Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 2080

Let The Right One In

‘I must be gone and live, or stay and die’

Tomas Alfredson’s chilling new thriller Let the Right One In is, essentially, a tale of young love. When eleven-year-old Oskar, a shy, withdrawn, reclusive victim of schoolyard bullying, meets twelve-year-old Eli, there is a natural connection between them. Eli is everything Oskar longs to be: bold, confident and strong-willed. Soon, under her steady coaching, Oskar blossoms with fresh self-confidence. There is one slight catch, however. Eli, for all her positive qualities, is a hooded-eyed, blood-sucking vampire. As the pristine-perfect backdrop of snowy Sweden is stained with innocent blood, Oskar and Eli, united as social misfits, must fight to stay together in this haunting yet touching coming-of-age tale.

Alfredson’s casting crew deserve praise here for having sought out a remarkably convincing pair of protagonists, played earnestly and sensitively by the young Kåre Hedebrant as pale little Oskar and Lina Leandersson as the even paler Eli. Despite some highly graphic spectacles, including corrosive acid-induced facial disfigurements, severed ligaments and the unnerving sight of a young child lapping up spilt blood like a hungry kitten, Alfredson creates a highly successful balance between images of eye-watering butchery, and scenes so sensitive and tender that it is near impossible to believe the monstrosities this child is capable of. The film is more about fighting one’s personal demons than the physical demons involved, and as such, Alfredson does not have to rely too heavily on shock tactics or gory images to maintain tension. With the exception of a few well-timed comedic moments, this film will have you gripped throughout.

Let The Right One In is completed by a first-rate orchestral soundtrack, with credit due to Johan Söderqvist, along with stunning cinematography of the brutal yet beautiful Swedish mountains. If there is any criticism to be made, it is that scenes sometimes feel overly long and drawn out, leading to a slight deceleration in pace. Despite these minimal faults, however Let The Right One In is a chilling masterpiece which is well worth watching, and is fully deserving of the 23 prizes it has already picked up overseas.

Presidential Power

The power of the President of the United States is an odd, paradoxical thing, public perceptions of which suffer from a significant misconception. The public thinks he controls the country, and expects him, therefore, to do ‘something about everything’. It’s why, I think, people in Britain and elsewhere, when polled, support the introduction in their own systems of a directly-elected executive: because they think they’ll be electing the person who will run the country. But in a presidential system of separated powers, this person has little direct power over domestic politics.

Obama’s administration may have put forward an aggressive stimulus package, but it only became law after congress amended and passed it. He is currently expending considerable time and energy persuading lawmakers that his budget is the right one. The President is, in this sense, the persuader-in-chief. His power is the power to get people in Washington to agree with him. It’s why he’s at his strongest when the public is on his side.

This excellent article shows how Presidents of the modern era can flex their muscle. This is how they can be powerful. It’s not constitutionally-enshrined power; it’s not continuous and ever-available. It’s contextual. What Obama is doing is effectively saying ‘my government has given you a bucket of money, so I’m going to get my way’.

His ability to do it is founded almost entirely on his popularity. The response has been largely favourable. If Bush had done this a year ago, it would not have been so. The ‘Obama gets tough on failing CEOs’ headline would have been substituted with ‘Bush in unprecedented intrusion into free market’. The flexing of executive muscle is, paradoxically, not often viewed positively: the US public expects the man they elect to solve every problem, to be genuinely in power, but when he pushes the boundaries of executive authority in an attempt to be so, they tend to react disapprovingly, as they did towards Bush-Cheney.

President Obama realises it’s risky, but his move was shrewd. He knows his political future is wedded to the public perception of both the economic situation and his response to it. He reasons that since by taking the bet that a huge bailout will fix things, he now ‘owns’ the economy as a political issue, then he’s right to intervene in every situation where he thinks a change needs to be made. And I think, for now, the public will side with him. They’ve tended to side with his judgement more often than with that of bailed-out CEOs.

An impressive piece of politics by the President. He’s playing hardball.

Review: The Age of Stupid

Like A Clockwork Orange or Wall Street, this film will come to define a generation. Variously described as “peril porn”, and “the most powerful cultural discourse on climate change ever produced”, Franny Armstrong’s new climate change epic evokes anything but indifference. Weighing up a vision of a post-apocalyptic world with real-life documentary footage and quirky yet informative animation, this ‘Dram-Doc-imation’ strikes a difficult balance brilliantly. With humour, charm and real-life stories, Armstrong makes the tough message easier to swallow and entertaining to the end.

Narrated by a future survivor (Oscar-Nominated Pete Postlethwaite), from a tower sanctuary from the raging climate chaos, The Age of Stupid is the story of an old man pondering why humankind watched its own extinction yet did nothing about it. Skilfully woven into a larger narrative of human and political history, Armstrong avoids the overtly left-wing stance of her earlier films, allowing it to remain accessible for activists and climate virgins alike.

But all this misses the point. The Age of Stupid is not just a film, it is a movement. Whilst delivering a simultaneous slap in the face, it also extends a hand and welcomes you to become part of the growing movement to save civilisation. With crowd-funding, nominal wages and a total advertising budget of just £1000, this word-of-mouth phenomenon has already achieved a multi-record breaking premier.

With the explicit aim to “turn 250 million viewers into climate activists”, starter packs are handed out at every screening. After a brief but powerful rejection of climate change deniers, the film is free to tackle the great scourge of progress, the defeatists. An animated history of mass protest movements along with well constructed sound bites from leading climate activists creates an infectious sense of momentum and leaves you inspired to take action. Having already prompted the tabloid press to release its first ever warnings about climate change, this film has the power to transform public perception of climate and thus force politicians to act.

While there are faults with the film, both artistically and scientifically (not least its predilection to slightly irrelevant rants), the central message of the film is hammered home with superb clarity. The truth is no longer inconvenient, it is downright devastating.

4/5 stars

Oxford overpower Tabs in 155th Boat Race

Oxford’s rowers have emerged triumphant from a dramatic boat race, coming back from an early Cambridge advantage to claim a convincing victory.

Cambridge powered ahead in the first minutes of the race, establishing a three-quarter length lead over their rivals. But an Oxford push at around the halfway point, following a clash of oars, allowed the Dark Blues to pull ahead.

Their light blue opponents proved unable to close the gap, with Oxford eventually winning by a distance of three and a half lengths.

The result justifies bookkeepers’ faith in Oxford. The team, the heaviest ever fielded in a university boat race, had been the overwhelming favourites.

Oxford cox Colin Groshong said he had been confident of victory. “I knew we had the guns for the whole course,” he said. “It was a great feeling knowing I had that at my fingertips.”

The race began with bad luck for Oxford as Cambridge won the toss, allowing them to choose which side of the river to race on. They opted for the south or “Surrey” station, which is the faster side of the river early in the course.
However, their attempts to build an unassailable lead before halfway suffered an early blow when they failed to respond immediately to referee Boris Rankov’s starting shout.Oxford's team celebrate their victory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The team managed to draw ahead at the three minute mark, following aggressive demands for a push from cox Rebecca Dowbiggin. But their fragile advantage was lost at the halfway point of the race as Rankov was forced to separate the crews after a clash of oars. Groshong chose the moment of confusion to order a push, and his men responded by increasing their stroke rate to a steady 38 strokes a minute. The Oxford team gradually pulled ahead as Cambridge proved unable to match the surge.

By the time the crews reached Chiswick Steps, the Dark Blues’ power and the late advantage of the north side of the river had opened a two-length gap between the crews. The Oxford team crossed the line several seconds ahead of their rivals to win the race in a total time of 17 minutes, the fastest winning time since 2005.

Oxford president Colin Smith told press “It was a really tough race, especially by halfway and Cambridge came close to making it their day.”

“By choosing the Surrey station they had to win by halfway, but as long as we hung in there and rowed with rhythm, it was going to be tough for them.”

Oxford’s victory means they have now won four of the last five races. However, Cambridge still lead once the event’s 180-year history is taken into account: they have won a total of 79 boat races to Oxford’s 75.

 

Jade Goody: End of an Era

The death of Jade Goody last Sunday was the end to a strange saga spanning the past few months. Real life merged with her celebrity-based reality TV world. And Goody’s death has come at the most coincidental time possible. The notional ‘spend-fast’ culture – a culture that allowed her to rise up from mediocrity and draw the attention of the country through DVDs, books and perfumes – is ending fast.

Celebrity culture is waning and giving way to ‘credit crunch-mentality’ for the next few years. Goody, the human personification of this dying culture, is no more. The timing of her death has only increased our fascination with her demise – I would guess most people have cast their eye over a Goody article and found themselves reading and absorbing it. In her we see the passing of the early twenty-first century into something new.

There has been a wave of nostalgia, as well as bitterness, both for her and what she represents. Comments flooded the internet after her death with widely differing opinions. One blogger wrote, ‘Your star shines the brightest. God Bless you jade your love lives on in your boys and your star will shine bright always.’ Another internet commentator said: ‘She has left no legacy, a bit part celebrity who did nothing to improve mankind.’ The comment had 433 recommendations. Goody represented for many the highs and lows of the past few years and perhaps is one of the last of her kind.

Goody has always delivered the media a profit and, temporarily at least, she has now become an even greater cash cow. For the brief time before her death, though, it was Goody who was dictating how she was presented and for how much. Coverage of her marriage last month was sold to a magazine for £700,000. In a twist on the usual media-celebrity relationship, Goody orchestrated the entire display of her death with the exception only of the obituary.

However, her final months and final wages were not for her, but for her children. The dying Goody moved clearly away from the self-centred and decadent culture she was said to represent, hastening its death before her own. All in all, Jade Goody may not have been a very remarkable person. But in death, public opinion has made her into a symbol of the Weimarian culture of the pre-recession 2000s. Many of those who mourn for her are also mourning the loss of those happier, pre-recession days when any one of us could become ‘famous’.

 

The Exploitation of Legitimate Disquiet

“The time has come to set aside childish things.”

Those words were from Obama’s inaugural. The 44th President is not a sound-bite man. It’s not how he ‘does’ rhetoric. This quote is perhaps the exception. It was, I thought when he said it and still do now, the most important line of his inaugural address.

Reasonable people can (and should) disagree about Obama’s politics, about his approach to the Presidency, about the stimulus package, or about the wider response to this international financial moment. Interested watchers — myself included — will likely have gripes about how exactly these first days of the Obama administration have panned out.

But few, I judge, can disagree with the essential argument the President made in his first address: that these are serious times, and they require us to approach our affairs with renewed seriousness and focus.

It is for that reason I’m a little dismayed. What we have seen these past weeks is the mainstream press, the political class, and (as a result) the public being distracted from much bigger fish.

This mess at AIG is interesting. It’s wrong, I think, for a firm bailed out to the tune of $170 billion, to pay $218 million in bonuses to executives. It shouldn’t happen; these people haven’t performed well, and apart from that, it’s completely tone-deaf. The American government must work to get the money back, to send a clear message.

There is ample justification for reasoned strong disapproval and for every effort to rectify the situation. But what we’ve seen has been almost entirely daft. Congressman and pundits have scrambled to out-do each other in the indignation stakes, often, I think, for their own purposes. To take just one example from a field of many: Barney Frank, the chair of the House Banking Committee, leads the chorus calling for the names of the bonus recipients to be released. That probably isn’t smart — those guys will be put in danger, and the government shouldn’t get into the business of offering up perfectly lawful recipients of remuneration to the populace as targets for hate. But Frank gets a big press day, and a ten-point bump in his approval ratings, and so it works for him.

A great witch-hunt has ensued to find the people within the Treasury and Congress who were responsible for guaranteeing the legality of the bonuses. All the while, we ignore the more important questions about the gross under-regulation in the system these past five years (which is very convenient for many in Congress who presided over a raft of deregulation), and about how we fix it, instead diverting the public onto a new target. The outrage is largely a product of the desire of some in Congress to promote their own reelection in a very easy, catch-all manner — by pointing the finger at somebody else.

Simply, it’s naked populism. That’s not always a bad thing — the public is important, its members need to feel as if their politicians understand what they’re feeling. But this is different — it’s exploiting and inflaming the public mood, in a way that distracts from what really matters. Flitting from one target of populist outrage to another is no way for Congress to go about doing business long-term, especially when the ‘indignation method’ is being followed because to do so is in the interests of those who are following it.

This single issue — the AIG bonuses — has completely saturated American political life for nearly two weeks. That’s significant because there’s so much else to pay attention to. Secretary Geithner unveiled his toxic assets plan this week, and the lead story for most of the day on all but a few news networks was ‘AIG outrage, day five’. It was the most important economic announcement for a month. The public needed to hear, needed the chance to form an opinion. Geithner needed the airtime to sell it, his critics the time to critique it. There was none. The AIG thing used up all the oxygen.

President Obama has lots to talk to the public about. Frankly, he needs to explain perspicuously his plan — what he’s doing and why people should support him — and he needs to do it better than he has so far. And yet he’s being counselled — rightly so amidst the current stupid context of competitive outrage — to subvert his planned messages in favour of “I’m angry about AIG”. That, it seems to me, was half the reason for the Jay Leno appearance — to tell a huge, primetime audience, in a straight-to-the-point, direct manner that he shared their outrage, that he would not play second fiddle in the indignation war.

Here’s the rub: The AIG matter is not unimportant, but it’s not as important as this madness suggests. The US economic system is not in the state it’s in because of a handful of people getting large bonuses this quarter at one bailed-out firm, wrong though that may be. And the problems will not be solved by stoking those fires of outrage. They will be solved with intelligent debate, good strategy on the part of the government, the sort of economic oversight from Congress and the press we have so sorely missed these past couple of years, and, once an approach has been settled upon, an intense and compelling pitch to the public at large.

All that other stuff, frankly, is trivial. Let’s not lose focus.

Students condemn rise in Uni fees

Oxford students have joined the national outcry against tuition fee hikes, as OUSU followed student unions across the country in condemning a raise in payments.

Over two-thirds of universities would like to charge students at least £4,000 per year, a recent survey by the BBC showed. Some universities even called for fees of up to £20,000, or for complete removal of the fee cap.

The national cap on fees is due to be reviewed this year as the first cohort of students charged at the current rate graduate.

National Union of Students president Wes Streeting denounced the suggestion of fee rises. “In the context of the current recession, it is extremely arrogant for university vice chancellors to be fantasising about charging their students even higher fees and plunging them into over £32,000 of debt,” he said.

His views were echoed by prominent figures in OUSU. “OUSU currently opposes a lifting of the cap on tuition fees,” said OUSU President Lewis Iwu, “the student community needs to work together to ensure that our voices are heard in this crucial debate.”

A facebook group calling for a petition against fee raises has gathered over 130,000 members.

Lord Patten, Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor, has been a prominent voice in favour of raising the limit on fees. He recently told the Government that “such a low level” of fees was “intolerable” for University administrators.

Patten said he did not feel universities should serve as engines of social mobility, accusing the government of treating them like “local social security offices.”

Supporters of raising fees have pointed to a recent report by Universities UK, a group which represents the interests of University vice-chancellors. The report suggested that a rise in tuition fees up to £5,000 would not significantly affect numbers of students applying to university.

Jonny Medland, OUSU’s Vice-President-Elect for Academic and Access Affairs, questioned the report’s findings, “rising tuition fees will inevitably deter students from attending many universities as they consider whether they will see enough benefits to make entering into vast sums of debt worthwhile.”

Average student debt would soar to around £32,000 if tuition fees rose to £7 000, the report’s researchers predicted.

The report’s compilers also note that 59% of school leavers who do not go to university cite the costs of university as a primary factor in their decision.

Many Oxford students have spoken out in support of the Student Union’s opposition to any increase in fees. First-year undergraduate Carla Thomas said she felt many middle-income students might struggle to pay fees even if the poorest were supported by bursaries, saying “raising fees would hit the people in the middle hardest.”

Others, however, felt an Oxford education was worth potentially higher fees. Tim Kelly, a St Anne’s law student, stated that he would be willing to pay provided the extra money was spent on improved facilities and teaching. “For an Oxbridge degree, £7 000 is definitely worth it,” he said.

The NUS last week organised a mass lobby of MPs by students, demanding ministers to scrap the current system of tuition fees and student loans, and instead introduce a “graduate tax.” This would make university free at the point of entry, but would mean that graduates would pay for university out of their income.

According to NUS President Wes Streeting, graduates would make “a contribution depending on how much they are benefiting financially from their own use of the system.”

The University and College’s Union, which represents lecturers and academics, has strongly opposed any potential raise in fees. Secretary Sally Hunt told press, “increasing fees or the other financial barriers that so many students and parents come up against when considering university is certainly not the way to deliver a world-class university system.”

She pointed to a survey showing that the majority of British citizens wanted to see tuition fees abolished, not raised.

Oxford University has declined to comment on the matter, stating that “we have no established policy at the moment.”

 

 

Oxford Uni says no to A* grade

Oxford applicants for 2010 and 2011 will not have to face the additional hurdle of achieving the new A* grade at A-Level, the University has announced.

A spokesperson for Oxford University said, “as with any new grades/qualifications we are interested to see how they correlate with our own selection procedures.”

The University has not ruled out the possibility of using A*s in the future. “If it becomes apparent that A* grades are a good indication of aptitude for Oxford courses, we will be interested in looking at them,” said a University spokesperson.

Several students have praised Oxford’s decision to delay using the new grade, which carries a pass mark of 90%.

Elena Lynch, the chair of Target Schools, which is an OUSU initiative aiming to improve access to Oxford, said, “the A* grade is a new grade for A-levels and we should wait to see how it works and which students are getting this grade before we make offers on it.”

But she expressed her support for the introduction of the grade, saying that it could help universities distinguish between the numerous straight-A students.

She said, “Oxford currently receives thousands of applications a year, and an A* grade, provided the university’s concerns are satisfied, would probably help to choose between them but only along with the whole process of interviews, personal statements and academic work.”

Another student commented that Oxford’s decision not to immediately use the A* grade, “prevents the students at this present moment in time who are the ‘guinea pig’ year from worrying about the new system and the effects it will have on their application to Oxford.”

Oxford’s decision comes after Cambridge University announced that it would require at least one A* from 2010 onwards. Cambridge’s criteria are set to rise to two A*s and an A “in the fullness of time.”

 

Swindon site to house Bod’s books

The Bodleian’s struggle to store its vast collection of books may finally be at an end, as the library has bought a new site in Swindon.

Up to 8 million books will be stored at the new site, 28 miles away from Oxford.

The purchase will come as a relief to library staff, who have labelled the Bod’s current facilities as “abysmal,” with overcrowded stacks operating at 130% of their capacity.

The Library must still gain specific planning permission from Swindon Council for the construction.

The library’s Director Dr Sarah Thomas commented, “we shall be working with the Swindon planners closely… We are encouraged to think that we’ll have a positive outcome.”

The Bod’s previous plans for a book depository in Osney Mead were quashed six months ago, after heritage groups complained that the building would spoil Oxford’s iconic skyline.

Tony Joyce, the chairman of Oxford Civic Society, which opposed the Osney Mead development said, “Swindon is perhaps as close as could have been expected to find a suitable alternative, given the University’s difficulty in identifying any closer possibilities.”

But students have raised concerns about the environmental impact of transporting books between Oxford and Swindon.

A first year PPE student said, “the facility is going to be about 25 miles from the city centre…I’m wondering whether this distance won’t worsen the availability of the books. Also, what about the environmental cost of such trips? I mean, I’m glad that the Bodleian has chances for expansion, but not sure how it will work in practice.”

The spokesperson for University commented, “in terms of book delivery, the aim is to minimise carbon emissions, wherever possible… The demand for frequent daily deliveries is expected to be low as the volumes housed in the facility will be predominantly low-use items.”

The Bodleian also plans to buy electronic journals in order to minimise the environmental impact of keeping so many books 28 miles away from Oxford.

Once it is operational, over 3 million volumes will be transferred from the New Bodleian in the largest movement of books since the British Library moved to Bloomsbury.

Director Sarah Thomas stressed that the collection will be well cared for during and after the transfer.

She said, “these aren’t cabbages that are being moved, they are precious and often unique objects. It really matters to people that we can retrieve and transport them accurately and reliably – and with respect.”

The book storage facility in Swindon is part of a new academic plan for libraries in Oxford. The plan, which will cost at least £116m, involves extensive developments to the New Bodleian, the creation of temporary storage and a service for rare books in the Radcliffe Science Library.

Pete Doherty – Grace/Wastelands

The world has had just about enough of Pete Doherty. At a time when even his most ardent fans from back in the days of the Libertines have become disillusioned, his debut solo album was perhaps his last chance to be taken seriously as a musician. And it’s a step in the right direction.

Doherty’s poetic lyrics form the focus of the songs, and justifiably so: here lies his strength as a songwriter. Gone are the contrived verse-chorus-verse structures of Babyshambles’ last effort, replaced by meandering melodies which suit his languid reminiscences of an idealised England.

He’s not a born singer, and if you don’t like Doherty’s voice anyway, you’d be better giving Grace/Wastelands a miss. The vocals are high in the mix and sometimes irritate the most patient ear, such as when first single ‘Last of the English Roses’ (otherwise a highlight of the album) dissolves into an almost incomprehensible French mumble.

Despite the emphasis on lyrics, Grace/Wastelands delivers a few good hummable melodies, of which upbeat opener ‘Arcady’ boasts one of the best. Blur’s Graham Coxon deserves a nod for his contribution as guitarist, and producer Stephen Street blends the songs well whilst retaining the stripped-back nature of the album.

Musically, Grace/Wastelands travels through various genres, with jazz chords surprisingly prominent. Piano-led ‘Sweet By and By’ particularly stands out due to its different instrumentation, but the songs nevertheless gel well together, bound by the lyrical theme of English wistfulness and the general relaxed pace of the record.

Doherty’s first solo attempt will not win over any new fans – hardly surprising, given that the vast majority of the material has been kicking around in demo form for around a decade. To those who haven’t yet written him off completely, however, it is actually rather charming. Chilled out and quaintly nostalgic – and thankfully devoid of the clumsy drug references and self-pity which have blighted Pete’s efforts with Babyshambles – Grace/Wastelands is not the disappointment that you might have (understandably) feared.

It doesn’t present a new dawn for Doherty’s musical career, but it does unearth a few gems which remind us why we liked him in the first place. If he can continue in this vein, Pete might just manage to redeem himself to those who have always given him the benefit of the doubt.

4/5 stars