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

Filth bouncers have been accused of violence against students for the second time in two weeks, after a first year Christ Church student claimed he was roughly handled and bruised by security staff.The first incident occured on 8 February. The student, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims to have attempted to walk straight into the club with a group of friends, at which point a bouncer grabbed him by the neck and pushed him backwards. He was sent to the back of the queue, but on reaching the front he claims to have been assaulted by the bouncer. The student said, “The bouncer grabbed me and then quite deliberately moved his hand to hit me on the cheek.”He claims then to have complained to a second bouncer, who said, “Get out of here you slimy shit.”
The student said, “Maybe I asked for it the first time by attempting to walk straight into the club, but I then queued up, and when I spoke to the bouncer I was completely peaceful.” Although not badly injured, the student suffered light bruising the day after the incident. He chose not to complain to the manager.He admitted that he had been drinking but said, “I was by no means out of control. I had been to a restaurant with a group of friends and so we were all just in high spirits; we were ‘restaurant drunk.’“I think it’s really important that something should be done about this, as bouncers should be protecting people in the club and should not be allowed to abuse students for no reason.”
A week later, on 13 February, another student was involved in a similar incident. The fresher, also from Christ Church, claimed,  “The bouncer told me to leave; he then grabbed me and shoved me out of the club, slamming the door in my face.” The student waited until the end of the night to complain to the manager but says she was denied the chance.Last week Cherwell reported how a first year from Brasenose was left with a bloody nose after allegedly being hit by a bouncer outside Filth.However Stuart Kerley, the owner of Filth, claimed to be “unaware” of the incidents involving Christ Church students.He said, “Normally incidents occur when the students act like dicks; they nick stuff and they repeatedly try to come back into the club after being asked to leave. We are just doing our job in the way that the police and the Council say we should.”He added, “The majority of our clients are students and so it’s in our interests not to piss them off, but a lot of them do need to grow up and realise that just because they are students, this does not give them the right to act however they please.”by Sian Cox-Brooker

It saddened me to read the recent editorial, ‘Idea Idle’, as I feel entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged and not belittled.The Delboy model of enterprise is an unfair stereotype. Entrepreneurship is a rewarding though challenging career. The entrepreneurs I know are fixing real world problems, not ‘scamming pensioners and dodging taxes.’ Moreover, entrepreneurship has been shown to be an incredibly powerful way to institute social change and not a ‘blissful western, capitalist belief that good can be achieved by seeking a profit.’ Our two most recent speakers, John Bird and Sir Tom Hunter, show two very different and incredibly successful models of change. John Bird created the revolutionary social enterprise, The Big Issue, which has enabled and supported homeless people in getting themselves out of poverty. Sir Tom Hunter, on the other hand, made his fortune through retail, and plans to invest £1 billion in venture philanthropy. By using the rigorous methods of venture capitalists to ensure progress, Sir Tom hopes to improve education and aid third world development.Entrepreneurs care more about making a difference than making a profit. Yes, money is a huge motivation to work, both in large corporations where shareholders demand returns, and in start-ups where lack of money spells death of the project. But the difference for entrepreneurs is that the project is all important: the entrepreneurs I’ve met are driven by the desire to see their idea or vision actualised, whilst profit is seen more as a way of keeping tally of success.

So why do we run Idea Idol? I believe that it is really important that students at Oxford ask themselves, ‘Could I be an entrepreneur?’ Far too many graduates are lured by the money and lifestyle associated with comfortable graduate jobs such as banking and consultancy. The pay is good, but a banker is not going to fix the problems they themselves see as facing society or consumers, whereas entrepreneurs go out and do something about it. Oxford Entrepreneurs (OE) exists to support and encourage emerging entrepreneurs from Oxford. Our successes include five fully-funded start-ups, from Bright Green, who work in ethical recruiting, to Groupspaces, who help clubs and societies manage their members. The steps in setting up an enterprise are relatively straight-forward, but such steps can be incredibly difficult to take. OE tries to make the process a little easier, helping its members build up the momentum they need to run their ventures after graduation, and that was our motivation to run Idea Idol.Yes, there is a male dominance in entrepreneurship and this was reflected in the competition: over 75% of entrants were male. Encouraging women to become entrepreneurs, and the need to level out the numbers, is something of which I am very aware. It is not for want of role models.One need only look to one judge, Reshma Sohni, (Seedcamp) and one of last year’s winner, Jessica Mather-Hillon (Matoke Matoke) for inspiration. We are looking at ways to improve this situation, but are always open to proposals. If you have one yourself, please send it to [email protected].A final point. One of the winning ‘idle’ ideas you lambast as ‘milking the NHS for profit’, Altitude Medical, estimate they can save over 2,500 lives a year and tens of millions of pounds of NHS spending. In my opinion that makes them true Idea Idols.

Alasdair Bell is the President of Oxford Entrepreneurs.

Seventh week editorials have in the past been used to advocate a certain Presidential candidate over another. A year ago, this space was used to canvas votes for Dean Robson, who was standing as something of a wild card against Luke Tryl. Acknowledging that the odds were stacked against him, we did at least note that “if it were not for Robson, the Presidential contest might have been, rather embarrassingly, a one horse race.”The intervening year has seen our Union go through strength to strength: from Tryl to tribunal. From attracting a media circus over ‘Holocaust deniers’, to debating the rights to existence of USA and Israel. Calm, measured, mature debates all.On second thoughts, let’s turn to one presidential election that really does matter, and announce that Cherwell is throwing its full weight and prodigious influence behind Barack Obama. Part rock star, part global phenomenon, Obama is a once-in-a-generation politician embodying the spirit of a nation at a key moment of change.The American presidency, as any prelims politics student will tell you, is heavily constrained by the checks, balances and division of powers enshrined by the US Constitution. Academic analysis of a president’s record invariably brands a presidency as failing to meet its expectations and promise. Perhaps this makes it all the more dangerous to vote for a man who has cultivated a messianic following over the last few months.Yet this is precisely why America should put its trust in Obama’s eloquent call for change, even if it risks being empty. Because it is those who can use the soft power of the presidency, the ability to make grand speeches that inspire people to come together, who will actually be able to pass legislation and engender change when in power.The Economist recently described the best presidents as “like magnets below a piece of paper, invisibly aligning iron filings into a new pattern of their making.” All Presidents surround themselves with a crack team of first-rate minds but only the best can take this ideas and run with them. Only the best can build a consensus and rise above faction to achieve success.Maybe there is some advice in there for Josh Roche?

 Students who face financial hardship are not applying for college bursaries because they are put off by complicated application forms or assume they will not be eligible, a Cherwell investigation has revealed. Despite efforts by all colleges to help students in financial difficulties, undergraduates continue to report cases of severe hardship, claiming they are not made sufficiently aware of the grants that colleges have to support them.A student from St Edmund Hall, who wished to remain anonymous, said that she had been forced to live on £10 for four weeks and to rely on assistance from close friends because she was unaware of the support available. She said, “I have been in difficulty during my time here. It changes from week to week but at one point I had to get by on ten pounds for four weeks … I have a really close group of friends and we help each other out when one of us can’t pay for things. “I didn’t know about the college hardship bursaries until the bursar told me about them. It was not clear how I was supposed to get one. I did not know where to go or what to do,” she said.A student from Merton, who also asked not to be named, was aware of the financial assistance offered by his college, but said he felt that relying on the support would deprive him of independence.He said, “I don’t get funding from college, but am fairly sure I qualify for it. I’ve been holding off on applying in case of an ‘emergency’ and also out of pride – getting a private loan is ridiculously expensive… but I like the sense of independence. That said, the constraints of a private loan are a funny kind of independence.”He added, “I worked during the holidays last year, but found that it was a serious strain on my studies and my energy and also that I didn’t earn enough to lead a normal [and] comfortable life (financially).”All students who apply to the university are considered for an Oxford Opportunity bursary, a grant given by the central university body to students from lower-income backgrounds. In addition, most colleges offer hardship bursaries for any students who fall into unexpected financial difficulties.But Martin McCluskey, OUSU president, said the whole system needed to be made more transparent.“The University offers hardship funds, like the Access to Learning fund, but a lot of people don’t know they exist. They are not widely publicised. “Something needs to be done to make students more aware of the opportunities available for financial assistance” he added.Students have also said they feel discouraged from applying for hardship grants because of complicated application forms and the stigma that they will be seen as the poorest.Martin McCluskey explained, “At the college level there is a lot of variation. Sometimes students are put off because of the language attached to support funds … The name ‘Hardship bursary’ makes it sound like the funds are only for people who are really scraping the barrel, where as ‘financial assistance’ makes it seem more accessible.”A spokesperson for Oxford made the following statement:“The University and its colleges are committed to supporting stu dents wherever possible. It is in everybody’s interest to publicise available support as widely as possible. It is down to the colleges to adopt the system that works best for them in their individual environment.”by Michael Sweeney

2/5 If you are expecting yet another hilarious American wedding comedy á la My Big Fat Greek Wedding or Wedding Singer, you will be disappointed. Margot at the Wedding, written and directed by Noah Baumbach (The Squid and the Whale) has nothing to do with two happy people declaring their love at the altar. The various lovers in this film are middle-aged, miserable and take anti-depressants to make it through somehow. Margot (Nicole Kidman) is a successful writer from New York and her marriage is crumbling. Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh), her free-spirited sister, is about to wed an unemployed artist Malcom (Jack Black) – the best example of a pathetic loser. Margot immediately disapproves of her sister’s choice, starts undermining their relationship and herself starts an affair with a neighbour. Margot’s son Claude (Zane Pais) is surprisingly mature for his age and by far the most interesting character. In the end he turns out to be the most stable and reasonable of all the adults with their failed lives. He influences Margot to make a decision, which comes as a great surprise. Actually, there is no plot. The film is a sequence of scenes, in which different episodes reveal yet another aspect of the dysfunctional relations the family suffers from. There is something for everyone: adultery, rivalry between siblings, fights between puberty stricken boys, random horror-style killing of animals and a hint of paedophilia.The technical set-up of the film gives you the feeling of intruding on each character’s personal problems. The make up is minimalist; hand-held camera and natural lighting make you believe you are an immediate bystander. It really is painful to watch this family interact.But most of all, throughout the film, you will keep wondering: what is Nicole Kidman, easily the most glamorous actress of our times, doing in this low budget, painful film where in the end there is not even a wedding? Now I’ve ruined it for you. By Marina Zarubin