After the success of 2003’sscreening, OxShorts, acollection of four shortstudent films, is back.Bollocks, some mightthink: more pretentious ‘ooh lookI’m filming a pidgeon flying over theRad Cam in black and white’ crapfrom English students who’ve beenwatching too much Tarkovsky andTruffaut. Hallelujah, others wouldsay (including myself ): finally, wehave another event outside of FilmCuppers in which student film is represented,however pompous or howeverstunning it turns out to be.The most eye-catching of the filmsis Sam Leifer and J van Tulleken’sdazzling animation, The UnsteadyChough. When at Oxford, MontyPython’s Terry Jones wrote a shortcomic poem about a boozing bird(an avain version of Sebastian Flyte)from Teddy Hall, animated here withCGI, cut-out photographs and cartoonbackgrounds. The quirky resultcomplements the rowdy tone of thepoem, read to us by none other thanJones himself. An infectiously funnyshort, which was deservedly shortlistedfor the 2004 BBC Best Newcomerin Animation award.Thomas Maine’s mockumentaryPunters focuses on another eccentricindulgence of Oxford life: thatcurious pastime of lazily propellingshallow boats down a river with bigwooden poles. Maine injects a humouroustwist by parodying TheBlair Witch Project. Four students,we read at the start, once attemptedto punt fifty miles up the Cherwellto its source. They were neverfound again. Featuring diary-shots ofsoaked Oxonians (“We’ve been tryingto outrun a storm for the last twohours”) Punters is as funny and idiosyncraticas the pursuit it follows.Equally eccentric, yet less amusinglyso, is Stephan Littger’s Memoriesof a Sick Mind. This black comedyfollows a mentally ill man forced tofind a wife before his mother’s death,or the fortune she holds goes to herbeloved cat. The concept is admirablyoddball and the film is well executed.However, it is peppered with tiredmotifs (albeit used self-consciously),such as the horrific cackling of anold lady, and irritatingly punctuatedby redundant shots of insects on thepavement or calendars moving ingusts of wind. Proof that the best studentfilms are the simplest ones.Matt Green and Duncan Brown’sLe Cauchemar de l’Homme Noiret-Blanc (which won the 2004 FilmCuppers) is the exception to thisrule, being as complex as it is inventiveand hilarious. Shot in the styleof a 1920s silent film, it follows ayoung wannabe film-maker who getsembroiled in a sordid tale of murder,obsession and furry animal torture.If this sounds bizarre, that’s because,well, it is. But with fantastic visualsand a darkly comic undertone, this isbizarre in the best possible way.OxShorts is exactly what our studentfilm scene needs: a non-competetivescreening environment thatencourages student film-making ofall sorts. The evening will also featurea talk by director and Oxford alumniKen Loach, and a fifth ‘surprise’ filmthat was tantalisingly withheld fromme. The only thing that the Oxfordfilm scene needs now is an appreciativeaudience. Yes, that means you.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Small screen
RomeBBC 22 November 9pmBleak HouseBBC 13 November 8pmThis week sees the start of notone but two period pieceson the BBC, both of whichwill appeal to those critics bemoaningthe lack of quality drama on ourscreens. Rome, a big-budget HBOproduction, is a dramatisation ofthe power struggles prominent atthe birth of the Roman Empire.With the largest standing film setin the world, a wardrobe comprisingof over four thousand pieces and ascene in which seven hundred andfifty actors were used, this is certainlya series on an epic scale. Thereis a praiseworthy sense of historicalaccuracy and many striking battlesequences, which convey the violentpassions of those fighting for powerin the turbulent events described.The style of these scenes is howeverextremely graphic, and togetherwith other moments, such asan animal sacrifice, they contributeto a feeling that squeamish viewerswould be well advised to steer clearof the series altogether.The first episode also has a lackof clarity, a likely source of confusionfor many viewers. It is perhapsa programme best watched with aclassicist on hand to fill in all thosedetails it seems we are expected toknow already.Nevertheless, the acting here isfor the most part of a high standard,and the subject matter is veryengaging, if somewhat violent. Thisis a refreshing piece of history-basedprogramming from the BBC and awelcome relief from the barrage ofNazi-based war films which seem todominate the genre. The choice of adramatisation as opposed to a documentaryis effective in making thesubject matter more accessible andexciting, and overall this is a serieswith the potential to be a big successfor the BBC.Less graphic in style, but no lessfascinating in content, is the majoradaptation of the Victorian classicBleak House. Intended to reflectDickens’ wish for his originalnovel to be printed in serial format,the BBC is broadcasting the dramain half hour long episodes, to beshown twice a week. Indeed, thisseries does, on the whole, seem tostay true to the book from whichit came, despite certain changesdeemed necessary for the shift inmedium.The evocation of Victorian Londonis effective, and the acting,which includes many superb individualperformances, is of a highenough standard to do justice to thecomplexity of Dickens’ charcters.Denis Lawson leads the cast as JohnJarndyce, the sensitive and caringfather figure, and is supported bya host of stars who put in excellentcameos. A number of namesfrom the world of comedy appear,including Johnny Vegas who is surprisinglyadept in his portrayal ofKrook. Matthew Kelly also deservesa mention for the humour he bringsto the role of Mr Turveydrop, a classicDickensian larger-than-life character.This adaptation possesses the claritylacking in Rome, being easy tofollow, even for an audience unfamiliarwith the original book. Onecriticism might be aimed at certainartistic effects the director employs,which seem unnecessary and ineffective.The occasional musical interventionsand bouts of cameratrickery jar against the Victorianbackdrop of the piece and are notonly distracting, but also inappropriatefor what is otherwise a conventionalperiod drama.This is only a minor flaw, and itshould not detract from the factthat this remains a well directed andwell performed dramatisation, withwhich one could imagine Dickenshimself would have been pleased.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Saraband
Sarabanddir, Ingmar Bergman,out now: Ingmar Bergman, after nearly twenty years of silence, has spoken again, with a new film,Saraband, showing at the National Film Theatre throughout next week. Even during his 1950s heyday, Bergman, most famous for The Seventh Seal (1957), must have cut a striking, if somewhat daunting, figure. Spiritual to the point of theological, his films seemed to spring directly from the existential crises of late 19th century European literature and philosophy. Yet his ability to craft visual images that swiftly acquired iconic status marked him out as a true master in the age of cinema.Originally made for Swedish television two years ago, Saraband picks up from where Scenes From a Marriage (1973) left off. Divided into ten dialogues between four characters, the film opens with a monologue from Marianne (played with beautifully fraught serenity by the director’s erstwhile muse, Liv Ullmann), who declares her intention to visit her elderly former husband Johan (Erland Josephson). Arriving at his rural retreat, she soon discovers that he is embroiled in the traumatic fallout from the death of Anna, wife of his estranged son, Henrik (Borjhe Ahlstedt). Henrik’s obsessive love for his wife is now directed to his 19 year old daughter, Karin (JuliaDufvenius). A prodigiously gifted cellist, Karin comes to realise that her father’s stifling attentions have crushed rather than nurtured her talents, and her attempts to escape him constitute the chief narrative thread.That Bergman, 86, is still alive and making feature-length films in the 21st century might be seenby some as achievement enough. Given this feat of endurance, it’s possible that anything he produces might be swamped by the audience’s gratitude, the work’s artistic merits meaning less than the simple fact of the film’s existence. Happily, Saraband is much more than a museum piece. The dialogue occasionally feels staged, but more often it gives way to the claustrophobiclyricism that is often to be found in the work of Bergman’s successors, such as Lars von Triers. It is as Bergman’s final statement, though, that Saraband will ultimately be viewed. Johan and Marianne’s exchanges add humour and credibility to the weighty themes of mortality and forbidden love, familiar to Bergman fans. When Johan claims that he now has the answer sheet for his life, one almost gets the sense that Bergman has shifted the goalposts, cheekily allowinghimself the vantage point of a dead man, from which he can not only articulate his last thoughts but also satisfyingly close one of the most remarkable careers in the history of cinema.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Documents about a documentary film festival
When I first heard about theOxdox festival, I couldn’tbelieve my ears: a week ofhundreds of documentary films frommore than thirty countries, showingin five different locations aroundOxford, featuring post-screeningtalks with directors, dancing interludes,video-tech booths, performingmonkeys (a slight embellishment,perhaps, but not out of thequestion), photographic exhibitions,new directors’ workshops, localschools’ film projects. Just scanningthe website makes you dizzy. Aftera much-needed lie-down in a darkenedroom, I launched my plan ofattack to navigate the overwhelmingprogramme of films and events.One cannot fault the ambition ofthe festival, which in its third yearhas struck an impressive balance betweenhonouring some of the genre’smost celebrated directors and promotingthe unsung champions ofdocumentary film-making in 2005.It features a retrospective of the filmsof Nicholas Philibert, perhaps bestknown for Etre et Avoir (2002), alow-key feature documenting theminutiae of everyday life in an infantschool in rural France, whichhas grown to be France’s most successfuldocumentary of all time. Philibertis present for post-screeningdiscussions of his films, as is Britishdirector Michael Grigsby, whose televisiondocumentaries have enjoyedwide acclaim since the 1960s, andKim Longinotto, prominent amonga burgeoning set of female documentarymakers in the UK.Such famous faces are not the onlycause for excitement, however, as thelesser-known films, despite their sundrysubjects and locations, all have incommon not only a duty to informbut a desire to entertain. The festivaloccurs at a curious juncture in theworld of documentary film-making,for both the big screen and the small.The recent boost in popularity of thedocumentary underscores the growingcommon desire for immediatelyself-reflexive art, a knee-jerk culturalresponse in the west to the shock of9/11 and one that has been fuelled inno small part by tabloid scaremongering.The result has seen the qualityand popularity of documentary filmsin the past few years surge in a directlyinverse proportion, explaining theunmerited success of US sensationalistand often propagandist filmssuch as Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit9/11 (2004) and Morgan Spurlock’sSuper Size Me (2004). These filmsserved respectively to impart two little-known gems of wisdom to theirviewers: firstly, that Bush fellow reallyisn’t the brightest button in thebox, and secondly, it turns out thatthe human body doesn’t take well tosubsisting only on McDonald’s finesthydrogenated vegetable fat andcow offal.Thankfully, the Oxdox programmeis wholeheartedly bucking the mainstreamtrend towards such opportunistand uninformative documentarieswith a series of films that offerall that the viewer expects and more.British director Paul O’Connor’sfilm The Only Clown in the Village,for example, purports to serveas a reminder of the continuing andlong-lasting devastation in the areashit by the Asian tsunami last Christmas,the initial blanket media coverageof which has since slowly fizzledout. The film more than fills its brief,however; in addition to its commitmentto such a worthy cause, thrownin is a touching and funny portrait ofthe young Kingsley Perera, the onlyAsian clown registered in Britain,who travels to Sri Lanka to offer hishumble services as an entertainer tothe victims of the disaster, and to rediscoverhis roots.Like all the films I have seen in thefestival so far, O’Connor’s is pervadedby a universal spirit of good humourwhich is both disarming andhumbling to the viewer, given howconspicuously it belies the gravityand hardship of the situation that theindividuals and communities portrayedfind themselves in. Furthermore,the directors featured in Oxdoxappear refreshingly without ego,again unlike the self-serving style ofMichael Moore. This is an approachLonginotto favours in her new filmSisters In Law, depicting the experiencesof female judges in the highlypatriarchal West African society, inwhich she aims for an ’un-authored’vision of a ’universal story’. This descriptioncould well be applied to allof the films in the festival, a welcomethought given the warning from thepromotional blurb which has beenringing in my ears this week: “youwill need to see at least 12 films a daynot to miss out!”Oxdox runs until Friday 28 October.For further information see www.oxdox.comARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Culture Vulture
Ronald Syme LecturesProf. David Mattingly‘Vulgar & Ugly’ Roman Imperialism21 OctoberAll over Oxford this week, TV roomswill be occupied by classicists in eageranticipation of the new BBC drama,Rome, with all the opportunities itwill provide for the quibbling whichconstitutes such an enjoyable part ofstudying Classics. This drama hopesto capture the contrasts inherent inlate republican Rome, and it is thisdichotomy within the empire, betweenthe glassy magnificence of theforum and the slums of the street,which formed a key part of ProfessorDavid Mattingly’s lecture.Speaking to a capacity audience atWolfson College hall, Professor Mattinglypresented the 2005 RonaldSyme lecture, held in commemorationof the great Roman historianRonald Syme. His damning criticismof the concept of blanket Romanisationas ‘vulgar and ugly’ providedProfessor Mattingly not just with histitle, but also much of his inspiration.Professor Mattingly convincinglyargued that the concept of ‘Romanisation’is an outdated one, colouredby our own colonial past andincapable of comprehending the truecomplexity of culture in the Romanworld. Instead he claimed that a newapproach to Roman culture is needed,which analyses a broad spectrum ofevidence drawn from throughout thegeography and society of the empire.This was an expression of his theoryof ‘divergent experience’ in which hesought to discuss the many responsesto empire, on the part of both theconqueror and the conquered,revealing the darker side of Romanimperialism.Yet despite the considerable intrinsicinterest of his lecture, one cannotescape the feeling that ProfessorMattingly’s theory is by no meansas innovative and revolutionary ashe claims. Historians such as GregWoolf have for several years nowbeen discussing the question ofdivergent experience, and have longrecognised the damage done by ourown colonial past to the historiographyof antiquity. Seen in this contextProfessor Mattingly does not havethe air of one breaking fresh ground,but rather of one restating a neworthodoxy.In style his lecture could be bestdescribed as competent rather thaninspired. While nobody expects arespected academic to start throwingsweets into the audience, a greaterattempt to avoid the appearance ofsimply reading a thesis aloud wouldhave increased the impact of hislecture.Overall, Professor Mattingly’slecture was well thought out andcontained several interesting andsignificant concepts. I do not feelthat this was a bad lecture; indeedI enjoyed it, but with a little morepolish it could have been far better.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Books
On BeautyZadie SmithHamish HamiltonIn a note at the end of her latest novel, On Beauty, Zadie Smith writes, “My largest structural debt should be obvious to any EM Forster fan; suffice it to say he gave me a classy old frame, which I covered with new material as best I could.” However, her writing, with its panoramic scope and unnerving eye for detail, perhaps most resembles not EM Forster, but Tom Wolfe. Specifically, Smith shares Wolfe’s penchant for all-encompassing inclusion, turning her gaze toeveryone from Haitian men selling fake designer handbags to the highest echelons of elite academic institutions in her newest novel. Unfortunately, while powers of description are comparable to those of Wolfe, her writing also shares some of his weaknesses. Smith tries to describe everyone and everything and as a result some of her many themes – race, Rembrandt, the nature of beauty – get lost amid the myriad details and descriptions of her characters.The novel focuses mainly on the Belseys, a family living in Massachusetts. Howard Belsey is a white Englishman who teaches Art History at Wellington, a fictional version of an elite American liberal arts college. He is also an adulterer who, just out of a disastrous relationship with a colleague, is trying to finish his long-due book on Rembrandt and make peace with his wife Kiki, a 250-pound black Floridian. Their three children, Jerome, a devout Christian, Zora, amilitant feminist in her second year at Wellington, and Levi, a teenager who feels lost in the academic world of his family, all have problems and concerns of their own. The plot then splits into a number of different stories, as the characters struggle to reconcile their lives and attempt to reconnect with each other. However, if this multiplicity of scope is the novel’s great asset, it is also perhaps its greatest weakness. Smith tries to do and describe too much and as a result her insights about life are less clearly expressed than they might have been in a simpler novel. Nevertheless, Smith’s eye for descriptive detail and lyrical, often quite humourous descriptions make On Beauty a novel well worth reading.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Turner would turn over in his grave
From now until the 22 January 2006, Tate Britain will be playing host to an exhibition of the shortlisted artists for the Turner Prize. Ever a magnet for controversy, the prize has previously offered such spectacles as Damien Hirst’s Mother and Child, Divided (you know the one; pickled, bisected cow carcasses) and Tracey Emin’s My Bed. These, whatever else may be said about them, were certainly memorable. But just what is the Turner Prize out to prove?It was remarked by GS Whittet, in a letter to the Observer in 1984, the year of the prize’s inception, that “Turner must be rotating in his grave at the prize given in his name by the Tate gallery”. Yet, while a man of Joseph Turner’s era would indeed be somewhat bemusedby a prize which rewards the efforts of a transvestite potter (Grayson Perry, winner of the prize in 2003) and an artist who presents for exhibition an empty room with The Lights Going On and Off (Martin Creed, winner in 2001), Turner himself was by no means an uncontroversial figure in his day. His earlier works in oils received heavy criticism and his later style, so admired by the likes of John Ruskin, was nonetheless frequently ridiculed. Perhaps Turner would feel more empathy with the bearers of his prize than Whittet and others have given him credit for.The most traditional and simultaneously most controversial offerings on this year’s shortlist come from Gillian Carnegie, nominated for her solo exhibition at Cabinet, London. Her paintings, embracing the respected and quietly reassuring categories of still life, landscape, the figure and portraiture, reveal their artist as technically astute and almost certainly safe from the accusingcries of “I could do that!” which are so often and so easily uttered by many a spectator of modern art. Even Carnegie though, recluse as she is, still manages to create a stir, choosing as the subject for one series of paintings a discreetly anonymous posterior. Her peers on the shortlist are producers of the conceptual kind of art more generally associated with the Turner Prize. Damien Almond works in mixed media with film, photography, sculpture and real-time satellite broadcasts, exploring time and its effects. While not in any sense shocking, the works do raise questions about where the line should be drawn between traditional visual arts and film and have been the subject of much debate. The breadth of artistic approaches which the prize encompasses can be seen in the diverse concepts behind the works of Simon Starling and JimLambie, nominated respectively for solo exhibitions at The Modern Institute, Glasgow and the Fundació Joan Miró, Barcelona and at Anton Kern Gallery, New York, and Sadie Coles HQ, London. The former describes his work as “the physical manifestation of a thought process”, while for the Lambie, it is the sensory pleasure of his installations which takes precedence over any intellectual response that it may reflect or generate.We might well ask ourselves just what the point is of having artists of such varied techniques in competition for the same prize, but it is perhaps not the idea of a single or outright winnerwhich is at the heart of what this prize is about. The competitors’ works this year are by no means as controversial as previous years of Turner nominations. Yet they still represent the prize’s spirit of innovation and diversity. Public debate is arguably the lifeblood of the Turner Prize and when the pieces under discussion meet with criticism they will have done so in the public eye, which can only generate further interest. Even if the whole shenanigan is viciously dismissed with descriptions like that offered by government minister Kim Howells in 2002 of the works as “cold mechanical bullshit”, they have still provoked a reaction and in doing so have brought contemporary art to itsARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Colourful Cubism
Angela BullochModern Art Oxford11 October – 18 DecemberAngela Bulloch’s newexhibition is rather likehow you might imaginesome cyberspace realitywhere technology hasreplaced humans. The plywood andmetal boxes, which form most ofthe work in the exhibition, are thesquadron of living creatures that,spread around the main gallery, emitunearthly pink, yellow and greenlight. The boxes fade and brightencontinuously as if engaging in Morsecode, unintelligible to the viewer.Bulloch’s earlier work RGBSpheres has a similar futuristic feel.You wander among huge bulbouslamps, implanted into the gallerywalls, to the accompaniment of a lowelectronic hum. The bubble-shapedlights, sweet-shop colours andmuffled sounds all mingle with thevacuous white space of the galleryto give Bulloch’s exhibition an eerilyunnatural character.The artist tells us that each boxrepresents a pixel, the smallest speckof colour on a television. In one ofBulloch’s works, Z-Point, the pixelboxes, forming a large vertical grid,display the explosion scene fromMichelangelo Antonioni’s 1970s filmZabriskie Point. However, the imagesof the explosion are slowed down andthe violence bleached out of the film:only the plaintive music and distantsound of a blast suggest the violencethat the film originally projected.Bulloch modifies the presentation ofscenes from various films to the pointwhere they are no longer recognisable,and she is trying to show the sterilityof modern society and its attemptsto order and sanitise reality. Withoutreading about the artist’s own ideas,however, you would strain to catchthese somewhat elusive meanings.The very least that can be said forBulloch’s exhibition is that it raisesquestions about what art really is,which something like Monet’s WaterLilies would never do. However,opinion of Bulloch’s work has not yetdrifted into orthodox art consensus.With an occasional belief in its ownprofundity, her work seems to bealone, out in orbit and talking onlyto itself. Bulloch’s exhibition seemsso dehumanised and so clinical that,despite its innovative approach, itwill no doubt have viewers like myselfcreeping back to Monet’s WaterLilies.ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Lincoln chapel desecrated by ex-student
A former student of Lincoln College entered the college’s chapel,
disrupted the altar dressing and shouted abuse at the choir who were rehearsing. The incidient
took place at around 4pm last Sunday.Choir member Helena Wilde said that
the woman “suddenly stormed in, looking very angry and purposeful”. She
continued, “She walked straight past us towards the altar, so we all assumed
she was a chapel warden, perhaps coming to set up for evensong.”The woman’s behaviour started to arouse
the suspicion of the choir as she proceeded to noisily rearrange the candles and
the cross which were placed on the altar, before throwing them and the altar
cloth onto the chapel pulpit. She then approached an electric keyboard in the
middle of the chapel which Senior Organ Scholar Paul Wingfield was using for
the rehearsal.Wilde recalled that she “banged
her hands down on the keyboard to make a terrible sound then shouted ‘My parents
got married in this chapel’”. As she left through the antechapel the woman
closed the heavy wooden inner chapel doors, which normally remain open at all
times. She said “Burn in Hell, you Catholic” to the Organ Scholar who was by
the organ in the antechapel at the time. She then slammed the outer chapel
doors.Fourth year Lincoln chorister Johnny Shipley followed the
woman out of the chapel to the front entrance of the college, where she was
attempting to shut the main college doors behind her. Shipley said that he
tried to “reason with her” but she responded with confused comments, including the
remark “Where’s Oliver Cromwell when you need a war?”The conversation continued on Turl Street, where
her comments to Shipley indicated that she was a former Lincoln student. “She said something about
not being allowed to sit Finals, and something about medication,” Shipley said. The woman, who some
of the members of choir estimated to be in her mid-twenties, also revealed her
identity when asked by Shipley.Lincoln College declined to disclose the
identity of the woman in the interests of her personal welfare. The woman had
tried to gain entrance to Lincoln
at around 9.30pm on Saturday night. She asked at the porter’s lodge if she
could enter the chapel but, as it was after visiting hours, she was denied
entry. When she returned the following afternoon, porter Rohan Ramdeen said he
had no reason to suspect her intentions and allowed her to enter. The
college porters have now been made aware of the woman’s identity and will
refuse her entry if she attempts to make further visits to the college. Lincoln JCR President Ollie Munn said,
“I was obviously concerned for the students involved but it seems that no one was hurt and that
nothing was badly damaged.” Choir members described the incident as surreal” and Wilde admitted that they “were
all quite scared when it happened”. Chaplain George Westhaver said that he did not think the
incident had been “a cause of lasting distress” and confirmed that no charges
are being levelled against the woman as she did “no damage at all”. He added “putting
things back in place took two minutes.”ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
Tsunami victim named for award
A former student at Pembroke College who was seriously injured in
last year’s tsunami has been nominated by national magazine New Woman for their
Woman of the Year award.Naomi Bowman was visiting the Thai
island Koh Phi Phi last December when she was swept almost a mile away from the
beach by giant waves. Despite sustaining
multiple injuries, which needed six operations and a month in five different
hospitals, Naomi returned to Oxford
to complete her maths degree last summer. Upon her return to England in
January this year, Naomi decided to launch an extensive fundraising appeal to
help the local residents of Koh Phi Phi who survived the tsunami. In ten months
Naomi has already managed to raise over £5,000 in donations, which has been
divided between Thai families affected by the disaster, a school and a charity.Having previously considered a
career as a City banker, Naomi now works as the project manager for the committee charged with rebuilding
the devastated island, having emigrated to Thailand in the summer. Elizabeth Dawson,
deputy Features Editor of New Woman, described Naomi’s story as “inspirational”
and “one which other women would like to emulate”. Naomi said, “I don’t believe it’s
important how much money I have raised or what I’ve personally done. I don’t
feel I’m anything special or above the other people who work just as hard and
harder to help the place.”ARCHIVE: 3rd week MT 2005
