By Lewis Goodall

One and all, welcome to Macbeth – Cluedo style. Yes indeed, when watching this Macbeth I could never quite escape the feeling that I was an unhappy victim of one of those unfortunate murder mystery weekends. All characters clad in rather exquisite evening gear, the slightly dodgy ‘Murder She Wrote’ music, and the altogether camp performances. Still, at least it’s a new take on a story everyone knows, a story of love, revenge, deceit and delicious duplicity.

The play starts as it means to go on – slightly bizarrely. Everyone’s favourite three witches look more like this year’s Russian Eurovision entry than the ghoulish sisters we’re all so familiar with. The director Will Cudmore has kept the play as fast paced and edgy as possible, but with hefty dialogue pruning as the inevitable consequence. The witches’ famous ‘double, double toil and trouble’ line mercilessly cut among others. Still, the merits of such pruning include keeping the play mercifully pithy but part of me still felt robbed.

However, as we all know, we don’t go to Macbeth for the Witches. We don’t go for Duncan or Lennox or Banquo, or any of the cornucopias of other minor characters who are altogether uninteresting. We go for Macbeth, Lady Macbeth and their enduringly fascinating relationship. In Cudmore’s production though, I feel we were served a decidedly unbalanced relationship. Ed Chalk gives a stellar performance as the unhinged Macbeth (albeit it seems that either Cudmore or Chalk equate deteriorating mental stability with increasing campness), he moves from a slick power-player to a gibbering Mika seamlessly. I am sad to say however that his power is not matched by his Queen, Anna Popplewell (of Narnia fame) as that consummate politician, Lady Macbeth. For most of the play, Popplewell exudes a sense of dramatic apathy, a sense of being slightly uncomfortable in Lady Macbeth’s shoes. Popplewell, fine actress though she may be, was overshadowed by Chalk, which credit to him though it may be, goes against the grain of the play, where Macbeth is the manipulated, the controlled, the used. I’m not sure the audience got that impression here.

Still, I’m at risk of being overly harsh. The adaptation is a fundamentally good one, with some production problems. For example, Mr Cudmore, enough with the smoke! We get it, it’s a murky situation, it’s Scotland, it’s foggy, it’s in the past. But there’s a line. And I think when the audience can only see the floating heads of the actors that line has been well and truly crossed.

Having said this, it’s well worth a visit. It’s fast paced and at times genuinely quite exciting (watch out for the fighting scenes, Jackie Chan eat your heart out) with some top quality performances. If nothing else go for the old-Etonian interpretation of Duncan, complete with sash, Herfordshire drawl and Patrick Moore squint. If that’s not worth a fiver, then I don’t know what it is.

 Macbeth runs at the OFS Studio through the end of the week at 7:30 PM, with a Saturday 2:30 matinee.

Oxford's chief tourism officer has claimed that the release of the film, 'The Golden Compass' will generate an extra £15 million for Oxford from tourism.
It is predicted that the publicity generated by the film would push the numbers of tourists visiting the city to record heights – 10 million are expected in 2008, the highest ever. The City Council plans to launch a 'Lyra's Oxford' themed tour aimed at the 'set-jetters' who visit cities that are the sites of famous movies.
The adaptation of Philip Pullman's novel filmed several scenes in Oxford earlier this year, with locations including Radcliffe Square, Christ Church, and Exeter College, and adds to the list of many movies shot here.
Jane Lubbock from Oxford City Council told the Oxford Mail, 'People planning their holidays next year will see the film and it will remind them that Oxford is a great place to come and see. Set-jetting is going to be a new form of tourism.'
'This film is great news for Oxford.'
8.8 million tourists visited Oxford in 2006, and the final number for 2007 is expected to be 9.5 million.

by Frankie Parham

How can blood on a wheelchair be funny? You only have to get down to the BT for this all too short comedy sketch show to find out. Newly written (with heavy whiffs of improvisation) by Joe Markham and Joe Parham, Humphrey’s Unpleasantness is all that outrageous comedy should be: full of lisping clergymen, masturbating accountants and paedophiles wearing reindeer antlers. Yet it’s not all just made to shock. Sterling character portrayals come from the very same writing talents: Joe Markham comically crumples his huge stature into the shapes of a little schoolboy and an old woman, while Joe Parham sports a highly impressive facial flexibility, contorting his mouth and wildly glancing in all directions.

As with all double acts, a useful third wheel appears in the form of Ross Young, but he is by no means side-lined. On the contrary, appearing in two solo scenes of his own, Young not only fuels his characters with amusing vigour, but manages not to corpse. This is more than can be said for either Joe, each visibly quivering with awkwardness as the lights come down and the audience’s laughter increases at the end of each sketch. As a result, the show feels like an ensemble piece, rather than a self-righteous opportunity on the part of the writers to show off their comedic skills. The number of scenes controlled by a single character is balanced between each of the performers, without any one of them standing out more than another (although Parham is somewhat dwarfed by Markham’s lofty figure).

By the end, all the actors (just) hold their own, and what results is a pandemonium of “Oh no they didn’t!” moments. A lot suffers to be ruined by revealing too much, but to get an idea of the boundaries these guys are willing to break, it’s worth knowing that the first sketch alludes to cannibalism and a nail fetish, both within a traditional all boy’s boarding school. Such an example colours what most of the scenes achieve: a hilariously clever balance between stereotype and filthy behaviour. You’ll leave feeling guilty that you ever laughed, but don’t take it as a reflection of your moral integrity: you’d have to be dead not to!

9:30pm, BT Studio: Run ends on Saturday 1^st December

A number of people who took part in Monday’s protest outside the union debate have been pictured on fascist website Red Watch.
More than fifty pictures from the demonstration have been posted on the site accompanied by the request ‘Any further info on the freaks below will be gratefully received’. Martin McCluskey, OUSU President, was given high priority, appearing fourth on the list.
The website claims to be an ‘online informational bulletin for White Nationalists to use to identify potential attackers from violent Marxist groups’.
‘Members of such groups as ANaL (Anti-Nazi League) and the AFA (Anti Fascism Action) have a long history of violence against us and it is their tactic to 'expose' our supporters by supplying their activists with details of where we live.’ The website states that it exists in order to give these people the same treatment as they are being given.
In a statement issued to the Online Press Gazette, Red Watch responded directly to the question of why they publish photographs, saying, ‘Members and supporters of White nationalist organisations are at constant risk of violent attack by political opponents. It is essential for people distributing Nationalist literature, for example, or perhaps stewarding a Nationalist event, to be able to identify opponents who may seek to cause them, or members of their party, harm’.
As well as people who spoke out at the rally, many of the photos included were of ordinary people simply attending the protest. Gerry Gable, publisher of anti-fascist magazine Searchlight told the Oxford Mail: "I think they should expect a level of harassment. They may get phone calls in the middle of the night, hate mail or even a brick through the window."
The website is being investigated by the Home Office and the police.
  See also: video coverage of the protests

Rhiannon Nicolson interviews George Galloway on his presence at the Union protests.
Listen here
 
 

The Oxford University Tory Reform Group is to merge with the Oxford University Conservative Association, in a surprising move announced yesterday.An emergency meeting was held last week to debate the future of the TRG, and voted unanimously for its dissolution. The group has been struggling to attract members. There was a distinct lack of interest at Freshers’ Fair this term, and events have been badly attended for the last two years. Even the emergency meeting itself had a poor turnout and only just reached quorum. Attendance has been declining dramatically since the end of 2005, when David Cameron was made leader of the Conservative Party. Members believe that this is one of the main reasons for the TRG’s decline, as both OUCA and the Conservative Party itself have shifted more towards the centre-right, and the TRG as a special group has become superfluous. In an email to TRG members, current President Luke Connoley said, ‘It is very easy for the student press to portray OUCA, given its history, as an elitist society, but I do believe that it has genuinely become more liberal. Being a broad political society as it is, and containing all wings of conservative political thought as it does, there will always be OUCA members to the 'right' of the political spectrum, but there will also always be OUCA members on the TRG side’ ‘The OUTRG has been in existence since 1965, which is ten years longer than the National TRG has existed. Seeing such a long-lived organisation with such a history of inviting interesting speakers, and challenging the views of Oxford students perish is inevitably sad.’
OUCA President Alex Stafford said, 'This speaks volumes about how both the Conservative Party and OUCA have adapted and changed for the better. I am very pleased that the TRG want to re-join us, and we welcome them back into the fold.'
Some students have been sceptical about the merge. A Regent’s Park 2nd year said ‘This is exactly why people are losing faith in political parties, all their views are merging and becoming the same. Cameron is appropriating Labour’s more trendy ideas and the differences between the parties are becoming fewer and fewer. I am not a conservative, but I do think that this shows a wider problem across British politics.’ All TRG members are being offered free membership of OUCA. ‘Should the political climate change significantly, either at a local level,or on a national level – significantly enough for there to be a renewed need for a liberal, centre-right conservative society in Oxford – then the OUTRG can always be re-formed and re-established,’ Connoley concluded.

A whodunit by Jamie Wolstenhulme and Charlotte King

(Based on an actual incident last week in the Westgate centre)  

It appeared to be an ordinary afternoon in the Westgate centre: everything in Sports World had 70% off, the Next Clearance Sale once again did a roaring trade in bop costumes and the corridor was full of kids truanting.  But something was amiss.  Without warning, the lives of all those innocent shoppers were suddenly put in grave danger. 

A white shirt on sale in Primark had caught fire. 

Whilst those around him lost their heads, a brave security guard raced over to save the day, throwing the shirt to the ground and stamping out the ferocious blaze.  However, the question on everyone’s lips was, who did it? And why? 

The more gullible among you may assume that this incident ha a simple scientific explanation.  We asked an expert chemist to give his thoughts: 

 “Well, as we all know, the shirts in Primark are made from excellent quality polyester. Polyester is a long chain synthetic fibre comprising of monomer units. This polymeric hydrocarbon chain is a fantastically efficient way of storing energy. All that would be needed to release this energy is the smallest of sparks, say, from a cigarette. If such a spark came in contact with the shirt, the polyester would become a fantastic source of heat and light. It would be in flames in seconds.” 

Very reassuring. But was it possible that the shirts caught fire without the need for such a spark? 

“Ah. Here you are talking about spontaneous combustion.  It is theoretically possible.     If the polyester were to gain enough energy from its surroundings it could reach the required activation energy for ignition and simply burst into flames.  But I would say that this is not very likely.  The thermal energy is much too low to meet the required activation barrier so there is an incredibly low probability of spontaneous combustion.  It was probably a careless cigarette.” 

However, Cherwell24 believes that something more sinister was afoot.  Smoking isn’t even allowed in the Westgate centre.  The idea that it was a careless cigarette is just what the crooks want you to think. So we have compiled a list of alternative explanations.  We leave it to you, dear reader, to decide the truth for yourself. 

1. In the highly charged atmosphere surrounding the controversial invitations to the union debate this week, it is possible that the fire was in fact a pre-meditated political protest.  Early reports that a brown shirt might have been the real target of the conflagration cannot be confirmed or denied. 

2. Another possibility is that an over-zealous fire safety officer might have been assessing the possible risks to public safety in Primark.  In his conscientious attempts to protect the public, he may have unwittingly endangered them.  We can only presume that, whilst the speed that the garment caught fire must have caused him some alarm, the quick thinking of the heroic security guard must surely have reassured him.  With such courageous men on hand we think that Primark is, on balance, a safe place to shop. 

3. Of course, commercial sabotage cannot be ruled out either.  To the delight of students across Oxford, Primark stocks notoriously cheap goods, often undercutting its rivals.  By demonstrating the remarkable capacity of Primark’s shirts to ignite, perhaps another shop was attempting to make us think twice about the quality of its merchandise.  But who would attempt such underhand tactics? Surely not Sports World, purveyor of equally low-priced goods, but operating at a disadvantage being a good 10 yards further into the Westgate Centre. 

4. Reliable sources have also alerted us to another possibility.  On your trips to the shopping Mecca that is the Westgate Centre, you may have noticed a suspicious character lurking around the entrance to Primark.  Barred from actually entering the premises, Curley waits near the entrance, beside the aforementioned shirts, strategically placed to monitor the activities of his shop-assistant girlfriend.  Perhaps, unaware of this observation, Curley’s girlfriend got a little to close to another retail assistant and Curley, in a fit of rage delved into his pocket for his walther PPK replica cigarette lighter.  Blinded by passion Curley may have attempted to sabotage this rendezvous by hurling his cigarette lighter at the oblivious couple.  Being something of a dud shot, this could easily have caught a shirt instead. 

5. But are we all missing something here? Has our attention been unduly captivated by the mystery of the shirt? Perhaps the real cunning lies in the fact that the shirt was nothing more than a distraction.  As it merrily went up in flames, it took the attention of all nearby shoppers and has continued to be the focus of this investigation here. But maybe it was merely a decoy? After all, Thornton’s is directly opposite Primark.  Selling delicious yet extortionately priced chocolates, wouldn’t they be the more likely target of light-fingered dealings? 

So, while we’ve been mulling over the different scenarios that may have caused the conflagration, perhaps the real crooks have been tucking in to their particularly fine selection of Thorntons Continental chocolates.  Or maybe…. it has been us doing both…..  

A number of German news sources, including the leading newspapers Die Zeit and Der Tagesspiegel, have been reporting last night’s Union forum as a “Rassisten-Konferenz”. I don’t think I need to translate.

A quick Google search shows the following uses of that term across the web:

1. Referring to a far-right conference in Russia, posted on The Phora, which appears to be a borderline white supremacist website. I don’t think I’ll link to that…

2. The same event, this time posted on Redskin, which claims to be a left-wing anti-fascist skinheads society. I might pass on the link again…

3. A report on the same far-right conference on an anti-racist information site, Redok.

4. Referring to potential anti-Semitism at the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, in an article on haGalil.com, the largest online Jewish magazine in German.

Talk about misguided association…UPDATE: To add to what was on the BBC last night, Der Spiegel are now reporting that the group of protesters who got inside the debating chamber went behind the piano and started playing Jingle Bells. Apparently at one point Luke Tryl tried to hide behind a group of security guards, and a demonstrator tried to follow after him. When stopped by a policeman, he piped up: "I was just trying to find out if this was the entrance to the comedy club." Fun stuff indeed.

Cherwell 24 is not responsible for the content of external sites

“The Oxford Union believes first and foremost in freedom of speech: nothing more, nothing less.” This assertion, from the Union’s own website, serves to awaken some faint echo of a time when the Union was much more than a socially-elitist drinking club and engaged in debates which not only mattered but set precedents, stirred up intellectual responses, and changed history. I fear, however, that it also provided some kind of impetus for Luke Tryl’s ill-conceived and pathetically executed Free Speech Forum.

Few people would, I believe, disagree that once invitations had been issued to David Irving and Nick Griffin, it was impossible for the Union to rescind them without looking cowardly, ridiculous, and, indeed, against the freedom of speech. In passing, the fact that for many outside the University community, the actions and views of the Union are taken as representative of the entire student body is a sad reflection on the media, eager to play to stereotypes, and an impotent OUSU, unable to convince the wider public that we are not simply a bunch of arrogant ‘toffs’ (incidentally I heard a Labour City Councillor use this word to describe the Union hierarchy at the protest and recoiled from the ham-fisted use of class politics – such a stupid way to weaken the argument).

The whole problem with Tryl’s Forum was the totally confused rationale provided for welcoming two convicted Holocaust deniers into the chamber of the world’s most respected debating society. In his statement to Union members, again from the Union website, Tryl is at pains to point out that “pushing the views of these people underground achieves nothing” and cites Home Office Minister Tony McNulty’s line that the intention should be “to crush these people in debate” (sorry, another parenthetical insert: I read McNulty’s line and heard anti-Fascist protesters screaming “fascist scum” and “smash the BNP”; try googling Himmler, Jews & crush).

Unfortunately, Tryl began this defence by asserting “these people are not being given a platform to extol their views”. Hold on, I thought giving them a platform was the whole point, so we could, metaphorically of course, kick the shit out of them? Wasn’t Dr Evan Harris speaking “to say that no platform policies are wrong”? Tryl’s desperate attempts to explain himself bordered on some sort of rhetorical imitation of the Keystone Cops, rushing around and falling into and over moral justifications and arguments while the villains of the piece, Irving and Griffin, stand around grinning at just how much they’ve got away with.

The point, surely, is that free speech should never have been the issue. In the context of Tryl’s monumental misjudgement, the two opposing positions have major problems: if you limit free speech, you deny yourself the opportunity to expose evil and fallacious opinions and defeat them in measured debate, the whole justification for the exercise; if you do not limit free speech, you seem forced into the position of agreeing with the BNP about their justification to air such views.

The right to freedom of speech does not mean the right to be given a particular platform or venue for abhorrent views. The BNP have the right, which they exercise in the face of strong and fair criticism, to air party political broadcasts and publish political literature; that is the freedom of speech deemed appropriate for a democracy. We must not forget that, however awful much of what they say is, they do represent the views of a thankfully small element of this country. But that right need not be extended any further. A final thought: if Tryl really wanted to expose views and crush in debates, rather than get his fifteen minutes, maybe he should have invited Irving and Griffin to debate the motion “This House believes the Holocaust is a lie”. I imagine they would be a lot slower to jump onto our once-venerated platform then.

Cherwell reports from outside and around the Union on the protests surrounding the free speech forum.

 

On the scene: Selena Wisnom, Tom Carpenter, Dan Millichip and Rhiannon Nicolson

 

See also: Interview with Luke Tryl