Paul has a rather nasty tutorial when Dr Brittanica finds out he’s been using Oxbridge Essays. Will Kati manage to escape from All Souls’ tower?
Don’t forget you can catch up on all the previous episodes of Staircase 22 in the podcasts section on Cherwell.org.
Don’t miss the beginning of 7th week in Staircase 22, beginning tomorrow!
As a filmmaker, Michel Haneke has been synonymous for well over a decade with cinema that is uncompromising in the way that it coldly, even cruelly, scrutinises the world we live in. His latest work ‘The White Ribbon’, arriving in British cinemas preceded by critical praise and the title of winner of the Palme D’Or at this year’s Cannes film festival, shares many of the thematic concerns of his previous projects: the violence that we tolerate to thrive amongst us, and the everyday evils that may lurk behind our neighbours’ closed doors.
However, unlike ‘Hidden’, Haneke’s previous master-class in this surgical brand of cinema, which raised a magnifying glass to the cracks and fissures that riddle the modern French suburban household, ‘Ribbon’ travels back to a tiny pocket of the past to expose underlying malice in the mundane. The film details the peculiar and unsettling events that occur over the course of one year in a small German village just prior to the outbreak of the First World War. From the very beginning it is clear that the unassuming puritanical community, with its cast of barons, pastors, doctors and cherubic children, hides dark secrets, not least of which is the identity of the perpetrator of a series of brutal crimes that throw the village into discord and paranoia. The suspense and unease that Haneke manages to sustain throughout is highly impressive, especially considering that he never needs to resort to gratuitous violence or risible twists to unnerve the audience. It is all done by the power of suggestion: the things left unsaid and the acts left unseen in the elliptical narrative powerfully convey a sense of impending horror, and of repressed trauma that must eventually explode in clandestine acts of violence. To make things even more portentous, the narrator invites the audience to interpret the unfolding events onscreen as somehow anticipating the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. Look again – suddenly the children, blond-haired and uncannily organised, seem less cherubic and more like future members of Hitler’s ‘master-race’.
Yet despite the brooding and malignant atmosphere, stylistically one might accuse Haneke of going soft. There are welcome oases of comedy amongst the bleak landscape, and even a genuinely warm, if amusingly chaste, romantic sub-plot between the village teacher and a local nanny. Haneke’s addition of these lighter shades to his dark palette do not detract from the overall seriousness of the story itself, however. In fact, by the contrast they offer they heighten our awareness of the seething resentment, sexual, economic and religious, that is choking the village. Without them, moreover, the film might have been too overwhelming in its depiction of communal sickness.
‘The White Ribbon’ is a challenging film because of this focus, but it is also rarely ever less than compelling. Aside from the me
ticulously paced script, the performances are uniformly superb, convincing enough to make one forget that the film was only made last year and that the actors probably had their mobiles out between takes. The cinematography is also deserving of a mention, capturing the seasonal beauty of the German countryside with its seas of rippling corn and thick snow, whilst simultaneously managing to cultivate a hazy, dreamlike quality that perfectly suits the eeriness of the subject matter. In fact, there is very little to fault the film on, as every element of every frame seems finely polished by a filmmaker who clearly takes his art seriously. With its considerable length, disturbing content and formidable intelligence, ‘The White Ribbon’ might be a film that seems to dare you to test yourself against it, but if you’re feeling up to the task it’s a match well worth seeking out.
5/5 stars
Shakira talked about the importance of education, described the nature of her charity work and outlined plans for the future in a speech delivered to the packed chamber in the Oxford Union today.
The 32-year-old Colombian singer started by apologetically admitting that there will be no “singing or hip-shaking” and went on to describe her strong belief in the “democratisation of education” as a tool to break the cycle of poverty.
She said, “I cannot subscribe to the idea that the older days were better days. I strongly believe that the best is yet to come. With the universal access to education to feed our collective intelligence with our commitment to lead and organise in places like this with students like you…we can be so close to create a network of intellect, enormous think-tank.”
The two-time Grammy Award winner explained that this conviction stems from her own experience.
“When I was eight years old I saw my parents undergo bankruptcy. I remember it as if it was yesterday. We returned home, all of our furniture had gone, the big colour TV was now a small black and white one, our cars were gone. I couldn’t understand why it was happening.”
She added that in order to gain perspective her father showed her orphans sniffing glue in the park. This experience was a catalyst in setting up the Barefoot Foundation at the age of 18, when Shakira first achieved international success.
The foundation funds the building of schools and community centre
s, as well as providing food, because “nobody can learn on an empty stomach”.
Shakira also stressed her strong belief in a better future and emphasised that she likes “to make things happen”.
She said, “So tell me, how many things that are inconceivable today will be obvious tomorrow? How will society be structured? Will it still be organised in couples or communities or governments, presidents and prime ministers….? Will we eat junk food without gaining weight….I’d love that!
“We have achieved so much due to one concept: the democratisation of education.”
The singer also talked about the importance of Millennium Development Goals.
“Nine years ago as part of Millennium Development Goals, governments from around the world made a pledge so that every child has access to primary school by the year 2015.
“Sadly, their promises have not been met with actions. Sadly, with the current pace of change we will not have access to universal education in a 100 years, let alone 5.
“That is un
acceptable.”
She added, “We have the the resources to feed the people several times over, but why are children starving? We need to find more ways to distribute food. And education is our ticket.”
When questioned by Cherwell, Shakira described how her career provides a vehicle for her charity work. “I can make music for fun,” she admitted, adding that due to her career she meets journalists and politicians who listen to her views. She also added that although she has seen “very little” of Oxford she finds it “beautiful” and is privileged to address such “smart people”.
Lou Stoppard, the Union’s Secretary, commented, “It was amazing…I thought it was nice that she addressed something serious…she was very
passionate.”
Hannah Cusworth, Guest Liaison Officer added, “What I find most upsetting is that she is a multi-million selling artist but she is more eloquent than I am.”
James Dray, Oxford Union’s President commented, “As someone who has spent many happy nights dancing to Shakira’s music, I’m delighted Shakira could come to the Union and give such an inspiring talk on how we in Oxford can make a difference to the lives of the poorest. The Oxford Union has a proud history of hosting some of the most revered musicians in the world, and I’m delighted to be able to add Shakira to that list.”
He added, “Her warmth and compassion towards children in her home country, without access to the education which we take for granted, evidently struck a chord with the hundreds of young audience members who gathered to hear her speak. We wish her the very best for her future fundraising and activism, and of course all her musical collaborations to come.”
Worcester JCR rejected a motion which would have allowed “Big Dogs” to queue-jump for entry to hall.
The motion was entitled “The Big Names Dinner Queue-Jump Motion” and was proposed by Will Grundy during the last JCR meeting of the term.
In it, Grundy asked the JCR to note that “Worcester is dominated by a Big-Name culture, maintained by a small and powerful cultural elite of Big Dogs, Massive Lads, and Top Lasses.” He claimed that these “Big Dogs” are entitled to early entry to hall because of their vital role in college life.
“These crucially important personalities are solely responsible for maintaining Worcester College’s social reputation,” he wrote.
He said that queue-jumping was justified because “constant hounding takes up a lot of time for these Big Names, many of whom have much better things to be doing, examples of which include drinking 4 VKs at any one time, and looking down their noses at any one who has failed to scale the epic social heights that they have.”
Grundy now claims that the failed motion was intended as a joke. “It was extremely ironic…there’s always a few joke motions going around the JCR.”
“It was absolutely pasted at the meeting, and quite rightly so,” he said.
Ella Miller, Worcester JCR President confirmed that people who proposed the motion made it clear that it was a joke. She added, “Someone said there’s some weight behind it, but overall it was clear that no harm was intended.”
However, some members of the JCR did not take the proposal so lightly. One Worcester student, who asked to remain anonymous, said, “[There is] a growing sense of dislocation that has been troubling the college, as a small group of supposedly popular individuals increasingly try to assert themselves on their less attention-seeking peers.”
“Why should the JCR Committee…be trying to further the efforts of people whose university careers amount to desperate social climbing at the detriment of others?” he said.
Grundy was not able to offer a definition of what constitutes a “Big Dog”.
Oxford law students have volunteered to provide legal aid for clients within the city.
The scheme, a joint venture between the law faculty of the University of Oxford and Turpin & Miller Solicitors, aims to provide assistance to vulnerable local clients. Students will deal with a range of issues, including immigration, asylum and citizenship, housing and homelessness, community care, family, employment, debt and welfare benefits.
It is the first time that the Oxford Law Faculty has been involved in such a project and sixteen students were chosen from fifty applicants for the scheme.
A spokesman from the Junior Lawyers’ Division said, “It is particularly commendable that the birth of this scheme originates with the students themselves, who not only recognised the opportunity to gain valuable relevant experience, but also the fundamental social responsibility of the legal profession.”
Those involved with the scheme also expressed enthusiasm at the opportunity to give something back to Oxford as a community.
Daniel Cashman, student Co-Chair of Oxford Legal Assistance said, “I want to be able to use the skills I am learning through my degree to offer practical help to those in need. The programme is pioneering and I’m very proud to be a part of it.”
Jo Renshaw, Partner at Turpin & Miller Solicitors added, “It is a great opportunity to work with our local university to provide additional assistance to clients within Oxford. We see it as a ‘win-win’ situation, enabling students to gain hands-on experience of dealing with clients while at the same time ensuring that tight legal aid budgets can be used to fund the more complex areas of our cases.”
Eleanor and Jools go to OUSU while Kati gets involved in an All Souls scandal. Will Sarah’s sex survey for Cherwell get enough responses to be a meaningful statistic?
Staircase 22 continues over the Christmas break. Don’t miss out on the upcoming episodes!
On Tuesday 1st December the Oxford University Sinfonietta gave their end-of-term concert in the Wesley Memorial Church.
The programme ranged from Mozart and his lesser-known contemporary Wanhal, to Schnittke and John Williams. According to the conductor, James Longstaffe, the choice of repertoire was designed to ‘showcase some of the bright young soloists of Oxford nd hear some Williams that isn’t Star Wars!’
As the respectably-sized audience trickled in, fragments of conversation hinted at the anticipation that almost always precedes OU Sinfonietta concerts. As the repertoire is less-than-familiar to most of the listeners, murmurings of scepticism usually emerge at the idea of an ensemble playing pieces without hummable themes. This concert was no exception, but proved more than able to answer those apprehensions.
The short Mozart overture (Der Schauspieldirektor) that opened the concert was – despite occasional tuning problems – a lively start, and the ensemble was generally well-controlled. Unfortunately the delay in staging arrangements afterwards led to this brief piece feeling slightly isolated, a false start in a programme of much larger works.
However this was soon forgotten in the midst of a magnificent performance of Schnittke’s Concerto Grosso No.1. Violinists Amy Tress and Isla Mundell-Perkins (Oxford University Orchestra leaders past and present) relished the technical demands of this work, and were sensitively supported by Daisy Fancourt on Harpsichord and Prepared Piano.
Wanhal’s Symphony in G Minor followed the interval, and, although probably a weaker point of the evening, was a rare chance to hear some underrated and underperformed music.
After this an enormous wind band crammed themselves into the always-tight performance space of the Wesley Memorial Church for a fine rendition of Williams’ Sinfonietta for Wind Ensemble. While this was for me a rather inaccessible piece, it served to indicate the wealth of talented wind players in Oxford at the moment.
Throughout the performance, Longstaffe’s conducting exemplified the clarity and reliability for which his instructor Peter Stark is so acclaimed, especially in the more challenging twentieth-century works.
Perhaps unusually for Sinfonietta concerts, the modern pieces were the more successful; the Concert Grosso in particular was a triumph. The savage energy of the violinists created in the “deranged-tennis match” cadenza was immediately absorbed by the harpsichord at the beginning of the rondo, leading to a moment of genuine, fragile beauty in a work full of parody and angst.
The almost theatrical power relations and the tension of the manic mood-swings underscored the raison d’être of the OU Sinfonietta. Such a gripping work cannot really be experienced through recordings, where none of the dynamism – or sheer physicality – of the playing is captured. The remit of the Sinfonietta is to perform works from before 1750 and after 1900, works that often fall outside of the realms of standard listening material, but this concert showed why: without performances of these works, they will never be understood or appreciated.
Dhatri Navanayagam asks Oxford students what Christmas means to them, and what they love and hate about the festive season.
Ralph is high on something highly reprehensible while Paul is low on his essay crisis. Will Eleanor and Val’s coffee readings come true?
Staircase 22 is recruiting! We’re looking for actors, writers and sound managers to continue production of Staircase 22 next term as well a new producer and director. If you’d like to know more about getting involved email [email protected] for more information.
Cherwell caught up with guests at the Sugarplum Ball in London’s Natural History Museum. Organised by the Oxford Aloysius society, the event aimed to raise money for SOS Children’s Villages.
Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.
Oxford Student Publications Limited
© 2025 - All Rights Reserved
| Privacy Policy