Monday, April 28, 2025
Blog Page 575

Review: Ordinary Days – ‘brings the score to life in quite an extraordinary way’

Kirsten Grant
-
0
Review: Ordinary Days – ‘brings the score to life in quite an extraordinary way’

When I first read the premise of Ordinary Days, a song-cycle composed by Adam Dwon, I found myself a little uninspired.  The musical of nineteen songs follows four characters who try to negotiate their way through New York, building meaningful connections along the way – their ‘ordinary lives’ can interweave in unexpected ways.  This storyline seemed all too familiar.  However, upon viewing it at the BT, I found myself pleasantly surprised at how refreshing and relatable this jazz and Bernstein-esque style musical is.  Although the plot of the play may seem ‘ordinary’, the cast – through the direction of Mackay-Champion – bring Gwon’s score to life in quite an extraordinary way. 

This is a play which requires a strong group of actors in order to convey its multi-faceted characters and we need look no further than in this cast composed of Ruby Nicholson, Máth Roberts, Fifi Zanabi and JJ Gibbs.  The play opens with an injection of energy when Roberts, as Warren, bursts onto the scene and immediately grabs the audience’s attention.  Warren’s costume works well to enhance Roberts’ superb acting of the youthful, naive and enthusiastic Warren, as he wears a rucksack and Converse shoes.  We are attracted to his full-hearted personality but also worry for him in such an unforgiving city. 

Enter Deb.  Nicholson has a gift of a part in the spunky, sarcastic cynic Deb but she more than fulfils expectations and her comic timing is perfect.   Deb’s solo number ‘Dear Professor Thompson’ sticks in the memory and the panic-email to a tutor when handing in an essay late is certainly relatable for the average Oxford student.   The ending of the email to her professor with “Love, smiley face” is sure to get a laugh from the audience, as well as the comedic typing on her laptop to the rhythm of the music. 

The friendship that develops between Warren and Deb creates an interesting dynamic.  It is amusing to watch these apparent polar opposites initially interact in the song ‘Sort-of Fairy Tale’, with Roberts’ energy well portrayed in his grand movements across the stage, while Nicholson shoots him down and moves away on the beat.  Their growing friendship in the latter part of the play is endearing, as the characters’ various vulnerabilities are exposed in the solos ‘Calm’ and ‘Life Story (Reprise)’.  Roberts and Nicholson demonstrate their versatility as actors as they convey that there is more to the naive Warren and standoffish Deb than meets the eye, singing in brilliant fashion. 

Special mention must also go to Gibbs as Jason who really comes into his own in his solos, a highlight being ‘Favourite Places’ which demonstrates his impressive vocal range.  Gibbs plays the romantic who can sense a distance between himself and his girlfriend Claire, tenderly lamenting in his solo that he hasn’t “found a way inside her heart”.  The duets between Gibbs as Jason and Zanabi as Claire come across as honest and relatable with the bickering of ‘I’m Trying’ and ‘Fine’ exhibiting well the everyday struggles of relationships.

The highlight of the show, however, has to be Zanabi’s rendition of ‘I’ll Be Here’, which adds a new dynamic of poignancy to the witty musical.  I saw at least four audience members tearing up as we discover the real motivation behind Claire’s distance from Jason.  The song was exquisitely sung and the staging – as directed by Appin Mackay-Champion and Mimi Pattinson – was emotionally wrought, with Zanabi standing in the spotlight with Gibbs watching on from a distance in the darkness. 

Mackay-Champion and Pattinson deserve great credit for their tight choreography and scene transitions.  The beginning of the play revolves around solos followed by blackouts, but as the characters become more interconnected so do the scene transitions.  It suffices to say that Emma Wood’s work on the piano is an impressive feat as she plays right from the moment of the audience’s arrival to the end applause with perfect flair, managing to capture the varying moods of the songs well. 

All in all, this is a very clever production, which cleverly balances humour with insecurity and tragedy as these endearing characters seek connections. The laugher and tears present on the night I saw it seem to say one thing: the whole team must be doing something special.

Review: My Mother Runs in Zig-Zags – ‘incredibly refreshing and ambitious’

Taiwo Oyebola
-
0
Review: My Mother Runs in Zig-Zags – ‘incredibly refreshing and ambitious’

Coming off the success of their last show Talaash, Coriander Theatre returns with another all-BAME cast and crew production. Written and directed by Simran Uppal and Abu Leila, My Mother Runs in Zig-Zags incorporates elements of Leila’s previous play, On
Death Etcetera.

My Mother Runs in Zig-Zags centres on a conversation between two friends (Iqra Mohamed and Shekinah Opara) in a kitchen which has an incessant leaky pipe. After they both call their mothers to figure out how best to deal with this issue, the narrative then expands to recollections of the Lebanese Civil War. When recalling these memories, the boundaries between physical space and time collapse, as we are transported to a war-torn Beirut at the height of the civil war.

Though this was a clever narrative arrangement, at times it felt disjointed and difficult to follow; as a result, when Mohamed announced at the end of the play that she was in fact going back home for Eid, this decision felt rather abrupt. Nevertheless, the play succeeded in its exploration of themes, particularly intergenerational trauma. This underpinned the play and it was clear that both daughters had been affected by and bore the weight of inherited trauma. I found the discussion of how migrant families can often romanticise painful stories as a way of dealing with that trauma particularly compelling.

Given the extraordinary lasting effects of both the Lebanese and Nigerian Civil War, I could not help but think that there was more that could have been explored within these narratives. This was mostly true for the development of the narrative of Opara’s character, who merely stated her parents’ inability to speak about the Biafran War. Although it may have been a pointed decision of the directors to only mention the Biafran War in passing, as someone whose parents lived through it, the lack of development felt to me like a massive oversight within the script. Mohamed’s dialogue, on the other hand, was more developed, and she effortlessly explored her grandmother and mother’s memories and anecdotes of the Lebanese Civil War.

Considering the fact that for both Opara and Mohamed these were their first major acting roles, their confidence and instinct on stage was incredible to watch. With their naturalistic style of delivery, they involved the audience in the story and I couldn’t help but laugh during some of the exchanges between the two friends. The staging helped to reinforce this intimate atmosphere, with Mohamed and Opara often facing and speaking directly to the audience, thus blurring the line between the actors and audience. This production also made great use of the space at The North Wall, with luggage, hanging car bumpers and a fridge strewn across the stage. The set conveyed the two worlds the characters were straddling, effectively capturing the domestic life of many immigrant families with a visual illustration of how two distinct cultures can coexist.

The highlight of this play was undoubtedly its merging of music and contemporary dance, which showcased the diverse range of talents within the cast.  Dancers and choreographers Esther Agbolade, Kalyna El Kettas and Jesryna Patel were particularly captivating, and they powerfully explored the hardening effects of war by rapidly switching between the roles of playful children and armed soldiers. Joliff Seville’s original music score also nicely complemented Leila’s and Uppal’s lyrical writing. Admittedly, however, the mixture of the live music, movement from the chorus, dance and spoken word was at times overpowering, and sometimes it was difficult to hear the evocative spoken word (delivered melodically by Michael Akodeji-Johnson).

All in all, My Mother Runs in Zig-Zags is an incredibly refreshing and ambitious piece of theatre. A year on from Medea (Oxford’s first all BAME cast and crew production) and as the first show funded by the Oxford BAME Drama Society, it is heart-warming to know that a clear legacy has now been established when it comes to Oxford student productions promoting diversity.

Review: The First Last – ‘an unmitigated triumph’

William Atkinson
-
0
Review: The First Last – ‘an unmitigated triumph’

After two weeks of scribbling about Oscar Wilde and Amadeus, reviewing The First Last proved to be a step outside of my comfort zone. A new comedy from the pen of student playwright Matt Kenyon, it deals with the understandably turbulent consequences of Jimmie, an ‘exclusive gay’ man, drunkenly impregnating the older, bitter and not-at-all-cheating-on-her-asshole-boyfriend Carrie. Worlds away from the giggling composers and hoity-toity Victorian posturing of the aforementioned productions I reviewed, you can understand why I might have felt a little out of my depth. Though I needn’t have – for The First Last is an unmitigated triumph.

Opening in the enticing gloom of the Burton Taylor Studio, the audience surrounds the stage on three sides, an arrangement which evokes a remarkable sense of intimacy. You’re drawn in right from the beginning: party music bops in the background, booze and shot glasses are centre stage, and our hero, Jimmie (Joe Davies), strides on dressed in a green morph suit. In his defence, it’s not the worst costume I’ve seen at a party, and it doesn’t seem to dent his sex appeal: after Carrie (Emma Hinnells) saves him from the advances of a fellow party-goer, she and Jimmie get drinking, one thing leads to another, and before you know it there’s a lot of fumbling with the morph suit zip. Two months later, she has morning sickness, and he has to face the reality of telling his alcoholic mother and unsympathetic flatmate – and, let’s be honest, a rather confused world – how he’s accidentally facing fatherhood as a 21-year-old gay student. With a set-up like that, there’s plenty to run with, and Kenyon’s script doesn’t put a foot wrong.

Kenyon leaves no stone unturned in his portrayal of outrageous scenes. There are Jimmie and Carrie’s awkward non-date dates. There’s a mistimed family holiday to Anglesey, including some Gavin and Stacey-style locals. There’s a hilarious conversation with Carrie’s perpetually unlucky yet disturbingly sunny boss. And there’s a pitch perfect David Attenborough spoof, including the best use of a stuffed penguin I’ve seen…well, ever, really. Clearly I haven’t lived.

Throughout all of this, what stands out is the vibrancy of Kenyon’s imagination, and the cast’s camaraderie and comedy chops. There is no weak link: Catty Tucker shines as Jimmie’s acerbic sister; Jack Rennie makes a sufficiently shell-shocked boss (and Welsh dame); Alison Hall is convincing as a wonderfully batty middle-class mother. Shining in multiple roles, Jack Blowers impresses, especially as an uncannily good Attenborough. But it’s only fair that the biggest praise should be reserved for Davies and Hinnells as the central pair. Both have excellent comic timing, but their versatility as actors means they make the potentially ludicrous seem painfully real. When things get emotional – and they do – they balance seriousness and levity like professionals, and should take real pride in their performances. Director Hannah Bradburn brought the most out of Kenyon’s script and her actors, and the performance never flagged. Lighting and sound man Jake Rich must also be commended for some very inventive choices, including the excellently realised – and soon-to-be iconic – penguin scene.

Kenyon’s cracking script should see performance time and time again. There were some truly witty lines and at a points I was hooting with laughter; particular favourites addressed everything from the Welsh to self-service checkouts. Special praise, however, should go to whomever was on the till, who was lovely and understanding whilst I held up ticket-buyers by fumbling around about buying ice cream. Had I not got my act together, it would have been a tragedy: this is a show that deserves to be seen by as many as possible, my deep desire for tub of Treacle and Toffee notwithstanding. I highly recommend it.

Preview: A View from the Bridge – a fresh take on the Miller classic

Cesca Echlin
-
0
Preview: A View from the Bridge – a fresh take on the Miller classic

This week Practically Peter Productions are bringing Arthur Miller’s canonical A View from the Bridge (1955) to the Pilch.

Miller’s play tells the story of the Carbone family, second-generation Sicilian immigrants who live in Brooklyn, New York in the 1950s. At its centre is patriarch and dockworker Eddie Carbone (Caleb Barron). Alongside Eddie is his wife Beatrice (Martha Berkmann) and also his niece Catherine (Philomena Wills) who has grown up with her aunt and uncle. Mirroring the conventions of Greek tragedy, A View from the Bridge traces Eddie’s downfall and the eventual collapse of the family that surrounds him.

The first scene I saw in the preview was between Bea and Catherine early on in the play. In it, Bea advises her niece not only about her future but, crucially, about Catherine’s sometimes too close relationship with her uncle. “You’re a grown woman in the same house as a grown man,” Bea declares. What makes this scene so special is that we are able to witness two generations of very contrasting women. Berkmann’s assured Bea and Wills’s playful Catherine bounce off each other beautifully.

This scene was followed by another between Eddie and his lawyer, Alfieri (Joe Stanton). Alfieri acts as a narrator throughout the play – in this scene he describes our protagonist: “I remember him now as he walked through my doorway – His eyes were like tunnels”. Alfieri’s higher degree of knowledge than other characters means that his role echoes that of the Greek chorus, and, like Bea with Catherine, he has something important to say about his client’s relationship with his niece: “Let her go”. Stanton’s Alfieri is sophisticated and he speaks his lines with great diction and clarity – details that too often fall to the wayside in student theatre. Barron brings to the monumentally well-known role of Eddie Carbone a naivety that feels fresh – as Barron says to me later; despite the life he has made for himself ‘Eddie doesn’t really know anything at all.’ 

The final scene was between Catherine and her love interest, Rodolpho (James Akka). These young lovers playfully fantasize about their dreams, but this youthfulness is inevitably a product of anxieties in the play. Wills puts her finger on the complexity of Catherine as a character: Catherine is simultaneously a clueless and dependent child, but also a significant force with more knowledge about her own power than she lets on.

Afterwards, in the middle of a discussion with co-directors Joe Woodman and Joel Stanley, as well as the members of the cast, Woodman remarks that both he and Stanley were so keen to put on this play just because of the brilliance of the characters. I must say I agree with him; Miller’s writing offers up many layers to explore and lanes to follow.

Equally, Woodman emphasizes that it is up to the audience to make a verdict on certain aspects of the play. For example, the potentially Freudian nature of Eddie and Catherine’s relationship is a consistently revisited theme in productions of this play, but Woodman insists that, in their rehearsal room, it was important not to take a fixed view on this. ‘It is up to the audience to decide,’ Woodman remarks. What impresses me most about this cast and crew is their openness when approaching what is indubitably a mammoth work, and I look forward to seeing what they do with it.

We need to talk about Trump: the politicisation of Late-Night Comedy

Adam Dalrymple
-
0
We need to talk about Trump: the politicisation of Late-Night Comedy

Late-Night Talk Shows are a cultural staple of an American’s media diet. Since the The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson popularised the form in the 1970s, millions of Americans spend each night watching charismatic men interviewing celebrities and joking about the day’s events.

Following Carson, David Letterman and Jay Leno adopted his winning talk-show formula. Keep it funny. Keep it light. If you delve into politics, keep it safe and inoffensive, so your network can attract a broad audience. As Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times put it, “the job of the late-night comedian was once so straightforward: Give Americans something to laugh about so they can forget about their workday worries.” They were the comic tonic that made a bruising day’s work go down smooth. But then Donald J. Trump ran for president and the Late-Night landscape experienced a seismic shift.

The first change was a complete transformation of the Late-Night line-up. Between 2014 and 2016, Jay Leno, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, and Craig Ferguson stepped down as hosts. In their place, Jimmy Fallon, Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, and James Corden became the fresh new faces of American television, with John Oliver, Samantha Bee, and Hasan Minhaj setting up new shows on HBO, TBS, and Netflix. A diverse cast of hosts
has breathed new life into the old format.

A more dramatic shift, and one directly related to Trump’s presidency, has been in the politicization of Late-Night shows. You can chart this change through the career of Stephen Colbert, who in September 2015 faced the unenviable task of inheriting David Letterman’s slot at CBS, with the Late-Night veteran retiring after 33 years on the air.

8 months in, Stephen Colbert’s show was floundering. Ratings were low and CBS executives were growing restless. He had abandoned the sharp political edge that had won his previous show, The Colbert Report, numerous Emmy awards. This new approach was exemplified by the show he made after Trump’s Muslim Ban was announced and a terrorist killed 14 people in San Bernardino. Colbert opened it with a segment showing Victoria Secret Models eating fried chicken.

Then in mid-2016, Stephen Colbert tried something different. He brought in Chris Licht as executive producer, whose background was in TV news not entertainment. With him at the helm, Colbert abandoned the traditional non-partisanship of Late-Night and made the decision to take on Trump night after night, keeping his opening monologue unapologetically political. While Jimmy Fallon hosted Trump on his show and asked him tough questions like “I’ve read you eat fast food all the time” and “could I mess your hair up?”, Colbert called out every lie and rallied his crowd against the President’s poisonous rhetoric.

Rather than hurt him, Colbert’s new Trump-centred political focus saw him soar in the ratings. Democrats who felt alienated and exasperated by the continual drudgery of bad news flocked to his show with great enthusiasm. As of 22nd May, the latest TV ratings showed Stephen Colbert to be the undisputed King of Late-Night, thumping his less political rivals. The 3.82 million nightly viewers his show attracted dwarfed his rivals, Jimmy Fallon and Jimmy Kimmel.

Colbert is not the only host to take this combative line with Trump. Seth Meyers, Samantha Bee, Trevor Noah, and John Oliver have similarly abandoned political neutrality to continually condemn the administration. In the past, The Daily Show had adopted a pro-Democrat stance, but Late-Night TV has never before seen such sustained opposition to one politician.

This phenomenon is part of a wider trend in American society towards politicisation. In sport, NFL players kneel during the national anthem to protest police brutality. In Hollywood, glamorous actors now denounce Republicans in their Oscar acceptance speeches rather than thanking God. The lines of a cultural battlefield have been drawn across all society, and one must either choose a side or become a casualty to the crossfire. This polarisation explains why Late-Night hosts have adopted this new stance. They are supposed to be a stand-in for the viewer, reflecting the daily national conversation. But right now the viewer is more entrenched in their political opinions and our daily conversation is fuelled by rage.

Crucially, Late-Night hosts are not just defending liberal politics over conservatism. Instead they have begun defending democracy and longstanding political norms, which are under assault by a populist who has hijacked the Republican Party. How can you stay apolitical when one side refuses to condemn white supremacists? Jimmy Fallon has tried to keep politics out of his show, but after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, he began his show by saying, “even though The Tonight Show isn’t a political show, it’s my responsibility to stand up to intolerance and extremism as a human being.”

So what role does this newly politicised Late-Night line-up play in the age of Trump?

One crucial function of Late-Night is to provide comedic catharsis for Democrats worn down by Trump dismantling everything they stand for, from climate change legislation to a woman’s right to choose. Comedy has always proved a useful coping mechanism. As Stephen Colbert said in an improvised monologue on Trump’s election night, “in the face of something that might strike you as horrible, I think laughter is the best medicine. You cannot laugh and be afraid at the same time.” As the electoral map of America bled red in real time, Colbert faced the camera with a drink in his hand and mirrored the emotional state of his audience. Yes, he was looking for laughs, but beneath the jokes one could get a sense of incredulity, exasperation, and defiance in equal measure. That night, and every night since, Democrats have endured the Trump presidency by laughing along with someone who feels the way that they do.

A more surprising role that some Late-Night hosts have adopted is holding the government to account through investigative journalism. While programmes that air every night are limited by the relentlessness of their format, weekly shows like Last Week Tonight with John Oliver are becoming an important source of political education. The focus of John Oliver’s fifth ever episode was Net Neutrality, which was in danger of being compromised by the Federal Communications Commission. Highlighting this imminent risk, Oliver encouraged viewers to submit comments to the FCC’s website. The site promptly crashed under a torrent of public outrage, pressuring the FCC to classify the Internet as a public utility and strengthening the rules governing Net Neutrality. This season, Oliver has kept his viewers afloat on every dangerous Trump policy that has escaped mainstream media attention. With traditional news outlets in decline, Late-Night is proving vital for public education. The comedy keeps the viewers engaged, but the jokes often pack a political punch.

As Trump adopts more authoritarian tendencies, attacking any institution that attempts oversight and denouncing the press as ‘fake news’, Late-Night Comedy has a powerful role to play in reaffirming Americans’ right to freedom of speech. The ability to mock the leader of your country is a good litmus test for the health of a country’s democracy. Late-Night talk shows have reflected the politicisation of the wider cultural environment they inhabit. This new political edge has reinvigorated the format, leading it to fulfil a more important role in American society, helping people through a time of profound disorientation, and standing up for the democratic norms that are being threatened by Donald Trump.

Transcriptions for ‘illegible’ exams cost students over £30,000 since 2014

Angus Brown
-
0
Transcriptions for ‘illegible’ exams cost students over £30,000 since 2014

Transcribing “illegible” exam scripts has cost students £30,938 since 2013, representing an average cost of £144.57 per student.

According to University data released to Cherwell following a Freedom of Information Request, 214 students have been made to transcribe “illegible” exam scripts in the last six years, with 50 students sitting for transcriptions in the 2012/13 academic year alone.

University guidelines state that: “If a chair considers a script to be illegible, they must inform the Senior Tutor of the candidate’s college as quickly as possible.

“If there is a dispute between the Chair and the Senior Tutor as to the illegibility of a script or scripts, the question should be referred to the Proctors for a ruling.

“Chairs will need to return any illegible scripts, by hand, to the candidate’s college asking for them to be typed.

“The college will either make arrangements to use the Examinations and Assessments team transcription service or else will contact the Proctors for permission to type the script(s) in house.

“Chairs will be informed about the arrangements. The cost of the typing and invigilation shall not be a charge on the University.”

In addition to a £40 administrative fee for each four-hour transcription session, students are also charged £24 per hour to cover a £12 fee for both the invigilator and a typist.

The hourly pay rate for both is £10 per hour. This cost per hour has decreased since 2015/16 when the hourly rate charged to students was £20 for both the invigilator and typist, double their payment of £10 per hour.

The cost is also substantially higher than at other universities.

St Andrew’s University’s guidelines on exam transcriptions says that “Charges vary between Schools but are generally set at around £25 per transcription”.

Similarly, the University of York charges £8.08 per hour for transcriptions to cover the transcriber’s wages, almost a third less than Oxford.

Although official costs are not given, the University of Cambridge’s rules do not specify that students should bare the cost, although they do say that “the College may choose to pass on the associated costs to the student concerned”.

In 2017, Cambridge held a consultation with students on whether the university should allow all students to type in their exams, following complaints of a “downward trend” in students’ ability to write by hand, though this did not end written examinations.

Speaking to Cherwell, a spokesperson for Oxford University said: “Fees for the exam transcription service are designed to help cover elements including room bookings, IT support, staff payments and associated staffing costs such as employer contributions and recruitment fees.

“In practice, these fees only go some way towards covering the overall cost of the service.

“Many colleges offer financial support to students whose exam scripts require transcription – students should liaise with their colleges over the level of support available.

“The University offers alternative exam arrangements for students who require them, such as the use of a word processor for students with specific learning differences or physical disabilities that make writing difficult.”

Oxford, Oil, and the tragedy of Brother McAuley

Jorrit Donner-Wittkopf
-
0
Oxford, Oil, and the tragedy of Brother McAuley

Last month, Peruvian authorities found Paul McAuley’s body in the remote city of Iquitos on the Amazon River. McAuley had been murdered and his corpse burnt at the hostel he ran for indigenous youth.

McAuley was a renowned environmental and human rights advocate who reached global prominence when he was awarded an MBE in 1995 for his services to education. After studying at Oxford, McAuley became a priest and moved to Peru, the fifth-poorest country in Latin America. He set up a school and dedicated the rest of his life to campaigning for the protection of the Amazon and its inhabitants.

McAuley ended up spending much of his time fighting the corrupt Peruvian government and the giant multinational corporations destroying the rainforest, McAuley was branded a ‘terrorist’ and an ‘incendiary gringo priest’ by the predominantly right-wing national press. He was accused of driving big businesses and their jobs away from the ailing Peruvian economy: in 2010 the government attempted to deport him. Nine years later, he was murdered in cold blood.

Who killed Paul McAuley? We will most likely never know. What is for certain is that his death is part of a disturbing trend across Latin America, where environmentalists and human rights campaigners are indiscriminately murdered by crime syndicates to pave the way for multinationals to move in and exploit countries’ natural resources. 4 Peruvian campaigners were murdered by a local cartel in November last year; 125 Latin American land activists were killed in 2017 alone.

To us in the UK and specifically in Oxford, what is even more alarming are the close links our own university fosters with the very companies McAuley spent his days fighting against.

In many ways McAuley’s is a familiar story: he organised protests against the same big-money corporations which have been operating almost indiscriminately in countries such as Peru for decades. More often than not, the cost of their business practices is the devastation of the Amazon and its inhabitants’ livelihoods. Multinationals are free to do as they please in amongst governments plagued with corrupt officials and overly lenient regulation. The continued presence of these oil and gas companies perpetuates the vicious cycle of corruption and exploitation enveloping much of the Global South.

Three years after the Paris Climate Accords, Oxford University continues to enjoy close ties with oil and gas companies that completely disregard the possibility of a climate catastrophe. These connections run far deeper than college investment schemes or hosting controversial guest speakers. They are direct links to some of the few hundred oil and gas giants which account for more than 71% of global emissions.

In 2009, McAuley volunteered to help locals blockade the Napo River in western Peru. They were attempting to obstruct an Anglo-French oil company’s supply barges from proceeding upstream and commencing oil extraction operations in ‘Lot 67’, a vast swathe of land in heart of the Amazon. After a few days of protests, the then-president, Alan García (who has since attempted to flee the country on corruption charges), declared the drilling of Lot 67 ‘of national interest’. The army broke through the blockade: McAuley and his fellow activists were left to watch as the oil corporation hauled $200 million’s worth of drilling equipment into one of the fragile – and internationally-safeguarded – ecosystems on the planet.

The oil company which had gained access to Lot 67 was Perenco GL, a company registered in London and owned by the Perrodo family. The Perrodo family enjoys close ties to St. Peter’s College: exactly one year after the lucrative drilling on Lot 67 began, the Perrodo family donated £5 million to St. Peter’s.

Most of the details concerning Perenco’s dire human rights and environmental record can be found in Cherwell’s article here. In short, Perenco has a history of accusations levelled against it for funding paramilitary groups which explicitly target environmental and trade union activists. In 2012, the company was accused of funding ‘death squads’ in Colombia which killed an estimated 50 000 people.

Perenco has also amassed a series of bribery allegations. Just last year, the company was alleged to have bribed Venezuelan officials with $5 million in return for ‘priority drilling status’ in the tumultuous country.

Perenco is not the only company with links to Oxford operating in Latin America. Tullow Oil – an oil and gas company with a similarly chequered record – has repeatedly voiced its intentions to extract oil off the Peruvian coast.

Tullow originally signed a deal to gain access to the nature conservation area with former Peru President Kuczynski (currently in jail for corruption), but it has since become apparent that neither Tullow nor Kucyznski made any kind of effort to establish what the environmental and humanitarian ramifications of drilling in the area would be.

Tullow was also recently accused of bribing members of the Ugandan parliament to gain access to oil fields. Meanwhile, protests against Tullow’s expansion in Kenya have become so extensive that the company was almost forced to withdraw entirely from the region.

Mike Daly, a Visiting Professor of Earth Sciences at Oxford University, sits on Tullow Oil’s board as a non-executive director. In the face of UN warnings that environmental catastrophe is imminent, Professor Daly and his colleagues at Tullow have recently announced that they intend to up their company’s oil and gas exploration efforts in 2019. In West Africa alone, Tullow intends to up its oil extraction from 93,000 to 101,000 barrels per day.

Another Oxonian, Lord Browne, sits on the executive board of the University’s Blavatnik School of Government. The decision to accept funding from British philanthropist Blavatnik – who also made most of his fortune from oil extraction – was descibed by the University’s own specialist on corruption as ‘incomprehensible and irresponsible’ shortly before he resigned.

Lord Browne has recently begun working for Wintershall, an oil and gas company which also recently announced plans to massively increase its fossil fuel extraction project. Wintershall has been accused of witholding $900 million in profits from the UN-backed Libyan government.

Lord Browne was also previously the CEO of British Petroleum. The University continues to run the ‘BP scholarship scheme’ and accept funding from BP for the Centre of Analysis of Resource-Rich Economies. Just like Perenco, BP has been accused of funding Colombian ‘death squads’. Elsewhere, Shell, which continues to sponsor over twenty academics in the Shell-Oxford Research Collaboration, is currently embroiled in a £1 billion corruption scandal in Nigeria.

Perenco, Tullow and Wintershall are the very companies Paul McAuley dedicated his life to fighting against. It is yet to be seen how any single one of these oil companies – let alone their larger competitors BP and Shell – are doing enough to combat climate change and avert climate catastrophe.

What’s more, the Perrodo families and Professor Mike Dalys of the world – those profiting from Latin American natural resources at a grave cost to regional stability and locals’ lives – enjoy a hero’s welcome at Oxford University. Their names are engraved on plaques on magnificent constructions; their academic writing is published under the University’s name.

Last year marked a milestone in the campaign to make our institutions divest from fossil fuels. Over £80 billion was divested in the UK; globally, $6 trillion dollars were moved away from the most harmful industries. And still, Oxford University’s flirtation with oil money continues.

The Perrodos, Professor Daly and Lord Browne need to be held to account for their role in global warming and the seemingly devastating effect their companies are having on the environment.

Even philanthropy, as in the case of St. Peter’s and the Perrodo family, is never a one-way street. A donation to an educational institution must be seen as a transaction. Just as the University legitimises Professor Daly and Lord Browne’s business practices, St. Peter’s legitimises the way in which the Perrodo family make their millions. Equally, the Perrodo family are able to turn the spotlight away from the string of allegations levelled against their company, Perenco.

Why is the University continuing to turn a blind eye to the accusations levelled against its benefactors and employees? Why is it continuing to endorse individuals who work in very industries which are at the heart of the problem? If we are to avert the whole-sale destruction of our life support systems then we must continue Paul McAuley’s good work and stand up for those who are most vulnerable. It can never be a question of ‘take it and run’ when there is nowhere to run to.

Wadham’s Race Symposium: has British multiculturalism failed?

Zehra Munir
-
0
Wadham’s Race Symposium: has British multiculturalism failed?

The event description for this year’s Wadham Race Symposium panel was all-encompassing. It read “With the latent xenophobia of Brexit, the overt racism of Windrush and the electricity of Extinction Rebellion, Britain’s colonial past is finally forcing itself into the spotlight. At a time when illegal deportations are happening under our noses and ‘Rhodes Must Fall’ is dividing students, what exactly does it mean to call Britain multicultural?”.

It seems then, that Wadham’s POCRE officers were determined to tackle every aspect of this multifaceted topic in their symposium. They did not fail to deliver. With an electric panel line-up, and careful mediation, they ensured a truly incisive discussion took place last weekend. The panel featured local Labour councillor and anti-racist activist Shaista Aziz, future NASUWT president and local teacher Michelle Codrington-Rodgers, local artist Sunil Shah, and Orwell prize-winning journalist Amelia Gentleman (most famous for breaking the Windrush story last year). Karishma Paun and Leela Jadhav chaired the conversation jointly, drawing from their own lived experience and musings to shape this exploration on whether British multiculturalism has failed.

The discussion began with each panelist attempting to define what multiculturalism means to them. There appeared to be a general consensus that multiculturalism was a shifting term, one which had once signaled the welcoming of new migrants into British society, but was increasingly being used in a negative sense. Indeed, as Michelle pointed out, when her grandmother migrated from the Caribbean, her arrival was not about multiculturalism. Rather, it was about a sense of belonging. This is a point that was raised again and again in the ensuing conversation – the idea that for the Windrush generation, they were moving to another region within their home country of Britain. Leading on from this, Sunil pointed out that the word multiculturalism has always been associated with race, linked to those who have migrated from the colonies. He argued that the assimilation of Welsh and Scottish migrants is not considered to be part of a multicultural society in the way that the assimilation of brown and black peoples is.

The discussion then moved onto whether multiculturalism is a brand that people of colour have to buy into in order to be accepted into British society. The clearest theme that emerged was that this country’s current version of multiculturalism is not nearly good enough. Shaista spoke of a session she had with the young daughters of immigrants in a school in London International Women’s Day. She asked the students in the room when was the last time they saw someone on TV, or the internet, or in a book, that looked like them. One girl with a headscarf put her hand up and said “Shamima Begum. But Miss, they say she is a terrorist as well”. Shaista’s story had a visible impact on the audience – it is an indictment of our times when a young girl in a hijab has only a child bride groomed by terrorists to seek representation in. Similarly, Michelle talked about how multiculturalism sees the celebration of a single month for Black history, thus delineating a time when black people are allowed to be visible and remembered. She spoke passionately about how Black people have been here since the Roman times, and it is about time that her community and their experiences were mainstreamed. This process is taking too long, and indeed, it has now taken steps back.

She pointed out how Brexit effectively ripped off a ‘bandaid’, and now the world can see Britain’s racial dynamics for what they really are. This idea of regression was present in Amelia’s sad retelling of her interviews with the original Windrush incomers. She related that an uncomfortable question she had to ask her Windrush interviewees was whether they considered themselves British. Usually she was “put in her place” and told that they were obviously so. However, since the start of the Hostile Environment (the term that denotes Theresa May’s creation of an environment that has embedded harsh immigration controls into everyday interactions between public sector workers and the people they see), she has seen a shift in answers to her question. Now, she said, this generation feels less British than they did before. Despite having been invited to this country in the previous century, the message they have received is clear. Due to their race, they were never considered truly British.

These points flowed into a dialogue about the weight of words used in current narratives around immigration and multiculturalism. All the panelists were united in their worry about the way language is currently being used. Sunil stressed the importance of developing a language that joins, rather than divides. Amelia used a political example of dehumanising terms, referencing internal Home Office files about people affected by the Windrush scandal. She spoke of a disturbing exchange from the notes of a telephone conversation between a caseworker and their appointed interviewee. The interviewee was maintaining that he was British, and was repeatedly being told that he needed to return to Jamaica. His caseworker notes “migrant insists he is British”, and “migrant says he has been here for 50 years”. This terminology, which could have been replaced by more positive words like expat or emigre, shows the way in which political structures continue to disregard naturalised person of colour immigrants.

And yet, despite the personal hurt most of the panellists have suffered through the rolling-back of ‘multiculturalism’, they chose to end the panel on a hopeful note. Shaista spoke powerfully about the need for working-class unity, one which rejects the construct of the “white working class” as fundamentally racist. In her view, true unity is present in white members of the working-class supporting their person of colour counterparts in racialised situations – as she saw her father’s white supervisor do when his trade union promoted him and his co-workers protested. She reminded the audience that people of colour have always been part of the history of struggle in this country, from trade unionism to the Southall Black Sisters. She preceded this point by talking about how other countries are in awe of Britain’s multiculturalism. For them, Britain is jalebis, samosas and yams. This is the Britain we must embrace, for this is the Britain that exists. When this fact is accepted, multiculturalism can truly succeed.

Women’s Blues win Twenty:20 Varsity

Chris Searle
-
0
Women’s Blues win Twenty:20 Varsity

A bleak day at Fenners was kicked off by Barnaby Harrison’s impassioned Authentics (Men’s 2nds). Aided early on by some wayward bowling to the tune of a gleeful all Oxford crowd, Tom Oliver and Ben Barber led the ‘tics to 40-1 off the powerplay.

The game was turned as an initially scratchy Freddie Freeman found the middle and put Cambridge’s first change bowler into the Hughes Hall accommodation. From there he never looked back and was finally dismissed for a swashbuckling 35 off 22. Callum Job followed suit with 20 off 14 before skipper Harrison finished the job with some characteristically lusty blows (22 off 11). The innings was honourably anchored by the ever-jazzy Barber who was eventually dismissed for 52 (50) – a potentially matchwinning knock with the aesthetics to match.

The second innings began in true ‘tics fashion with 60 being taken off the powerplay. This being a familiar scenario meant that there was no panic and the first change pair of Chris Mingard (4-0-1-25) and Fergus Neve (4-0-2-15) calmly reeled the Light Nlues back in, building pressure by taking wickets. By the time Jei Diwakar (3-0-0-12) and man of the match Ben Barber (4-0-2-21) came on, the pendulum had firmly swung back in ‘tics favour, and they finished the job impressively, leaving Cambridge 29 short after their 20 overs – a near perfect all round display until Freeman decided the job had become too professional and shelled a goober off the last ball of the game.

An elated group soon settled in for the remainder of the day, consistently clearing the few spectators in their vicinity and providing the majority of the noise for the afternoon.

The OUCC Women’s Blues notched their first varsity win of the season at Fenner’s on Friday afternoon, and did so comprehensively. Cambridge won the toss and chose to bat – a decision which surprised OUCC captain Vanessa Picker – but this minor disruption did not deter the girls for long, if at all. After a disciplined first over from Sam Bennett set the tone for the Cambridge innings, Amy Hearn made the crucial breakthrough with her first ball, Emily Wilkins taking a sharp catch behind the stumps to dismiss Cambridge opener Katie Gibson for 5.

Hearn then removed the other opener, Holly Tasker, in her second over, to leave Cambridge reeling at 15-2. Oxford sustained this pressure throughout the Cambridge innings, restricting them to 80-6, despite a battling 37 not out from their captain Chloë Allison, with two wickets each for spinners Elodie Harbourne and Surabhi Shukla.

Oxford started their chase well, as Picker and Olivia Lee-Smith, the incoming Blues hockey captain, put on 30 for the first wicket, before Lee-Smith was run out attempting a second. She was replaced by her predecessor, Shona McNab, who scored a run-a-ball 19 to help Oxford towards their target but was bowled by Coral Reeves in the 12th over. Reeves took a couple of quick wickets, but the middle order played sensibly despite difficult batting conditions, and Lucy Duncan saw Oxford over the line in the 16th over.

All in all, it was a comfortable win for Oxford, giving them confidence heading into some big games over the next ten days, including playing the MCC at Lords on Tuesday 28th May.

Inspired by the day’s feats thus far, the Men’s Blues were desperate to get going, particularly once Alex Rackow had won the toss under darkening skies and stuck Cambridge in the field. George Hargrave got us off to a flier, lingering blood alcohol allowing him to fully express himself undaunted by the occasion. When he was dismissed for 48 off 36 the going became tougher as the field simultaneously went back and singles became the desired currency.

Cambridge’s bowling became as miserly as their board charging £4 for entry, and against the backdrop of silence their spinners slowly turned the screw. In these tough conditions Matty Naylor, James Bevin and Tom Claughton battled hard to set a platform for the big levers of Pettman and Swanson to clear the ropes. Sadly, neither of these aims was quite fulfilled and Oxford staggered to 131 off their 20. Unideal, but hopefully enough.

Chasing in a Varsity game is like nothing else and no team had ever lost at home in this fixture. The pressure was very much on the Light Blues. Oxford started well with Old Oxonian Nick Taylor walking past the third ball of Ben Swanson’s first over, well stumped by Jake Duxbury. The powerplay went well with Toby Pettman, Chris Searle and Freddie Foster all doing jobs alongside Swanson. Duxbury’s ridiculous one-handed grab behind the stumps will go down as an innings highlight (after multiple recantations it has since become a particular lowlight).

Taking wickets at regular intervals meant the Dark Blues stayed ahead of the eight ball – led through the middle overs by a typically austere Matt Fanning spell – until their set batsmen, biding his time rotating the strike, had a successful swing at the end; a good display of patience and bottle. Oxford went into the last over of the game with the Tabs needing 4 off 6 Pettman balls. A wicket first ball gave Oxford a glimmer. 2 dots gave the Dark Blues ray. Cambridge ended up needing 1 off 1 and scampered a quick single to get home. An exceptional effort by Toby.

It was a really tough loss to take but one that will hopefully drive Oxford to victory in the forthcoming One-Day Varsity (at Lords, Tuesday 5th week) and Four Day Varsity (Fenners, 10th week).

Lady Pat. R. Honising – BJ or BJs?

Lady Pat R. Honising
-
0
Lady Pat. R. Honising – BJ or BJs?

Dear Agony Aunt,

I’ve come across a bit of a crisis and I don’t know what to do. I’ve recently started seeing a boy and we hit it off straight away – we’ve been on a couple of dates and I was really happy with where things were going. I won’t lie, he’s definitely a bit of an Oxford stereotype. He’s got the centre parting, the round tortoise-shell glasses and the superiority complex to match, so I don’t know why I didn’t see what happened last night coming. We went for a drink at a very bougie joint out of town and I went back to his Cowley house (because staying in college-owned accommodation is so overrated!). One thing led to another and it got a bit steamy, but this was before I looked up to notice a completely unironic poster of Boris Johnson in pride of place above his bed, and, as a Remain voting Labour leftie, I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a bigger turn off. Help me Lady Pat, how do I make like Brexit and get out of this situation?

Yours,
(Wishing I’d never) kissed a Tory

Dear Anon,

Oh honey, I am so sorry. There’s nothing like the crushing disappointment of falling for someone only to find out that they’ve got a potential hidden fetish for balding middle-aged men with very questionable morals – trust me, I’ve been there. No middle parting is worth it to end up second best to BoJo, though and to be honest it’s better you’ve realised it sooner rather than later. But don’t worry, your very unqualified Auntie is here to help you negotiate the best deal that hopefully sees you better off on the other side. 

So, should you stay or should you go? It’s a difficult conversation to have, but it might be worth mentioning how this made you feel (e.g. traumatised), and you never know, he might realise the grave, grave error of his ways and (for the sake of you and all future ladies who enter his room) remove the poster. If this doesn’t work then maybe it’s time to begrudgingly listen to the democratic majority of my survey, which says that you should get out of there ASAP, so let’s work with it. You could always try and negotiate some kind of deal here – although you should probably get out of there before anything goes any further romantically, it can’t hurt to have a little bit of freedom of movement (although definitely round yours). It could also turn out that BoJo doesn’t necessarily mean BoJo and the poster could be the result of a particularly savage odds on, but a girl can only dream.

In the case that neither of these eventualities are possible, then I think it’s time to take a metaphorical leaf from Boris’ book and go for a no-deal exit. Set your sights on bigger and better things – never underestimate Bumble and its invasive questionnaires that avoid having to have the awkward politics conversation/revelation in person. If nothing else, it’s an anecdote to tell at pres and in never-have-I-evers for years to come, and probably also has got a very strong lead in the race of most mortifying date experiences ever – so take that as you will! 

Stay strong, and better luck next time,

Auntie Pat xxx

1...574575576...2,487Page 575 of 2,487

Support Student Journalism

Cherwell is Oxford’s oldest independent newspaper, established in 1920. We are entirely student-run. By supporting us, you will contribute to keeping our paper in print and online. Every donation makes a difference.

Donate

Explore

Follow us

More

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2025 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy

Website by James Ashley