The interval: Ryan Hocking decides to take a break Everybody has a favourite moment in a play: some go mad for melodramatic downfalls, some feel their hearts set a-flutter at romantic declarations, some can’t get enough of comic pratfalls. However, for most of us (if we’re honest, at any rate), our absolute favourite moment of any play is accompanied by bright house lights, a comfortingly familiar voice-over, and a chance to spend far too much money on a tiny, tiny tub of ice cream. Yes, it’s the interval. It doesn’t matter how good a play is. If it goes on for long enough, everyone’s dying for an interval (and not just the audience). It gives the actors a chance to re-group, congratulate each other heartily on a ‘Wonderful first half, dahling,’ and to have their greasepaint reapplied. It gives the technical director a chance to try and fix something that isn’t broken, resulting in an unintentionally hilarious start to the next act. It gives the director a chance to scream, shout, and coach the actors frantically, much like the manager of a losing football team.More than anything else, it gives the audience a chance to stretch their legs. Acting is difficult, it’s true, but do we ever ask our beloved thespians to hold a tableau patiently for the entire duration of a play? No, because they’d be chronically arthritic by the time they’d finished one Shakespeare tragedy. Yet the audience has to. It’s true that there aren’t really many places to go in a theatre when you’re not actually watching the play, but the importance of the snack-stall cannot be overstated. Let’s face it, the interval is a little drama all on its own. Ice cream that requires a second mortgage, chocolate bars small enough to lose in your pocket, white wine more acidic than your mother-in-law: what is the snack bar but the third wing, storage place of the most important props? The audience members stop off at the snack bar for a quick break before becoming a cast in a very different kind of theatre: the messy drama of life. During the interval we get to watch the audience become characters interacting, their own complex plots unfolding before our very eyes. The interval is full of quirky little soundbites, couples fighting, people flirting, and – at Oxford at least – thesps gossiping. Ah the interval. A release from the tension of the play, a stage on which audience members play out the drama of their lives. The interval is also an opportunity – to show off about being ever-soknowedgeable about theatre, to chat about which actor is the hottest and which thesp pulled yesterday night. Let’s face it, this is the reason why we come to the theatre. By Ryan Hocking

4/5 O’REILLY THEATRE, KEBLE
TUESDAY-SATURDAY, 8PM Nine actors form the cast of David Hare’s play, Fanshen, but the effect is of a single, shifting character: a collective of Chinese villagers. The crowd veers, chameleon-like, from peaceful cooperative to mob and back again. The village fractures at times into individuals, yet never loses its central identity. The play is set in post-war China. It’s 1946, and the village of Long Bow is undergoing land reform. The village is a microcosm for China, as communism flows into the power vacuum left by the retreating Japanese. Hare bases his play on the notes of William Hinton, an American journalist who spent 7 years in the village. The production is performed in the round. The actors are identically costumed and have no fixed identity. Casting often runs against gender lines or type, adding to the blurring of the individual. The play shines in its visually impressive set pieces, frequently throwing the audience offbalance. The sense of menace is palpable; in one scene, the set is plunged into darkness without warning, and four figures with torches encircle a succession of friezes displaying the torture of the landlords. As the friezes change, the complete darkness, coupled with the sound of heavy breathing, is pretty sinister. The weight of amassed injustice and rage comes across effectively. We also see the political process in action as the peasants probe questions of ownership rights, participation and individual responsibility. These questions are integral to a play whose heart is the exploration of evolving politics, and they certainly contribute a sense of authenticity. The problem is that they are rather boring, and lack the drama and emotional intensity evident in other scenes. An extended debate on ‘who depends on who?’ takes places, complete with blackboards with questions chalked on them. Yet this is a fault of the script, not the direction or staging. The acting ranges from competent to good, with XY Lin as an effective obsequious landlord, and none of the cast putting in weak performances. The emotional intensity makes it worth seeing, even if the over-serious politics drags a bit.By Elizabeth Bennett

Oxford 30 – 25 CambridgeFirst to take their positions on court, Oxford’s Blues netballers dominated from the very first minute of this game. Going from strength to strength as the game progressed, they were confident in each area of the court and showed dogged determination to pull off a convincing and well-deserved Varsity win. When the Cambridge shooter missed a chance after her team had taken the first centre, the home team pounced on an early opportunity to disrupt their opposition. After a few minutes of nervous play from both sides, a terrific interception by Katelin Fuller in the middle of the court set a standard of play that would be maintained until the final whistle. GD Zillah Anderson soon followed suit, pulling off a similarly impressive interception at the back of the court which set the centre court players in motion. Before the Light Blues had a chance to take stock, the ball had flown down the court into the capable hands of the Oxford shooters and the home crowd erupted to cheer the first goal. With the first quarter under way the two teams were fighting hard, but it was Oxford who slowly edged in front. As initial nerves began to settle, Cambridge failed to stamp out careless errors, under constant pressure from the confident Iffley girls. Unable to keep up with the pace of the game, they overthrew the ball which resulted in an Oxford throw-in on more than a few occasions. Holly Woolven did well to keep the Dark Blues settled and fluid in centre court. Coming back on court for the second quarter, the score was 11-6 to the Dark Blues, who again asserted their presence from the whistle – tireless marking in the goal circles saw inspiring interceptions at either end from seasoned Blues Alice Kelly (GK) and Venetia Barrett (GS). It took Cambridge over two and a half minutes to score after taking the first centre pass, and they only managed to slot one more in the net before half time. Oxford, on the other hand, worked the ball up the court with ease, and some fantastic overhead passing to the shooters came up trumps. At half time the Blues had a comfortable lead of 17-8. With renewed vigour, the visitors came out on court in the second half of the match with the finishing ability they had lacked at the start and, having rearranged their shooters, they started to gain on the Dark Blues’ lead. Oxford continued to make interceptions, but a temporary slip in concentration saw some rushed passes, which the Cambridge women capitalised on. However, when the Light Blue GS failed to make a shot just before the whistle, despite having both Oxford’s circle defenders forced to stand by her side, it was clear which team had the winning mentality. Oxford’s early fight had paid off, so despite losing a rather weary third quarter 10-7 they were still in the lead, 24-18. With fifteen minutes to play, the stage was set for a closely fought last quarter. When the visitors deftly slotted two goals in the Dark Blue goal, the lead was narrowed to just 4 goals, and the noise levels of the Iffley crowd rose significantly. GA Lerryn Martin (Player of the Match) shone in this last quarter, helping to bring the ball up into the Oxford circle and pulling off a couple of impressive shots from far out. With 7 minutes to play and 7 goals to pull back, Cambridge’s slim chance of victory was resoundingly denied them, by a display of confident team netball at its best. From determined dodging by the substitute WA Georgina Weetch and WD Leonie Smikle working to move the ball up the court, to jumping for rebounds at both ends of the court, the Oxford women knew exactly what needed to be done. And they did it. The final score of 30-25 topped off an excellent performance from Oxford’s netballers, with the Roos (2nds) winning 41-34 in their match. Unexpected drama at the beginning of this match saw Captain Cat Clark unable to remove an ear piercing and unable to play, so the team that started was composed entirely of Freshers. They coped exceptionally well, however, with Jess Murphy filling the captain’s shoes on court with impressive poise, and Katie Leahy shaping a solid defence. Despite being dangerously close to losing their early lead in the third quarter, the Roos managed to hold their nerve. Thanks to consistent shooting by Player of the Match Rhian Price, they draw ahead in the final quarter to win the match with a convincing seven goal victory. Having had a rather inconsistent season, the Blues went into their match having beaten Cambridge at home but had narrowly lost to them over in the Fens, which put them three points behind their Light Blue rivals in the BUSA league. But, as it has been proven time and again, Varsity is all about being the best team on the day. Whether it was due to meticulous preparation beforehand, unfaultable determination over 60 minutes or pure team spirit, the Oxford squads had it all. Fitter, faster and more agile – they brought all they had, and gave it.by Stephanie Hardwick

When it comes to anything space-related, the UK kinda sucks, or at least pales in comparison to the monopoly of the USA and the deflated yet nevertheless impressive reputation of Russia. Nevertheless, Oxford is doing its bit for planetary exploration, suggesting that even those dear academics we know and love believe in the classic phrase, ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’. A team based at the University has been working in conjunction with NASA on their Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Hardly the most catchy project title of all time, but it’s actually just ever so slightly interesting. Alongside the Americans, Oxford scientists are working on a programme that aims to use infrared cameras to find ice deposits in the craters of the moon. If such deposits are indeed found, then this is the next step in establishing a base on the Moon for future generations. In short, water signifies a sustainable environment, meaning that if the project succeeds, Oxford scientists will be partly responsible for our kids’ kids scurrying around on the surface of the big cheese wheel in the sky, or the honeymoon on the Moon that you’ve always dreamed of. But this isn’t the only space-related venture that Oxford’s been dabbling in. Go one planet along from Earth, and you get to Mars, where even the perfect combo of Oxford and NASA doesn’t always get the best results, as illustrated by the rather miserable failure of the Observer project a while back. Undaunted by this initial lack of success, the boffins came back with a vengeance, eventually creating the Mars Climate Sounder, currently orbiting rather successfully around the red planet. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Oxford scientists are working on the ‘umbilical cord’ for a mechanical ‘mole’, currently being designed to be sent beneath Mars’ surface in order to unveil the secrets which lie below – and just deciphering that mixed metaphor seems like enough work for several PhD students. It doesn’t even stop there, with projects based on Jupiter, Saturn, and even further afield all within the orbit of Oxford’s questing minds.And so it seems that, while the UK may be severely lagging behind the rest of the world when it comes to space exploration, Oxford’s researchers are trying their best to make sure that Britain manages to get on the planetary map. Even if you need a telescope to see it.
by Gareth Peters

4/5 BURTON TAYLOR
TUESDAY-SATURDAY, 7.30PM ‘Babies grow in rubbish,’ states Michael matter-of-factly, explaining how he found a baby on a trash heap, named it Debris and began to care for it. Unlike much of the dusty drama that finds its way onto the stages of Oxford theatres, Debris is a modern play written in 2004 by up-and-coming playwright David Kelly. The play explores the lives of dysfunctional siblings Michael and Michelle, who have a drunken, abusive father and a dead mother. Debris portrays people whose lives are thwarted by their difficult and dysfunctional surroundings. Director Will Maynard has chosen a difficult play, full of lyrical flights and unexpected imagery, and navigates it brilliantly. Despite sometimes tipping into the bizarre or sentimental, the overall result is an intelligently directed, insightfully acted play. This is even more impressive given the inexperienced cast. Michael, played by Matt Malby, has all the nervous, gangly energy of a teenage boy. He really comes alive when discovering the baby; this is awkward teenage tenderness at its most powerful, a deep instinct to protect coming through excellently. Michelle, played by Sarah Milne-Das, is a more balanced character and, although sometimes bland, has flights of anger and fear which are both believable and passionate. Audiences could be bemused by lines like ‘Plant child sucking death through a potato tongue,’ and although Milne-Das does her best, sometimes the bizarre imagery doesn’t quite work. What does, though, is the pair’s poignant relationship as siblings, caught between love and hatred as only siblings can be. This could have been a soap-opera abusive-home scenario, but instead, the play becomes a moving, often surprising, tale of the love and tenderness which can struggle out from tiny cracks in rubbish heaps. By Elen Griffiths

4/5OFS
TUESDAY-SATURDAY, 7.30PM When so many larger-scale Oxford productions play it safe, it’s heartwarming when one sticks its neck out, especially when the risks pay off. Measure for Measure is usually thought of as a ‘problem’ play but its director Pippa Needs has found original and intelligent solutions to its uneasy tragicomic balance. Needs has transposed the setting to the Eastern Bloc’s twilight years, yet thankfully shied away from overly specifying the location. Interpreting the Duke as a Shakespearean Ceau?escu – the Romanian leader who kept control through personality alone – freshens the play’s meditations on authority and reminds us that this is no Solomon we’re dealing with here. Likewise, the news that Vienna’s suburbs are to be ‘plucked down’ conjures up images of the cold concrete slums that still litter the Eastern European landscape. Leo-Marcus Wan is a constant delight to watch as Angelo, exuding an unsettling serpentine energy that enlivens every second he’s onstage. Rather than opting to play him as a vaudeville villain, Wan finds a human side to Angelo’s moral conflict. The best moments are his thrilling exchanges with Isabella. As little more than a virtuous damsel in several different kinds of distress, she is not quite as interesting a character. Nevertheless, in Roseanna Frascona’s hands she has far more vivacity than the writing warrants. These successes are all the more important given how difficult the play must be to pitch. Needs has opted to emphasise its darker undercurrents, but the comedy is clearly there, sometimes to detrimental effect. Liam Wells has good wit and range as Lucio but his (perhaps unintentionally) amusing interruptions would ruin the Angelo/Isabella tension were the two not played so strongly. Few other cast members find the correct balance between making Shakespeare’s dialogue presentable in a modern setting and ‘Ac-Ting’ by ‘Ac-Tors.’ As Escalus, Jack Chedburn is unacceptably flat. More than anything else he seems to be wondering whether he left the oven on, and his scenes drag horribly without the dynamic presence of Wan. Admittedly he wasn’t off book, but he’s going to need a lot of work when Wan and Frascona are so good. It really is an excellently drilled production. Needs is an uncommonly sharp director, with a keen eye for detail and a rare will to explore the full potential of the space. This is that rarest of things: a student Shakespeare show with the nous and daring to breathe some new life into the text. Assuming the Duke, who missed the press preview, is up to standard and that a stage covered in Socialist-Realist posters of Krishna Omkar (for it is he) doesn’t put you off, this should be a cracker.By Max Seddon

Merton College has angered Mansfield and Merton sports teams by announcing the permanent closure of its gym.Rowing teams at both colleges depend on the facilities for their training programmes, but Merton has taken the decision to close the room at the end of Trinity term for health and safety reasons. The decision to close the gym, which is based at the Merton Sports Ground, was taken after consultation with both the University’s Director of Sports and independent health and safety consultants. Tim Softley, the sub-Warden at Merton said, “Considering its legal liabilities, the College has no alternative but to close the facility on a short time-scale.” There are currently no definite plans to provide any alternative facilities for students.Merton JCR and MCR Presidents suggested a series of possible solutions, including the installation of CCTV cameras; additional telephone lines; and strengthening the sign-out arrangements for the use of the facility, to ensure no-one could use it alone. Merton JCR President, Danielle Quinn expressed her disappointment at the decision. “Our two main concerns at the moment are what will be done in the interim, as College hasn’t yet made a firm commitment in that respect, and whether or not they’ll allow Mansfield to use the new facility.“We were surprised that College hadn’t planned to allow Mansfield to use it, considering the level of mutual dependence between the Colleges in terms of fielding teams.” The two Colleges often combine forces to produce joint sports teams.Mansfield JCR President, James Naish, said, “The manner in which the gym was shut is particularly disturbing. If it were not for the Merton JCR President, the weights room would have been shut without any consultation with Mansfield. It hasn’t exactly been the best way of going around things.”
He added, “The College Bursar is looking into the possibility of group membership at Iffley Road University Gyms and expanding gym provision at the Boat Club. I’m confident that a solution can be found – it is only to be hoped that the closure of joint facilities will not be to the detriment of team spirit in future Merton-Mansfield sports teams.”Dan Harvey, a Mansfield rower and one of the many students to be affected by the closure, said, “Closing one of the key training facilities available to the College is bound to have a detrimental impact on Mansfield sport. It is used frequently by many of the College’s sports teams, all of whom will suffer as a result of this action.”  Softley insisted that Merton was doing all it could to find an alternative facility.  He said, “The College is actively and urgently considering plans for a modern fitness room on the main College site, but in view of the need for formal agreements and permissions cannot guarantee to open such a facility within the present calendar year. ” Merton is currently considering the development of a new fitness facility in Rose Lane although the proposed project, should it go ahead, would not be ready for Michaelmas term.

Guy Pewsey talks to Anna Wintour about British fashion, her demanding reputation and the size zero phenomenonThe world of fashion is one of the most, if not the most, changeable industries in the world. Trends come and go, styles ebb and flow, and a single outfit goes from fabulous to heinous in the blink of an eye. And yet, in this fickle industry, there has been one constant: Anna Wintour. The so-called saviour of American Vogue, now in her twentieth year as editor-in chief, Wintour is in the front row of every runway show that matters.Wintour calls from Milan, undoubtedly in between shows. After her recent visit to London Fashion Week, I’m keen to discuss her impressions of this year’s collections at Britain’s only world-class fashion event. Wintour is highly complimentary; ‘I’m constantly amazed by the level of talent there,’ she says, making particular mention of younger designers Chris Kane and Jonathan Saunders. It is the lesser-known names which Wintour sees as London’s strength in comparison with its international competition. ‘I think what’s so great about London Fashion Week – it’s such an opportunity for overseas press and stores to see the new talent,’ says Wintour, ‘and I think that the British Fashion Council could even make more of an effort to make new fashion the raison d’etre.’ Wintour mentions the late Princess Diana as a figure who brought British fashion to the attention of the international press, and suggests that a similar figurehead, ‘someone from the royal family or a prominent politician’, could take more of a leadership role. One can only assume from Ms. Wintour’s track record that when it comes to such instructions, her advice should be taken as law. Her career has seen stints at Harper’s Bazaar, House and Garden, and both British and American Vogue which, in particular, greatly benefited from her Midas touch, transforming what has been described as a stagnant publication into the biggest-selling magazine of its kind. It will come as no surprise that such a feat was achieved through an almost ruthless efficiency, and Wintour seems content to acknowledge that those who may comment on her demanding nature are perfectly correct; ‘I am very demanding,’ she says, but in fashion, nice guys finish last and knowing what you want and how to get it is all part of the job description. Miranda Priestly, the unreasonably severe editor in 2006 blockbuster The Devil Wears Prada, is generally seen as a portrait of Wintour. Nevertheless, Ms. Wintour is comfortable with her reputation, reminding her critics of the dog-eat-dog nature of the fashion world; ‘I can only tell you that I’ve worked with many people for fifteen, twenty years and we’ve survived each other .’Trends on runways across the world are usually limited to the outfits themselves, and yet in recent years it has been impossible to ignore a development concerning the models themselves, the dangerous emergence of the size zero. I ask Wintour for her thoughts, and it is clear that she, perhaps more than anyone else, understands the true hazards of the choice to strive for such a goal; ‘I think it’s a real issue, it’s unfortunate that that these young women aren’t even fully grown yet.’ Wintour personally favours the models who appear ‘vibrant, alive and healthy’, mentioning supermodels Gisele Bundchen and Caroline Trentini as good examples of this healthier type. Wintour is determinedly frank about the size of models; ‘no designer is going to have a girl who’s a size 12 (a British size 16) on the runway’. So what can be done to stop such young girls following in the footsteps of Luisel Ramos, the Uruguayan model who died of self-starvation backstage at a fashion show? Wintour has been vocal in her suggestions, particularly regarding the younger models so popular with designers, and has worked with the CFDA (The Council of Fashion Designers of America) to introduce healthy food at shows and shoots, more favourable scheduling for such models, and the removal of alcohol from areas which underage participants of runway shows occupy. Whether or not such measures will be successful is yet to be seen, but Wintour is hopeful, mentioning this summer’s Olympics as potential motivation for individuals to favour the athletic body before the more emaciated alternative.
Anna Wintour frequently comes under fire for controversial personal choices concerning issues such as the inclusion of fur in American Vogue. On her visit to Oxford though, her main opposition will come from those who find the fashion industry shallow and superficial. Her response is all I have come to expect from our brief conversation; intelligent, defiant and authoritative; ‘Fashion is big business, the biggest business in New York after Wall Street. Last year the fashion industry was worth something like 784 billion dollars, it gives people jobs; it employs 125,000 people in New York alone. It’s a very important global business.’ Whether it’s a matter of being won over by Wintour’s opinions, or stunned into silence by the reputation which precedes her, I, and indeed those who surround her at Vogue, are unlikely to disagree.

Anna Wintour will be coming to the Oxford Union on Tuesday of 7th week