Real Emotional Trash is a pithy summation of the music Stephen Malkmus has been making for the last sixteen years. As part of 90s legends Pavement, he wrote songs that acknowledged the noble truth that good pop is both infantile and profound. 2005’s Face the Truth saw him re-ignite some of the old attitude; this disc represents a musical reinvigoration, as he triumphantly manages to raise his musicianship without losing his dishevelled charm.The guitar here is simply excellent, each riff, lick, and solo apparently pathologically refined during the album’s tortuous recording process. The most obvious comparison is Television’s classic Marquee Moon, which, as the discerning listener will know, is no faint praise. Malkmus’ talent seems limitless: he can solo with laser control like Tom Verlaine, chug like Pete Townshend, he even rocks it like Jimmy Page on opener ‘Dragonfly Pie’. Thankfully, he hasn’t forsaken either his wackiness (‘Hopscotch Willie’- the surreal story of a framed mobster), or his wry melancholy; “Sometimes it feels like the world’s filled with feathers/ Table-bottom gum just holding it together…”, which stops the album descending into a festival of fret-onanism. The Jicks are a fantastic band, turning their talents to blues-rock, folk-ballad, and goofy Velvet Underground style pop, but all with an individual flourish. The title track is the group’s shot at Marquee Moon/’Paranoid Android’ glory, and while it doesn’t quite make it, its 10 minutes still glide like the proverbial marshmallow boat on the chocolate river.  You’d like to think that this album would get massive press and sell a million, but sadly Malkmus is no longer 21 and the plaudits will go to the supple youngsters that the industry slathers for. Never mind, whether you’re already a fan or not, this should be an essential purchase for fans of guitar rock.Four stars.By Richard Woodall

In the autumn of 1797 a person from Porlock knocked on the door of a remote farm on Exmoor. He received no answer. He knocked again. Finally this nameless visitor’s efforts were rewarded, and a figure appeared at the door, tousle-haired, I imagine, his fingers stained with ink, a look of pained desperation on his face. Their conversation is not recorded. The event may not even have happened. But the figure, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, blamed the mysterious visitor for interrupting him in a moment of opium-fuelled inspiration, and by interrupting him, forever ensuring that the lyrical Kubla Khan would not be finished.Coleridge himself was one of the creators of the Romantic movement, and, in many ways, the origin of the image of the poet, fragile, brilliant, his genius half a step away from madness. The year before the event described above Coleridge had begun to take Laudanum to relieve the pain he constantly suffered from his various aliments, his toothache, his neuralgia. As he began to rely more and more on the drug, he increasingly began to attribute the flashes of poetic inspiration to his highs, and conversely, the periods of writers’ block to his lows. His dependence increased; in an age where no stigma was attached to opium use, and addiction scarcely recognized, the poet descended in a drug-induced haze which was to plague him for the rest of his life. Coleridge was not the first great artist to live on the edge, nor to be haunted in his life by the spectres of his own personality. Virgil was said to be so terrified of public adulation and attention that he would dive down alleyways to avoid anyone he knew on the street. Raphael’s serial love-affairs culminated in his death from, according to his biographer, a night of too strenuous passion. He was thirtyseven and had caused such shock waves in the art world as no-one else save Michaelangelo would for centuries. Bembo, a Cardinal and poet, wrote on his tomb, ‘Here is famous Raphael; while he was alive nature feared to be outdone, but when he was dying, she feared she herself would die.’The cult following that grew up around such figures – in the Renaissance around Raphael, and, later, Caravaggio, in England in the late eighteenth century around Coleridge and Keats (especially after his death), and in the nineteenth century around Baudelaire – gives the lie to our smug belief that celebrity adulation is a modern phenomenon. This image we have, and maintain, of the artist as a troubled genius, however, is very much a product of the romantic period, with poets such as Byron and Shelley devoting much time to surrounding themselves with an aura of mystique and danger. Even today we are ready to forgive a great artist much. If Kingsley Amis hadn’t written ‘Lucky Jim’ and ‘The Old Devils’ he would simply have been an unremarkable old soak and misogynist, and his friend Philip Larkin, without his poetic output, a rather creepy old librarian. As soon as they become artists though, they achieve a celebrity standing, and traits which would be barely tolerable in a friend, become, in the public mindset, and even in the mind of the individual artists, necessary for their creative power.This martyrdom of the troubled soul has long since moved beyond the exclusive realm of poets and painters. Just as eighteenth century opera-lovers followed the affairs and arguments of their favourite divas in the gossip rags, so we find more ink spilled about pop-stars’ tantrums and conquests than about their work. As celebrity becomes an end in itself, and fame is the ultimate height to which everyone, regardless of talent, can aspire, we are in danger of losing sight of exactly why we excuse Amis his drunken rants; we are in danger of reading his biographies, and not his novels.The fame can be beneficial. A retrospective of Derek Jarman’s films is currently being held in London for example. The first open- ly HIV-positive personality, who finally succumbed to AIDS in 1994, produced a massive amount of independent films, effectively creating art-house cinema. ‘Sebastian’ (1976) was the first gay film which reveled in its homosexuality, which actually acknowledged the freedom and fun of being gay. It’s in Latin. And it’s terrible. But, as E. M. Forster said in his posthumous forward to ‘Maurice’, before the Seventies the idea of a gay story with a happy ending was inconceivable. While Forster brought forward the agenda in his powerfully moving novel, Jarman more explicitly brought homosexuality into the public eye through his films and his lifestyle. While ‘Maurice’ is much better than ‘Sebastian’, Jarman’s life captured the imagination of the public more than the dusty, Cambridge intellectualism of Forster.The manipulation of celebrity then can be crucial, as long as the artist remembers that his fame is intimately wrapped up in his art. We respect the posturings of novelists because we love their books, and because we recognize their insight in the human condition, not because we feel that their opinion is worthy thanks only to their media status. Media attention is a great leveler. Centuries ago highwaymen could be more famous than kings; now child-killers can take up more newspaper headlines than prime ministers. When Anne Enright criticized the McCanns in a column nobody paid any attention. A week later she won the Booker Prize, yet the spotlight was shone not on her novel, but on her opinion of two Derbyshire parents. It is not an especially insightful comment, but it is one ignored again and again by the fame hungry, that the media circus, like Fortune’s wheel, rises and falls, entirely beyond the control of the subject of the glare.And this glare distracts us also from the recognition that, despite Amy Winehouse, despite Baudelaire, despite Kirk Cobain, genius is not dependent on madness. Some of the greatest figures in art have been the most stable, the most boring. Consider what little is known of Shakespeare’s life, consider just how dull Gregory Peck was when not in front of the camera. Consider how little you would actually enjoy a conversation with J. M. Coetzee, no matter how much you hero-worship him. It is a harsh reality to except that geniuses, people you idolize, can be boring, dull rude. I love Coetzee’s novels, yet given an opportunity to meet the man I would be very wary. Reality blows.What the existence of incredibly talented yet personally uninteresting people teaches us, more than anything, is that the froth, the drugs, the sex, the scandal, is not innately connected with the genius. Looking at trends in modern music, we find so many of the old heavyweights returning to the fray, keen to cash in on their name and fame. Yet, Led Zepplin, The Rolling Stones and The Who, all still touring, or at least still playing, are not, as was once the case, in the headlines because of their lifestyles. As Bob Dylan’s current renaissance illustrates, really great performers and artists don’t need the drugs, don’t need the booze, don’t even need God to create fantastic music. They have been accused recently of becoming boring, and of selling out. But in reality their keenness to conform to the image-driven stereotype of rock and roll youth was as much as a sell-out; now, content in their old age and relaxed lifestyles, musicians like Cohen and Dylan are showing the younger generation how it’s done. With substance over style.That is not to dismiss the importance of the style. In music especially style and performance are key, whether the singer or band in question is breaking down musical barriers or constructing very real walls on stage. Yet without the talent the veneer can’t hold itself up; it crumbles under its own weight. That seems to be the problem with many who are venerated as famous. Without the inner reserves of actual ability, the media turns elsewhere in search of hype. Their fame reveals itself to be as vapid as their personalities.As for real artists, it is a truism that those who see farther, and do greater things, do often live on the edge. It must be acknowledged though that they are a select few, that not every poet needs to be high, not every headlining band needs its front-man to kill himself, not every artist must bed-hop constantly. These people appear to be living the dream. They are living fast, living hard, living dangerously, and producing works of genius. But in the long run, when the printing presses of ‘Heat’ have been melted down, their work will have to stand up to inspection on its own merit. The madness will be forgotten. The genius will remain.
By Tim Sherwin

If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, is it a duck? Yes. So if there is something that looks like a barrier to applying to Oxford, and seems to act like a barrier to applying to Oxford, is it a barrier? Not always. The £10 application fee for undergraduate admissions quacks because it is a barrier. But we should be wary of throwing out babies out with the bath water. Or, to hideously combine these already out of control metaphors, rubber ducks with the bath water. There are some extra processes built in to applying to Oxford, like aptitude tests and interviews, that look like a barrier to applying, seem to act like a barrier to applying, but aren’t a barrier to applying. So why don’t they quack?The short answer is that some perceived barriers benefit applicants: they allow Oxford to gain a much greater understanding of a student’s potential, so the University can confidently choose the very best from the brightest. Working out who is really, really good, rather than just really good, when everyone who applies has perfect grades and a treasure chest of extra curricular achievements, is a challenge to say the least. Few universities benefit from this challenge. Oxford needs different admission processes to meet this challenge.By barriers, in the context of admissions, I mean things that block the progress of students of greatest potential, whatever their background. For Oxford to admit the best from the brightest, it must invest in extra stages to get rounded pictures of applicants. After all, academic potential cannot be accurately represented by a series of past achievements printed on a piece of paper. Therefore the University invests more time and energy than other higher education bodies rigorously interviewing applicants. The interviews allow tutors to stretch potential students’ thinking, to analyse their motivations, and to assess whether they will respond successfully to tutorial teaching. Candidates will not receive adequate care and attention from tutors if there are ten people being interviewed per place. To ensure tutors can conduct meaningful interviews, aptitude tests are used in some subjects to help short-list candidates to approximately three per place during interviews. This also prevents students with no chance of getting an offer wasting time and money coming to Oxford. This guarantees that the University admits the very best from its talented pool of applicants.Charging £10 to apply to Oxford quacks, waddles and swims like a duck, and is one that should be shot. The fee is a barrier that discourages students from applying to Oxford, because they see the application as a costly gamble. By charging students to apply, this university encourages a false assumption that life here is more expensive than everywhere else. Considering the relatively small sums it raises, compared to the millions the University invests every year into its access work and bursaries, there is no reason why the University should undermine its good work on outreach by demanding that prospective applicants buy the opportunity to be considered by Oxford.It is inevitable that this fee will go – Oxford is the last remaining University to charge for this – but its demise is also desirable. I believe applications will increase as more talented students apply speculatively; after all, it won’t cost them anything to do so. This will help our work widening access and making sure Oxford University admits the best students, whatever their school, and whatever their background.
James Lamming is the Vice President of OUSU.

Enter the elephant, a towering colossus, gigantic in strength, lording over the beasts of the forest. Enter his opponent: the bee, a piddling nonentity. The expression ‘squashed like a bug’ was devised for such moments. Yet Lucy King, a DPhil student from Oxford University, has shown that in the combat between elephant and bee, it is the latter which will claim the laurels. The bee is our biblical David. His insectile slingshot? His ‘buzz’.Oxford researchers made this groundbreaking discovery after installing hidden loudspeakers in trees where elephants regularly find shade. They played either buzzing sounds recorded at beehives or a control sound of white noise. While the white noise affected only under a third of elephants, within just eighty seconds of implementing the buzzing noises as much as eighty four percent of the elephant families had fled, many at a run. How do we explain the elephant’s terrifying fear of bees? Although elephants cannot be stung through their thick hides, the water around their eyes is vulnerable to stings, as is the sensitive inside of their trunks. The age old aphorism raises its trunk again: the elephant never forgets, so once stung, he will never risk battle with the bee again. But why are researchers wasting their time driving off elephants with imitation bees, if not for the comedy value? How can we benefit through this unveiling of the elephant’s Achilles Heel? Although, in Africa, elephants are a major asset, they also regularly embark on crop raids on local farms, and the economic damage caused to small-scale farmers can be crippling. Meanwhile, farmers, often resort to the shooting, spearing or poisoning of elephants. There is thus a real urgency in finding a practical solution. It is here that Lucy King, Oxford and the bees step in. Bees may just provide the perfect low cost deterrent method and a successful step towards achieving peaceful human-elephant relations. Thank science for that.
by Katie Duval

One month from today, on Saturday 29th March 2008, Oxford take on Cambridge at Craven Cottage in the 124th Varsity Match. Coached by ex-Arsenal and England defender Martin Keown, Oxford are seeking to avenge two successive Varsity defeats, and to end their season on a high after regional playoff defeat at Exeter on Tuesday ended their promotion hopes, despite the Blues in fact winning their league with a heroic victory over title favourites Worcester. The stakes, as always, are high, as the build-up begins to the biggest date in the Oxford footballing calendar. The Varsity Match itself is one of the oldest regular fixtures in world football, having taken place every year since 1873 (with breaks for the First and Second World Wars). It has been played at some of football’s most prestigious venues, including Stamford Bridge, Highbury, White Hart Lane and even at Wembley – as well as at The Oval and The Queen’s Club. Statistically, it remains a tight affair, Oxford having notched up 48 wins to Cambridge’s 47, and having scored 193 goals to their 192. The last two years have seen defeats for Oxford, as Cambridge narrowly triumphed 1-0 in 2006 and then won on penalties last year after the game finished 1-1. Yet despite this impressive heritage, history only means so much. It is this year, this match, this coming 90minutes that is crucial to these players. Striker Alex Toogood was Oxford’s scorer last year, and remembers the experience as blowing him away. ‘It was absolutely amazing – the next five minutes were incredible, it was just like ‘wow’.’ Yet despite this euphoria, Toogood’s main feeling was one of ‘massive relief’, his goal coming as an equaliser to cancel out Cambridge’s early lead. The immense pressure to perform that is heaped upon the players is all too apparent; with so many friends and family coming to watch, as well as thousands of fans who judge players purely on that one performance, the stress involved is considerable. It seems this year that the emphasis upon the Varsity as a season-defining game is being discouraged in the Blues camp. As Toogood says, ‘the main thing is to treat it like any other game, and to enjoy it – we play football to enjoy ourselves, and we’ll play better if we’re enjoying it.’ Last season the Blues had a terrific year, yet were judged by many upon one defeat on penalties. This clearly annoys a lot of players, especially with the fear that it could happen again: as with last year, the Blues have had a great season, winning the BUSA Midlands Conference 1A title at the first attempt after promotion. It would be aggravating to see them judged by many as failures should they again lose in a oneoff game. In his second crack at the Varsity, Toogood is determined to relish the experience. ‘Last year I didn’t enjoy it, because we were all so focused and took it so seriously – my whole family and all my friends were there but I was barely able to look up.’ This time round, the lightning-fast Worcester hit-man is placing much more importance upon appreciating the occasion, and upon the Blues playing good football, working on the base they have built over the season under Keown. ‘He [Keown] has brought a lot of new ideas, got us playing a better style, keeping the ball on the ground and actually passing it around, playing nice football. If we play like we usually do we can easily win.’ This seems like a healthy attitude to take to such a pressured game. Despite so many supporters demanding victory at all costs, the Blues will do far better playing their own stylish brand of football that has brought them success than trying to adapt specially for Cambridge. The current Blues goalkeeper and OUAFC Sabbatical Officer, Nik Baker, is the most experienced of the squad when it comes to the Varsity game, having appeared in it in each of the last three seasons. Despite being ineligible this time round, his experience in the dressing game will surely be crucial to any success. When asked about the pressure surrounding the game, he too saw it as an important issue, but argued that the Blues are used to that kind of situation. ‘With the title run-in, all of our last three games have been must-win matches. We’re as well prepared as we can be, it shouldn’t come as a shock.’ Yet Baker acknowledged that a Varsity game can be a defining moment for any individual – you never know quite how someone will react until they run out on that pitch. ‘It’s just that kind of occasion: some rise to it, some freeze. It’s a real test of character.’ Baker certainly seems to have been one of those to have risen to the occasion. He made his Varsity debut in 2005 as a fresher at Keble, and was man-of-the-match, making a crucial penalty save as Oxford went on to win 1-0. Last year he added further to this reputation, making a series of superb second-half saves before going on to save the first three Cambridge penalties in the shootout. As a result, he knows what he’s talking about when he says that the game is a special experience. ‘It’s bad to define a season by the Varsity match, but it’s the one where everyone’s parents and friends make the effort, and it’s on a big ground. During the season we play in front of fifty or so people – at the Varsity it’s thousands. Everyone will make a snap judgement on that game, so you want to give the best possible account of yourself. It’s a good challenge!’ The Blues are trying to avoid too much special preparation for the game, putting confidence in their ability to win whilst playing their own game. Cambridge will be carefully watched over the next few weeks, but there will be no Allardyceesque ‘war room’ mentality down at Iffley Road. Small details are important, such as arriving early at Craven Cottage and looking round the pitch in mental preparation for seeing it again a few hours later – the only minor difference being the new presence of thousands of screaming fans on all sides. Nothing will be left to chance. Set-pieces will be carefully rehearsed, both attacking and defending, as it is often the small details that are forgotten quickest in the adrenaline-fuelled blur that is the game itself – a potentially crucial difference in a match that is so often decided by a single goal. As Baker says, when it comes to the Varsity, ‘the preparation just has to be that much more thorough’. There is also the ‘Keown Factor’. It was an amazing coup for Oxford to land Martin Keown as coach this season, arising from his desire to gain experience in his hometown whilst gaining his Uefa Coaching Badges. Having made 337 appearances for Arsenal and 594 professional appearances overall, gaining three Premier League titles, three FA Cup winner’s medals and 43 England caps in the process, Keown’s experience and leadership is an invaluable asset for the Blues. As keeper Baker simply states: ‘when he talks, people listen.’ With a reputation as one of the toughest defenders in football, it is easy to understand why, yet Keown’s off-field persona is extremely calm – there is no ‘hairdryer’ in the Oxford dressing room. He brings a huge amount to the team, from the way he demands high-quality, attractive passing football to his wealth of experience and tactical nous that can be called upon on critical occasions – such as the Varsity. As Baker tells us, Keown is able to get the absolute maximum out of his players, ‘demanding that much more from people because of what he’s achieved’; Toogood agrees, saying that ‘having him on the sidelines really makes people put in an effort!’ Come the 29th of March, Keown’s inspiring presence may be a crucial factor when the going gets tough. This week’s loss to Exeter will surely have hurt the Blues. Despite winning their league, promotion to a higher division rested on a playoff system; Exeter now go on to face Leeds in an inter-regional final, whilst Oxford remain where they are. Yet such a defeat has two silver linings: firstly, it means less travelling for a Blues team that already deals with huge timecommitments whilst balancing Oxford degrees, the perennial problem of all top-level Oxford sportsmen. Secondly (and more excitingly), it gives the Blues a massive incentive to end the year on a high by thrashing the Tabs. Tickets for the game can be purchased on the Fulham FC website, www.fulhamfc.com/tickets, with special deals for OUAFC members. Anyone who has been to one of these games before will know what a special and exciting occasion it is for players and fans alike, and what a great day out it can be. With the boat race on the same day, and Craven Cottage perfectly situated on the River Thames, there really is no excuse not to be there. When all is said and done, one fact remains: as Baker tells us, ‘this is a game we really, really want to win.’by George Kynaston

You know a Tim Burton film as soon as you see it. The gothic undertones of all his work seep onto the screen to the point of saturating it with darkness. Because of this, many film lovers seem to view Burton as some kind of creative genius. Nothing could be further from the truth: that he is a one-dimensional director who lacks the ability, or courage, to move out of his comfort zone and bathe his films in some much needed light.Ok, so Burton does have the capability to string a shot sequence together in a coherent narrative, but so does Guy Ritchie, and he made Swept Away. Aside from that, his films, and the reputation he has somehow managed to build, rely on two basic prerequisites: firstly that his cinematographer brings his vision to the screen in a veil of shade, and secondly that there is an undercurrent of evil pervading the story. Burton would not, and will never, take on a film if he doesn’t believe he can introduce these aspects.Certainly every director is entitled to a subjective style, but Burton’s constant repetition is simply boring. Anyone could have predicted what Sweeney Todd would look like: gratuitous violence, grimy, gloomy, and blood tainted with an abrasive, unreal redness, because that makes it ‘edgy and imaginative’. Because of this predictability, a story that has real malice lacked any on screen, and you can say the same about any of his projects. Of course, amongst all the perennials of a Burton film, you can’t forget his ever-present centrepiece, Johnny Depp.Depp is by no means a bad actor, although vastly overrated, but he always models his characters on public figures: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory might as well have listed Michael Jackson in the starring role, for instance. So you have the combination of Burton continually repeating himself, and Depp borrowing the persona and idiosyncrasies of other people for every film. It doesn’t make for cutting edge entertainment.Unfortunately the other mainstay of Burton’s travelling band, also his spouse, Helena Bonham-Carter, does not exactly turn in groundbreaking performances either. Admittedly, she has fantastic breasts, but there’s only so far her buxom can carry a film (although it’s quite a distance). And what’s worse, Burton refuses to admit that his repeated employment of her has anything to do with the fact she’s his wife. Does he think we’ll put it down to coincidence?The truth about Burton is that he lacks range. He’s not terrible at what he does, but after seeing essentially the same film (and cast) nearly 20 times, you sort of wish he’d try something, just anything, a bit differently.
By Ben Williams

 Union Returning Officer resigns amid complaints of intimidation and "interrogation-style knifing sessions"Union Returning Officer Cameron Penny resigned on Wednesday amidst allegations that he intimidated candidates in today’s elections, a claim he denies. Four candidates from Christ Church have complained of feeling intimidated and excluded by his actions,  prompting ex-President James Wise to submit a letter of complaint to Standing Committee.
In a statement of resignation to Union President Emily Partington, Penny said, “I stand by every action I have taken as the Returning Officer, and I regret nothing that I have said or done in discharging my obligations. “I thank you, and the rest of Standing Committee for the support you have given me at difficult times during the course of this term.”The third-year Oriel student also told Cherwell, “The letter and the events of the past week have had no bearing on my decision to resign.”The candidates, who say they are running to draw attention to what they describe as the exclusive and insular nature of Union politics, feel that they were the victims of hostile and arrogant behaviour on the part of Penny and his deputies during mandatory interviews about their manifestos.In his letter submitted to Standing committee on Monday, Wise claimed that the candidates were subjected to “interrogation-style knifing sessions,” and argued that such conduct on behalf of Union officials could alienate future candidates.The Christ Church students said that they felt the arrangement of the room where the interviews were held was “deliberately designed to intimidate.” They were permitted to have an impartial representative accompany them, and were required to sit fifteen feet away from the panel of electoral officials conducting the interviews. They were only allowed to stand up or sit down with Penny’s express permission. Rich Gowland, one of aggrieved candidates, said, “Cameron Penny set it up like an interrogation.”Chris Hughes, who has nominated for Secretary’s Committee, said “If I hadn’t had James [Wise] in there with me, I would have just walked away.” Hughes also said he thought that the interview was being recorded, despite the fact that he had not given his consent.Penny defended this, arguing that he was required to record conversations and that recordings were available on request.Mike Campbell, another candidate, said that he felt that he and the others were being singled out because of their overtly ‘anti-hack’ stance. All four said they felt that, for an outsider, the whole electoral process is “deliberately complex and scary”. It is the duty of the Returning Officer to amend manifestos so that they are both accurate and in accordance with Union rules. However, these candidates felt that Penny took this obligation to extremes, even asking Chris Hughes for substantive proof that he had served as one of Christ Church’s Entz Reps.  The candidates felt this question was “pedantic and facetious” as well as “snide and belittling.”Penny denied that any individual candidate or group of candidates was singled out, stating that “Every candidate is treated exactly the same and the Christ Church students’ “grilling”, as it were, was a lot less gruelling than many of the other candidates’ because they had less on their manifestos.”All four candidates, in compliance with the Union Standing Orders, were contacted by the Returning Officer and his deputy Alex Priest to inform them that their manifestos would shortly be displayed at the Union.  The candidates said that they were called repeatedly at 5.30am; Gowland stated he received ten missed calls in two minutes before picking up. Penny defended the timing of the calls on the basis that he had worked through the night to process the manifestos and that “every other candidate was called at the same time.” “The complaints that are being made are done so, in my view, with malicious intent,” Penny continued.
Union President Emily Partington declined to comment. by Caroline Crampton and Oscar Cox Jensen

For many of us (second year lawyers in particular) last term was punctuated by corporate events in which representatives of the leading firms came to aid the decision of precisely to whom we should be selling our souls.The flyers which inundated our pigeon holes received a mixed reception. The firms can’t have been too mystified to discover that those which offered us the perfect opportunity to attend glamorous drinks parties at the Randolph and long lunches at Brown’s were actually oversubscribed, whereas the dryer sounding talks were apparently not. We can’t be said to be doing much to alter the image that students are to be won over on superficial grounds!However, we must endeavour not to conform to all student stereotypes. Instead, we must present ourselves as mature, professional ,and socially adept, and must be memorable for the right reasons. Application forms, which are so readily available (although not always accessible), do not appear to be sufficient, nor are many of the coveted firms relying solely on interviews. Increasingly, assessment takes the form of an open day, where one is invited to spend an entire day being tested relentlessly in multiple situations under a variety of guises. The conscientious applicant will be aware that these are not merely ‘informal drinks’, providing the opportunity to chat with the partners and trainees, but constitute a further opportunity for the firms to scrutinise our behaviour and ascertain how we respond to a long day of rigorous assessment.   Naturally, this will be useful to them, as they are looking to recruit people who are capable of maintaining a chirpy demeanour after a challenging day. However, the interview process is unusually stressful as there is the added component of being in an unknown, often intimidating environment, which would be absent from normal working life. The firms ought to take this into account when testing our social skills, which will clearly be completed after the intensive procedures involved in the days.Another area where the firms demonstrate their great expectations is the testing of commercial awareness. We are told that it will suffice to have the level of knowledge of what is going on in the business world that may be obtained through religiously poring over the Financial Times. After all, can we really be expected to have the same degree of commercial prowess as current trainees?It would seem that for some partners the answer to that question is ‘Yes’, even though it is not clear how most people could possibly have developed such awareness whilst ticking all the other boxes in terms of results and extra curricular activities.  And so, it could appear that all work and no play could lead to unemployment, but that depends upon your definition of ‘work’!
Laura McPhee is Social Secretary of the Middle Temple Society. 

3/5 ‘Here comes a film, and if it already looks a bit weird, hang in there, because anyone can see it… It’s a comedy, and harmless as such… Just a cosy time. So why not poke fun at artsy-fartsy culture?’ From the opening voiceover of The Boss of It All (Direktøren for Det Hele) it is clear that this is no normal office comedy. This Danish art film by Lars von Trier features Kristoffer, a pretentious out-of-work actor who lands a job playing the fictitious head of an IT firm. The real owner, Ravn, has for years deferred all tricky decisions to ‘the boss of it all,’ but when he tries to sell the firm on to some suspicious Icelanders they will only deal with the real thing. So Kristoffer, equipped with nothing but his limitless ability to overact, must satisfy both the Icelanders and his eccentric ‘employees’ that he really is the boss of it all, and cope with the perpetually irritating Ravn.The film is shot entirely using the automavision process, in which the camera is placed in the best fixed position and the filming controlled by computer. The effect is of uneven, disconnected shots, often pointing in slightly the wrong place and cutting out half a head, for example, or leaving a face obscured. The shots are too short for the audience to get comfortable, and give the impression of CCTV footage. Yet despite the distancing effect (also caused by weird voiceovers), one ends up rooting for Kristoffer, as he evolves from an unbearable and absurd thesp to something resembling human. In drawing attention to the actor, and the process of keeping a role alive, the film may well be making a point about cinema in general, though what this is exactly is hard to tell. More engaging is the gently surreal drama that springs up between the characters. The Boss of It All even manages to be funny some of the time, though its unusual brand of Danish humour will not appeal to everyone.By Elizabeth Bennet