Sunday 1st June 2025
Blog Page 2047

Review: Precious

0

You would be forgiven for walking into Precious thinking you’re about to see your average uplifting rags-to-riches story. But the word ‘uplifting’ might not be one that immediately springs to mind after seeing this, and rags-to-riches does not at all suffice as a description. But more importantly, there is nothing average about this film.

Precious tells the story of 16-year old Claireece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe). To say she has problems is a gross understatement. Severely overweight, a single mother, pregnant with her second child, she lives in Harlem with her violent and abusive mother (Mo’Nique). As if her present situation wasn’t bad enough, her past is one of abuse in all its hideous forms.

That’s a rather daunting set-up for any story. The filmmakers could easily have turned this overwhelming list into a teary-eyed melodrama. When Claireece is sent off to join a special education program with an inspiring young teacher you might think that this is exactly the path that the film will take. But it easily avoids that trap. The director, Lee Daniels, doesn’t pander to the audience. He doesn’t give you what you think you want to see, a happily-ever-after ending. Often, Claireece dreams of becoming a music star – it shouldn’t take you long to realise that’s not going to happen. Daniels hasn’t created a story so full of raw emotional power only to completely undermine it come the end. It’s not that kind of film.

Other directors may try to hide some of the harsh and brutal details of their heroine’s plight, but there’s no such capitulation to the audience’s sensitivities here. Daniels doesn’t dress-up the horrendous situations faced by Claireece by breaking out the violins. Indeed the lack of overwrought music is rather refreshing. He doesn’t use it to try and tell the audience how they’re supposed to feel, we’re left there to work things out for ourselves. Where you might expect some uplifting music to kick in, he holds back, letting us, or perhaps forcing us, to really watch and listen.

I said there was nothing average about this film, and nowhere is that more true than with the acting. Across the board it is utterly superb. In the lead role, Sidibe is never less than convincing, whilst playing her mother, Mo’Nique has managed to retain some humanity in a character that could otherwise so easily have been turned into a monster. Even Mariah Carey, playing a social worker, is entirely believable, producing a remarkably naturalistic performance. It’s little surprise that the awards have already starting rolling in for the cast.

If you leave the cinema feeling a bit confused, ‘was that a happy or a sad ending?’ then the director has done his job. This isn’t your standard tearjerker. Reducing a cinema audience to tears is easy, and so it’s often used as a quick and simple way of eliciting an emotional response from them. Any director can make an audience cry. A few can make them think.

4 stars

Feature: Apocalypse Now

0

The question ‘what if?’ has been the origin of innumerable flights of science-fiction fancy from Hollywood. Right now it appears there is a preoccupation with one particular formulation of this very question: what if it all ended tomorrow, the world as we know it snuffed out overnight?

Certainly, the amount of films either recently released or imminent dealing directly with an end of the world scenario, or set within a post-apocalyptic environment, is remarkable. We’ve already had the disaster movie 2012, the decidedly more understated Carriers and the computer-animated 9, which offers an irreverent take on familiar material by substituting woollen puppets as the survivors of a holocaust for the more traditional human protagonist. This January, meanwhile, saw the much-anticipated arrival of The Road, an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s acclaimed novel, and the less highbrow The Book of Eli, an action blockbuster starring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. Thematically the two films are almost interchangeable: they both address what happens to human nature under extreme duress when the boundaries of civilisation are removed, although The Book of Eli is likely to address these concerns with considerably more in the way of explosions.

It is telling that the release of two of these films was significantly delayed. The Road was completed over 12 months ago, whilst Carriers has been sitting on the shelf for two years. Is it a coincidence that they have been postponed until now? I think not. For many, standing on the cusp of the new decade feels more like teetering over a precipice, and the films that herald its arrival reflect a Western world scrutinising itself in a cinematic mirror in anticipation of meeting its maker. The brutality and callousness on display in many of these films, few of which offer much in the way of optimism, suggest that disillusionment with human endeavour will figure heavily in popular culture as we enter an even greater period of uncertainty.

Or maybe not. Indeed, it should be noted that besides 2012’s respectable revenue, none of the aforementioned features have set the box office alight in America. Although Hollywood is clearly interested, even invested, in the allure of the apocalypse, it would appear audiences are less enamoured of visiting the pictures to be reminded of the bleak prospects outside. It is quite possible in fact that the modern apocalypse movie is already on the way out, only to receive the occasional light-hearted gesture in knockabout comedies like Zombieland, or superficial lip-service in blockbusters where the cosy survival of the American percentage of humanity and all its adorable household pets is ensured from the opening frames.   

If so it’s a shame, since an apocalypse movie capable of catching the zeitgeist and captivating large audiences would be welcome. Sure, it may address the issues confronting us in broad terms, but people are surely likelier to take an interest if the future of our world is being discussed in a medium with the universal power of cinema. A medium that makes apocalypse feel frighteningly plausible. Just ask yourself…what if?

Drowning in money

0

The New York Times headline reads “Obama Turns up Heat.” As a President under fire himself, from angry tea-partiers and ex-Cosmo centerfolds to the voters of Massachusetts, he better have something good to be cooking. How ’bout the Supreme Court?  

There is at least one Republican in the Senate who will, finally, like the smell coming from Obama’s kitchen – former campaign rival turned critic-in-chief John McCain. Why? Because Obama is all het up on account of a 5-4 decision by the Court to overturn vital parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold.  The ruling means that limits introduced in the Bill on corporate spending in US elections will no longer hold.

“Mid-terms should be interesting, and good luck passing healthcare.”

The Majority decision makers called it a vindication of free speech. Obama called it a victory for oil producers, health insurers, and wall street banks. It isn’t too hard to see why he’s peeved—the decision comes just as Obama loses his filibuster-proof Senate majority, and given his anti-health-insurer, anti-wall street agenda, it’s a safe bet that most of the extra cash sloshing around won’t be going his way. Put simply, mid-terms should be interesting, and good luck passing healthcare.

However, we shouldn’t be too cynical. There are good, nonpartisan reasons to disapprove of this decision. The question is what we really think free speech in the political arena should be. Everyone knows that free speech is not absolute – you can’t yell fire in a theatre, you can’t lie in court, so far, so obvious. But there is an attitude that expression in the political realm should be unfettered. In a certain sense, that’s a good attitude. Yet between this attitude and the idea that campaign finance should be unrestricted lies a litany of miss-steps and conflated ideas.

The most wrong-footed amongst these is the equation of spending with expression. There is, perhaps, something to be said for the idea that by sponsoring a candidate, or paying for an advert, one is expressing a political view. But spending is still not expression. Not quite. It’s an issue of range versus scale. When we protect political speech, we say that there should be no limit to the range of ideas that can be communicated in the political realm. When we protect political spending, we say there should be no limit to the scale those ideas are expressed at.

“Unlimited campaign finance is, in effect, contrary to free speech.”

The two aren’t actually compatible. If there is limited space for ideas to be expressed – say, advertising space, then allowing those that can afford it unlimited spending will inevitably limit the range of ideas being expressed. Unlimited campaign finance is, in effect, contrary to free speech. This is what Obama is talking about when he says that the decision will  “drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

If you were having a discussion at a dinner party, and a drunken, ruddy-faced, bemoustached middle aged man started to, at arms length, scream directly at your face in a torrent of spittle and vitriol, you wouldn’t be accused of violating free speech if you, wiping your spectacles, asked him to keep it down a bit. You would merely be ensuring that everyone could be heard, and a meaningful conversation had. What the Supreme Court has defended is the age old right of American Corporations to spit in American Faces. It’s in the constitution, look it up. 

Laura Veirs Live- "When You Give Your Heart"

0

Check out our footage of Laura Veirs talking at the O2 Academy here on Cherwell podcasts

Laura Veirs at the O2 Academy

0

Check out Laura Veirs singing “When You Give Your Heart” live here on Cherwell podcasts.

Online Review: Nine

0

Nine is like Moulin Rouge for grown-ups. Set in achingly chic 1960s Italy, it is interspersed seamlessly with musical numbers. Based on Federico Fellini’s 1963 film 8 1/2, Nine tells the story of Guido Contini, a struggling film director with one last chance to make a good movie and save his career. Unfortunately, with one week until filming begins, Guido is still a little short of ideas. Will he be struck with inspiration in the form of his beautiful muse, the world-famous actress Claudia Nardi (Nicole Kidman)? We follow him through the build-up to the beginning of filming, squirming all the way as he awkwardly tries to dodge questions about the whereabouts of the script, and fails spectacularly to successfully juggle all the women in his life.

The idea of the film is loosely based on the notion that behind every good man is a good woman, except in this case, behind one rather lost and pathetic man are seven really rather super, strong Italian women at the ready to prop him up, put cigarettes in his mouth and shout at him when necessary.

One way in which the film unequivocally succeeds is in juggling its stellar cast. Indeed, six of the ladies plus Day-Lewis have been nominated for “Best Acting Ensemble” at the 2010 People’s Choice Awards. There was always a danger that with Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Penelope Cruz and, of course, Fergie, all jostling for position in an 118 minute film, the overall result would be like a huge group of superbly talented people all trying to cram through a doorway at once. Part of this success can be attributed to the format of the film, in which, in a way vaguely reminiscent of Chicago, each of the female characters are in turn showcased and given the chance to express their stories and struggles through the medium of song, dance, and in one case, stripping down to her bra and knickers in anguish.

The sophistication of the setting is part of the pleasure of watching Nine. This sentiment is nicely summed up in Kate Hudson’s flashbulb-blowing number ‘Cinema Italiano’, which has earned its writer Maury Yeston nominations for best song at both the Critics Choice Awards and the Golden Globes. It is the catchiest of all the songs in the film, while others are not hugely memorably. Although at times the film can seem slow, there are plenty of moments to enjoy. Watch out particularly for Guido slipping into a steamy bath with a high-ranking Catholic cardinal who proceeds to lecture him on morality.

This film seems to divide opinion between those who are dazzled by the glamour of the 1960s Italian, cheap, feel-good movie business, and those who are bored because they can’t bring themselves to care about Day-Lewis’s drink-sodden, cheating, chain-smoking, almost-washed-up film director who has no problem indulging his inner child.

Ultimately, due to his reputation for being a bit picky about what he appears in, Day-Lewis’s latest film was always going to raise expectations – particularly as his last offering was the staggeringly well-received There Will Be Blood. Unfortunately for him, this is not the seminal masterpiece that he, or the audience, may have hoped for. Nevertheless, it is well made and good fun, and you can at the very least sit back and enjoy the razzle-dazzle.

three stars

Afghanistan debate: room to improve

0

I wasn’t able to make it to this Thursday’s debate on withdrawing from Afghanistan, but guest blogger Jacob Donovan did, and had this to say:

Union debates are always a bit hit and miss. After scouring Wikipedia and inviting every person in the UK, and sometimes the Western World, who has ever made a pronouncement on the subject at hand you often get quite an odd mix of characters, many of whom are about as expert on the subject as Paris Hilton is on the war in Iraq.  With a lineup that included General Sir Richard Dannatt and a former advisor to President Kennedy this debate looked set to be somewhat different. Unfortunately, on the whole, it wasn’t.

The debate was opened by Hassan Ali (Secretary’s Committee ChCh), who had very little charisma. After waffling on about the usual insider Union “banter” Mr Ali made a series of specious, unfounded comments that were designed more to shock then inform. They did neither, proof that the continuing Union practice by some Presidents of giving paper speeches to aspiring Union politicians they want to support who have no public speaking ability or interest in the topic at hand needs to change. Maybe when the hacks concerned realise that making a fool of yourself in front of the electorate doesn’t actually get you elected, it will.

Bob Blizzard, a Labour MP and Foreign Policy expert was, on the other hand, an excellent choice. He carefully outlined the differences between the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, highlighting the need for victory and the advances made by coalition troops in Afghanistan, and created a platform for what could have been an excellent debate. But, alas, the proposition quickly descended into a series of bizarre analogies countered by an Opposition who seemed stuck in the type of jingoistic assertions that Kipling would’ve been proud of. Most surprising was the rather lacklustre performance by the star attraction, General Dannatt, a man for whom most in the chamber had the utmost respect as a soldier, but who seemed a little uncomfortable in his new role as Tory Defence supremo. The General would probably have been a lot more interesting as an individual speaker.

The motion eventually fell by a margin of over 200 votes, a result that probably had more to do with the titles and pedigree of the Opposition then the arguments raised. This was a shame, as with a slightly better start this could well have been a much more entertaining and interesting debate.

Oxford’s voice of sport returns

0

At the beginning of the year we left behind a decade sprinkled with a selection of memorable sporting intrigue, images and icons. Roll on then to a new year, and a new decade that promises to be every bit as good, if not better, than the last. One thing is for certain: you’ll be able to keep track of the big sports stories of the year on ‘Extra Time.’  Oxide Radio’s successful sports show is back and this term it promises to once again bring the major sports stories to Oxford’s airwaves.

January sees a comprehensive look ahead to this year’s Six Nations Tournament, which is sure to witness both scintillating rugby and raise plenty of stirring questions. How will Martin Johnson’s England cope after a poor set of performances in the Autumn Internationals?  Can Ireland carry on from where they left off last year and consolidate their status as the number one side in the Northern Hemisphere? We’ll also be shifting our attention to the other side of the globe, where we’ll be talking Australian Open Tennis and assessing Andy Murray’s prospects of winning that elusive first Grand Slam Title.

On to February where ‘Extra Time’ will have a very special show dedicated to Super Bowl XLIV. As well as the glitz and the glammer we’ll be assessing the two teams who’ll be competing to win the Vince Lombardi Trophy and those much coveted Super Bowl rings.

‘Extra Time’ will also be covering the wide range of Varsity matches taking place, from women’s netball and lacrosse to men’s ice hockey., looking ahead to  tennis and basketball.

Rowing will very much be in the spotlight as we enter into March. From the Torpids college rowing regatta to, of course, the big one, the University Boat Race, we’ll be assessing how preparations are going and hearing from all the important people involved. The Varsity Boxing and Football are also sure to be featured as we round off what looks like being another eventful sporting term.

So, whether it’s a bit of sporting controversy, diversity or entertainment that you’re looking for as you wake up on a Saturday morning, then ‘Extra Time’ is the place where you’ll be able to hear it all.

‘Extra Time’ on Oxide Radio is broadcast on Saturday mornings from 11am-12pm. Listen live at www.oxideradio.co.uk/listen.html

Black and Blues

0

Any university-level sport demands huge effort and commitment from its aspiring Blues, but few seem to strain the mind and body as brutally as Oxford’s Amateur Boxing Club. Training sessions here are gruelling; the warm-ups alone leave honed athletes exhausted and depleted, weeding out the weaklings before gloves, pads and punchbags are even sighted- a punishing sport necessitates a punishing regimen, and the long practices can be endured only by the fittest competitors.

One particular fresher survived two weeks before succumbing to the physical and mental pressures that boxing inexorably imposes: ‘The track-running, skipping and circuit work are tough enough; getting into the ring with some of the best here is, at best, a frightening idea.’ Countless others come and go, attracted by boxing’s promise of glory and but repelled by its steep and arduous road to success.

Visions of Rocky celebrating atop Philadelphian steps are distant day-dreams. The reality is bruising 2-hour stints at Iffley Road. Technique is emphasised religiously by OUABC’s coaches and the majority of a session comprises pain-staking work on the details and intricacies of certain punches, blocks and stances. Speaking of pain, that isn’t entirely lacking either: blood has been shed in the heat of intra-squad sparring, where natural aggression and adrenaline flow in controlled measures.

Would-be boxers arrive at OUABC with all ranges of experience, from the seasoned internationals to the eager novices.  It’s easy to imagine that Oxford might be more likely to produce Ali the rhetorician than Ali the champion,  but the standard here is high, and competition for places in the Varsity match is fierce. Last year’s humiliating defeat to the Light Blues will be used as material for motivation: after all, no other varsity sport presents a more literal opportunity to dominate and hurt the rival Tabs. Passions run strong in all of the Oxbridge fixtures, though it is hard to believe that any other clash becomes as intensely personal as this. The Boat Race might well be ferocious, but on the water fists do not meet faces.

Founded in 1881, OUABC is the oldest student-run boxing club in the country, boasting a prestigious heritage. For one thing, it holds the longest consecutive streak of Varsity victories among any Oxford sports club (racking up an astounding tally of 16 straight wins before a close loss in 2002). Since 2004, women’s boxing has been a half-blue sport, encouraging even greater participation across the university.

Boxing is not a sport merely for brutes and gym-warriors; David Haye’s recent defeat of 7ft 2” Russian Nikolai Valuev underscored that point emphatically, and at the world’s highest level too. It might have dropped into sports cliche, but Ali’s famous ‘Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee’ maxim is still held up as the golden aim. Grace and extraordinary balance are as crucial as strength and  power; it is certainly no coincidence that boxing has inspired some of the finest and most subtle sports journalism of the last century.

Left, left, right. Left, right, left. Right, right, left. Repeat. The goal of perfect form and technical accuracy in every punch is chased relentlessly, considered by the club to be the key to victory in Varsity and beyond: the sheer will to win in the ring should take care of the rest.

Sporting Heroes

0

There are a lot of ways to score a brilliant goal. You can dribble your way past half the side; beat the keeper from inside your own half; curl the perfect free-kick in from 35 yards. These are all practised by millions of hopeful dreamers worldwide everyday. Everyone knows what they would like to be able to do if only they could.

But there is another way to score a great goal. Not only to score one which others could never execute; but to do what others could not even imagine.
Watch a video of Diego Maradona’s second goal against England in 1986. It is quite possibly the best goal ever scored in a football match; a fusion of pace, dribbling ability, fearlessness and a brilliant finish. You wonder, “how on earth did he do that?” Every footballer across the world harbours dreams of waltzing so magisterially through the opposition.

Now watch Dennis Bergkamp’s goal against Newcastle in 2002. Spectacular, but surely even the most one-eyed Arsenal supporter could not argue that Maradona’s tour de force was inferior. It inspires a subtly different reaction. It is not merely ‘how did he do that?’ The more discerning question is: ‘how did he think of that?’

Footballing superstars can dazzle with their dexterity on the ball; their speed; their apparent immunity to pressure.

Something altogether rarer is to astonish with their imagination. It takes a special player to execute what everyone is dreaming of. Bergkamp could succeed in what no-one else was dreaming.

In fact, he relatively lacked two of those three attributes of the greats of the game. His pace was pedestrian set against the likes of Thierry Henry. And his tally of red cards proved he could be wound up by less-skilled opponents.
In this sense he was very human: he could not be relied upon to win his side a crucial game – though he did so on countless occasions – as he could not even be relied upon to be on the pitch. But he was otherworldly in his vision, his comprehension of angles and intricacies and complete understanding of the range of creative possibilities the footballing field provides. They say sport is all in the mind: for Bergkamp it was too, but in a very different sense.