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

As Sweeny Todd once said, ‘There’s a hole in the world like a great black pit/and it’s filled with people who are full of shit.’ My inference faculties tell me that he was, in the aforementioned utterance, referring to Cherwell offices. What goes on there might be described as ‘debauched’ if I didn’t find that word repulsive. My serving boy has just informed me that, in a sick reader-seeking stunt, the paper is introducing ‘epileptic fit college’, in which votes are cast on which seizures are most spectacular. This, and many other things like it, lead me to enforce the censorship of the Cherwell newspaper. My very reliable sources inform me that this would not be the first time such a feat has been attempted, and I’m sure with me behind the cause then I’ll finally get some peace.Let’s be straight here, I am an open minded man and have no problem with people writing. However, the approach of this publication seems rotten to the tummy and it must be done away with. For starters, this whole Vice-chancellor feature means that every week someone new is getting into my imaginings and rummaging around looking for things to write about. It is highly disturbing as I try to draft legislation to make Oxford work good. In adjoinment, the news section involves going out and about and telling people what’s happening here and now. What’s with all this up to date bullshit?Everyone knows the ’40s are where it’s at, the focus should be on what was happening then. That time Archibald chewed through a bus…These words on paper then make their way into student rooms in colleges where they are read and discussed by all. This cycle of writing and talking goes round and round getting deeper and deeper until eventually no one is willing to join the army. The journalists stroll about the town with their clipboards and satchels like they’re real people. It’s unnatural, like a toddler eating sushi. I will set about banning this behaviour and making them play with etch-a-sketch instead and swapping their tight little pants for all in ones.I was reading the text on a bargain bucket and Colonel Sanders said he had a dream, he dreams of a world where people go about their business eating wholesome food and enjoying the simple things in life. That sums up perfectly my vision of Oxford, in fact I’m pretty pissed off I didn’t whip that epithet out when giving my little speech to try and make all the ‘profs’ vote Hood. I want the little guys here to do their cute little academic stuff in the days and spend the nights feeding the ducks. These ideas that they publish are twisted and dangerous. No man under forty has thoughts capable of being set to ink. The Greeks had it right- democracy is only for the wrinkly. These little ones need their wings clipping for their own good. Kids: you’re young: live life,  don’t report it.
by Jack Marley-Payne

4/5 You would be forgiven for thinking that the ‘rom com’ has had its day but The Accidental Husband is a little gem. The film is a collaboration between several writers, but Uma Thurman initially began thinking about it ten years ago when she first had the idea of writing a comedy. Although famous for her roles in Tarantino’s films Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, she has long wanted to expand her range to comedy and, in The Accidental Husband, she proves that she has successfully made that transition.The plot sounds somewhat unrealistic. It all centres on Dr. Emma Lloyd (Thurman), a radio love advice guru who helps New Yorkers with affairs of the heart and is author of the book ‘R.E.A.L Love’. She is about to marry her partner Richard (Colin Firth) when she discovers that there is a rather serious complication – she is already married. I want to say hilarity ensues but I found myself caring about the emotional entanglements of the characters amidst the more humorous episodes. Although the plot is flawed at some moments, and at others verges on the ridiculous, there are moments of emotional heart-tugging too.The cohesion between the leading actors is superb and they are helped by a very strong supporting cast including brilliant performances from Isabella Rossellini and Sam Shepard.Even for those who think they have had enough ‘Mr Darcy’, Firth does not disappoint. Despite becoming famous for playing ‘the quintessential English gentleman’, Firth is sick of being typecast in these roles. As he assured me himself at the press conference, he doesn’t really believe that such a man exists or that he is particularly worthy of that title. Those who have come to expect this stereotype will be reassured in The Accidental Husband, where Firth plays Richard with many quirky features, including a penchant for ‘binge eating’ at times of stress.However, just in case Firth is no longer your cup of tea, newcomer Jeffrey Dean Morgan is equally dashing as New York fireman Patrick, the other love interest in the film. Currently seen opposite Hilary Swank in P.S. I Love You, Morgan is a rising celebrity heart-throb but poignantly portrays his character here.I particularly recommend the film to those, like myself, who would normally run a mile from anything where the words ‘romantic’ and ‘comedy’ appear together: It manages to combine both realistic and farcical situations. Thurman is the most adept at offering both these things – pulling off both subtle comedy and slapstick (there is a very amusing ‘cake eating’ scene). The comedy, romance, and yes, Firth as an icon, all work harmoniously in this film. Most of all The Accidental Husband disproves the misguided assumption that American comedy does not know how to do irony or sharp wit.By Rebecca Cooper

The poster says it all. The symbol is the word ‘capital’ being crushed inside a hammer. The slogan: ‘We’ll win the final battle.’ The combination of red and black and large, vibrant lettering is the sign of a campaign that means business. Pictured are black 60s icons from Jimi Hendrix to Malcolm X. There’s a photo of Che Guevara, and another one of Lenin. In one shot, Marx, Engels and Lenin stand proudly, under the slogan: ‘Everyone’s talking about the weather. We’re not.’ The final man pictured is Rudi Dutschke, the voice of the German Left, whose death in 1979, eleven years after surviving an assassination attempt, made him into the martyr of the political revolutionaries.The selection of symbols on the poster advertising this May’s ‘1968 Congress’ is one usually associated with the past — a failed attempt at a revolution. But 40 years after the events of 1968, in Europe’s home of student activism, Germany, the Left are trying to rekindle the spirit. Die Linke (‘The Left’), Germany’s eight-month-old hardline socialist party (they’re closet communists, in reality), has already won seats in four state parliaments in western Germany, as well as occupying 8% of  the federal parliament in Berlin.And the student wing is all the rage. Covering almost every inch of free placard space inside the University of Frankfurt are the slips of paper advertising the conference in Berlin, which aims to bring the ramifications of 1968 into the limelight. At the time of writing, 48 speakers were confirmed, from Marxist academics to contemporary historians. The spirit of 1968 is on its way back.It was the year that saw a new left-wing politics come to Europe. The global ‘liberation’ movement — ranging from the black civil rights campaign in the US to the protests against the Vietnam War — coincided with an uprising in Czechoslovakia in favour of liberalisation, a student revolt in France that led to the fall of Charles de Gaulle’s government and a general shift in cultural values. Few places were influenced more than Germany, where the term ‘‘68er’ is used to define an entire generation captured by the political and social transition.Jan Schalauske, a student activist who ran for Die Linke in January’s state elections in Hesse, says the 1968 movement in Germany was down to the establishment’s inability to break with its fascist past, plus a capitalist society that, in truth, limited individual freedom. ‘Many people who played a role in the Nazi regime were placed in important positions in the Federal Republic,’ he says. ‘And, with the economic miracle, post-war reconstruction and a heavily regulated society, people hardly had any room to move and develop their own personality.’The result of this was an uprising that most British student unions would die for. But the consequences of 1968 were played out more than just in the debating chamber. The anti-capitalist terrorist movement that started in that year and died out finally in the 1990s dominates perceptions of the generation, and still plagues the German Left. Die Linke is under permanent surveillance by the state, thanks to a law protecting the constitution that places any political groups considered extremist as a potential threat to democracy. It all started in April 1968, when a pair of left-wing extremists set fire to two department stores in Frankfurt. In the 30-year history of Germany’s far-left extremist wing that followed, groups kidnapped and killed an employers’ union head, worked with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) to hijack a Lufthansa plane, and, in the notorious operation of 1976, hijacked an Air France flight from Tel Aviv and redirected it to Uganda. Here they singled out 105 Israelis and French Jews on board, who they threatened to kill. And when the Palestinian organisation Black September murdered eleven Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972, Ulrike Meinhof co-authored a document praising the act.The German Left, therefore, has a difficult history to grapple with if it’s going to regain recognition. But insanely, it seems to be doing little grappling. Die Linke has no formal manifesto — just ‘a few open questions’, according to Schalauske — so they have little policy of substance to counteract anything other than what the faction is already associated with. Schalauske, who is helping run the 1968 congress in May, admits that the terror campaign was wrong but finds it ‘wrong to limit 1968 to a discussion of terrorism’.It’s perhaps no wonder that Die Linke, despite its electoral success, is finding it difficult getting accepted by the political establishment. The Social Democrat Party would easily form a ruling majority if it accepted a coalition with the far-left party, but refuses to do this and it seems would rather stay in opposition. But the Social Democrats are split over their views of Die Linke. Klaus Wowereit, the Mayor of Berlin, considered a future candidate for Chancellor, has already formed a coalition with Die Linke in the city, and, according to leading pollster Professor Klaus Kocks, such a coalition on a national level would get Wowereit into power in the Bundestag at the next election. The question is whether they want to put power ahead of a potential shift to the left, and whether the move would put off Social Democrat voters. Die Linke’s members claim to be nothing more than social democrats themselves, but everything about it — the communist credentials of its leader, Lothar Bisky, Marxist intellectual Alex Callinicos’ praise of it as a ‘profound challenge to social democracy’, the pictures of Marx and Stalin on the posters — suggests otherwise.Nevertheless, the Left looks likely only to increase its popularity. A poll last week put it as the top party in eastern Germany, ahead of the mainstream Christian Democrats and Social Democrats. The West, on the other hand, is a very different place from the country it was 30 years ago in the aftermath of the economic miracle. The economy has still not recovered from reunification. Social cohesion is abysmal, Turks live in fear of racially aggravated violence, recognisable Jews can’t safely walk in parts of many cities without danger of attack, and Germany is now one of Europe’s biggest Al-Qaeda hotbeds. Voters are turning to the extremes, with the far-right neo-Nazis and Republicans, as well as the far-left Party for Social Equality, also active. Complete realisation of the ideals that defined 1968 might be beyond reach, but the German Left of that era is still alive, and their goal may be more attainable than some people think.
by Joshua Freedman

Government proposals to introduce new taxes for non-domicile workers living in the UK has created concern among foreign academics at Oxford.Under the new system, currently being championed by the Chancellor, Alastair Darling, non-domiciled residents would have to pay tax to the UK government on their offshore income unless they agree to an annual levy of £30,000.The proposals have caused anxiety in the academic community as critics of the new tax system have argued that it could drive foreign academics back to their home countries, making it harder for university faculties to secure funding and donations from international sources. Oxford’s pool of foreign academics have responded to the news with mixed reactions. Arietta Papaconstantinou, from the Faculty of Oriental Studies, said,“There are number of academics here who come in after having completed their doctorates abroad, so this legislation would certainly affect us.“There have already been problems with this system [non-domicile taxation] in French universities, where  we saw people running from academic bases [after taxes were increased].“This legislation would be very bad for visiting Fellows in the colleges, most of whom are on paid sabbatical leave,” she added.Professor John Muellbauer said that there would be “serious implications for non-domiciles” were the government’s proposals to be introduced.“I imagine there would be some people who would be badly affected by [this tax]. I’d be most worried about the implications for teaching at Oxford, [it] being an international university.”Professor Peyton Young, James Meade Professor of Economics, is an American working at Oxford. He said, “I moved to Britain with the expectation of [tax] arrangements staying the same. It would be a nasty surprise to have the law changed so suddenly and without much thought.”A report in the Financial Times of the 21st February included comments from Julian Birkinshaw, Deputy Dean of the London Business School, who expressed concern that the tax proposals would damage the international composition of academics in the UK. But the report was quickly followed by the publication of a letter from Christopher Joubert, who disagreed with the opinion that the London Business School would be adversely affected by any non-dom taxation.“As an alumnus of the London Business School I am embarrassed by Julian Birkinshaw’s attempt to jump on the non-dom bandwagon by arguing that the school’s standing is threatened by the effect of the proposed taxation arrangements on overseas staff […] The school should be paying its staff post-tax salaries of a level sufficient to attract and retain them, irrespective of their tax status.”Knick Harley, Professor of Economic History at Oxford added, “I doubt it will have any major impact. It certainly didn’t factor in my decision when I took up my post here.“[The proposals] could have an affect if they change the position of donors who might become disenamoured with the UK.”The tax proposals have faced a spate of criticism from the national media. The latest round of debate has focused on the possibility that universities will be short-changed if wealthy non-dom donors decide to leave the country and take their financial support with them.Alastair Darling is expected to unveil the proposals in full as part of his budget next month.Non-Domiciles explainedDaniel M. Feingold
Strategic Tax Planning‘Domicile’ is a legal term which indicates where an individual’s permanent home is located and thereby which national law their personal affairs are subjected to.Someone can claim non-domcile status if their permanent home is not the country in which they are currently working or living.As such, under current legislation, non-domiciles are only liable to be taxed on sources of income and capital gain which they bring into the UK from outside.Assets which remain in their home countries, however, are untouched. The chancellor’s proposals would mean that non-domiciles who have lived in the UK for more than seven tax years would have to face paying a tax on their offshore assets or an annual levy of £30,000.The people who are really going to be affected by this are the very wealthy or the super-rich, who will be able to pay the £30,000 annually as a cheaper option than paying tax.For academics, the real concern is if such welathy people decide to re-locate away from institutions like Oxford and therefore feel less inclined to support or provide donations to the university.”Cherwell News Team

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

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

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

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