the stage very effectively. Ruby Thomas, meanwhile, generally makes a good job of the slightly wispy wife, and commands attention in the persona of the adulteress.

The Lover is witty, but it is also deadly serious. ‘You’re perfectly happy, aren’t you?’ This production’s staging blurs the scenes of marriage with the scenes of adultery to the point where it is no longer possible to tell them apart, and you suspect that every husband is cheating on his wife with the wife of another husband, who is in turn cheating…the infidelity seems to tessellate out all the way to infinity, so that the whole of bourgeois Britain is playing the adultery game. Sex, love and contentment spin around and around on a wheel of fortune until you are hardly sure which is which.

Enjoyable and provocative though the play is, it lacks a bit of Tabasco. Perhaps Thomas and Gavan are a little tired from The Odyssey; this play puts a lot of dramatic pressure on two actors, and from time to time they seem to buckle under the strain. This is a drama about repression, and all the things that are left unspoken should creep out in the characters’ body language, but this doesn’t always happen.They’re just not all there all the time. This slight thinness about the edges, however, should not detract from a spare and elegant production that is well worth going to watch. The Lover is poised, sexy and genuinely funny, and its lightness of touch is a good counterpoint to the brutality of The Homecoming.

VERDICT: sharp and entertaining

 

The Lover and The Homecoming are at the BT studio, 3rd week, Tuesday – Saturday, 1930 and 2130

 

Stuff You’ve Wondered About, But Never Bothered to Ask

Find out how the volcano affected your fellow Oxford students, learn about geologic history and climate change, and ponder deep questions about the interference of nature in our highly technologically-advanced world.

Hertford Democracy Saved

0

Hertford JCR has avoided the threat to their democracy posed by the motion that would establish a House of Lords composed of PPE students to rule the JCR.

The original motion was amended during this week’s meeting so that the whole JCR were made members of the new House of Lords, and endowed with the title “Lord X of Hertford JCR”.

Further amendments were that the House of Lords would agree by default with any decisions made in JCR meetings, hence removing the need ever to convene a meeting of the House of Lords.

The new motion was passed near unanimously, the only people voting against it in amended form being those who had proposed the motion in the first place.

One student, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “I think it is excellent to recognize that it is not PPE students, but the whole Hertford student body, who is truly elite”.

A follow-up motion to disenfranchise the PPEists who proposed the original motion was not submitted in time but will be discussed at the next meeting.

 

The General Election

Contributors: Rilly Chen, Naomi Richman, Luke Bacigalupo, James Gibson, Beth McKernan, Jerome Mayaud and Jess Benhamou.

Edited by Chris Greenwood

In Defence of Religion

0

The defamation of religion, according to a non-binding resolution newly passed in the Human Rights Commission, is an infringement of liberty. An article in The Economist entitled ‘The limits of freedom and faith’ claims that it is not the “defamation” of religion that threatens rights but rather measures that supposedly defend it.

The argument is fairly simple: such statements embolden countries that use blasphemy laws to criminalize dissent. Insofar as any ambiguously worded resolution is open to misinterpretation and abuse, it certainly will be used to curb dissent. However, the danger exists in either scenario. If no restrictions are made on the kind of criticisms we can level against religion, it lends legitimacy to state actions that unnecessarily clamp down on religious freedoms. This is already the case in France, where intolerance and xenophobia are concealed under the patriotic cloak of secularism. Even more insidious is the normative signal it sends to countries like China where the clampdown on religion, particularly in the case of the Buddhists and the Falun Gong, can be justified under the banner of constructive criticism. So the question then is not if religious defamation can open the door for abuse, but under which paradigm is the abuse more dangerous.

Take the case of those countries that do curb dissent under guise of blasphemy. More often that not, these countries tend to be hardened theocracies. Regardless of whether this non-binding text is passed, they are not about to go volte-face on their intolerance of dissent. It emboldens them only to the extent that Malaysia is persuaded by CEDAW to provide equal status for women (which it does not). Neither does the passage of the text affect the normative signals sent to the international community that human right abuses occur in these countries. The crusaders of democracy are not about to brush off claims of authoritarianism even if they hide under the banner of religion.

On the other hand, when first world beacons of democracy, like France and Denmark, go out of their way to permit criticism of religion in the public sphere, it has a far more insidious effect. It lends legitimacy to the rhetoric of vengeance that Islamic extremists espouse, justifying, for instance, the asymmetrical treatment of Christians and Ahmadis in Pakistan. Even more dangerous is the situation where a free flow of religious criticism encourages the view that states should stand silent when messages of hate are propagated until riots break out and casualties are recorded. India, a secular state, learned this the hard way from the Ayodhya crisis where the free flow of hate caused not only the destruction of a 400 year-old mosque, but also brutal religious massacres.

There is such a thing as pointless criticism. The Danish cartoons of the prophet served no purpose other than a cruel litmus test to ascertain the pecking order of the right to free press. It is true that there is no right to ‘not be offended’. To suggest so would amount to blatant rights inflation. But, in the real world, unnecessarily offending an integral part of a person’s identity will not result in benign consequences. It is high time the secularists get off their ivory tower of free expression and develop a modicum of sensitivity.

 

Nakba Day

0

“We travel like everyone else, but we return to nothing. As if travel were a path of clouds. We buried our loved ones in the shade of clouds and between roots of trees.” Thus wrote Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian national poet. Born in the village of al-Birwe, in the Upper Galilee, he spent his life in exile: in 1948, when he was just six, his family fled to Lebanon as the Israeli army occupied and destroyed his village, and though they managed to return ‘illegally’ a year later to what had by then become the State of Israel, they remained classified as ‘present-absent aliens’.

Caught in a labyrinthine web of military rulings designed to make Palestinian lives unliveable, he could not even travel from village to village without permission. He finally left in 1970 and did not return until 1996, when he was allowed to settle in the West Bank – but for him, this was nevertheless exile. He died in 2007 and is now buried on a hill above Ramallah, from where, on a clear day, you can just see the Mediterranean of his childhood.

Let me see an end to this journey, said Darwish. The exile of which he wrote is a fate shared by millions: there were 4 million Palestinian refugees registered with the UN in 2002, and many thousands more were killed in the massacres of 1948 and have died under the subsequent 62 years of Israeli occupation. May 15th, Nakba Day, commemorates what in Arabic is called the ‘catastrophe’; yet it also expresses the steadfastness of the Palestinian people in their hope to one day return home. Though Darwish did not live to see that day, let us hope that today’s exiles will.

Notes on a scandal

0

At the risk of equating politics with the Premier League (let’s not be silly: we all know which is more important), what might Gordon Brown and Steven Gerrard have in common? For one thing, both have endured torrid campaigns: it was a long, long time ago that Labour and Liverpool last plummeted so far out of the public imagination. Brief mid-decade successes (Brown’s promotion to the premiership; Gerrard overturning AC Milan’s half-time landslide to win the European Cup) gave way to more sober realities of bad management, misspent budgets (Darling=Benitez) and collapsing expectations. They both ply their trade for the team in red, too.

On the theme of colours, another similarity reared its gruesome head this past week: each man seems utterly determined to help his respective rivals, the boys in blue. Brown’s now-notorious slip of the tongue has slashed his stock even further, arguably presenting the election on a silver platter to Cameron and his Tories. Gerrard could not have been kinder to a grateful Didier Drogba: there’s nothing like an incisive through-ball into your own box to gift the title to Chelsea, who just happen to be vying for that honour with Liverpool’s bitterest enemy, Manchester United…

Question Time: Did He Do It On Purpose?

Brown might be incompetent, but Gerrard might be something worse. Last week, I speculated that Liverpool’s active attempts to lose such a pivotal game against Chelsea would prove to be pure fantasy- on that count, I think I was wrong. Gerrard has produced some unbelievable moments in his career (for all the right reasons), but that slothful pass on Sunday is the most incredible. Watch the footage, scrutinize Gerrard’s position, and note the direction in which his eyes are pointed: his vision is entirely unobstructed.

He sees the onrushing Drogba, and in a moment that does not befit a career of good professionalism, decides to play a pass that, in any other contest, he wouldn’t have chanced. To put it subtly, he doesn’t exactly seem over-concerned in heaping the pressure onto Pepe Reina and his defenders: ‘hospital’ balls like that are heinously amateur even for the Uni Parks on a Wednesday afternoon, let alone for Anfield on a Ford Super Sunday. And, as you should have noticed, Gerrard does not customarily play like a talentless schoolboy.

Most readers will find this conclusion unacceptable and ludicrously conspiracist- common sense should prevail, you might argue; no sportsman would ever willingly choose to lose. To that, I can only implore you to watch and re-watch the goal: Gerrard is running towards his own keeper, and has plenty of scope for surveying the pitch ahead of him- he clearly isn’t blind-sided or impeded. The hard evidence, allied to a compelling theoretical case (again, read last week’s blog) certainly gives my argument serious credence. Make up your own mind, and feel free to leave comments in the space below- it’d be interesting to poll an Oxford consensus on this.

What happened, happened. Now, Chelsea are on the brink of a first championship since 2006, and they most definitely deserve it. Wigan will not submit easily (let’s hope Charles N’Zogbia takes the team bus), but the sight of a crowned trophy on the sideline, adorned with blue and white ribbons, will surely power them to finish first past the Premier League post. And, speaking of celebratory blue and white ribbons… fancy a crack at the Liverpool job, Gordon?

 

Here’s What You’ve Missed: TTW1!

0

This week audiences put Greek hero Odysseus and ITV2 heroine Sally Morgan under the review spotlight.

"Whoever wins, you’re the ultimate losers!"

0

In a crowded lecture room at Brasenose, students engaged in their own take on the Leaders’ Debates, with undergraduates taking on the roles of the party leaders.

‘Cameron’ (staunch Labourite Scott Ralston by day) promised to create “a cabinet of schoolmates and Bullingdon chums”, while ‘Brown’, played

by OCA’s Treasurer Chris Adams, defended his prized economic policies, but was clearly still haunted by the ‘bigotgate’ gaffe.

Gavin Fourie’s ‘Clegg’ was suitably vague in his promise to “stop the old ways”, suggesting we “say yes…after all, over 30 women have”. The bigoted ‘Griffin’, wittily portrayed by Arv Singal, appeared limited to continually reiterating his paranoiac prejudice against “the non-indigenous peoples of this country”.

Questions ranged from the irreverent “What would you fill a black hole with?” to more serious-minded queries about proposed spending cuts. The answers provided by the ‘politicians’ were often uninformed, or frankly ridiculous. Their mockery of the leaders highlighted student exasperation with an electoral system that has become more about the public face of the parties rather than their policies.

Alex Eagle, President of the Addington Society which organised the debate, said that the light-hearted event struck a more serious note by reflecting an increasing disenchantment with national politics. He said that students increasingly felt there was “no real difference” between the parties. ‘Salmond’, the leader of the SNP, closed his argument with “whoever wins, you’re the ultimate losers”, suggesting that there is no ideal candidate to lead a government with such wide-spread problems to tackle in the coming years.

‘Cover-up’ Cardinal to visit Oxford

0

The Oxford University Newman Society has invited the Cardinal Sean Brady, the Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, to a series of three events on 12 May.

The Newman Society supports the faith and life of the Catholic Church in Oxford University.

Cardinal Brady is currently facing allegations that he participated in the cover-up of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church. He has refused to resign from his position.
The charges against Cardinal Brady include the allegation that he assisted in concealing complaints of paedophilia made against Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest.

According to news reports, Brady has “confirmed that he attended a secret Church hearing in 1975” which required two of Smyth’s child victims, an altar boy and a teenage girl, to sign an oath stating that they would not discuss the abuse that they had received at Smyth’s hands with anyone other than an approved priest.

The hearings were allegedly held at the Dominican friary in Dundalk, County Louth, and at the Holy Trinity Abbey in County Cavan.

According to reports, Brady acted as recorder of evidence on behalf of the current bishop and questioned witnesses. The issue was then kept behind church doors.

In 1997, a woman came forward in a High Court case stating that Smyth had abused her as well, and in December of last year, Judge Eamon de Valera allowed the woman to amend her statement, in which she asserted that she had suffered assault, battery, and bodily trespass.

She named Brady as one of three defendants in the case. Smyth was jailed in the Republic of Ireland on the grounds of molesting 20 children. He died in prison in August after a heart attack.

Brady himself now faces legal challenges due to the court case, which began thirteen years ago. He is being sued both in his individual capacity as a priest who took part in the secret tribunal, and as the Primate, the position which he currently holds.

In spite of these legal proceedings, he has refused to resign his post.

The Newman Society has invited the Cardinal to a number of events including their termly Thomas More Lecture. Brady will deliver a lecture on the topic of “The Challenges Facing the Church in Ireland in the Twenty-First Century”. He will also hold a Solemn Pontifical Mass in Trinity College Chapel, and attend a black tie dinner in his honour at St Benet’s Hall.

According to the society’s website, “Cardinal Brady’s lecture takes place in the wake of the Holy Father’s recent letter to the Catholics of Ireland on the issue of sexual abuse of children. The Cardinal will use his speech as an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Holy Father and to reflect on how the church can move forward”.

Although some students expressed concerns at the invitation, others welcomed it as “a sign of openness and co-operation”.

The Newman Society declined to comment.