As a self-confessed art philistine, I look Georges Seurat’s nineteenth century pointillist painting Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte and see only a group prim and proper Victorians relaxing in a park on a gloriously sunny Sunday afternoon. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine, however, saw in it the potential for the musical Sunday the Park with George, turning the figures of the painting into vivacious and engaging characters. As soon as I heard the word musical’ I seriously considered not turning up to the preview, convinced that I wouldn’t able to fight the urge to giggle whenever the actors broke out song. But to my surprise, within few seconds Sunday In the Park with George managed to convert me into a fully-fledged musical addict. The play focuses upon the relationship between the title character and his mistress, Dot. George, a brilliant if self absorbed painter, might possess the artistic vision to transform a group of hooligans into a band of angels with a single sweep of his brush. Yet by an ironic twist of fate he is blind to the world around him, losing Dot, who is expecting his child, to a pastry maker. With masterful choreography, the entire cast join together in the central episode to recreate their positions in the painting and reveal the angst behind Seurat’s image of Victorian bliss. Doomed to relive this never-ending summer’s day, spending a Sunday in the park with George becomes an existential nightmare for the figures in the picture. This metaphor resonates throughout the entire play, harrowingly symbolic of Dot and George’s feelings of stultification.Sondheim’s material is top notch but the actors also deserve some credit for the play’s success. Thomas Eyre- Maunsell delivers a fine performance as George, but it is Chantelle Staynings who is the real star of the show, her childlike pouting encapsulating Dot’s desperate attempt to capture her lover’s attention. The trip to the theatre would be made worthwhile if only to hear her impressive vocal range during Dot’s mesmerising solo. So if you’re like me and the word ‘musical’ makes you want to run a mile, my advice is to give Sunday in the Park with George chance. It might just change your mind, pushing the boundaries of the musical to new limits. With its darkly comic undertones, the experience resembles The Picture of Dorian Gray more than any performance of Annie or the shockingly awful Moulin Rouge. The keen psychological insight demonstrated in this play proves that musical theatre is capable of engaging the intellect of its audience, while also making them smile. Perhaps the most impressive proof of this production’s lingering impact is that I walked home grinning, as its unforgettable lyrics flowed in and out of my head.
ARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

With just six actors and a five-person crew, the idea of staging any Shakespearean drama with so few people can only be described as ambitious, and it would require something a little different to separate this performance from the insipid surplus of banal Shakespeare plays circulating in Oxford. The latest of the BT’s rare forays into Shakespeare seemed a menacing prospect, what with the cast’s suggestion that the title be amended to The Tragedy of Richard Duke of York: It’s Not For Girls. And menacing it certainly was. The cast exudes an edgy verve which lends disturbing realism to an already violent plot. Rob Crowe is commanding as the imperious Duke, combining arrogance with dependence upon Raj Gathani’s sepulchral psychopath, Jack Cade, and George Norton’s Machiavellian pantomime-villain, Warwick. Their coup d’état for the throne the pathetically ineffectual Henry VI, played by director Tom Richards, culminates in the decisive Battle of St Albans. The audience is subjected to a sensory onslaught as a percussive beat and low lighting create a dark, sordid battle scene infused with genuine poignancy, as Dave Opperman’s Clifford mourns his dead father. Richards had envisaged “a naturalistic presentation of violence”, and the choice modern dress, rather than period costume, allows the stunning fight choreography to express raw emotion which transcends its historical setting. Yet in terms of sheer malevolence, Becky Hug’s brutal portrayal of Henry’s wife, Margaret, puts the Battle of St Albans shame. The sneering disdain the she-wolf of France’ for her well-meaning husband combines with a vicious desire for vengeance against York, and unsettling performance by thirteen- year-old James Utechin York’s young son makes his murder even more shocking. Despite a consistently high standard of acting and presentation, however, his death heralds sort of ‘pity fatigue’. Whether the fault of the play or the players, so many people die within such a short space of time that the audience are left teetering on the brink of apathy. York’s frenzied death scene is more disturbing than tragic, but Crowe’s stage presence remains powerful and sustains the poignancy of the dénouement. This is the sort of play that can into one of two traps, through being either hopelessly over-played or distorted by modern theatre’s mania for innovation. Instead, it skims the edge of both pitfalls without succumbing to either. A well-staged production with a decidedly professional sheen, its eclectic blend originality and conventional performance are sure to overcome the shortcomings of an emotionally draining plot.
ARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

With a musical as popular as My Fair Lady, audiences invariably go to see it with fixed preconceptions as to how it should be performed. In this production, directors Hannah Croft and Benedict Morrison have chosen not to stray too far from the direction and setting as they were intended, out of respect for the play in its original form and a desire not to put on another one of those hypermodern, edgy Oxford shows that seem to dominate the student drama scene. Based on the Pygmalion myth, the story of My Fair Lady is one with which most of us are familiar. The attempts of Henry Higgins (Gabriel Vick) to teach cockney flower-seller Eliza Doolittle (Rachel Parris) correct diction and etiquette and then to pass her off as a member of the upper classes are central to the politically–charged story of class aspirations and divisions and personal snobbery. The fact that Henry falls in love with the Eliza he creates adds poignancy that is well exploited by the cast. This production could easily have fallen into the temptation to play up the camp value of the genre, but the low key approach that the directors have chosen allows the writing and songs freedom from cliché that they deserve. The main cast play exceptionally well together and their acting shows a level of enthusiasm and enjoyment that anything but forced. The self assurance in Gabriel Vick’s and Ferdinand Koenig’s performances is well complemented by the perfect comic foil of Benjamin Smyth. Parris is no Audrey Hepburn, but she brings her own fragile beauty and stubborn melancholy to Eliza, which proves utterly captivating. The chorus are well-choreographed enough not to descend into a chaotic fracas of cockney stereotypes, but their appearances can at times seem a little cluttered, the lack of enthusiasm in some of the cast jarring a little in comparison to the professionalism of the main players. A slight modification to the final scene adds the only major concession to modern values to the play with nod to post-feminist ideals, but works pleasingly well. All in all, a refreshingly organic performance with a self-assured style.
ARC HIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

This year’s local elections brought excellent results for the Liberal Democrats. With 30% of the vote, this was our strongest ever performance a nationwide election, helping take control of a further eleven councils, from both Labour and the Conservatives. Good news for the Lib Dems? Certainly! Less good news, however, is the very low proportion of people who chose to go the polling station to exercise their democratic right to cast a ballot. The consensus among the psephologists seems to be that two thirds of people who could have voted stayed at home. In some parts the country, only one in ten those entitled to vote actually did so. This should be of concern to those who care about participatory democracy – whether you’re Lib Dem, Labour, Tory or anything else. Among those least likely to have gone out and voted were – you guessed it – the young. Politicians across the spectrum have been throwing up their hands in recent years and wondering why. People of student age today are generally better educated, better informed and more well travelled than those of previous generations. While students in the 1960s were famed for their radicalism, students of today are labelled as apathetic. Some of this, of course, is crude stereotyping. There were many people in the 1960s who never protested against the Vietnam War – or indeed against anything at all. Similarly, the run up to the Iraq War showed that many of today’s young people care passionately about such issues. At the same time, it is all too easy to lump everyone together with the catch all phrase “young people” as if everyone aged 16 to 25 had homogenous thoughts and actions. This is clearly absurd. Nevertheless, it is true that those under 25 are voting less often today than ever before. Part of the problem undoubtedly lies with those of us who are elected to public office – whether that’s in the House of Commons, the local council or something else. Politics is still seen largely as the preserve of white, middle class, middle aged men. Our political institutions simply do not reflect the society in which we now live – a society which is more cosmopolitan and more ethnically and culturally diverse than at any time in our history: and for this the Liberal Democrats must take our share of the blame. Among our 53 MPs, only 5 are women and none are from an ethnic minority community. I am working hard to change this, and under no illusions that we must do better. Politicians have also been too lazy in actually reaching out to young people to bring them into the electoral process; having taken the rather easier option of writing them off as apathetic. In this regard hope that the Liberal Democrats can take more credit. Lib Dem Youth and Students are, I know, very active in trying to engage young people with politics – and not just with Lib Dem politics. Every year LDYS organise ‘Westminster Day’ when they invite thousands of Sixth Formers from across the country to meet and question politicians from all parties as well as members of media. The Liberal Democrats would also lower the voting age 16. Our political opponents have argued that 16 is too young to able to cast an informed vote. I disagree. If the State feels that 16 is appropriate age for you to join armed forces, get married and have children, then why shouldn’t you allowed to vote? If, at 16, you pay taxes then why on earth should you not have the right to elect Government that will spend those taxes? Someone once said that the public get the politicians they deserve. I’m not sure whether I’m the best person to argue the truth of this. But it is true to say that politics two-way street. We politicians must do more – much more – to try engage with voters. But the answer to having politicians the people don’t like, or a political system people find remote, should not be refuse to participate. Casting your vote is a much more powerful tool. The more you do, the more politicians will have to listen.
ARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

I am a Fellow and Geography Tutor at St Hugh’s; also the Wine Steward; and for some of my time, responsible for coordinating the recruitment of overseas students. This involves, in particular, setting up interviews in the Far East and North America for the 500 or more potential undergraduates who apply from those areas. First Week saw a mix of these responsibilities. On Tuesday and Friday, I was basically a Geographer, attending a seminar and a staff meeting; giving are vision class; and seeing a Second Year about his Dissertation. For the rest of the week – fitted around three lunchtime wine tastings – I was dealing with matters at the Admissions Office, starting with a staff meeting there. There are three major strands to the Admissions work at this time of year. First, revising all our websites and our printed literature, which includes material for Second BAs as well as ordinary undergraduate applicants. (This October, we shall hold Second BA interviews in New Delhi, for the first time, probably jointly with Cambridge.) We produce special web pages for applicants from the six interview centres including downloadable application forms . We have also developed an ‘Introduction to Oxford’ presentation, with a text in Chinese and English, which we feel will give brief but helpful overview of the University, for both graduate and undergraduate applicants from the Far East. Second, I have to assemble group of interviewers for the teams which, this year, will (SARS permitting) represent all the undergraduate Colleges in New Delhi, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur, Hong Kong, Beijing, Vancouver and New York. The Far East circuit involves a lawyer, an economist, an engineer and – this year, for Beijing – a mathematician. North America needs a linguist, a bioscientist and, for Second BAs in particular, another lawyer. I have to try and cajole people to come and then set up briefing meetings. This year, when all subjects are publicizing their selection criteria, we shall need consider how best to organise our interview report forms as well as our usual task of selecting passages for interviewees to read. Finally, I let the travel agents know what the itineraries will be. For this autumn, there will be nine travelling, only three of whom will be on precisely the same flights. Anything involving admissions is a non-stop operation and the emails are warming up especially from North America). It quite tricky to ‘explain the Oxford admissions process’ in a brief but clear fashion to overseas’ applicants: fortunately, my colleagues in the Oxford Colleges Admissions Office field a lot of straightforward queries. So it was a varied week. And having three offices can be a bit of a nuisance. But the walking is good for me. Barbara Kennedy is International Recruitment Officer for the University.ARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

Sir, Last week’s Cherwell (‘Censure for VP Finance?’, 2 May) suggested would be facing a censure motion for having spoken against OUSU policy at NUS conference. Although I suspect this issue is of little interest to the majority of your readers please allow me to set the record straight – I did not speak against OUSU policy at all. This whole episode is rather unfortunate. Firstly, Cherwell reported an allegation as fact which is simply unprofessional. Secondly, an OUSU Executive Officer has chosen to anonymously attack me in the press. This is cowardly and made worse by the fact that they were telling lies. Thirdly, I have a job to do, was elected by Oxford students to do it and it is a shame that small, disaffected and disingenuous clique seem intent on harrying and obstructing me in fulfilling my duties in my final term. Yours Sincerely, Sean Sullivan Vice-President (Finance) Oxford University Student UnionARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

Sir, Andrew Smith claims to have been ‘disappointed’ at the cancellation of yet another meeting at which he was due to actually interact with his constituents (‘MP fears attack’, 2 May). If he was so disappointed, then perhaps he could explain why he has consistently refused to accept an invitation put forward by the East Oxford Stop the War Coalition to debate the issues surrounding Labour’s foreign policy. Is it, perhaps, because he is worried that in any forum where he would actually have to face debate (rather than the same tired New Labour monologue), he would lose? I suspect Andrew Smith is fully aware that he and his party have lost any claim on principle they might once have possessed. His contempt for his East Oxford constituents is just another symptom of the arrogance of New Labour. Yours, Matt Sellwood, Green Party StudentsARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

Sir, I would like to set the record straight on the conduct of the schools which Richard Dawkins has attacked (‘Dawkins slams creationist schools’, 2 May). Your article wrongly stated that these schools reject evolutionary theory. What Emmanuel College and others actually do is clearly explain the possible theories which account for why we exist, including the eminently reasonable one that Personal God designed us and gave us personality. They then encourage the pupils to consider which might be right. For example, creationism perfectly compatible with a very old earth without implying that fullblown macro-evolution is correct. The Christians at Emmanuel College are so sure that Jesus is the Truth that they are very willing put His ideas out into the marketplace. Why does Dawkins want suppress sensible discussion? All of us studying in Oxford have a serious responsibility to be critical of all scientific research, even that of Pope Dawkins, in order to seek truth or, rather, The Truth, the One who, in astonishing love, has given us minds to consider these important questions about the Origin life itself and has offered us new life through his death on a cross and resurrection in history. Yours Faithfully, Josh Hordern, New CollegeARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003

Sir, Congratulations Cherwell on your fabulous Cw arts/features pullout! As well as your sexy layout and gorgous pix, I just love John Kettle’s ‘On the Town’ column! It’s high time this University’s main student paper had a supplement that combines sharp writing with killer looks. You guys totally pull it off. May I voice my concerns however at your misogynistic and outmoded ‘Fit Sportswoman of the Week’. It is exploitative, tacky, and demeaning to all the independent women working their bollocks off to get a degree here. You are celebrating male chauvanism above female sporting achievement. Naughty Cherwell! Yours, Sanchez Cohen, KebleARCHIVE: 2nd Week TT 2003