Thursday, May 1, 2025
Blog Page 579

Review: Amadeus – University College Players ‘have more than risen to the challenge’

In my entire time at school, I enjoyed only two Music lessons: my last one, and the one where we watched Amadeus – the VHS of choice for a long-suffering Music teacher nearing the summer holidays. Since first seeing it in Mr Couldridge’s Year 9 class, I’ve loved it. Peter Shaffer’s play is endlessly inventive and contains some of the finest lines about the vitality and importance of music that have ever been put to paper. So no pressure, University College Players. Fortunately, they’ve more than risen to the challenge.

Director Priya Radhakrishnan’s take on the play opens with a huge deal of energy, courtiers and emperors dashing about in eclectic costumes. The ‘Salieri, Salieri’ opening felt off, until one realised Salieri (Eddie Holmes-Milner) was to the audience’s rear, which was an inventive choice but unfortunately made it harder to hear. Still, this didn’t last long and soon Holmes-Milner was in full swing, slipping between the old and young Salieri with all the enthusiasm of a man who really didn’t want to spend the whole play pretending to have a hunchback.

Holmes-Milner’s performance was marvellous. Early in the play comes the iconic ‘voice of an obscene child’ speech which introduces Mozart. Holmes-Milner pitched Salieri’s reaction perfectly: not too comic as to distract, but not too venal as to turn the audience immediately against him. His masterful clarity, even when fighting with a slightly lilting Italian accent, was pitched perfectly; and his later railings against God, Mozart and (I suspect) internally against the rather inclement weather identified him as a real talent. His sly confidence, sense of fading aristocratic haughtiness and frustrated mediocrity made him one half of an outstanding central duo.

The other half of that, of course, is Mozart. It’s a tough role. Shaffer’s take is an unlikeable childish narcissist, with a laugh like a cat violently disagreeing with a chalkboard. Fortunately, Tom Fisher’s Mozart was fantastic: a manic live-wire, he was constantly reacting, changing and giggling. Fisher was as outrageous as necessary, and powerfully and tragically mad when he had to be. It was one of the most confident and artful performances I’ve seen in a long time, and he should be lauded for making such a cad so sympathetic.

He’s aided by Olivia Krauze as a superb Constanze, who beautifully brought out the melancholy passion of a woman cursed by that pesky Cupid to love a childish genius. Together, the three make the closing parts of the second half a tour de force: Salieri’s heretical hatred, Constanze’s ailing love and Mozart’s unhinged brilliance all combined for a powerful finale. They were aided by the weather, which chose to unleash a tremendous gust of wind during the climax of the play. Though this destroyed half the set and made Krauze look ever so slightly like Kate Bush on a wiley moor, it showed, contrary to Salieri’s intonations, that the production clearly had the Almighty on its side. 

The rest of the cast did well, especially the two Venticellos (Matt Kenyon and Dorothy McDowell), and Ariel Levine deserves a mention for his great turn as the foppish and foolish Emperor Joseph. But what must really be praised is the excellence of the musical accompaniment. Elsa Shah’s musical direction and band give a beautiful live rendition of Mozart at his finest, and the opera sequences were a particular delight. It was privilege to be sat so close to such a beautiful arrangement.  

All in all then, we were treated to a great cast, with great music, and some inadvertently entertaining bad weather. Much better than any Music lesson. Sorry, Mr Couldridge.

Review: The Roaring Girl – ‘a ground-breaking proto-feminist piece of theatre’

Thomas Middleton and Thomas Dekker’s 1611 play The Roaring Girl could certainly be described as a ground-breaking proto-feminist piece of theatre, following the story of a cross-dressing thief who plays with gender roles, condemns misogynistic predators and vows never to marry. With a bold, funny and thoroughly spirited performance, Martha Harlan and Laura Henderson Child’s production at the Pilch excellently conveyed the proto-feminist undercurrent that lingers beneath the surface of the script.

It suffices to say that Harlan and Henderson Child’s direction was simply brilliant. The piece was highly dynamic, the pace never slowed, nor did the show lose momentum. The co-directors did a fantastic job at bringing Middleton and Dekker’s script to life; each moment on stage is injected with a great deal of energy and movement. While this felt a little dizzying, it nevertheless highlighted the show’s raucous, fun-filled spirit. This was most evident in the fight scenes – the directors clearly paid attention to detail by having the combat scenes choreographed, and this was easily one of the best directorial decisions. With onstage fighting that was gripping, tense, but nonetheless hugely entertaining, the play’s fight director, Ariel Levine, is deserving of a great deal of praise. Additionally, the set design was striking: the ceiling was adorned with white sheets and the costume rail was constantly present, with the cast changing costumes on stage. This recurring motif of fabric and clothing was a very nice touch, I thought, given that the concept of disguise and “dressing up” features so prominently in the play.

The incredibly strong cast is also deserving of credit. The “Roaring Girl” herself, Moll Cutpurse, was played fantastically by Hannah Taylor, radiating charisma and swagger as she absolutely dominated the stage. Even as she played such a larger-than-life character, Taylor’s attention to detail was superb, as the occasional wink or kiss of the teeth sent the audience into uproarious laughter. She was accompanied by an equally talented supporting cast – Lola Beal and Katie Friedli Walton gave standout performances as an unhappy noblewoman and her milquetoast husband, as did Millie Tupper and Jamie Lucas as a pair of blundering pickpockets. Every cast member aside from Taylor took on at least two roles, a highly impressive feat as they all demonstrated immense versatility. I also found the gender blind casting to be an interesting touch, given that the whole play seemed to revolve around the notion of cross-dressing, and it was pulled off superbly by the actors.

The soundtrack that accompanied the play, made up of such artists as Janelle Monáe and Madonna, truly captured the spirit of the show – feisty, bold and playful. The scene changes were accompanied by brief snippets of the soundtrack as the cast changed costumes and danced around on stage. While this initially added to the sheer exuberance of the piece, the use of music eventually felt a little repetitive for me. Nevertheless, the transitions were executed very well, allowing for a seamless jump between each scene.

The Roaring Girl is a dynamic, fearless comedy which celebrates feisty women like Moll. Harlan and Henderson Child did a fantastic job bringing Middleton and Dekker’s script to a modern stage, supported by a hugely talented and versatile cast.

Review: Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons – ‘complex but never cumbersome’

When is the last time you counted the number of words you uttered in a day, and thought about what you said with them? What if, all of a sudden, a cap was placed on your ability to speak, forcing you to choose carefully every word you say? The introduction of a new law that does just that – the Quietude Bill – is the premise of Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons. Sam Steiner’s script is brought to full life by Dromadaire Productions, with cast and crew alike offering us a compelling and unflinching look at the role that language plays in our lives, whether real or virtual.

Not much is given away before the lights go up, but as soon as they are the it easy to decipher that this is a flat, with all the paraphernalia of millennial life – a globe, books, bowls and bottles of juice and ketchup scattered across the dining-cum-office table. It is clear that, under the direction of Kat Cooper, creative use is made of the space. We see Oliver and Bernadette – Louis Cunningham and Mattie Williams respectively – get off to an awkward start: their dialogue is stilted, they speak over one another. But this awkwardness is not only performed well but deliberate, drawing our attention to the ebbs and flows of speech between the couple as the play progresses.

Bernadette is a divorce lawyer with ambitions to reach the top. Oliver, meanwhile, is a musician with a strong social conscience. The pair’s worldviews and attitudes sometimes jar, but they and their relationship are both impacted by what Oliver terms the ‘Hush Law’. The audience sees them fall in and out of love, but the fact that this a play all about what is said and left unsaid draws our attention to the veneer that language can constitute. Standout scenes include a riff on the hackneyed but seemingly irreplaceable phrase “I love you”, as well as the frequently infuriating “Can we talk about this later?”. Besides this, though it might take a while for the viewer to work out the significance of the repeated utterance of seemingly random numbers, the realisation adds a further layer to this complex but never cumbersome play.

Despite these serious themes, there are plenty of comedic elements present: early on, Bernadette compares falling in love to grating cheese, and Oliver remarks wittily that, in a relationship, “You need light and shade, because otherwise you’d be hot and sweaty”. But this comedy never distracts from or dilutes the more profound questions Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons Lemons poses; rather, it intensifies the personal implications of political decisions. As Oliver says to Bernadette: “I can’t know you in 140”.

In this new world of censored speech, words represent for the protagonists the opportunity to know themselves and others, and this proves a crucial part of identity formation. Although the play does not end on a particularly upbeat note, we are left with the impression that, somehow, the two will muddle through, inventing new methods of communication to keep their love alive despite their obvious differences.

As the only two actors on stage, a lot falls to Cunningham and Williams. Having clearly worked hard to tease out the intricacies and contradictions of their characters, both give confident performances and, as a pair, are superb. Transitions between and within scenes are particularly smooth, making for a fluent seventy-five minutes of drama. Will Hayman’s lighting design complements the action of the play, whilst the musical selection also works well. Dromadaire Productions, then, are to be commended for their creative staging of this play that resonates in so many ways with contemporary goings-on and invites us to reflect on the value we place on what gets said, who says it and, perhaps more importantly, who is listening.  

Female Comedians Finding the Funny in the Filth

0

The term ‘female comedians’ is a, well, funny one. Should we still be so insistently adding the ‘female’ part? Female comedians are comedians. But there is still sound justification for the need to preface the role with their gender. Women are funny. They’re hilarious. But female comedians are still marginalised, given one seat – at a push – on the likes of Mock the Week and Have I Got News for You. We don’t need more ‘comedians’, we need more ‘female comedians’. That is why we must have this seemingly arbitrary addition of the prefix ‘female’.

We know that women are funny, even if some people try to dispute it. But, to put it in the most simple and crude terms, funny women disturb the patriarchy, and a lot of men don’t like that. And I’d argue, women are at their funniest when being crude about sex and relationships. Whilst a part of me still has to mouth the word “sex” in a Miranda Hart-esque style each time I say it, the enjoyment that is gained from listening to female comedians talk about sex is high. Phoebe Waller-Bridge has done much to alleviate stigma around female pleasure. But it seems we love to criticise female comedians as unfunny or, as I once heard someone say, “too fat to laugh at,” all the while heralding Jack Whitehall as the epitome of modern comedy. The man is a wet flannel. Another diversion, but an important one, takes us to the issue of these comedians’ social backgrounds. I love Phoebe Waller-Bridge, I think Miranda is great, and that Jack Whitehall can, on occasion, be entertaining enough. But there is a running theme here, and that is their poshness. They’re not just a bit more middleclass than the average comedian, but they’re proper posh.

Working-class women can also be really, really funny – just with less Whistles clothing and Crémant. Caitlin Moran’s Raised by Wolves and Lisa McGee’s Derry Girls depict young women being both honest and hilarious. Though Moran has made some questionable comments in the past, and her journalistic background perhaps doesn’t make her a ‘comedian’ in the traditional sense of the word, she is undoubtedly hilarious, and definitely contributed to the ground work for how young women can talk, and laugh, about sex. Victoria Wood also deserves a mention, here who broke through comedy when it was still hugely maledominated. The American comedian Phoebe Robinson – who co-hosted the podcast 2 Dope Queens – has spoken at length about sex in her comedy. One of her most popular videos on Comedy Central’s YouTube channel shows her discussing a relationship. In it she quips how, in a relationship you “eat, watch Netflix, stop growing as a person so you can stay in that relationship.” The crowd laughs, because it’s true. It’s as if the worse the reality, the more ground there is to laugh.

The most uncomfortable truths make for the most perfect comedy moments. Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s Fleabag, for example, switched from moments of hilarity to moments of deep sadness, peppered with trauma and filled with honesty. A line from the first series, “I have a horrible feeling I am a greedy, perverted, selfish, apathetic, deprived, morally bankrupt woman who can’t even call herself a feminist” summarises the state of women and comedy. Women can be funny, selfish, even morally bankrupt if they want to be. Women don’t have to be just one thing. Waller-Bridge is now helping to rewrite the new Bond script, while another brilliant comedian, Lolly Adefope, is breaking into America at high speed with a role in Shrill, a comedy that examines body positivity and breaks down the connection between body weight and value. Female comedians are, as these shows highlight, not one-dimensional. Ultimately, it is honesty that connects us to these comedians. The audience can open up when they see themselves reflected on stage – which is, obviously, why there needs to be more diversity in comedy. Fleabag’s first episode opened with a monologue: “you know that feeling when a guy you like sends you a text at 2 o’clock on a Tuesday night … so you have to get out of bed, drink half a bottle of wine, get in the shower, shave everything, put on some agent provocateur business, suspender belt, and wait by the door until the buzzer goes.”

It is Fleabag’s honesty that makes us laugh, the lack of feminist pretence. In a time when feminism has come to feel like a pressure cooker in which we all must be the perfect feminists, Fleabag has showed us otherwise: she masturbated over Barack Obama, she exclaimed “do I have a massive arsehole?”, and she slept with a priest. Waller-Bridge has taught us that the sex we have is not mutually exclusive to whether we are feminists or not. It is no surprise that the movement of sex-positive comedy is coming at a moment when women are shedding their layers of shame.

We cannot be naïve, though; female comedy that confronts reality is funny, but right now for many women all over the world the reality of their lives is bleak. The new abortion laws in Alabama reveal that even while women have control over their jokes and their words, ultimately, they do not have control over their bodies. I wonder what’s next for female comedy in the current climate.

Wadham commits to full divestment from coal and tar sands

0

Wadham College’s governing body has approved a statement resolving to fully divest the College’s endowment from coal and tar sands, tobacco and ‘controversial’ arms manufacturing.

The College’s estimated £107 million endowment will now be prevented from investing in companies that gain a significant portion of revenue from these industries.

The decision is a major victory for student campaigners, who have been pressuring colleges and the University to withdraw financial support for the fossil fuel, tobacco and arms industries.

Wadham has not committed to divesting from other forms of fossil fuel, such as oil and natural gas, or much of the arms industry.

The College will also take steps to ensure that its indirect investments are subject to more substantive ethical guidelines, although these have yet to be clarified.

The statement is the culmination of two years of intense lobbying by Wadham students. Already in November 2017, they passed a motion in Wadham Student Union expressing their support for the Oxford Climate Justice Campaign (OCJC) and calling on the College to divest.

In a joint statement, Wadham SU President Sulamaan Rahim and Environment and Ethics Officer Theo Harris said: “We’re both incredibly proud to have been involved in this final part of the process to get Wadham as a college body to interrogate its role in the climate crisis that we currently face. The new ethical investment policy of the college represents a concrete step in this direction.”

The two praised the work of Harris’s predecessor Harry Penrose, who spearheaded the campaign. They described it as “incredible” that the campaign now “has culminated in tangible structural change on the college level.”

Calling on other colleges to “examine their responsibilities around the climate crisis”,  they said: “A huge part of divestment is communicating the message that our current practices are wrong and we need to change now.“

Harris and Rahim expressed hope that other colleges now will follow suit, and that similar guidelines will be adopted by Oxford University Endowment Management (OUem), a wholly owned subsidiary of the University of Oxford. OUem manages £3 bn for the University, 25 colleges, and six associated charities.

Currently, OUem’s website lists as the only absolute restrictions on investments that: “The Oxford Endowment Fund does not hold direct investments in tobacco companies, manufacturers of weapons illegal under UK law, or companies whose main business is the extraction of thermal coal and oil sands.”

Talks between Wadham SU representatives and college administration commenced in Hilary term 2018. Harry Penrose told Cherwell that, despite some disagreement, the college “generally took our concerns seriously”.

In Trinity the same year, whilst talks were underway, an open letter expressed students, faculty, and staff’s “deep concern” that the college profited from investments in companies which extract fossil fuels. The letter had 128 signatories and urged Wadham to “uphold its name as a progressive and liberal college” and to divest from companies on the Carbon Underground 200 list.

Following what Penrose described as “very productive” talks in Michaelmas 2018, Governing Body approved the creation of a working group. It comprised members of Wadham SU and MCR, as well as tutors, college staff, and alumni. The statement which was recently approved is the product of their work.

Julia Peck, Chair of OCJC called the Governing Body’s decision “a thrilling victory for divestment at Oxford.”  

Echoing Harris’s hope that other colleges would follow, she told Cherwell: “We’re expecting similar policy shifts at several colleges in which we work, and working towards a wave of divestment among colleges that will push full divestment at the University from below.

“Wadham will play an important role: it’s now in a position to lead the way amongst constituent investors of Oxford University Endowment Management — which includes 24 other colleges — to ask OUem to finally divest fully, as the student body has demanded.”

Co-Director for Campaigns at People & Planet J Clarke, who has helped organise the national student divestment movement, also pointed a finger at OUem. Clarke told Cherwell: “Oxford University Endowment Management increasingly reveals itself as uninterested in the wants and needs of those it claims to benefit – young people who will feel the damaging effects of climate change in their lifetime.”

Clarke expressed satisfaction that Wadham is now “stepping up to become a leader among Oxford colleges”.

They added: “Students at Wadham have done a fantastic job organising for this victory, and it is clear full divestment is the only acceptable position in a time of climate emergency: if it is wrong to wreck the climate it is wrong to profit from that wreckage.”

Interview: Jocelyn Bell Burnell

0

Jocelyn Bell Burnell first noticed the unusual, recurring blip – ‘Little Green Man 1’ – on her rolls of radio telescope data when she was a graduate student at the University of Cambridge in 1967. She mentions that the series of blips “lodged in her brain” and her persistence revealed the existence of pulsars; rapidly rotating neutron stars which emit regular pulses of radio waves across the sky at up to one thousand times a second.

Last year Bell Burnell was awarded the $3 million Special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. This prize has only been awarded thrice before: to Stephen Hawking for black hole radiation in 1974, to CERN for discovering the Higgs Boson in 2012, and the LIGO collaboration that in 2016 found gravitational waves. Bell Burnell’s discovery of pulsars revolutionised astrophysics and was awarded the 1974 Nobel Prize; though the prize was awarded to her supervisor at Cambridge. Her exclusion from the citation is widely viewed as one of the biggest Nobel snubs; it has famously been dubbed the “No-Bell” prize.

Half a century on from her revolutionary discovery, Bell Burnell is giving back: donating her prize money from the Special Breakthrough Prize to support women and underrepresented minorities in physics.

I meet Jocelyn in the grounds of Mansfield College, where she is Professorial Fellow in Physics. She is softly spoken, thoughtful and charming, and thanks me for taking the time out of my day to speak with her. In fact, it is much the other way around; in high demand, Jocelyn had only just returned from the States where she was awarded yet another honorary degree, and is due to give a talk at Mansfield on the 14th of June. As one of my personal STEM heroines, I am delighted she agreed to sit down with me.

As we start talking, I note that the Special Breakthrough Prize commended her also for a “lifetime of inspiring scientific leadership”.

She laughs, and replies, “You’re aware of the phrase “a serial offender”? I’m a serial president! I’ve been president of several professional bodies: the Royal Astronomical Society, of the Institute of Physics nd the Royal Society of Edinburgh, and as the Pro Chancellor at Trinity College Dublin. I think it’s through those roles that I’ve provided leadership. I was the female president of the Institute of Physics, and the first female president of the Royal Society, which was only founded in 1783! It’s crazy, isn’t it.”

I exclaim that scientific history is lacking in women, and ask if she thinks things are changing.

“Yes,” she answers. “They still need to change a bit more but undoubtedly they are; I’ve just come back from the United States and in academia there is becoming greater awareness of sexual harassment, which up until now they’ve managed to sweep under the carpet. People are paying it more attention.”

I ask her what it was like working as a graduate at the University of Cambridge in a male dominated team, where she made her famous discovery.

“I wasn’t the only woman in the place. At Glasgow I had been the only woman in a class of 50 but in the radio astronomy group in Cambridge there were one or two other women. Not many, but there were some! I found Cambridge very daunting, coming from Glasgow; people seemed very confident, self-assured, self-possessed and I was at risk of running away. I now realise that I was suffering from Imposter’s Syndrome. I was quite convinced that they were going to throw me out, that they had made a mistake admitting me and that they were going to discover their mistake.

My policy was to work as hard as I could until they threw me out so I’d know I’d done my best. And I was very thorough, because the thing I discovered amounted to an anomaly of ten parts in a million, so it was fairly small. It was all rolls and rolls of chart paper.”

Jocelyn has donated all the $3 million dollars’ worth of prize money to fund women and underrepresented minorities in pursuing physics. I ask her why that decision was important to her, and why she decided to provide such admirable support.

“I don’t need three million dollars! At my stage of life, it’s very nice but what do you do with it? I thought about it a lot and decided that if the Institute of Physics would take it, that would be a good use of the money. I strongly believe that diversity in a research group strengthens the group; it’s a bit harder to manage a diverse group but it’s much more creative and flexible and robust. I reckoned, harking back to my experience as a grad student, that one of the reasons I was feeling an imposter was that I was a minority. It is to give a better chance to people who wouldn’t otherwise have had such a chance.”

I remark that representation is still a problem: physics at Oxford is one of the most male-dominated subjects at the university, with under 20% women on the course. It’s a lot better than it used to be but there’s still a massive access problem in physics at Oxford. I ask her why she thinks this still the case.

“I don’t know because they do try very hard but there aren’t many girls doing A level physics. And so, that’s a big factor in the crunch. And why aren’t there many girls doing physics? Because society in Britain says physics is a man’s subject. You have to be quite astute as well as robust to notice that and not get put off.

“It’s quite systematic: it follows you through a career in physics – as you go up the academic hierarchy there’s more wastage of the females than the males. And certainly, some of the issues are around how you have kids and raise a family and keep your research going. There’s also unconscious bias – we’re getting better at it but there’s still a bit to go.”

Bell Burnell was one a group of senior female scientists who founded the Athena SWAN awards, which recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women in science. 

“When I became Professor of Physics at the Open University I doubled the number of female professors of physics in the country and I thought this isn’t good enough: where are the women! We see them there at student age and gradually they disappear as you go up the ranks.

“A small group of women which I joined was concerned about the progress of women. We look particularly at the progress of academics – post doctoral and professors – and highlighted a number of issues with the way universities operated. We didn’t label unconscious bias at that point but we had a suspicion that something like that was happening. Thus we created the Athena SWAN award. Even though we started with no money and at the start the award was just a glass rose bowl, we realised that vice chancellors are competitive guys (at that point, it was just guys) and if we have any sort of prize they would compete! And they did and it gradually grew and has been exported round the world. Holding these awards signals that you’re a place that aims to be good for women and minorities – signals that they are an employer you should look at seriously. It now looks bad if a university doesn’t hold one of the awards.”

In Ireland, from 2019 all universities must hold a bronze award to be able to apply for research funding. The University of Oxford only holds a bronze award institutionally, however the physics department holds a silver award.

Recently, the global scientific collaboration that is the Event Horizon Telescope has led to the first image of a black hole. I ask her how important she thinks global collaborations like these are, and if there’s been a recent regression in this, especially in relation to countries becoming more insular.

“Collaborations happen a lot, particularly with the big projects like the detection of gravitational waves or the black hole measurements. These all need enormous groups. I think scientists are a bit slow on rewarding the ability to organise and manage big diverse groups, in different countries speaking different languages. It’s a real skill to provide that kind of leadership- probably means you publish fewer papers but it does help big science.

“Brexit is a worry for big science. I can see that other countries might go that way if they go more right wing, and this will be bad for all sorts of research. Most areas of academic work benefits from having contact with researchers who are culturally different from themselves.”

We move on to the topic of her own journey to physics, and how she got interested in it. “As soon as we started doing science at school at age 11 or 12, my school sent the boys to science and the girls to domestic science. I fought it and we ended up with three girls in the science class. I don’t think the teacher had ever taught girls before because he made us sit right up against his desk because clearly we were dynamite or something! Troublemakers…

“We did physics that term and I came top of the class – I could just do it. Through my school years I decided I wanted to do a physics degree, and through reading my father’s library books I discovered astronomy so decided I would be an astronomer and settled on radio astronomy. It was very new, developing very fast and was very exciting!”

I ask her if she considers herself a role model for women in physics, as she has a busy schedule giving talks all around the world.

“It’s one of the reasons that I accept invitations to talk in schools; to show that there are female scientists.”

Clearly, physicists come in all shapes, genders and sizes. I ask her what she thinks makes a good physicist, and how important creativity is in science.

“Thinking clearly. You have to have a fairly sharp, precise brain to think clearly but you can get locked in logical thinking and forget to look outside the box! So the ability to sometimes stop and stand back is also important. It can be quite hard work to do so.

“The ability to jump out of the box you’re currently in and size it up and realise there are other boxes is very important. You also need to be systematic because having had this bright creative idea you have to thrash it to see if it stands up and that has to be done with thoroughness and care, and rigour. You need both. But sometimes in physics there are people who go down a narrow lane and don’t see connections with anything else. It’s when you can make those connections that the important science is done.

“I think scientists from different disciplines have trouble talking to each other because they operate in rather different ways. I think Oxford and Cambridge are so wonderful because when you sit down at High Table you talk to people and find out what they’re working on which is really interesting; this kind of interaction ought to be really creative.”

Finally, I ask her if there’s been a trend over her career as a research scientist in when she’s made discoveries, and whether there’s a “correct” scientific method, as scientists work in such differing ways.

“You have to be meticulous. When I discovered pulsars I saw the blip a few times and registered that it was something anomalous but didn’t articulate it. On the fourth or fifth showing my brain said, “you’ve seen something like this before, from this bit of sky before, haven’t you?” The pulsar signal lodged in my brain.

“At one point in my career I was responsible for an X-ray astronomy satellite. This was one of the early satellites, which either worked or they didn’t, and this one did, beautifully; it kept making discoveries. I was in charge of the data pipeline, so I knew how many it made, and it usually made them on Friday afternoons, particularly on the Friday before a bank holiday weekend! There were two reasons it was so successful: firstly, it was cutting edge development and it worked. The other reason was more mundane; there should have been a US satellite that launched six months earlier, but it didn’t because their data pipeline didn’t work. They were sitting and waiting for their data and it never came.

“It was huge fun but slightly frantic as it just made discoveries all the time. The launch was from a platform off the coast of Kenya at about 8 in the morning. We were all in at work. We had a radio link, listening to the launch and about an hour in the computer programmers snuck away and said, ‘it looks like its going to work, we’d better go finish those programmes!’

“Which they did, in time! So it launched successfully at 8 o’clock in the morning and on the midday news there was the announcement of the Nobel Prize to my former supervisor, and former professor. But it was great fun working with that satellite even if it was a bit manic.”

Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell gives the lecture “A Graduate Student’s Tale; discovering pulsars as a young woman” at Mansfield College, 5:30pm 14th June.

Being under the spell of Harry Potter

0

I have been a Harry Potter fan since the age of five (although I admit my enthusiasm has waned lately). At the peak of the obsession, I hadn’t anticipated walking the streets of Lisbon in 2019 laughing out loud at detailed descriptions of various characters’ genitals. The Fangasm podcast has definitely rekindled my interest in J.K. Rowling’s creations, despite the fact that I now doubt my ability to appreciate a bog-standard Harry Potter.

We may wonder who has spare time and inclination in sufficient quantities to produce such farfetched erotic fan fiction, but I don’t think anyone who listens will wind up complaining. Fangasm has three American presenters each with a sense of humour and Harry Potter knowledge to bring to the table. Per series (there are eight covering each HP fanfic), a story is selected from the vast library that is the internet. It is then read aloud and reviewed; often ripped to shreds and put on a so-bad-it’s-almost-good pedestal in equal measure.

Admittedly, I still have five series of downloads awaiting my ears. But I can safely expect more of the same: sex, hexes, titillation and imagination. Of course, for us Brits, the proud compatriots of both J.K. and the majority of her characters, hearing Americans express confusion about the fact Harry has both ‘pants’ and ‘trousers’ is frustrating. But that, and their slightly lengthy pre-story chat, aside, it is sorting hats off to the presenters for punctuating the stories both pertinently and with an appropriate perplexion to which the listener will often relate. They, like me, were baffled to hear that, in Series One, Snape has ‘silken pubes’. Whose pubic hair is glossy, I mean….?

Forget the know-it-all Hermione overeager to answer every question in class, the Quidditch star and Chosen one Harry Potter, and the residential insecure rich kid Malfoy terrorising the school playground with his sidekicks. The outrageous and bawdy characters of Fangasm’s various plotlines seem only to be interesting in doing things that will make you cringe, laugh out loud in shock, and probably feel just a little uncomfortable.

The stories are almost charming, though, in the way they seamlessly re-incorporate the magical elements of the Harry Potter world in an entirely different context. Forget about the shifting staircases we all wish that we had in school and magic portaits guarding the dorms in Rowling’s book: there is conveniently a noise-cancelling spell to allow the students to do un-repeatable things in their closely-neighbouring dormitory rooms in peace.

But listening, it is easy to overlook the potential factual inaccuracy of the characters’ escapades and anatomy. No one goes to an erotic fanfic for high-quality writing and it’s just as well.

Refrain from taking offence when uncomfortable shifts in register and cringe-worthy descriptions (think ‘Snape’s milky-white belly’) surface. Presenter Danny’s comedic Pansy Parkinson voice will leave you guffawing for more, so much so, that there will be no spare energy to direct towards detected poor syntax.

So, should you fancy reliving a more adult-rated version your childhood Harry Potter fantasies, Malfoy and Harry anticipate your arrival in the C*ck Critiquer’s photography studio – and that’s just one plot line.

The exploitation of musicians’ emotional struggles

0

Musicians utilise comedy in vastly different ways. Some use comedy to show personality, like JME and Giggs in ‘Man Don’t Care’. Some use comedy as a way to go viral (think of 2014’s ‘What Does the Fox Say?’), or to go with a funny song. In the video for ‘Ain’t It Funny’, rapper Danny Brown uses comedy to comment on the difficulty of dealing with mental health problems in the public eye. Based on a fictional family sitcom starring a nuclear family and Brown as ‘Uncle Danny’, the video shows increasingly horrific scenes while a studio audience laughs. Subtitles under the music detail the dialogue of the show under the music. Any attempt to address Danny’s problems are interrupted by ‘Kid’, the young son of the family, with the catchphrase “Oh Uncle Danny”, dismissing Danny’s cries for help. Although disturbing, they manage to make the audience laugh with slapstick elements.

At the end of the video, afterBrown’s death, the disconnection between the studio audience’s laughter and the horror of the show is confronted. ‘Kid’, standing over Danny’s bleeding body (Danny’s stabbed by his anthropomorphalised antidepressants), says ‘He’s DYING and you people are LAUGHING. You DISGUST me.’ As the character who shuts down any discussion of Danny’s problems, this feels like a dig at those who express sadness at deaths on social media but do nothing to help when they are alive.

‘Ain’t It Funny’ is the sixth song on Brown’s fourth album Atrocity Exhibition. The name of the record comes from the controversial 1970 J. G. Ballard novel, in which mass media drives the protagonist insane. With chapters titled ‘Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan’ and ‘Notes Towards a Mental Breakdown’, it is easy to see why the book might appeal – Joy Division also took the title for the opening song on their final album Closer. For Danny Brown, the title is a comment on an ugly aspect of the human psyche, our apathy to the suffering of those around us. In an interview with NPR the rapper laments “when they see anything happen…like say police or anything that’s violent that’s happening, instead of them trying to fix the situation, what do they do? They pull they phone out and try to record it…We living in an atrocity exhibition”. These sentiments are echoed in the sitcom setting in the ‘Ain’t it Funny’ video – Brown’s suffering is just a show to entertain others, instead of real emotional issues to be met with empathy.

Danny Brown has been open about his struggles with mental health, despite taboos against ‘weakness’ in hip hop. In a Twitter rant in 2014 he spoke out about his problems with anxiety and depression, and his use of substances as a way of coping. A theme of his tweets was feeling unappreciated and that his problems were a show: “Y’all just want me to be goofy and Y’all don’t give a fuck about me…”. These feelings are reflected in the video for ‘Ain’t It Funny’: for example when Danny sits on the sofa smoking crack while the family watch TV and the studio audience laugh. “I have a serious problem” the subtitles read, while the laugh track plays over the top. Comedy creates bathos with the pain and misfortune of its characters. However, it stops being funny when real people are the target. Over the past few years Kanye West has been treated as a joke, the superstar rapper’s bizarre behaviour a subject of public laughter. This is despite the fact that he’s clearly struggling – even suggestions that he might be going through serious mental health problems has been used as a punchline. Brown brings attention to the damage that treating someone’s problems as a laughing stock can do.

‘Ain’t It Funny’ was directed by Jonah Hill, himself a comic actor. In many of his roles he plays characters similar to ‘Uncle Danny’. The comedy comes from characters hurting themselves and others, for example through abusing substances. In The Wolf of Wall Street, the comedy comes from the stupidity and excess of Jordan Belfort and his entourage, including his sidekick played by Hill. While I would never defend Belfort, the descent of the characters (including drug is a spectacle to amuse the viewer. Dark comedy is one thing, but we shouldn’t turn musicians and other celebrities into characters in a drama in which their problems are punchlines. They can go through emotional struggles as real as any ordinary person. Social media provides opportunities for people to broadcast their internal struggles – often in very funny ways as to entertain subscribers. Humour can be used as a coping mechanism by the musicians, but the element of comedy should not be the veil that masks real problems and prevents those who struggle from healing. The general reaction to musicians’ pains is a testament to the humanity of our age.

9 to 5 and Feminism

0

It starts with the clicking of fingers on a typewriter, a sound which defined the working world for a generation. One of the most recognizable guitar riffs in music quickly follows and the warm and sassy voice of Dolly Parton telling the audience, among other things, that “they just use your mind and you never get the credit. It’s enough to drive you crazy if you let it”. 

While this is playing, we are treated to a montage of the working women of the year 1980 with some notable shoulder-pads and platinum perms. While the fashion choices of these women may seem rather distant today, the shots of them commuting to their office jobs, meanwhile dropping their children off at school, have not become quite so retro. 

Neither have the issues faced by the film’s three protagonists. Working for a “sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot”, Mr Hart, each of them are subjected to harassment, belittlement and injustices. Capable and experienced Violet (played by Lily Tomlin) is left frustrated as said boss blatantly steals her ideas, gives a promotion to a male colleague on the grounds that he’s, you guessed it, a man. He calls her and her colleagues “the girls”- she curtly replies that she’s a mother in her mid-forties. 

Judy (played by an icon of the era, Jane Fonda) is thrown into the workplace with no experience after her husband left her for his secretary. Dolly Parton’s character, adorable Texan Doralee Rhodes, is given perhaps the most disturbing storyline as Mr Hart repeatedly harasses her for sex and subsequently spread rumours about their non-existent affair. The extreme discomfort on Parton’s face completely wrings any audience member of pity. 

You may wonder how comedy could be made out of a largely depressing situation. The answer is: through complete absurdity, starting with the hallucinations the three gain after sharing a joint (ranging from Tomlin skipping about the office with cartoon birds helping her murder her boss in a twisted Snow White scenario, to Parton putting him on a spit roast dressed as a cowgirl having just thrown herself upon him). The main plot is driven by the three of them covering up a near accidental murder after Violet puts rat poison (rather than “Skinny ‘n’ Sweet”) into his coffee. This involves taking him hostage in his own house with a modified parachuting kit pinging him to the ceiling whenever he misbehaves, and running the office in his absence. In this time the three introduce ideas like flexible working hours, a jobsharing program and on-site daycare centre for working parents. 

A particularly satisfying moment is seeing a close-up of a hand stapling up a notice that male and female employees will now receive equal pay at the company. Watching this film, I realised how much we are still in that “same boat with a lot of our friends, waiting for the day our ship will come in”. 

With the global gender pay gap expected to take another 200 hundred years to close and the #MeToo movement bringing to light work place harassment in every corner of society, how far have we really come from the darker side of this essentially silly comedy? Far enough, perhaps, to appreciate what a forward thinking and empowering film this must have been at its release; yet far from enough to undo the injustice behind the comedy. 

Cool your beans! Iced coffee’s good for you!

0

With both summer and exams around the corner, a rush of caffeine is very much needed to get through the long days of working, or, at least, attempts to work. And yet, the bright sunshine and heat doesn’t seem to invite the hot cup of coffee that once provided warmth in the cold of winter. Instead, one craves something refreshing and reinvigorating to both cool down and bring energy levels up. Luckily, there is a creative solution that doesn’t include the unhealthy sugariness of energy or soft drinks – iced coffee!

Iced coffees, and other infusions and cold brews, open up the possibility for more creativity and flavour than your standard, hot cup of coffee, making it a versatile summer drink. Caffe Nero, for instance, has created an infusion called the “Espresso & Tonic” which combines a double shot of expresso with ice and tonic, giving you the invigorating feel and energy of a G&T without the regret. What’s more, they also add a dash of ginger to give it another dimension of brightening, summery flavour. Starbucks, on the other hand, have cold brews combined with vanilla or caramel, for those craving something sweeter.

Flavour aside, iced coffee is also scientifically proven to be more healthy than hot coffees. Not only will it never burn your tongue when you’re forced to quickly consume it in a rush, but its pH levels have added health and taste benefits. Iced coffees are more alkaline (or less acidic) than hot coffees, since coffee beans release acidic oils when heated. And because the human body functions better in a relatively alkaline state, it makes it more difficult to digest and induces a mad dash to the bathroom. Thus, because a cold brew is more alkaline, it helps your digestive system and means your stomach remains relatively stable. On top of that, reduced levels of acid also enhance and improve the flavour of coffee. The bitterness of hot coffee is also minimised because it is these very acidic oils, absent in iced coffees, that produce the sour taste. The reduced acidity is also much more beneficial for the health of your teeth and tongue, both minimising tooth staining and decay as well as odour-causing bacteria that contributes to bad breath.

However, although it’s always nice to treat yourself to one that’s made for you, the best thing about iced coffee is that you can make it yourself! Simply brew a hot, black coffee as normal (including instant!). Make sure it’s quite strong, as you’ll be diluting it. Place the coffee into a glass jar or other container and let it cool to room temperature for around 30 minutes to 1 hour, then refrigerate for another couple of hours. Finally, serve it as you like with some ice cubes, maybe with some tonic, or milk, or cream, or whatever else you fancy, and stir!