The Turf is synonymous with matriculation, mods, finals and student scum. Its mistreatment by absurdly-dressed, braying idiots, commences with the ceremony that makes one member of the University, and ends with exhausted post-finals debauchery. But that’s the price you pay for letting people bring their own champagne and flour onto the premises. Do people actually visit the Turf at any other time? Does it even exist when there aren’t finals? Perhaps some consider it their local and spend many happy evenings drinking the (admittedly excellent) beer. I’d be surprised though. In spite of being genuinely old, the Turf somehow manages to have all the character of a branch of McDonalds. Taking advantage of the many tourists who still find the place, purchasing a drink requires a second mortgage. The toilets are outside, which is annoying until the stench of piss makes you thankful for the fresh air on exiting. The food is over-priced at best and the beer gardens have far too many picnic tables, making them feel like prison cafeterias. Moving past the front bar, which overcrowding will inevitably necessitate, forces you to doubt the reputation The Turf has as being great English pub. It’s awful. After the landlord saw an early draft of this article, Pat was dragged in front of his college Dean to explain himself. The landlord had protested that the Turf goes out of its way to be friendly to students. Perhaps he had a point. To determine this Pat and Texas went for few pints on a Saturday afternoon. “This place is full of students and twats”, commented Pat over an appallingly priced glass of ice with lemonade mixer. Perhaps that’s the Turf ’s problem. It’s too friendly to students, but not in the joyfully stupid manner of a Scream pub. It’s simply old, cramped, and the service is fucking terrible.

If you answered; 4 questions correctly you are a genius, 3 correctly – you are above average intelligence 2 correctly – you are normal 1 correctly – you are below average None – dumbass Ok, so you’ve realized that the above questions were rather random, completely unrelated to each other, more than a bit tongue in cheek, and completely useless in assessing how intelligent you are, but in all seriousness… how much store do you put by the plethora of IQ tests in today’s media? Indeed, what is IQ? This is a subject of much debate, and it is actually considered to be a person’s ability on a variety of tasks. It is not a measure of attainment, but rather mental dexterity, and the extent and way in which it is expressed varies culturally. The debate has raged among scientists for over a century: do we have IQ for lots of different skills, or do we have an overall factor ‘g’, which influences all our mental abilities? The first IQ test was devised by Binet and Simon, who calculated IQ as Mental Age/ Chronological Age on a variety of reasoning tests. Although it was designed specifically to test for children in need of special educational help, its context as a purely academic measure and predictor has been lost. This is the major confound of all IQ tests – they are often taken out of context, and as such their validity is severely challenged. Other tests have been devised with various scales and subtests, and many psychologists have now argued for a much wider approach to intelligence. Vernon, a psychologist in the 60’s, included not only verbal and educational abilities, but also practical and mechanical skills. This approach has formed the basis of many of today’s more serious IQ tests, such as the Weschler test which consists of two main areas of questioning – verbal and spatial. So, is IQ a useful concept? There is no doubt that IQ measurements provide a useful platform for assessing the impact of social factors – there are clear differences between people of different economic status and race, and they have also highlighted sex differences – women perform significantly better on fine manual tasks and verbal tests than men. Recent research into these differences has suggested that the size of a region of interconnecting tissue between the two sides of the brain known as the corpus callosum might be biologically responsible for a percentage of this variation. Perhaps the most well known test at the moment is the BBC Test the Nation Intelligence Test. In an afternoon of work avoidance, some friends and I each took the test, (and breathed a sigh of relief that this 20 minute test deemed us above the national average). But is this test good one? Should we have really put any store by its results, or had we been sucked into the media hype, entrusting our delicate self-esteem to a rather arbitrary 20 minute test? Provided that the factors which are seen as central to each definition and test are established before conclusions are drawn, there is little wrong with IQ tests, and they certainly provide a good alternative to essay writing and proper work. As the a study by the psychologist, Murtaugh, found however, other factors such as context and motivation also influence performance. This study found that female shoppers in California showed excellent skill at buying the cheapest product (by unit), but performed badly on written maths IQ tests. Were the IQ tests wrong? Critics argue that these shoppers use shortcuts rather than complex maths abilities, but this demonstration of mental flexibility towards the task in hand could even be isolated as intelligence itself, and is indeed central to Sternberg’s theory, which emphasizes the context and novelty of any situation. To give credit to the BBC test, their website does point out that IQ is the source of much debate, and that depending on the definition, skills such as body awareness (think of a good dancer and you’ll realize the importance of this trait) and musical ability are also seen as intellectual traits – the importance of such skills is subject to social norms, and is reflected in the questions which comprise the IQ tests. It is perhaps of little surprise that Vernon’s less focused approach to intelligence was developed during the swinging 60s, a time synonymous with breaking social conventions and challenging well established social boundaries. On a more sombre note, IQ tests have been used as the basis for state sterilisation (eugenic programmes) in the US, and were introduced into Britain in the House of Commons in 1989. It was also introduced as an immigration restriction in 1924 in the US with the aim of removing the weakest members of the breeding gene pool to improve the quality of the next generation. Apart from clearly breaching ethical and human rights, such methods of selection rely entirely on the blinkered focus of psychometric IQ tests – in a society of racial and sexual equality, how can this still legally exist? In essence, the national obsession with not only IQ tests, but the wide variety of personality tests supplied by the media, is because they satisfy our self-obsessive nature, as well as our predisposition to categorise the people and world around us – and the BBC producers and magazine editors have been quick to recognize this selling tactic and its guaranteed audience.
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003

In 1953, a year after deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) was identified as the molecule that carries the biochemical information responsible for the physiology, anatomy and development of a living organism, the scientists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered its now famous doublehelix structure. In 1962, along with Maurice Wilkins they were awarded a Nobel Prize for their discoveries concerning the molecular structure of nucleic acids. Decades later, Watson assisted in the creation of the Human Genome Project, a recently completed thirteen year research effort to sequence thedouble- helix’s three billion constituent base pairs. The project is intended to facilitate genetic research in the future, and in particular to provide biomedical scientists with information crucial to ascertaining the role played by faulty genes in causing disease. The results could direct them to a new kind of treatment – gene therapy. This is evidently an enterprise of international significance requiring sustained, open debate based on informed, responsible opinions. It was therefore astonishing to hear James Watson state a few months ago on Newsnight: “I think gene therapy is a good idea because it could help make people more intelligent, and it can’t be nice being stupid.” Why is a scientist responsible for arguably the most important scientific discovery of the twentieth century expressing opinions this misinformed in a debate stemming directly from his work? The answers lie rooted within the history of science and its development as we understand it today. It is only really in modern times that has become meaningful to talk of ‘scientific method’ – an established set of procedures and approaches embodied in a distinctive philosophy of nature. In the past, individuals had to justify their procedures on a metaphysical level, which blurred the distinction between discoveries themselves and their philosophical context. But what does this mean and why is so important? To study nature at all, a few basic assumptions need to be made, such as that the world can be understood rationally in a progression from the simple to the complex, for instance, and obeys ‘laws’ which may be formulated mathematically. The reason science, and physics in particular, takes on these assumptions is not because they are a priori justifiable, but because they seem to work. In the past when an agreed scientific framework did not exist, these issues were open to debate, and were ably fostered by a classical education. However, science has now proved itself so successful that it has become arrogant in thinking that its methods are the only path to truth. This has reached such a level that some scientists believe questions like “what is consciousness?” to be answerable solely in scientific terms based on a mathematical theory and associated qualitative explanation. One physics lecturer at Oxford proclaimed during a lecture “it’s not going to be a philosopher who explains how the mind works.” But how can a scientist do it without knowing the flaws and assumptions inherent in his method? This is indicative of a generation of scientists who are isolated from both the rich historical and philosophical framework of their subjects and also the greater context of man’s attempts to understand his existence. Moreover, many eminent scientists do not believe this context to be important. Richard Dawkins, for example, noted for his dogmatic views, contempt for religion and staunch defence of reductionism, is Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. The appointment underestimates the importance of the way in which a particular scientific discovery should be presented to the public and also Dawkins’ ability to do so. Scientists now have limited means of communicating their discoveries to both the scientific community and the layman, especially in fields which depart significantly from daily experience. Meanwhile, currently unquestioned metaphysical assumptions may need updating and most importantly, scientists need to understand the limitations of their approach to a conception of the nature of the universe. Consequently scientific developments with the potential for significant social impact are often inaccurately represented to the population by the media. James Watson might be a Nobel prize-winning genius, but he is no philosopher or ethicist. We live in an age when science is the most important route to knowledge. Scientists are being asked for opinions on all sorts of questions they do not know how to answer because of their isolation from a meta,physical context. Until this changes science, and the misinformed public, will stumble blindly on believing that real truth is scientific truth and that religion, philosophy and theology are merely intellectual divertissements with no real authority.
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003

‘Butch’ sells the Big Issue in Summertown and on Broad Street. He has been homeless for six years and is on a drug rehabilitation programme.“My real name’s Butcher. I’ve got two dogs, Bandit and Mandosa. don’t care if people say I have them to get a sympathy vote. They help me, but that’s not what they’re there for. I love dogs and I’ve had them all my life. They’re all I’ve got.
I think the people here are a bit snobbish. Some are alright once you get to know them, but most don’t make the effort. I don’t lie. I tell them I was a drug addict. I moved up here to be with a girl but that split up and I got into drugs. That was my worst mistake.
I don’t think it’s unfair to say that most homeless people are drug addicts. I think they are. I know they are: I live with them. They just don’t admit it. They’re in big denial. That’s where all the money goes. I can get all my food for free so the only reason I am standing here is drugs. There’s no point in denying it. I am what I am. You’re never going to get better until you face up to what you are.
What we need is more rehab centres. Proper ones, somewhere you can go and live just to come off, none of this bullshit therapy stuff. There are some, but they take too long to get into. By the time you’re in you’ve given up and I’ve given up giving up. I’ve come round full circle. I’m from Suffolk but I can’t go back until I’m off the gear. It’d be too embarrassing in front of my friends. I’m on a methadone programme at the moment but I’m trying to get off it. I’m cutting down every fortnight. I used to have my own business, making and selling chess sets so want to go back to where I come from and start all over again.”
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003

It’s happening exactly as before,” sneers Agent Smith dryly. “Well,” chuckles one of his dozens of clones, “not exactly.” Evidently The Matrix Reloaded is not without the sense of irony it needs in the face of ridiculous hype, sky-high media expectations and the cynics waiting to decry it as a cash-in. Without a little tongue-in-cheek self-referential humour, The Matrix Reloaded would suffer far more than it does already from the re-hashing of its prequel’s major talking points, upon which it seems to rely. The main problem with The Matrix Reloaded is its arrogance: the directors seem to have known full well that this sequel is so eagerly anticipated that fans would have bought dog shit if it was stamped with the official ‘Matrix Reloaded’ logo. Unfortunately, this has made them lazy as regards plot coherence, and right from the baffling beginning to the abrupt, anticlimactic ‘ending’ (or rather, cut-off point, the juncture from which the third Matrix film will spring) the audience is pretty much clueless as to what the hell is going on. This, of course, is fine for the vacuous masses who are content to salivate at the truly stunning fight scenes, camera work and the cyber-goth chic of Neo, Trinity et al. The more cerebral cinemagoer, however, is left in a conundrum as he or she tries to unpick the film’s slapdash symbolism and script. Is it a Christian allegory, Neo being the only one who can bring salvation? Maybe it mirrors the profound philosophical content of the first film, touching as it does upon areas as diverse as omniscience, free will and determinism. Perhaps there’s an underlying political message? None of these explanations ring true, and no interpretation can gloss over up the plot holes, which are as glaringly obvious as Keanu Reeves’ inability to act. The Matrix Reloaded relies almost entirely on special effects, and this wouldn’t be a problem if they had something new to show us. Sure, the fighting scenes are a little more daring, there are some new and stylish villains running around, and Neo (Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie Anne Moss) even get a sex scene in – although this is unfortunately the least erotic one I have seen since Eminem’s embarrassing nookie in 8 Mile. This ‘variation’ isn’t enough, however, to save The Matrix Reloaded from ‘sequel syndrome’, so if you are determined to enjoy this film you’d better leave your brain at the door.
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003

Before I saw Mostly Martha I didn’t know what to expect. It’s billed as a German rom-com so I tried to extrapolate. There’d be a bumbling Adolph Grant, a jittery Jelenka Aniston, a “You had me at Guten Tag” moment where everyone in the cinema would simultaneously vömit. There’d be a big-bottomed Hun-ny searching for Mr. Reich, and all the things that we have grown to loathe from our own rom-coms – with added umlauts. Thank God I was wrong. Martha is a celebrated chef in an exclusive restaurant, who’s aggressively passionate about her job. She’s Nigella, but with more bite; she’s Fast Eddie, but with Filo pastry and no balls. At first, it’s all going rather nicely, with laughs, a jolly jazz score and sumptuous cooking montages. Then suddenly, there’s death. Martha’s sister is in a car crash and she’s left to look after her young niece, Lina. We see the struggle Martha has to connect with her in a series of gloomy fade-to-black scenes. For a while, it’s all rather depressingly Germanic. Then, just in time, cue the arrival of new “eccentric” chef Mario, and pretty soon the storm clouds are beginning to clear, and the kitchen’s getting steamier. But it’s never quite as simple as it sounds in this film and writer-director Nettelbeck doesn’t patronize her audience with Life-lite; this is something closer to reality. Aided by an irresistible performance by Gedeck as Martha, a stunningly precocious turn by Foerste, and Castellitto for much-needed comic relief, the film is a treat to savour. Mostly Martha is by no means perfect – the ending was a slight letdown and the repetitive score occasionally grated – but one can’t deny the film’s emotional range and verve. What sets this apart from Notting Hill and its Jollygood-Hollywood ilk is that it has a substantial foundation in the real world, rather than the saccharine Brit-fop goo-topia where Grant currently reigns. So, although the Brits may have proved themselves better at winning War, this film suggests the Germans have a better understanding of Love.
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003

A sweeping, majestic, sensuous epic of a film, running for just over three hours, and based on the novel by Count Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, The Leopard charts the effects of the Italian unification movement (the Risorgimento) on a family of Sicilian aristocrats. Burt Lancaster, in what would initially seem a surprising role, plays one of the island’s noblest families, who is forced to come to terms with the rise of the nouveau riche and the merchant class, symbolised by Don Calogero, a shrewd novus homo landowner in Salina’s fiefdom, the village of Donnafugata. Lancaster is truly excellent, simultaneously imbued with gravitas, charm and humour. The film is beautifully shot, and it concentrates on the atmosphere of the period, showcasing the rugged but stunning countryside, and portraying the abject squalor of many of its inhabitants, contrasted with the opulence of the aristocratic lifestyle. The Prince’s dashing young nephew, Tancredi (played by Alain Delon) proves himself a success story in the new Italy, fighting alongside Garibaldi on behalf of the House of Savoy, seeking to unify Italy under King Vittorio Emanuele. He falls in love with Don Calogero’s daughter, the drop-dead gorgeous Angelica (Claudia Cardinale). Visconti, the film’s director, was a committed Marxist despite his aristocratic background, and this paradox runs as a vein through the film in the confrontation between poverty and wealth, young and old, Bourbon and Savoyard.
ARCHIVE: 4th week TT 2003