“5…4…3…2…1…” counted down the time-keeping official, after which the Oxford Blues were crowned the national champions of British Universities Ice Hockey.
Let’s backtrack 24 hours: “The last time Oxford won a national title of any kind, to the best of my knowledge, was in 1933,” read aloud Captain Julian de Hoog to his teammates at the team barbeque from the printed email he had received from team historian Michael “Moose” Talbot. The weight of history bore down on the Blues’ shoulders in that moment. But that wasn’t the only thing to be worried about: over half the team had not played a proper hockey game in six weeks, and the other half hadn’t done so in at least five due to difficulties scheduling on-ice practices over the Easter vacation.
The team was out of shape, and would also be missing its starting goaltender due to illness. David Putnins had been the team’s solid backstop in every league match, save one, during the season, posting league-leading stats. With him out, young Andy Peterson, called up from Oxford’s Tier II squad to play in his first Tier I league match, had some big shoes to fill.
But the next day the Blues showed why Oxford was ranked number one in BUIHA power rankings, capping off a perfect season with a 6-2 victory over the Nottingham Mavericks. The team took a while to shake off the rust, going down 1-0 and 2-1, but after shaking up the lines a little and a spectacular breakaway save by Peterson, all the pistons fired up and there was no turning back.
Oxford’s relentless forecheck caused numerous Maverick turnovers and produced a slew of offensive opportunities. The Blues notched five unanswered goals in the second and third periods. This was complemented by a shut-down performance from Peterson and the Oxford defense.
Due to technical difficulties the last six minutes had to be recorded on a stop watch and the time called out between whistles. Receiving the cup was the capping of a spectacular and unprecedented season for Oxford.
“Every player on the winning team gets their name on that trophy, and every player deserves it for the performance they put out tonight” stated Captain de Hoog.
Lubbock reflected on his feeling of relief, “not only on winning the British University League but also on maintaining our 100% winning record. I also felt good…for the OUIHC, which now has another chapter in its illustrious history.”
Puck’s in for Oxford Ice Hockey
It’s a happy ending for the St John’s Fairytale
St John’s fairy tale season ended on a high at Iffley in 8th week, as they came out on top against Premiership champions Teddy Hall, in a tight and absorbing contest finally decided by a last minute strike from Blues’ squad member Adam Zagajewski.
In front of a sizeable crowd, Teddy Hall began the match as clear favourites against their lower league opponents, having gone undefeated since they lost to St Anne’s on the first day of the season. Boasting a defence which included three former or current Centaurs players, including Nicola Ielpo in goal, they also had the Premierships main goal threat in the form of the giant Charlie Southern. Their squad was further strengthened by the return of Talbot-Smith, who had flown back early from his placement in Russia for the tie. For the first half at least, the match looked to follow its predicted course. Teddy Hall were the more physical of the teams in the opening stages and St John’s looked very much like the underdogs which they had been billed as.
But despite having the majority of the territory and possession, Hall never really threatened to score. In fact, the two best chances of the first half fell to John’s, Evans-Young forcing a smart save out of Ielpo, and Zagajewski hitting a well struck volley on to see it come back off the inside of the post and roll agonisingly across the goal line before being cleared.
St John’s came out the stronger after the break and began to play their own game, Duff and Easthamkeeping the dangerous Southern in check, while the tireless Affron was a constant thorn in the side of his markers, winning everything in the air up front.
The deadlock was finally broken 15 minutes from time. Paul Forbes was released down the right wing and had the composure to pull the ball back across goal, allowing loitering right-back Newland to finish from six yards out.
With their supporters momentarily silenced, Teddy Hall were forced to throw numbers forward, going to three at the back and, for the first time, began to exert concerted pressure on the John’s goal. Despite the constant threat, as the clock continued to wind down it looked as though Hall would miss out for the second year in a row. However, with five minutes left to play, John’s conceded the ball in a dangerous position, allowing Southern to find space on the edge of the box and rifle a shot past the stranded Berend.
With the crowds taunts still ringing in their ears, John’s almost conceded again from the restart, a rare mistake at the back leaving Southern in clear, but this time Berend was up to the challenge.
Just as extra-time seemed inevitable, the game was settled for good by Zagajewski. A mix-up between Ielpo and Gilbert allowed the diminutive striker to pounce on the loose ball and somehow bend the ball into the top corner from the by-line, sparking wild celebrations and an impromptu pitch invasion when the final whistle blew.
Questions remain as to whether the little Yorkshireman was in fact attempting to cross the ball, but he was unequivocal in his response when asked, as he stated ‘you’ve just got to back yourself from there’.
Reclaiming the Human Rights Agenda
Last week, I attended the UN’s Durban Review Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance(‘Durban II’).
Eight years ago, the world witnessed how a conference convened to combat racism became a shameful spectacle of anti-Semitism: how countries and organisations equated Zionism with Nazism, flagging the swastika symbol; how the voices of, among others, victims of the Rwandan Genocide, of the persecuted Falun Gung and Tibetians in China, of disenfranchised women in Saudi Arabia, and of victims of female genital mutilation in sub-Saharan Africa, were silenced, while the bulk of the conference focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The preparatory stages of the review conference raised the fear that it would, again, prove futile in providing an effective forum for scrutinising egregious human rights violations and would instead restrict freedom of speech which constitutes ‘defamation of religion’ (code-word for the Danish cartoon affair), call for slavery reparations, and make, yet again, the Israel/Palestine conflict its cause célèbre. Consequently, America, Canada, Australia and Germany, among others, boycotted the conference, while other countries, including Britain, sent low-level delegations.
Sadly, it was not long before the apprehensions materialised, and an anti-racism conference provided, yet again, a platform for hatred. The Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, notorious for hosting a Holocaust denial conference last year in Tehran and for suggesting, when addressing Columbia University, that there are no gays in Iran (where homosexuality is punishable by death), gave a keynote speech on the opening day.
Ahmadinejad asserted that the establishment of Israel came about ‘on the pretext of Jewish sufferings’, and, as if quoting from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (an early 20th century anti-Semitic tract) concluded that ‘[Zionists have] penetrated into the [world] political and economic structures including their legislation, mass media, companies, financial systems and their security and intelligence agencies … to the extent that nothing can be done against their will.’ Most of the Western countries attending the conference walked out of the assembly hall in protest.
The speech took place hours before the commemoration of 64 years since the Holocaust. As a son of a Holocaust survivor, this was both painful and disillusioning: painful to experience anti-Semitism professed from the UN podium by a head of state, with (some) delegates enthusiastically clapping; disillusioning to see how the world allows, yet again, an anti-hatred conference, which in its outcome document ‘recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten’, to be hijacked by bigots.
My academic research focuses on human rights law, I volunteer for Rene Cassin, a human rights organization, and co-convene the Human Rights Discussion Group of the law faculty; I believe that international fora have an important role to play in preventing human rights abuses. This is why it was so disheartening to see Libya chairing this conference; to see Iran’s representative elected vice-president; to hear the Afghan delegate proudly reporting on the advent of women’s rights just a few weeks after the adoption of legislation de-criminalising marital rape; to NOT hear, in four days of deliberations, the word Darfur mentioned, a genocide six years in the making.
The face of the UN is ours, and so is its fate. The Bush administration wrongly adopted a hands-off approach: we should not give up on human rights. But engagement should not mean complacency or submission; what happened in Geneva was disgraceful, not just to Jews or to ‘the West’, but to every world citizen. It is high time we reclaim the human rights agenda.
What’s the point of consciousness?
The Science and Technology section of this week’s Economist brought a rather fascinating article to my attention. The study, on the relation between brain activity and human cognition, seems to show that the brain activity linked to problem-solving occurs before the person is actually aware of having had the insight. So if humans are able to solve problems before being consciously aware of the solution… what is the point of conscious thought?
In the study, the researchers asked volunteers to solve a set of simple puzzles, which lacked methodical solutions, in the hope of synthesizing some of those ‘eureka!’ moments characteristic of the insight process. The volunteers had to respond as soon as they reached the solution, and their brainwaves were monitored with an on-going electroencephalogram (EEG).
An analyses of the EEG showed that up to 8 seconds before the response, brain activity was different when the volunteers got the insight, i.e. reached the correct solution either with or without a hint, compared when they didn’t. I don’t think there are many takers on what these differences in brain activity (reduction in posterior beta oscillation power and increase in anterior gamma power) functionally mean, but the finding remains: unconscious background processing delivers the answer to consciousness only once it has been arrived at.
Although this may come as a shock to many, there have in fact been similar reports published over the last three decades. The seminal work of Libet in the 1980s demonstrated that the brain activity for the self-initiated movement of a finger begins 300ms before one is even aware of wanting to move the finger. Moreover, at our own Univeristy of Oxford, Hakwan Lau et al. recently showed that a human’s conscious perception of when a movement is initiated is actually open to TMS manipulation up to 200msec after the action took place.
You have to wonder what kind of implications this build-up of evidence has for topics such as free will, ethics and responsibility. If my brain has already made a decision before I am consciously aware of it, would this imply that I do not have a conscious free will? People who commit crimes whilst under the influence of mental illness, for example, receive lighter treatment on grounds of diminished responsibility, because it is argued that they weren’t really in control of their actions at the time. But if my consciousness tunes into a decision (to commit a crime, or otherwise!) only after the decision has already been made, can I be said to be in control of my actions?
For millenia, philosophers and scientists have debated the question of what conscious experience is and what its function might be, from Descartes’ dualism to modern scientists who try to find its possible evolutionary function. There is not space for a full discussion here, but opinions range from those who think that conscious awareness has no purpose “so just enjoy the ride“, to those who propose that it is necessary for the human species’ unique ability to pursue complex goals. However, this latter theory is certainly in contention, not least from the EEG article I’ve described here but also by the fact that Deep Blue, a computer that is arguably not conscious, can beat world Grandmasters at chess, the ultimate game of abstract goal pursuit.
Setting aside for the moment the problem of what consciousness is (i.e. how something subjective can come out of something physical), I am currently very perplexed by the second question: what is consciousness for? If not for controlling our actions or helping us achieve cognitive insights, why on earth do we have it? None of the current explanations around are particularly satisfying. Answers on a postcard, please.
Top Five Films To: Celebrate Your Inner Film Geek
Everyone knows that a good cult film should start with some serious Gothic psycopathy, and James O’Barr’s The Crow is exactly what the doctor ordered. Starring Brandon Lee as Eric Draven, the back-story to the film’s production is enough to make anyone want to catch this. Lee was shot in the stomach with a badly-prepared dummy gun, promptly dying. This is a genuinely chilling example of the calibre of adaptation that actually manages to supersede its original comic-book manifestation.
Moving from the chilling to the utterly haunting, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer asks an important question: how we can ever feel empathy for a horrific mass murderer? Nevertheless, John McNaughton manages it. You are guaranteed to switch off the television feeling guilty that you ever felt an affinity with a gang-raping killer, but Henry is definitely worth it.
Along the same lines is Ed Wood’s Planet 9 from Outer Space. To cap off one of the most ridiculous and poorly made films of all time, Dracula superstar Bela Lugosi walks off the screen for the final time to be met with the noise of a cymbal, supposedly signifying a car crash. Trust me, you will shit yourself with laughter.
Featuring the most marvellously-named director in the history of film, Michaelangelo Antonioni’s Blow-up reveals the Swinging Sixties in all its glory – ideal for those who don’t want to focus on the supernatural but want a challenging filmic experience. Speaking of challenging filmic experience, the greatest cult film ever made is without a doubt Robert Wiene’s The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Considering the film was made in 1919, the cinematographic techniques are extraordinary – it arguably pips Citizen Kane to the title of the first film to include ‘deep focus’ – and the plot is genuinely moving. Whether you want sci-fi or period entertainment, or just want to show off your film buff credentials, cult films really are all anyone could want for a great night in. I’ll take the Spock doll…
Top Five Films To: Get You In The Mood
There is nothing like a vampire flick to get you in the mood. The erotic nature of evil has long been a staple of the horror film genre, and the vampire flick often exploits the sexiness of blood-sucking vampires and tight leather to engage a (let’s face it) mostly pubescent male audience into a hot sweat. If you’re fan of Sapphic vampiricism – and hey, who isn’t?- Vampyros Lesbos (1970) by Jesus Franco, is the film for you. This horror film tells the story of a vampiric seductress who goes around killing women in order to cure her insatiable lust for female blood. The blood-sucking sapphically-inclined vampire appears in an American lawyer’s dream (where she harasses and makes love to her), a dream that eventually becomes real. The lesbian vampire also appears in Phil Claydon’s Lesbian Vampire Killers (2009)- a film I can’t comment on as I have not watched, and have absolutely no desire to. In the vein of erotic female vampires, Kate Beckinsale’s performance as the leather-clad S&M vampire figure Selene in Underworld (2003) has provided many a wet dream to date.
If you’re after more serious vampiric eroticism, try F.W.Murnau’s German silent classic Nosferatu (1922). This is the original vampire film and also the first cinematic portrayal of Dracula (the literary creation of Bram Stoker in 1897). Count Orlok, frighteningly played by Max Schreck, provides a strangely sexy (though this almost certainly is just be me) portrayal of the vampire figure, credited as being the most animalistic vampire portrayal in cinema. However hot, if you’re not a fan of silent cinema, avoid this like the plague.
Those with sensitive mothers should also probably avoid the phenomenal Dracula (1931), directed by Tod Browning. I don’t know what it is about Bela Lugosi’s portrayal of the Count- whether it’s the thick foreign accent that delivers such memorable lines as “Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make”, or the glittering eyes so suggestive of future danger (-will he tie me up? Will he suck my blood?- you just don’t know). Either way, Lugosi’s portrayal of Dracula placed him firmly in cinematic history, and provides, in my view, the best vampire character on the screen. You read it here –the vampire flick provides the hottest tricks around.
Protesters demand end to animal testing at Oxford
Animals rights group SPEAK this week handed over a 65,000-signature petition to Oxford University, calling for an end to all animal testing.
This act was timed to coincide with the end of the World Month for Laboratory Animals, with which SPEAK has been heavily involved. The group has organised demonstrations throughout UK against the use of animals in research and testing.
A march on Cornmarket was held on Friday in support of the petition’s message.
The submission of the petition, for which signatures have been gathered over the last five years, comes after a major victory for the animal rights movement last week, when Oxford and other universities were forced to disclose information about primate testing, which they had previously refused to do.
The university have released a statement about the latest development, defending the work they carry out with animals. “Animals are only used when no other research method is possible,” a spokesperson said, adding “We recognise that people have a range of views on this issue. The university has always said the building (the biomedical sciences centre) is going to be better for animal welfare and is supporting research into disabilities and deadly diseases.”
The petition has been met with criticism by some Oxford students. Robert Smith, a Biochemist in his first year at St Hilda’s College, believes the public should focus on the rewards that animal testing can reap in the field of medicine: ‘When we think of animal testing cruelty and exploitation are often the first things that come to mind. It is sometimes easy to lose sight of what it can actually achieve. As soon as one looks at the number of instances where new cures for human diseases have been found thanks to tests on animals it becomes much harder to condemn.’
SPEAK has opposed the biomedical sciences centre since it was first publically proposed in 2004. Although the principal contractor, Walter Lilly, withdrew after its shareholders received threatening letters, the project was completed and the building was officially opened at the end of 2008.
20 mph new limit in Oxford
Oxfordshire County Council has this week announced plans to make Oxford a 20mph city.
The new speed limit will be introduced on most residential streets, as well as sections of A and B roads in busy shopping areas.
The initiative, which will cost around £250,000, is designed to reduce fatal road accidents. Councillors hope to see a five percent reduction in casualties as a result of the change.
Oxford follows Portsmouth to become the second UK city to introduce the new blanket speed limit.
Oxford librarian discovers oldest-known book jacket
The oldest-known book dust jacket has been discovered by a librarian in the Bodleian. The jacket, dated from 1830, wraps a silk-covered gift book entitled “Friendship’s Offering”.
Michael Turner, the Bodleian’s head of conservation, made the discovery when ordering an archive of book trade memorabilia bought by the Bodleian in 1892. The jacket had been removed from the book. It has been discovered when an American scholar of dust jackets contacted the library looking for the earliest known example.
Silk-bound books tend to be very vulnerable, so the dust jackets were used by booksellers to protect the binding. As a result, the jackets were often removed as soon as the book was bought. Thus, very few have survived.
King Lear
King Lear, veteran Oxford director Simon Tavener says, is in essence a family drama. Yes the violence and dystopian excitement of cities in mutiny, countries in discord and treason within palace walls are inescapable and vital, but this play hinges first and foremost upon Lear and his daughters, Gloucester and his sons and the conflicts that rip flesh from blood. Think of this production from the highly acclaimed Oxford Triptych Theatre, then, as a sort of 18-rated Shakespearean soap opera, with special effects and modern dress added for good measure.
There is a lot that works in this production. The casting is strong and the dynamic interaction between fully-fledged stage actors and first-years taking their baby steps out onto the Oxford platform is enjoyable to watch. Jonathan Sims plays the bastard Edmund with the delicious darkness characteristic of somebody whose theatrical resume reads like a who’s-who of villainy. However while twisted smirks and spine-chilling understatement work for this actor, Goneril, played less magnificently by first year Amelia Peterson, feels more like a sneering Ugly Sister than a cruel and murderous usurper.
For an actor more at home in sketch comedy, Dominic Bullock as Gloucester makes the change to tragedy well. The wronged brother Edgar, played by Oxford-stage virgin Joe Robertson, is a revelation. As moving in one scene as he is mad in the next, he is certainly one to watch over the next few terms.
A strong supporting cast is what keeps this play afloat; what lets it down is Lear himself. If, as the director tells me, the madness we encounter should not be insanity, but manifestations of anger, then unfortunately Colin Burnie’s performance falls short. His arrival on stage is like the welcome return of a doddery old war veteran and though many of the best and most terrifying speeches are delivered with tempestuous rage, the illusion is not maintained and hints of cuddly granddad sneak in. For most of the time he was just not angry enough for me; one might be forgiven for thinking that they have sought to develop a diagnosis of senility rather than develop a character whose fury consumes his every thought and word.
We are told that this production will feature billowing smoke, distorted voices and sounds from nature that conspire to invade the mind of Lear as he battles the stormy elements. While this all sounds exciting, I hope that the director exercises moderation so that the emphasis put on characters and successful storytelling is not compromised. Yet, for a clear presentation of a complex classic, viewers could do worse than seeing this enjoyable, generally well-acted, but far from life-changing production.
Three stars
OFS Studio Tuesday 28th April – Saturday 2nd May