It’s a lucky theatre-goer who has never had to witness an unfortunate actor fluff a line or two. The awful cavernous silence while they wait for a cue; the sniggers from the audience (the length and volume of which largely depend on their maturity and how much they paid for a ticket); and the bitchy whisper that carries just a little too well, “What do they DO in rehearsal?!”The answer is that even the actors do quite a lot, really. The truth is that every gesture, dramatic pause, comedic facial expression, and heart-rending tear is the result of weeks of hard work and development – whether the actor is conscious of it or not. There is more to rehearsal than endlessly ad-libbing comically facetious lines into a tragedy to try and give the director a heart attack.A rather strange director named Stanislavski used rehearsal time to try and get actors to ‘live’ their parts. He wanted to move away from melodramatics and try and achieve acting which was realistic, characters who seemed like real people. However actors of the time relished melodrama, it being in the very nature of Thespians to flounce and pout and generally show off. Thespians liked (and still do like) to take centre stage with dramatic waves of emotion – all this contradicted Stanislavski’s view of acting.Stanislavski encouraged actors to imagine how they would behave, if they were in their character’s shoes. The old proverb, “don’t judge a man till you’ve walked two moons in his moccasins,” also applies to acting; it is hard to realistically act someone until you have put yourself in their shoes. This is what Stanislavski was asking actors to do in rehearsal time.Rehearsal time lets an actor really engage with their character effectively. It is also a chance to perfect smouldering looks, fight scenes, fast-paced reparti and, of course, to learn one’s lines by saying them over and over and over again. Rehearsal time can also be important for actors to familiarize themselves with parts of the play that they feel uncomfortable with. As modern plays become more daring and adventurous, the cast have to practice and master more and more difficult scenes. Even Daniel Radcliffe’s stage début involved riding a horse naked or some such; I bet he needed a lot of rehearsal time to get to grips with that.So the rehearsal is the behind-the-scenes work which the audience doesn’t see, but which is vital if the play is to succeed. It is a chance to perfect acting technique, to really engage with the characters of the drama, to rehearse barely-learnt lines – and, of course, to flirt with the good-looking thesp in the leading role. Well, come on, who wouldn’t?
By Ryan Hocking

John Lloyd is a man of many trades. His work has shaped the way British comedy has developed, both on television and the radio. Lloyd first got into comedy at Cambridge where he joined Footlights. He thought it was ‘a bit girly’ at the time, but happened ‘to be in love with a leading lady.’ John describes how he tried to do serious drama at Cambridge but ‘kept getting laughs. One of my performances reduced the poor director to tears, and it became a bit of a cult hit to see this college disaster. So I quit that and moved to jokes so that I wouldn’t ruin anyone’s life.’ John eventually got sacked from Footlights and moved onto radio. In 1974 he produced the News Quiz for the BBC before getting into television, creating Not the Nine o’ Clock News, Spitting Image and producing Blackadder in the mid-eighties. By the time he was thirty, John had received two Lifetime awards for his work.His latest project, QI, is much more than a television program. John describes QI as a long term project ‘to look at very dull information and make it interesting…It’s amazing how often people say something is “quite interesting”. It’s a catchphrase that most people don’t notice is there.’
The answers to the questions are not as important as the questions themselves. ‘Finding answers is relatively simple’ says John, ‘finding a new question to ask is almost impossible. All we’re interested in is interestingness’. The name QI also appeals to John as the opposite of IQ. It encourages a different sort of intelligence to that which is generally required at schools and universities. ‘The problem is that there is very little original thinking encouraged in the educational system’ John argues. ‘A lot of my original thinking time was done, you know, late at night with a lot to drink, and that was where all the interesting debates came in’. John is keen to promote original thinking in schools. ‘One of my ideas is to create a new school subject called interestingness,’ he says, smiling. ‘On Fridays you would have double “Interestingness” and you’d think “oooh yes!”’.  Another of his ideas is to make a set of companion guides to the national curriculum for students and teachers. ‘It sounds a bit pompous to be interested in education…’ John hesitates mid sentence, ‘but the whole idea is to make education not sound pompous…It’s just that we need to invent different ways of getting people’s attention’. The QI show is very different to most of the television being produced at the moment. John argues that ‘There should be television that is intelligent but is acceptable and warm’. He talks about how comedy has changed over the last twenty years or so: ‘A lot of television at the moment is cruel and dark…the comedy that I grew up with used to make you feel better. QI has that old fashioned feel to it, but it is also a revolutionary program’.John admits that occasionally the show has to be cleaned up. ‘There was a very funny fact that Steven brought up about Alfred Kinsey, who wrote a book about human sexuality and found the appalling statistic that one in six men in Idaho had sex with a chicken during their life. And so the whole panel started doing imitations of having sex with a chicken. It went on for minutes…it was really gross but honestly the funniest thing that I have ever seen on television. But it had to be taken out. QI has a very wide audience’. Though the program is after 10pm John still ‘bleeps the fucks’. ‘They said I could keep them, but I was brought up to take out the fucks. A lot of telly is a bit too grubby. We are often rude and naughty but it’s never nasty rudeness’. Although John does admit that sometimes ‘the recordings are absolutely filthy’. ‘If you get Jonathon Ross and Steven on a roll together its fantastic…but you can’t broadcast it really’. I ask John what he thinks about the recent trend of reality television. He looks a bit sheepish and smiles, ‘I think that a lot of the way television has gone is slightly my fault, because programs that were showing in the 70s and 80s were trying to break the mould’. He goes on, ‘But the general stuff you see on telly now of people you have never heard of…it’s pretty horrible. I think people generally deserve better than they get treated on telly’. John describes how celebrities love coming on the show, ‘Jeremy Clarkson is a regular, he watches it every week whether he’s on it or not, it’s one of the only programs that he actually likes… Rob Brydon brought his dad along the other day who had a great time and stayed the whole evening’. Interestingly, John has recently returned to doing radio shows and is currently hosting The Museum of Curiosity on Radio 4 with Bill Bailey. I asked him what it was like to go back into radio after so long in television. ‘Before the show’ John says laughing, ‘I was beyond scared…I almost had an out of body experience I was so frightened…But actually it’s such fun getting laughs from an audience’. With QI up and running, I ask John whether he will be moving onto any new projects. ‘It’s very difficult to go back, having made QI, to just making jokes for the sake of making jokes. I’d be more interested in getting a serious part in a film as an actor than writing’.
by Freddie Parton

Two Oxford students have secured a six-figure investment for their online business after winning the support of a London development firm.The founders of GroupSpaces, which was set up in 2007 and provides online tools such as mailing lists for club and society organisers, this week announced that a consortium of business ‘angels’, including the London-based Avonmore Developments, has agreed to help fund their company.
At the age of 22, founders David Langer and Andy Young are the youngest ever members of Oxford Entrepreneurs Society to receive venture funding.The GroupSpaces team had to pitch their business plan at an investment meeting run by Oxford Early Investments, an ‘angel’ network that helps young companies earn the backing of investors.
The two were inspired to create their company after their experiences running various clubs and societies. Langer used to be a Blues Table Tennis captain and a Vincent’s Club (the Oxford Blues’ society) member whilst Young had a long-running stint as Vice President and IT Officer at Oxford Entrepreneurs. After a visit to Silicon Valley, the duo visited the headquarters of Facebook, Bebo and Google and were further spurred on to create GroupSpaces. Langer graduated from St Anne’s College last year and is the Chief Executive Officer of the company. He said of their success, “I’m delighted to be working with some really experienced investors. They have been working with young companies for the last eight years and I fully believe that they can help make GroupSpaces a big success.” The manager of Oxford Early Investments, Eileen Modral, said, “We were pleased to help GroupSpaces to raise the crucial funding they need to progress the development of their innovative software.”
With their new funding, the team now plan to expand their business outside of Oxford. Young said, “We have started talking to other universities but we want to ensure we are getting it right first by focusing on Oxford, which is quite demanding in itself anyway.” Asked where he imagines himself ten years from now, Young said, “I hope to be successfully running the company and to perhaps be embarking on a new venture.” by Katherine Hall

2/5 I really wanted this play to be good. Terry Prachett’s novel is funny, clever, and has real narrative force. ‘Death’ is a fine comic literary creation: a kind of grim reaper, at once confused by and curious about the humans whose lives he takes. But this production falls flat. The costumes are sumptuous, the props extravagant, but the production seemed to be all icing and no cake.  Death, complete with skeletal mask and flaming sword, is well acted, but the acting is good only because a detached deadpan is what is called for. The other actors seem to have been infected with the same unwillingness to express, especially Rob Hemmens as Mort, who gives a performance that is startlingly bland. Even his confusion seems half-hearted. Kate Morris as Ysabelle tries to break the cloying atmosphere by turning her character into a pre-pubescent, babyish figure, but, as she says, her character is stuck in time at age eighteen, not age seven. There is none of the insecurity and arrogance of the confused and scared girl being confronted with a boy she likes for the first time. She just pouts.Albert, in Liam Welton’s portrayal, also falls flat, as Welton seems to believe that the only defining feature of the progress of age upon a man is that his back becomes ridiculously stooped and his right arm hangs limp. Chris Carter’s Cutwell I enjoyed more, as he captures the blustering wizard excellently, right from his bored exhaustion to the quips hiding his terrified confusion. Harriet Tolkein’s Princess Keli is a fine picture of supremely regal arrogance, yet she too succumbs to a childish petulance when she reaches for suppressed fear at the realization that she is dead, but just hasn’t stopped moving. The director, Rhys Jones, appears to have decided on a speed at the outset, a speed he is absolutely determined to maintain, come hell, high- water, or the script. This means that the moments of comedy, which really need to be treated with delicate emphasis, are thrown away. With exception of a few scenes, such as the name-calling between Ysabelle and Mort, which is unpleasantly infantile anyway, and the richly comic cameo of Tom Richards as a very plummy, very old, and very oblivious High Priest, the play lacks spirit, the impressive setting masking a Mort that is, to all intents and purposes, dead.By Tim Sherwin

Oxford is now the only British university that asks applicants to complete a separate application form, after Cambridge last week announced it was scrapping their equivalent.Cambridge University said that it would no longer require students to submit its ‘Cambridge Application Form’ (CAF) and the associated £10 fee, both for administrative reasons and to improve accessibility.From now on, UK and European students applying to Cambridge will only have to complete their UCAS form. Once the form is submitted, students will be asked to complete a supplementary online questionnaire “in common with applicants to many other universities”, which replaces the written questionnaire that is currently sent to applicants.Geoff Parks, Director of Undergraduate Admissions for the Cambridge Colleges, said scrapping the form made business sense. “We’ve been planning to do this since 2003, purely on business process grounds. The main reason for having a separate form was because of the time it used to take UCAS to get applicant data to us. With advances in IT that is no longer an issue,” he said.He also acknowledged arguments that the form gave the wrong impression to applicants: “The fact that the separate application form was cited by some commentators as a barrier to access was an added incentive, and the chaos caused by the postal strike last October was also influential in the final decision to make the change now.” Oxford has said that it is currently considering whether to keep its extra form and fee for students applying for 2009 entry. In 2007, the University reduced the amount of information they asked for on the form, cutting it down to a two-page document.A spokesperson for the University said that Oxford is reviewing how it collects additional information from candidates and their referees.“The University has been aware of the concerns expressed by schools and colleges about the additional burden placed on candidates in requiring completion of separate application materials other than the standard UCAS application, and the perception that this [has] created about access to Oxford,” she said.She suggested that it may be possible to abolish the form and fee, but emphasised that no decisions have been made yet.  “Further refinements to the admissions process, and the development of the UCAS application for 2009 entry, may allow the University to dispense with the need for any separate application form,” she said.“A statement on the future of the separate form and its £10 administration fee will be made once the University has completed its assessment, and will be communicated to schools and colleges in time for the commencement of the 2009 entry admissions process.” James Lamming, OUSU VP (Access and Academic Affairs), believes that Oxford must drop its fees, which in his view deters applicants.He said, “The University must end its undergraduate admissions fee immediately because the charge discourages applications, and falsely implies that Oxford is more expensive than other higher education bodies. Oxford University should also look at collecting any additional information it needs via the UCAS form, rather than having additional forms which may be perceived as an additional barrier to entry.” But Lamming commended the University for providing bursaries to students from disadvantaged backgrounds.“A common but false myth exists that studying amongst the dreaming spires costs more than other universities, and OUSU is organising open days and school visiting schemes to explain about the financial support available at Oxford and hopefully end these financial and other incorrect myths,” he said.“The University has also invested vast sums of money, both in tackling these myths and providing financial support, and they should be commended for their efforts.”
by Mohsin Kahn

Students at Mansfield have launched a campaign against the College’s plan to secularise its traditional branding.A Facebook group, ‘Save the Mansfield Crest’ has been set up in protest at the suggestion that Mansfield’s iconography be altered. Within two days it attracted 214 members and messages criticising the idea that the current college shield, which sports three crosses, should be changed in any way.According to Katie Moore, the Mansfield student who created the group, a new design would be issued on official college correspondence. She has also said, “Some members of the SCR would like the crosses to be removed and to change the Latin text [on the shield]. One proposal is to replace the crosses with unicorns, [since] our crest has a unicorn on the top.”Mansfield MCR voted by a majority of 88% on Monday to keep the current design, and the JCR is set to vote on Monday. Students and staff at the college have also been signing a petition against any alterations of college branding.Moore questioned the need for change and pointed out that alumni have not yet been consulted on the proposals.She said, “I think that it is important that alumni are kept informed of changes to the college. This topic has been discussed in the past and from what I could gauge then, there was strong support to keep [the original iconography]. The alumni should have been asked properly about this, and my group goes to show that they do care a lot and have started to email the development office. “Personally, I do not want to see the shield changed at all. The college has its roots in theology and you can’t change history. I am also a member of the boat club and our kit and blades have become very distinctive in recent years – this all revolves around the crosses on the shield,” she said. Mansield have issued the following statement: “A question was raised as to whether the shield’s Christian symbolism might be seen as in any way excluding those of other faiths or none. The views of the JCR and MCR have been particularly solicited. A decision will be taken at the Governing Body meeting in eighth week of this term whether to revert of the existing shield or introduce any variation. This will take account of all the views expressed.”
by Chris Baraniuk

4/5True West is a grim family drama that plays out the disastrous relationship between two brothers. Screenwriter Austin is peacefully writing his script in California when his delinquent brother, Lee, rocks up to do it bit of burglary in the area. Lee also has an idea for a movie script, a ‘true western’ as he calls it, and eventually persuades Austin’s producer to drop his brother’s script in favour of his own. At this, the brothers go through a reversal of roles, as Austin turns to drink and Lee becomes obsessed with his screenplay. The plot unsurprisingly spirals into violence.The play is compact and tightly written, feeding on the destructive dynamics between the brothers. The interchanges between the brothers feel real, often uncomfortably so, and we get a sense of dragged-up old bitterness and a long, bad history between them. Both are played convincingly; Tom Palmer is frightening and charismatic as Lee, and Sam Caird is painfully believable as the cowed, obliging Austin. Raymond Blankenhorn makes an effective producer, evoking the outside world with slick professionalism. The claustrophobic plot is reflected in the set and the small cast. The intimate space of the Burton Taylor will enhance this and heighten the explosive atmosphere.A longing for the true West pervades, reflected in Lee’s urge to write a real Western. He speaks evocatively of the clean air in the desert, where he has been for 3 months. As things esaclate, Lee exclaims, ‘this would never have happened out on the desert.’ This is the only breath of hope in the oppressive airlessness of the play. Yet there is something compulsively watchable about True West. The brilliant, terrible dynamics between the brothers draw you in, well acted and totally gripping. By Elizabeth Bennett

A group of Regent’s Park students have been forced to move back into college accommodation after their house was burgled twice in the space of six days.The college-owned house, which is on Stanley Road in Iffley, was first broken into on 14 February. Less than a week later it was burgled again, on Tuesday 19.Following the two successive break-ins, Regent’s Park has offered the students alternative accommodation at the college site on Pusey Street, central Oxford. In the mean time the college is installing extra security measures in the house, including replacing the locks, putting bars on ground floor windows, and installing CCTV.JCR President Olivia Wright denied that the college was to blame for the lack of security. She said, “The College has already had the Crime Prevention Officer (CPO) round to look at the property and assess security. The CPO said that only minor alterations needed to be made to deter anyone wanting to make a quick entrance.”Wright added, “The College has acted swiftly in looking after the welfare of the students. At the moment, the main concern is making sure that the students all feel comfortable and that they’re in a secure environment.”The house is off-site college accommodation for students. However, it is owned by the London Baptist Property Board, a branch of the London Baptist Association. The Association assists churches and religious institutions with the management of their properties.According to Sam Tomlin, whose iPod was stolen during the second break-in, the burglaries were probably due to carelessness on the parts of the students. The second year Theology student said, “There was no sign of forced entry. One of the back doors is quite hard to lock – maybe one of us left it open, or maybe they came through an open window, or picked a lock.“It seemed that the thieves had been watching the house for a while: they waited until everyone had gone out before breaking in.” He added, “I haven’t heard anything about compensation yet – it would be nice!”However, Wright said that the London Baptist Property Board (LBPB) has promised to give £100 in compensation to every student involved.Rev Paul Martin, Secretary of the LBPB, declined to comment on the matter. He said, “The LBPB holds the legal title to this property on behalf of Regent’s Park College in the capacity of custodian trustees. The management of the property in question is wholly the responsibility of Regent’s Park College.”
The stolen property included three laptops, an iPod, cash, and a guitar. Sam Tomlin added, “I’m not hugely bothered about losing my iPod – it’s not the end of the world for me. At the end of the day they’re just things.”Ed Randell, a second-year English student at Regent’s Park, said, “It’s been a huge shock, and a very traumatic experience for all concerned. However, the general feeling is that no one in college is really to blame.” The students expect that their lost possessions will be covered by insurance.Since the robberies, the college has been consulting with Thames Valley Police to increase security. Toby Shergold, a police spokesperson, said: “We work closely with all the colleges to make sure security is as tight as possible. Our crime reduction advisers work with college authorities on keeping their premises secure.”Dom Weinberg, OUSU Rent and Accommodation Officer, said that students must take responsibility for making sure that their property is insured. He said, “A number of colleges, including St Hugh’s, ensure that their students take out insurance cover for their rooms; since I know that Balliol doesn’t, it seems highly likely that this varies hugely across colleges. OUSU would recommend that every student takes out property cover, whether this is part of a college system or if they have to do so individually,” he said. Weinberg urged students to follow security measures. “Lock doors and windows when not in your room and be aware of strangers hanging around or trying to gain entry as tradesmen,” he said.
A spokesperson for the University said, “The two main things are not to leave the door to your room unlocked, and not to let strangers ‘tailgate’ you as you go into college entrances after the main doors are closed. Accommodation is a college matter and students with concerns should either talk to the Domestic Bursar, or express their concerns via the JCR President. Overall, the nature of colleges means that accommodation is usually much more secure than private accommodation.”Regent’s Park has re-accommodated all the affected students on the college site while the extra security measures are installed.
by Jack Farchy

4/5 “Hell is other people.” This is something you might have heard before, uttered bitterly by disillusioned adults, or something you might have thought yourself (after being vomited on in an Oxford nightclub, for example). It is also a famous quotation from Sartre’s play Huis Clos, translated into English as No Exit by Oxford students.If you thought being vomited on in an Oxford club was bad, then you will struggle to cope with the human cruelty and vice portrayed in this play. In No Exit, three characters are trapped in a room together, verbally vomiting on each other, creating a hell out of their own humanity. Garcin, Estelle and Inès sit in a room waiting to be tortured, before realizing that they are there to torture each other.This play clearly demonstrates why ‘hell is other people.’ No Exit could easily become an overdone heap of horrible human vice; instead it is made compelling by some excellent acting. At first the audience recognizes caricatures: Inès is emo, with long black hair and dripping sarcasm, Garcin is an arrogant man with a history of adultery, and Estelle is a hysterical society type who clatters around in high heels asking vainly for a mirror. Then the audience learns of the characters’ sins and gains a voyeuristic gratification from watching them manipulate each other. Inès (Joy Tuffield) is sexual and menacing as she taunts Garcin and Estelle; she is brilliant as a deeply disturbed lesbian. Meanwhile Garcin (Zachary Sniderman) oozes masculinity, torn between irritated silence and a desire to manipulate Inès and Estelle. Garcin’s hatred for Inès, but his feelings for Estelle are too ambivalent. Although a powerful character, I could not help but feel that his emotions were often blurred. Estelle (Ellen Buddle), is the sniveling victim of Garcin and Inès’s torment. Her hysteria is overpowering at times and bubbles over into the unbelievable, but her acting is dynamic as she switches from melodramatic to chillingly cruel.Not only does this production accurately portray Sartre’s intentions, it also invites the audience to voyeurism. We watch entranced as the characters destroy each other through a mix of seduction, manipulation and violence. This is no vomit-at-a-nightclub hell; it is a chilling potrayal of humanity at its most horrendous. And it is dangerously enjoyable to watch.