Sunday 14th September 2025
Blog Page 2262

Bumbling Boris

0

As Boris Johnson stepped up to the podium to make his acceptance speech, he stumbled, rather comically, much to the delight of gathered journalists. It’s unsurprising really, and the odd trip-up or awkward comment have dogged Johnson’s image in the media for the last decade (time immemorial, in politics).

 

But, classic episodes of Have I Got News For You aside, what Londoners voted for last Friday was a new mayor, not an entertainer. In the final results, Johnson had a clear lead, finally ousting Ken Livingstone as Labour’s safe choice to guard the capital city.

 

London is its own universe in many ways. It’s ideologically different from every other city in the country, it’s awaiting the Olympic Games in 2012, and it’s the place most readers of this newspaper will end up working in a few years. Therefore, we all agree that London is pretty important. Has the city made the right choice of mayor?

 

In his acceptance speech, Boris did his  best to reassure both those who did and didn’t vote for him. He spoke wittily, eloquently, and even a little inspiringly. ‘Image’ is something Boris will always be able to cope with – he seems almost immune to the personality pitfalls that plague other politicians and has carved an eccentric niche for himself in which he is in fact very comfortable.

 

The efficacy of Boris’s policies is yet to be seen, but he’s been saying the right things for Londoners tetchy about the safety and efficiency of the capital city, though perhaps his goals are perhaps a little over-ambitious. Completely re-furbishing the underground? Putting a stop to knife crime? Making the city healthier? All of these promises sound great, but many doubters are unsure whether Boris can follow them through.

 

I’m sceptical also. But that isn’t really the point. Ken has had his go – and in areas like these he hasn’t exactly come up trumps. Given the choice of staying with Livingstone or going for a completely new approach, I think Londoners, with their reputation for being a dynamic lot, have plumped for Boris: they know, at least, that he’ll do things differently.

 

Of course, the million or so people who didn’t vote for Johnson, including several major media outlets, are unimpressed with the election results. In particular, The Guardian was openly opposed to his mayorial ambitions. Running apocalyptic articles about Boris’s abilities in the lead up to the vote, The Guardian have now published, a little petulantly, a warning that there are ‘100 crucial days’ ahead for the ‘toff’ who is ‘back on top’. Predictable, no?

 

Some of the Guardian’s concerns are legitimate, though. Boris really has to prove himself now, and the time for comedic antics is over. I wouldn’t vote Conservative myself, but I’m not too worried about Johnson’s win. The role of mayor is something he’ll take to with vigour – and that’s what London really needs.

OxFood

0

So delicious they printed it twice.

First Night Review: A Doll’s House

0

If there’s one thing to be said for Northern Stage, they know the value of good advertising, enticing potential viewers to see their production of “A Doll’s House” by branding the Ibsen classic “an emotional rollercoaster.”

And well they might, considering that at the time of its publication in 1879, the story of a wife deciding whether to leave her husband and children was pretty groundbreaking stuff. It is only once inside the Playhouse, however, that we discover the alleged rollercoaster has suffered some kind of rust infestation causing it to grind to a near-halt, leaving you suspended in mid-air with no immediate means of exit. 

This was not entirely the fault of the production. With a half-empty auditorium, there was a definite lack of enthusiasm emanating from the audience which could not have helped to fire up the actors. While the ensuing sense of apathy might well have nourished Ibsen’s penchant for the truly miserable, when combined with the platter of depressing situations with which he presents us, it allowed the tone to sink to new depths.

Tilly Gaunt nevertheless gave an energetic performance as Nora Helmer, the “doll-wife” of the tale. Through her fluttering mannerisms, voice pitching, and graceful movements, Gaunt successfully brought out the humour of the part and Nora’s child-like quality.

This trait, however, was overblown, and at times undermined the character’s strength: her confession to saving her husband’s life, for example, is delivered in a petulant sulk, and as a result the courage revealed in the process was lost upon the audience. 

John Kirk as her husband, Torwald Helmer and Chris Myles as Krogstad also managed to inject some life into their performances, in the process redefining the concept of “the grumpy old man.” Myles took the more sinister route, spitting his threats at Nora with  lashings of venom and just a hint of Bill Sykes.

Kirk, on the other hand, carried out his patriarchal role with a great deal of angry barking. Although the two were convincing, their temper tantrums could have done with some alleviation, especially in the case of Kirk, who leaves one wondering why Nora ever stuck around so long in the first place. 

The most impressive aspect of the production was the direction. Erica Whyman had clearly taken pains to imprint her own, individual stamp on the play, and made the innovative decision to set the play in the 1950s. This aligns the role of women in this decade with that of Ibsen’s time, and helps to bring out the appearance of domestic tranquility, at least on the surface.

Interesting also was the choice to set the stage within the confines of a glass house which effectively conveyed both Nora’s sense of enclosure, and her ability to see beyond the forces which restrict her.    

Despite these novel directorial decisions, the production as a whole does not merit the description of the programme. However, for all those whose curiosity might have been pricked by such sensational marketing, it was worth surrendering a Thursday evening. 
 

First night review: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

0

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern may be dead but Krishna Omkar’s lively production is far from it. As the show begins, the sunlight, which flows downwards into the O’Reilly theatre is blocked off by the lofty shutters and so the viewers are plunged into the gloomy sub-reality of the play.

 

The black and white setting of the chessboard stage conveys well the powerlessness felt by the main characters, pawns in this game, doomed from the outset by their Shakespearean precursors.


Guildenstern (William Spray) begins to pursue his questions of identity and reality in protracted musings delivered in a dry and lofty yet intense persona. As he builds into his performance, his sharp changes of mood and volume, touching on the aggressive, convey his anxieties and command attention.

 

Rosencrantz (Liam Wells), while the less troubled of the duo, delivers a more energetic, although controlled performance, bringing life to the stage. The coupling is a success, with genuine engagement between the two actors adding to the overall fluctuating chemistry of the relationship.

 

Tom Carlisle also shines, in what is a belting performance as ‘the player’, developing an aloof style which he applies with versatility to his changing fortune in the ideological battle between fiction and reality.


It is this tension in the plot which helps make it a success with every character at risk of being fictionalized. The use of Hamlet’s play within a play within this show gives it an extra layer of reference (becoming meta-meta-theatre?).

 

Clever use of light gives extra meaning: the brilliant white for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s strivings for answers suggests clarity is present in their uncertainty. By contrast, scenes relating to the parent play’s plot are undermined by the dimmer sepia yellow, rendering the familiar uncomfortable.


If the audience watch this show with detatchment, they risk leaving having enjoyed only mild intellectual flattery to the extent they follow Stoppard’s witticisms. Krishna Omkar’s production clinches this aspect: making the audience face each other from opposing blocks, they sit at the fringes of the characters’ perception and are asked to rethink whether they are the spectators or the spectated.

 

Through this they also share their response, which, promisingly, consists of much laughter and enthusiastic applause, with each other. At the close of the show the audience find the play’s unsettling and surreal gloom has seeped into the night and haunts their homeward steps.

 

Four stars.

Balliol burglar may be student

0

The man escaped while a porter called the police.

Police are appealing for help after a burglar was stopped from stealing electrical equipment from Balliol College.

At around midnight on Friday 29 February, a college porter stopped a man (shown in the CCTV image above) after he noticed a bulge under his jacket and a cable hanging out of it.

The man handed over the Digibox and DVD player he had been concealing, but escaped before the porter could call the police.

Police spokesman Toby Shergold suggested that the burglar may be a member of the University.

‘One line of enquiry is that he is a student himself,’ he said.

Anyone with information on the CCTV image is asked to call DC Louise Tompkins on 08458 505505 or Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111.

The Futureheads – “This is not the world”

0

{nomultithumb}

This is the latest album from Sunderland-based post-punk group The Futureheads and… it’s self-released.

That’s right – after being dropped from their label due to the poor sales of News and Tributes, they set up their own label, nul records so as not to deprive the world of their sound.

I can tell that fans will be clamouring to see whether This Is Not The World amounts to more than nothing.

The best–known track on the album is undoubtably ‘The Beginning Of The Twist’, which has received considerable airplay. ‘Broke Up The Time’ was also available as a free download.

Both of these songs are fairly standard Futureheads fare – big guitars, awesome harmonies and slightly incomprehensible lyrics. The problem is that they’ve made a Kaiser Chiefs–esque attempt to move away from the stylings that some might call novelty.

Unfortunately, with The Futureheads, this has basically stripped them of what made them unique. The oohs are gone, as are many of the more unusual riffs, leaving a bland middle–of–the–road album.

This is okay for the first few songs, but then I found myself longing for a slower song to break things up a bit. The rest of the album just merged together into a generic indie sound.

Now, I do have it on good authority that this music sounds good live, so I will just say: give them a chance if they’re playing a venue near you.

The album isn’t bad, it’s just that it doesn’t knock your socks off, as some of their earlier songs did.

And to be frank, when the best a band can do is a cover of a Kate Bush track, it might be time to call it a day.

In this writer’s opinion, The Futureheads should stop dragging their feet and admit that their best work is in the past.

Interview: Mystery Jets

0

The Zodiac is full of anticipation. A gaggle of giddy school–girls clamour in front of the stage.

Those of us who are more reserved are just as excited. We await the return of Eel Pie Island’s finest – the Mystery Jets.

As the reverberating air raid siren that opens their new album Twenty One blasts out of the speakers, it’s obvious we’re in for a rollicking performance.

‘We were a bit worried about the siren’, frontman Blaine Harrison tells me prior to the gig. ‘We wanted something that when it came on, you knew exactly what record it is.’

‘I really didn’t want to do it’, drummer Kapil Trivedi points out. ‘Even our producer was a bit like “I dunno, is it Nu-Rave?” But to me it’s Cold War, not Nu-Rave. It’s just one of those sounds that alerts people’.

The band have not been averse to alerting people of late, what with their reappearance on the music map with a much poppier sound, but having lost Blaine’s father and founding member Henry Harrison.

The decision to carry on without him was mutual, however.

‘We all thought we need to spread our wings a bit and take control’ says Blaine, ‘And Henry said from the start there’d come a time where we’d need to take the reins.’

Henry was still intrinsic to the recording process however, as was up–and–coming DJ–turned–producer Erol Alkan. I asked the band how they got him on board.

‘We camped outside his house, kidnapped his wife, held her at ransom’, Kapil explains with sincerity.

Blaine is more effusive; ‘We were basically like fanboys, but he was a fan of us as well. He brought a lot of enthusiasm and seemed to be the only one who could bring us all together. He was adamant he’d bring our sound out of ourselves’.

‘And be Erol Alkan the producer, not Erol Alkan the DJ’, Kapil adds.

Without Henry on stage the band have a much more youthful aesthetic, which better suits songs like the undoubted single of the year ‘Young Love’.

It’s a credit to the band that even without the dreamy, drowsy vocals of Laura Marling the song loses none of its frothy pleasure.

Other new tracks such as ‘First To Know’ and ‘Half In Love With Elizabeth’ are despatched with a tightness which belies their relative freshness.

Even older tunes like ‘The Boy Who Ran Away’ and ‘Diamonds In The Dark’ benefit from this new sense of focus.

Blaine explains, ‘I still love the first album. It’s the sound of a band who were trying to do so many things at the same time. What we worked out on the second album was to do that, but over several albums, not in three minutes of one song’.

The only disappointment of the night was the lack of the Mystery Jets’ stunning pastel suits, which were worn in the hilarious video for just–the–right–side–of–80s–pastiche ‘Two Doors Down’.

Apparently remonstrations from their management mean they cannot treat everyone to a dazzling display of authentic Turkish wedding attire.

However, such petty grievances are soon forgotten as the set ends with barnstorming renditions of fan favourites ‘You Can’t Fool Me Dennis’ and the ever–chanted ‘Zoo Time’.

It is a performance from a group who have matured and found their voice while retaining the ability to put on a frenetic show. As Kapil informs me, ‘You know it’s been a good gig when you have to scrape the kids off the walls.’

Indeed, the Zodiac staff will be extracting jubilant youths from the plasterboard for days.

All that glitters

0

Not for the faint of heart, this season’s dresses are as glamorous as they come, clinging like beautiful crocodilian skins and sparkling like diamonds, and if you don’t embrace it you’re going to feel seriously underdressed. All dresses by Posh frocks.

Stylist: Kate Shouesmith
Models: Sonia Szamocki and Nicki Lynch
Photographer: Derek Tan

Crease and quiet

0

Today I caught a butterfly with my bare hands. Searching for it among scraps of paper, I came across a veritable jungle of origami: lions, roses, dragons, elephants and scorpions tumbled out of Sara Adams’ cardboard box, to crouch on the grass of Wadham gardens.

Sara Adams is head of the Oxford Origami Society, and a student at Exeter College reading Computer Sciences. An origami virgin when she came to Oxford University, Sara quickly learned to love the crease. She now leads paper-folding sessions every Thursday afternoon at Exeter, and really enjoyed displaying the society’s origami at Lincoln college last term. ‘I don’t display the origami in my room, because my  room is really small.’

This amiable, auburn-haired graduate is carrying a box spilling over with colourful models. Sara is just the right person to introduce Cherwell’s culture editors to the art of origami. During twenty minutes of painstaking paper folding, Sara taught Michael and myself how to create a butterfly from a single square sheet.

‘Origami helps me relax, it helps me energise,’ she says. After our very relaxing afternoon, spent turning paper features into origami creatures, I would definitely agree. I found origami very soothing and rewarding: a great way to relieve exam stress. Let’s face it, revision would be a lot more fun if my notes were in the form of paper dragons.

Sara Adams agrees that origami is a great way to relax, away from academic work: ‘with research you don’t see results quickly, do you? But when you start folding paper, you can create something really quickly.’

It is this act of creation, of playing God with mini paper creatures, which makes origami so attractive. ‘You can make things which you think are impossible,’ Sara enthuses, showing us a model with three weirdly intertwining rectangles. It looks like something out of Escher.

Origami is not your average, do-it-in-your-bedroom-when-you’re-bored kind of activity, however. It relies heavily on mathematics and its techniques are used in areas of engineering such as satellites and space travel. For example, the airbags in cars are designed using origami methods of folding to fit into a really small space and expand rapidly when necessary.

Origami can also be exceptionally complicated; according to Sara, ‘models can have five hundred or a thousand steps and involve several hours of folding.’ Physicist and origami theorist Robert J. Lang has written a computer program, dubbed TreeProgram, which will design an origami model and its crease pattern to fit a personal specification.

It is this fusion of mathematical foundation and creative spirit which makes origami so unique. Bridging the gap between art and science, and easy to engage in anywhere, origami is one of the most democratic, inoffensive hobbies around. The word origami originally comes from Japanese: ori meaning paper and gami meaning folding. The art is practised around the world, although it was particularly popularised by Japan.  As Sara tells me: ‘in Japan they take it really seriously. They have televised competitions of who’s the best at origami.’

Origami is a seriously versatile hobby, and more popular than you might think. Folding paper is a natural instinct in people; think of children making paper boats and hats and students rolling cigarettes and sweet papers. 

Origami works with a lot of different materials: wrapping paper, newspaper, special origami paper and even aluminium foil. It can also be tailored to fit individual interests: for example, smokers might enjoy the model of a packet with individual cigarettes made from a single sheet of paper.

And let’s face it, everybody has their favourites. I was particularly enthused by a model of a Welsh dragon, whilst Michael liked a piece of origami which rotates, ‘because you can play with it.’ Sara’s favourite model was one of a scorpion, and she prefers to fold  complicated models from single sheets of paper.

After admiring the convolute of colourful creations which lay in a heap at Sara’s feet, it was time to get started on our own origami experience. Michael and I try to carefully fold and crease, performing every instruction with a zen-like state of concentration. Even so, I still manage to mess up my model, so that Sara has to adapt her instructions to fit my hybrid creation.

‘Do people swear when they’re doing origami?’ I ask, frustrated. Michael smirks when I lose my way, and I am reduced to biting my tongue as I make mistake after ugly mistake.

It’s not looking pretty. Soon my paper has become a heap of quivering shapes. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, look like a butterfly. Even the photographer, Hector Durham, smirks: ‘You should stop bossing everyone about and focus on the origami, the true art.’ I pull a face, which he unfortunately catches on camera. I think I’ll stick to writing; folding paper is too much like hard work.

However, in spite of my amateur errors, by the end my butterfly looks significantly better than Michael’s. Mine is elegant, floating, a regal golden king of a creature. Michael’s on the other hand is a pink, lurid puff of a butterfly. Now it’s my turn to smirk.

Hi, I’m a human

0

Hi, I’m Peter Bowden. The one in that picture above. I’m a human. This may not be quite clear from the picture, which might as well just be an ugly potato in a hairstorm; but I am human, and if anyone doubts this, I have certificates. If you poison me, I presumably die, and if you prick me, it’s genuinely quite messy. As a human – a bit like you, except I’m probably the only person to hate me more than my readership do – I make mistakes. 

You’re shocked; most of you are thinking, “But you’re Peter Bowden! A student columnist! You shatter worlds with a well-placed keystroke!” No: I fail, just like you. I forget the names of half my friends, and the faces of the rest. I use the word “gay” twenty-six times in a single column, and expect it to get printed. Where you have emotional intimacy, I have Virtua Tennis 2. And failure hurts; that’s the point of it. But without failure, everything else is pointless. Without failure, Cool Runnings would be a rubbish film. Without failure, Larkin would have nothing to write about, and would scour townside gutters for mislaid pennies. He couldn’t fail there, obviously, so he’d make a decent living, but that’s not the point. He’d be wasted.

This term, for the first time, every Cherwell article’s gone online, open to the anonymous commentary of every passing malcontent with a ground axe to fling. Imagine an army of blank-faced ghosts standing outside your house to yell “twat” whenever a window opens; that’s the Internet. So I’ve been forced to accept a little failure in everything I write; but most importantly, I’ve learned to embrace it. We’ll always fail a little, because, as I now realise, it’s impossible to please everyone. 

In Oxford journalism, write about Oxford, and you can barely avoid being a compendium of punting-spires clichés; write about the outside world, and you’re “irrelevant”. Keep things locked on the formal logic, and you’re a lecturer; slip off slightly, and you’re a “shite journalist”. An analogy: it’s like a tightrope. But one surrounded by razorblades, so if you even so much as stifle a wobble, you’ve accidentally sliced off your shins. And it happens in everything: no matter who you are or what you do, on some level, you’re going to fail. 

But if only we listened to every snagging doubt on the way, we’d never do anything. Just listen to my mental monologue: “Were the razorblades necessary? Why did we do this at all? This is all far too introverted for student papers. Should’ve stuck with the Killing Tories piece, that might’ve had jokes. Why am I here? Let’s run to Edinburgh and grow a beard.” Yet, learning to fail liberates us. Let’s all stop caring. Prepare to fail, and you’ve prepared for anything.