Friday 18th July 2025
Blog Page 608

Oxford gears up for Pride Festival

0

As Oxford gears up for it’s sixteenth Pride parade on June 1st , a wide range of events to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community are running both within the University and across the city.

The festival this year has the theme HoldTight, in response to a government survey in 2018 which showed that over 2/3 of LGBT+ people have avoided holding hands with others for fear of backlash from others. The Pride Festival is running between May 17 and June 2.

It is described by Oxford Pride as “a fabulous festival celebrating queer life in Oxfordshire and our unique city of Oxford.” The festival is focused partly on showcasing the cultural output of Oxford’s queer community.

Oxford Pride describes their goal as curating “an open group show and also promoting exhibitions arranged by other associated artists, galleries and venues around Oxford during the annual Oxford Pride Festival”. Events have included a Queer Arts Exhibition in the University Church, exploring the HoldTight theme.

There will also be a comedy night, involving performances from the Oxford Imps and several of Oxfords stand-ups. The Pride march itself will culminate in a wide range of LGBT+ musical acts and other performers playing at Leiden square in Westgate.

Oxford Brookes also hosted the Oxford Pride Symposium on Thursday, inspired by 2019 being 50 years since the Stonewall riots. The symposium involved performance and debate from a lot of different groups. Ashanti, a poet, writer and actor, gave a spoken word performance at the event.

Other speakers participating included Hannah Boschen, a Stonewall Role model at the University of Oxford. The event also involved two panels, including a Queer Panel considering how to move forward into a new era. Oxford Labour Councillor Tom Hayes participated in the panel, alongside Valentino Vechietti and Charlotte Stacey.

Debbie Brixey, chair of Oxford Pride, said: “Our Festival and events aim to encourage everyone to hold tight to those that they love and celebrate the good things we have accomplished so far. This year we are pleased to form new partnerships with a number of Faith groups. The affirmation service on Pride Day at Bonn Square has been created to celebrate all relationships in whatever form they take.

“We are also thrilled to be working with Westgate to create our first Community Area in Leiden Square. This will be complete with a community stage featuring local acts that will also include a few well-known faces.

“#HoldTight is also to remind people that we should be holding onto our values and the fight for equal rights. Even in some parts of the UK equality still has a long way to go; in Northern Ireland same sex marriage has been vetoed five times by politicians there despite it being part of British law, and gender recognition, discrimination and conversion therapy all fail to match laws in the rest of the UK.”

Henna Khanom, Co-Chair of the OUSU LGBTQ+ campaign, told Cherwell: “This years’ Pride offers a chance for the city and student communities to come together to celebrate queer histories, movements and legacies. Particular highlights are the Alain Locke Memorial Lectures, the Beyond Brideshead: Queer Oxford talk at the Ashmolean, and of course the day itself, which thousands of people are expected to attend.”

“The LGBTQ+ Campaign will be marching as while the Queer movement has accomplished so much, there is so much left to be done; something especially important given that this year is the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall riots.”

University hosts week of events highlighting diversity in STEM

0

A number of workshops, lectures, and panels have been held this week to celebrate Diversity and Awareness in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics).

In celebration of the UN World Day for Cultural Diversity, the events aimed to explore the intersection between sex, gender, disability, sexuality and race in STEM.

Events included the Diversity in STEM Wikipedia Hackathon, an edit-a-thon led by Dr Jess Wade and the Department of Engineering.

Department of Statistics Professor Andrew Hodges gave a talk on the topic of Alan Turing. His deciphering of the Enigma code was never fully recognised due to his homosexuality, which was a crime in the UK at the time of the Second World War.

In May 2018, the university’s admissions statistics report showed a lack of diversity in many STEM subjects. Only 39.7% of Chemistry students identified as female, with only 15.9% of the cohort BME (Black and Minority Ethnicity). A similar trend was seen in Engineering Science (17.3% female and 21.5% BME), Mathematics (26.6% female, 18.5% BME), Material Science (28.8% female, 17.1% BME) and Biological Sciences (56.8% female, 7.9% BME).

The same month, director of undergraduate admissions Samina Khan acknowledged that black British students are half as likely to be admitted as white British students. She said: “We are not getting the right number of black people with the talent to apply to us and that is why we are pushing very hard on our outreach activity to make sure we make them feel welcome and they realise Oxford is for them.”

The University has been running events such as ‘Inspire Her’, ‘Women in Computer Science’, ‘It All Adds Up’, and ‘Dragonfly Days in Engineering’ for girls in year nine and above. Their aim is to encourage them to develop an interest in coding, engineering, mathematics, science and computer science.

The University has also attempted to increase diversity in sexuality and disability, hosting the first ever LGBTSTEM day last July, including a celebratory lunch. Further, they hosted a variety of discussions and talks, including ‘Bipolar Disorder and Creative Process’, a discussion with Professor Lucy Newlyn and Dr Richard Lawes last May, and ‘Autism, Sexuality and Gender Dysphoria’, a talk by Dr Wenn Lawson last November co-hosted by the Queer Studies Network and the Disability Advisory Service, combining his “professional knowledge” with “insights from his lived experience.”

The Deparment of Physics also hosted a number of events based on giving talks about science to a visually impaired audience. Australian astrophysicist Dr Nic Bonne, who is visually impaired himself, gave a talk on how to make astronomy, described in the event as ‘one of the most visual sciences’, more accessible. Bonne is the project leader for ‘The Tactile Universe’, a public enagement project which aims to enable members of the visually impaired community to engage with new research into astronomy and cosmology. Its current focus is on creating ‘3D digitally modelled tactile versions of galaxy images.’

Oxford Brookes also hosted a symposium on ‘Diversity and Awareness in STEM’ across the University. The symposium included talks on a range of topics, from a lecture focusing on the history of LGBT+ people in STEM to a panel discussion about how best to make STEM subjects more diverse.

Oxford Area LGBT University Staff, who organised the event, told Cherwell: “Smashing barriers in Science: and evening in conversation with Dr Priyanka Dhopade, Dr Izzy Jayasinghe, and Prof Rachel Oliver’ was a discussion of real solutions to tackle institutional barriers and ways that we can pressure institutions to improve equity in academic STEM. There can be no doubt that people seen as ‘diverse’ face real barriers, whether direct (such as discrimination) or indirect (such as unconscious bias); all our speakers had personal stories to share.

“The first thing academia needs to do is acknowledge these barriers exist and that our current solutions do not go far enough. Yet, we also heard of success stories, real improvements being made and national initiative that that mobilising to tackle these barriers not only for one group, but intersectionality to make truly for all, such as the TIGERS and The Inclusion Group for Equity in Research in STEM.”

The corruptability of ‘bright, young things’

0

Sebastian Flyte stumbling through a quad, vomiting through a window, and then taking exquisite care with his teddy bear’s hair; the fictional Riot Club of the film of the same name, a thinly disguised Bullingdon, trashing a pub with entitled glee; Oscar Wilde claiming he spent his days at Oxford occupied with “extravagance, trivial talk, utter vacancy of employment.”

Oxford in the artistic imagination is often less a university than a conveniently beautiful backdrop for the debauchery of rich young men. Of course, it bears little resemblance to the way most students experience the university today. Oxford is built on these myths – Shelley, sent down from University College for atheism, now lounges there in marble, the college reclaiming their prodigal son – but they are also disturbing. In portrayals such as Brideshead Revisited, we can voyeuristically enjoy wild behaviour without thinking too much about its social implications. That world is now too long ago, too removed, and too strange. However, when we see that behaviour in the present day, it becomes disquieting.

Posh, the play by Laura Wade the film The Riot Club is based off of, shows the horror at the heart of that excess, when debauchery slips into murder. We remember, a little uncomfortably, that bright young things are rich and carefree because other people are working and fulfilling their responsibilities. When they finally push excess too far, it becomes an excruciating watch. This myth of youthful wildness at Oxford isn’t always just a bit of fun. There is the argument that this sort of portrayal puts off possible applicants, and, certainly, it ought not to be the only way the university is seen by the public.

Given, however, that most of us aren’t in the Bullingdon, or repressed Catholics with run-down country piles and family fortunes, we may as well have fun with the idea – may as well camp it up. If camp is to do with artificiality and performance, then an Oxford student constantly saying, “God, isn’t this so Oxford”, but continuing to perform that activity anyway, is nothing but camp. There can surely be few people for whom dressing in fiddly black and white outfits for exams, or eating in vast vaulted halls and navigating arrays of wine glasses and cutlery, can come naturally. This is a place which has been so thoroughly documented and mythologized in art and literature that we’re all engaged in the ridiculous performance of being an Oxford student every time we walk drunk through Radcliffe Square, or spend obscene amounts on ball tickets.

Maybe we’re all frauds, or maybe there is no line between playing at excess and real obscenity; but you have to admit, the pretence of it is lovely. – Alice Wilson

Editing out excess

0

The phenomenon of excess in media is relatively modern. The notion of creating excess, then refining the total media into a coherent project, is one which underpins many creative industries today. But this process would have been difficult and expensive in the past. This privilege, of being able to try something over and over again to obtain the desired effect, has been catalysed by advances in technology. The link to technology is particularly apparent in music, film, and photography, which prior to the digital age relied heavily on expensive, inconvenient, and time-consuming analogue devices. With the advent of the digital age, we are now able to experiment more than ever, leading to huge amounts of material which never even makes it to the end product. Herein lies the interesting question; what is the value, if any, of the media which never makes it to the end product? Should it be available to audiences, or would this harm the overall reception of the finished piece?

It is difficult to recognise just how much technology has impacted our creative processes. Only 50 years ago, the process of recording music was severely limited compared to our modern capabilities. Take for instance Queen’s 1975 single ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’. This seminal single was painstakingly recorded on analogue equipment over a period of three weeks. In total, 180 separate vocal tracks were recorded for the single. These were later combined on mixing desks which offered only 24 track analogue tapes. Once the 24 tracks were completed, the tracks had to be ‘bounced’ to one analogue tape to free up the tracks for subsequent recordings. This, of course, meant that it was not possible to go back and ‘edit’ the music in the way we can now.

Additionally, mistakes could not just be deleted and re-recorded; they had to be recorded on fresh tape, which made correcting them significantly more expensive than it is now. As a consequence, excess material, in the relatively few instances that it was created, was often not kept. Yet, as the recent success of the film biopic Bohemian Rhapsody shows, audiences are hungry for these backstage stories, the behind the scenes drama and action of our favourite media and our favourite creators. It is safe to say that we see the value of the ‘excess’ which in many cases has been cut away, as it allows a special rare insight into the media that we connect with on a human, emotional level. The appeal of this ‘behind the scenes’ glance into the creation of our favourite music has been brought to new heights with the widespread use of the internet. Before the advent of the internet, our only insight into musicians’ creative processes were rare demo copies of music – such as the Beatles’ The Beatles Bootleg Demos, or the unreleased demo tapes of Led Zeppelin’s Physical Graffiti.

Now, we even have access to artists’ practice rituals – from Adam Neely live-streaming the writing of a song in one hour, and making videos of his five-hour major scale practice routine, to the Royal Opera House live streaming their rehearsals for Manon. So our current insights not only show ideas which were cut from the final product; they also show the precursors of the whole creative project. But what are the reasons for our enthusiasm? In the past, it was the rarity of the material which created its prestige, but perhaps the modern justification may be attached to the deeper understanding and appreciation of the finished product which is afforded by access to this material. After all, we may appreciate Adam Neely’s impressive bass guitar skills more after we witness him play the lick for five hours straight, or the skill and dedication of the performers of the Royal Opera House more, when we realise the colossal effort which goes into rehearsals for these productions.

Having access to the whole of artists’ creative processes may have negative implications on the media created. Some critics have suggested that access to excess leads to a decrease in the quality of media which we consume. This is because the availability of digital technology saturates the market with all kinds of content, so it becomes more difficult to find the truly splendid work that is buried in the noise of the other lower-quality content. But perhaps there is an alternative, more exciting, and optimistic conclusion to be drawn here: it is possible that the increase in cutting and pasting, editing, re-editing, polishing, and publishing outtakes allows unique insights into the creative process which were previously confined only to the minds of the creator.

We are now able to engage with and observe the actual creative process which goes into these works. Just think about all we could have learned had the world’s genius creators, such as Beethoven or Jean Luc Godard, live-streamed their rehearsal process or released unedited cuts of movies or ‘making of’ commentary. These insights into creation which we are afforded in the modern day should be cherished, for the accessibility to art which they create will surely inspire the next generation of creators.

Controversy surrounds nomination of new Union Debate Sponsorship Officers

0

The nomination of two new Debate Selection Committee Sponsorship Officers for the Oxford Union has sparked controversy amidst accusations of procedural impropriety, including an abandoned “Special Adjournment Motion” challenging the nomination.

Several Union officials have alleged that this motion, raised by Treasurer Charlie Coverman, was primarily aimed at preventing Barr’s nomination, although sources close to the Treasurer have denied this.  

The motion, supported by 30 members, including ex-President Stephen Horvath and ex-Treasurers James Lamming and Amy Gregg, read: “I, Charlie Coverman (Treasurer) hereby give notice of my intention to bring the following Special Adjournment Motion to the Public Business Meeting on Thursday 23rd May: This House Rejects The Decision of DSC on Sunday 19th May to appoint Beatrice Barr (St Peter’s College) and Jack Solomon (St Peter’s College) as DSC Sponsorship Officers”.

On the night of the 23rd, however, Coverman left the chamber without raising the motion, and one Union official alleged that this was because: “It became clear that [the Treasurer] did not have the support in the chamber to pass it, so left rather than bring it.”

At the time, one former member of the DSC, Louis Collier, told Cherwell: “It’s disappointing that Charlie Coverman sought to politicise a debate committee decision.

“The debate committee cares about broadening access to debating, especially to schools throughout the UK, not about Union politics.

“I am heartened that he came to the inevitable conclusion that his position was indefensible and chose to abandon it at the last minute.”

However, according to the minutes of Monday’s meeting of the Consultative Committee, when asked by the chair of the Debate Seletion Committee, Lee Chin Wee, why he had withdrawn the motion, Coverman responded that: “he didn’t appreciate being shouted at by him (Lee Chin Wee) on the street, and didn’t appreciate being told by a colleague that there’s a ‘special wing in Hell’ for him, and that after such events did not feel that he wanted to follow through with the proceedings”.

It is unknown who the second colleague mentioned is.

In response to the meeting at which Barr and Solomon were appointed, former President Stephen Horvath sent an email to members of the Debate Selection Committee in which he complained that “few [members of the committee] seem to understand what they are talking about.”

Horvath also wrote that the limitations imposed by Rule 65 meant that “the Junior Treasurer(-elect) has always been involved in the selection of the DSC Sponsorship Officer(s).

“It is important that the DSC Sponsorship Officer and the Treasurer(-elect) have a good working relationship.”

Under the Union’s rule 65 business partnership contracts can only be signed by a member of Standing Committee, the Treasurer, or the Treasurer-Elect, with the Treasurer able to veto any contracts signed by other officers.

In addition to these complaints, Horvath claimed that he was “shocked that DSC did not conduct an interview process and allow candidates to present themselves” and noted that he was “confused as to why the DSC did not consult the Treasurer or Treasurer-Elect.”

In the same email, Horvath further accused a claim by the committee’s chair, Lee Chin Wee, that the position of Debate Sponsorship Officer had been “created in order for Mr Stephen Horvath to raise money and run for Treasurer” of “maligning my character”. Cherwell understands that Lee Chin Wee has subsequently apologised for this.

Speaking to Cherwell, Union President Genevieve Athis said: “I think it is a great shame that rather than engaging in a meaningful conversation with the Treasurer about the appointment of the DSC Sponsorship Officers, the CDSC lost his temper and had to resort to shouting at the Treasurer in the street. 

“Although the Sponsorship Officers were appointed without consultation with the Treasurer or Treasurer-Elect, which I think would have been useful as the Sponsorship Officers cannot raise money without the cooperation of these Officers (under Rule 65), I do not think that their appointment directly violated the rules and therefore I do not intend to carry out a more formal review.

“The CDSC did issue a formal apology to the ex-President Stephen Horvath for his comments about the latter in a recent meeting of the DSC, which he later admitted to be false so I do not feel that this needs to be addressed any further. “

Charlie Coverman, Beatrice Barr and Jack Solomon have been contacted for comment. Stephen Horvath and Lee Chin Wee declined to comment.

A version of this article which appeared in print did not make it sufficiently clear that procedural objections were the primary focus of Stephen Horvath’s email to the DSC’s members.

New College to host new Institute of Charity

0

New College this week announced the foundation of the Oxford Institute of Charity (OIC). The culmination of almost three years of discussion and planning, the OIC is a collaborative initiative between the college and Charity Futures, a charity sector think tank.

The Institute is set to open its doors in the summer of 2022 in a purpose-built home on a newly developed part of the college site. Work at the OIC begins next month with the development of a strategic fundraising plan. Before its launch, the Institute aims to secure a £30 million endowment that will provide a sustainable annual income.

The Institute was established to “promote the importance of research and study of study, both at post-graduate and undergraduate level, in universities more generally”, “deliver high calibre academic research to be used by the global community”, and to “develop networks and foster international links”.

Its additional objectives include the digitisation of charity records to further wider research, and the organisation of conferences and summer schools for leading academics, philanthropists, corporate donors, and leaders of civil society from around the world.

Research conducted will take an interdisciplinary approach, drawing on a broad range of academic knowledge and skills. The research will look at issues such as the history of charity, the relationship between charity and politics, and the ethics of charitable governance.

The Director of Charity Futures, Sir Stephen Bubb, will assume the interim role of Acting Director. He will be tasked with commissioning the fundraising strategy, raising awareness of OIC in academic circles and in charities, and working collaboratively with the college to identify and appoint the first Academic Director.

Bubb said: “When there are so many divisions in society, civil society is needed more than ever. And when charities themselves face challenges, research and study of charity is particularly timely.

“The participation of New College in this collaboration is very significant for us. Charity Futures was established to look at the long-term future health of the charitable sector in the UK,” he added.

“My role is to give the Institute a solid foundation from which it can thrive and prosper long into the future. In practical terms this means establishing a firm financial base and securing an inspirational academic leader.”

The Warden of New College, Miles Young, said: “Charity’s important role in our society is often undervalued, and I believe that one cause of that is that it is surprisingly little studied in Universities […] New College was founded as a charitable enterprise by William of Wykeham as far back as 1379, so this does seem an appropriate place to help remedy the academic neglect of the subject.”

Despite its new base in Oxford, the Institute also aims to promote their project in universities throughout the country, as highlighted by Bubb: “although the Oxford Institute of Charity, based at New College will be a research centre we hope that we will also look at the potential for study and teaching, in conjunction with other universities.”

Mr Young told Cherwell that the Institute is “designed to fill a gaping hole”.

The new direction in research is due to a serious lack of academic research into the subject. With most academic effort focused on “the study of giving”, the resulting model of charity remains “poorly explained, with implications for issues ranging from the governance of charity (often poor) to the perceptions of charity (generally weak).” By furthering academic research into relatively unexplored areas, the Institute aims to “promote better, more sustainable, and effective performance of charity in the world.”

More than Pixels

At the National Gallery in London, a visitor is shocked at how Monet’s Water-Lilies look nothing like the internet images. She takes in the intricate brushstrokes, the bright colours and the sheer scale of the painting. Although a barrier prevents her from touching it, the painting has become an immersive experience. It is the surface of a pond, with groups of lilies highlighted against the shadows of trees in a rich harmony of green, blue and pink. As Monet intended, his work “produces the effect of an endless whole, of a watery surface with no horizon and no shore”. The visitor remembers how flat and dull the painting looked on the iPad in an art class. She’d copied the painting, guessing at brushstrokes from pixels. There had been no emotional connection, until she saw Water Lilies in front of her.

While the internet has provided a global platform for art, it has led to an emotional distance between the audience and the artwork. To change the material to bits and bytes, and the scale to the size of a phone screen, is to change the way artwork is experienced.

Walter Benjamin argued that the invention of the camera reconfigured the networks of the visual world. The camera’s “mechanical eye” rendered the authentic original simply a jigsaw piece in a wider puzzle. Images became omnipresent, in albums and art books, even though the original can only ever be in one place. Furthermore, a photographer imposes her own vision onto the artwork. She chooses the angle from which art is captured. Her focus and lighting choices may exaggerate features that the original artist merely hinted at. Texture is plastered onto a two-dimensional medium, and the immersive experience fades away. In a Google search on “Monet’s Water-Liles, National Gallery”, there are varying reproductions in varying colours, lit by varying light sources, with varying sections cropped. The painting appears over-and-over again across the internet, and each time it challenges the authentic strength of the original work hanging in the National Gallery. To view Monet’s Water-Lilies online or in an artbook is to understand only a fragment of the painting.

This is not to say technology has destroyed our enjoyment of art. Social media has allowed art to gain a global platform, and to be accessible to everyone. Sharing images through websites, blogs and social media has enabled the artist and the public to have a direct relationship with one another. Indeed, by 2015, a survey found that 87% of collectors checked Instagram more than twice a day. It must be recognised that the internet world allows a vast audience to connect and respond to artwork.

While there was a fear that viewing art online might lead to the demise of the museum, museum and gallery attendance has instead increased since the digital revolution. The availability of information about museum exhibitions drives people to see the actual original. The social media effect goes both ways: a more modern audience has forced museums to modify their tradition methods of collection and exhibition. Often, they have introduced interactive displays to attract an Instagram crowd. For example, the I was Raised on the Internet exhibition in the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago focuses on how the advent of the internet has changed the way we experience the world. A hundred interactive artworks from 1998 to present, spanning photography, painting, sculpture, film and video, invite viewers to become active participants. Social media is challenging the parameters of what defines a museum. For instance, the ‘Museum of Ice Cream’ exhibits brightly-coloured, candy-themed objects to provide backdrops for selfies. The digital and traditional worlds of art no longer exist in separate spheres.

Despite this, the internet still distinct from a museum. Instead, it is a worldwide warehouse. A warehouse does not organise to exhibit, it simply categorises for storage. The curator becomes the user. The internet categorises and structures the images surrounding a particular artwork according to popular searches and individual search results. Therefore, viewing images online creates a false sense of order, constructed by a network of algorithms.

To view Monet’s Water-Lilies on a laptop in your lounge is a vastly different experience from viewing Monet’s Water-Lilies in the National Gallery. Vision is based largely on experience and surroundings. Ultimately, aura of the original stands firm against the unforgiving assault of the online facsimile. To see a painting in real life remains a unique experience.

Government review calls for tuition fees to be cut to £7,500

0

A review into further education has called for a reduction in tuition fees and interest rates, to be combined with a lengthening of the loans payback window beyond 30 years.

The review calls upon the government to reduce the annual university tuition fee from £9,250 to £7,500, as well as to reduce the level interest rate on student loans from 6.3% to 1.5%.

The Augar review, which is being led by banker and visiting fellow at Cranfield School of Managment Philip Augar, has made 40 recommendations to government, including the return of means tested grants, more support for part-time students and the lengthening of the loans payback window beyond 30 years.

The review was commissioned following a speech by Theresa May in February 2018, where she announced “a wide-ranging review into post-18 education.” The review considers the nature and extent to which students over 18 are expected to fund their education, including the “level, terms and duration of their contribution.”

The review follows criticism of the current student loans system. According to research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it is projected that only 17% of students will be able to pay off their student loans in full before they are written off, meaning that 83% of students will not pay their loans off in full. This is significantly greater than the government projections of 30% when the new loans system was introduced in 2011.

Founder of Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis has said that the current loans repayment system, which allows for students to pay off their loans early, is “just flushing money down the loo.

“For those on lower earnings, overpaying some of your loan is often futile as it won’t alter what you repay in future.”

Analysis released Education Secretary Damien Hinds shows that in 1 in 10 university courses, 3 in 4 students earn less than £25,000 five years after graduation. Hinds commented that the data show that some universities are “more focused on getting ‘bums on seats’ than getting students into courses worth paying for.”

Oxford University has been contacted for comment.

Shakespeare Done to Death?

“Re-invention is important because the only certain thing is change – so the only thing to worry about is how you manage it, because it happens whether you want it or not.” – Emma Rice

Throughout school, English classrooms were filled with the usual complaints and droning questions about why we were studying Shakespeare; why we couldn’t just pick something new and interesting, why we were choosing a different play by the same writer each year that was ‘outdated, overly formal and dry’ and/or ‘crusty and old,’ depending on who you asked. It seems that a debate not too far from this one (granted, for the most part, being had in marginally more intellectual terms) is happening today regarding what we put on our stages, with Shakespeare coming under as heavy fire as ever.

A new version of the USA’s ‘Canon Wars’ of the 1980s is beginning to be played out by critics and audience members, directors and actors alike, as we question whether it is ridiculous to continue with our current obsession with the same household playwright names and keep re-venting them. Are classics like Shakespeare being done to death? Are we being lazy, re-hashing old plays because we’re not coming up with new writing? The answer is a hesitant no – but there’s good reason for the confidence of the answer being vague, somewhere between a Labour spokesman answering about the party’s stance on Brexit, and a Len Goodman “Seven!”

The hesitancy of my ‘no’ comes from the fact that it seems obvious to me that the issues really at stake here are twofold. The first is a ( justified) dissatisfaction with the stale economising of some mainstream theatres (the Globe, anyone?), where Artistic Directors seem to be performing the exact opposite of innovation.

Relying on well-known names and well-established writing to keep their profits coming, they love nothing more than a purist rendition of a classic, and are doing nothing to ‘re-invent’ or re-contextualise it for modern audiences. This leads to boring theatre at best, and at worst, a lack of representation.

What is staged again and again because of issues of economic gain, and a snobbery that manifests itself in contempt for any kind of new approach to an old text, can be highly problematic – when you prioritise the staging of 17th century plays and do not make an active effort to cast radically gender and colour blind, the pool of who we see on stage suddenly becomes very narrow, very white and very male. And that’s not even touching on the actual content of the plays.

On the other hand, social statements can be made through the re-envisioning of a classic story with contemporary recognition of diversity – what could make more of a political statement in the theatre world of America, in its current climate, than a rap musical, featuring a cast almost entirely of people of colour, that depicts the founding fathers? Perhaps this is one of the pillars of Hamilton’s success.

The second issue to be confronted is a real frustration at the restrictive nature of our focus on classics. This potentially blocks innovative writing, created by new voices who are more than worthy of a platform, from taking centre-stage (excuse the terrible pun, it was genuinely accidental). If we continue to glorify classic works, are we stunting the production of contemporary theatre?

The reality is that of course there is no shortage of new writing – at theatre festivals and fringe locations it is prevalent and held up on a pedestal – it is a testament to the spirit of innovation of the festival that means the most recognised award is that for ‘Best Newcomer’ at Edinburgh. Yet somehow, in large-scale theatres there is a love for re-doing classics again and again – pantos, Shakespeare, fairytales in children’s theatre. For me there in no problem with doing this – these titles are classics for a reason: they can reliably entertain audiences and make a profit.

In fact, an attendee of the Brighton conference ‘Starting a Performing Arts Company: the Business Basics’ just last weekend (hosted by The Independent Theatre Council on the 18th of May) discussed the necessity of putting on recognised titles, claiming that for every piece of new writing a theatre commissioned, a known play had to be put on by the theatre to balance profits because new writing categorically makes a loss from its first performance.

The problem comes when we refuse to take new approaches to old works, causing performances to become predictable and stale. Often, this comes as a result of certain theatrical purists wielding the critical knife and threatening innovative productions with harsh reviews or, in extreme cases, a bold Artistic Director losing their job.

This snobbery and purism is exemplified in the scandal which accompanies Emma Rice, the former Artistic Director of the Globe, being sacked just two seasons after she was appointed, when the board who gave her the position had what boiled down to a vote of no confidence – and all because of her ‘controversial’ use of light and sound.

From her first production, what has been deemed a ‘Disco-themed’ A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Globe, Rice caused a stir, bringing in a mixture of glowing and cutting reviews. There were plenty of rave reviews, increased audience numbers, and praise for the new life and classic ‘Globe spirit’ of audience and actor closeness that Rice breathed into her productions. Her production of Twelfth Night was unquestionably the best version of a Shakespearean classic, and perhaps the best piece of theatre, I have ever seen. This featured a drag queen singing live as Feste and an opening consisting of the chorus signing ‘Celebrate’; hardly a conventional take.

Yet there was also damning criticism. Richard Morrison, reviewing Rice in the Times, wrote that she was “wrecking” the Globe with productions of “perversity, incongruity and disrespect”. This harsh review appears to be more a statement of Morrison’s own taste in doing Shakespeare just as he imagines it was done hundreds of years ago, preserving the ‘authenticity’ of the classics, than a personal indictment of Rice’s skills as Artistic Director, however brutal the opinion may seem.

This illustrates clearly the bigger problem faced in theatre production: it is not that new writing is not being commissioned, or that innovative and artistic approaches to classic plays are not being concocted all the time (they certainly are, and they are numerous and brilliant); rather, it is the stubborn attachment of Shakespearian purists and antiquated reviewers, afraid to see their beloved classics presented in a new way, that is stunting the creativity of production, and causing plays to be done to death.

Having said that, and having criticised the Globe for its own disappointing recent decisions, the new Artistic Director, Michelle Terry, is finding success bringing her own kind of innovation and modernity to its stage, as she stars in the eponymous production as Hamlet him(her!)self.

As for Rice, she retains many loyal fans, who remain confused at her dismissal from the Globe to this day (among them, Susannah Clapp, The Observer’s theatre critic, who consistently praised her inventive approach). Nevertheless, in a ‘happy ending’, she is finding success as the Artistic Director of her new company, Wise Children.

Harris Manchester sweep the floor in Floorball Cuppers

0

On Sunday afternoon, the annual Floorball Cuppers tournament took place at the Iffley Road Sports Centre. Although it is a fairly unknown sport in the UK, floorball is a popular sport in Northern and Central Europe, particularly in Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. The sport is a form of indoor hockey quite similar to ice hockey or field hockey; it is a fast paced game played with a curved stick and a hollow ball.

Since teams were limited to a maximum of two first-team players, most players picked up a floorball stick for the first time in their lives on Sunday afternoon. Zachary Lim, captain of the Catz team, was overjoyed by the large number of new players. Speaking to Cherwell he said, “Floorball Cuppers was a thrilling experience! Seeing so many new faces pick up a floorball stick for the first time and enjoying the sport was such a delight!”

Beginners found it surprisingly easy to pick up the basics of floorball, but most found it difficult to learn the skills that can only be gained through experience, such as positioning and stick handling. Saad Rana, a relatively inexperienced Keble player, recognised the importance of off-ball movement. “Being a striker is more about what you do when you don’t have the ball. Applying high pressure up the field to force a mistake from the opponent is an incredibly important but difficult skill to master. Moreover, you need to be willing to go wide and set up a goal for your teammates. This tournament was a great way to put my skills against some of the best defenders in the university and learn some new things along the way,” he told Cherwell.

Six teams from several colleges entered the tournament, including last year’s winners, Green Templeton College. Coming in as favourites to win the tournament for a second consecutive year, there was a lot of pressure on them to perform well. However, a poor defensive record and a lack of preparation saw the Green Templeton team get eliminated in the group stage. Despite their disappointing performance, Johan Cassel, captain of Green Templeton, enjoyed the competition, and reported that despite the college’s unsuccessful run this year, the competition as a whole was still fun to compete in. When asked why he felt his college had experienced a drop in performance, he suggested that the other teams had turned up to the tournament much better prepared this year. His team did get some consolation, however, after their convincing win over Teddy Hall in the match for fifth place.

Despite looking like one of the weakest teams on paper, the inexperienced Keble team came undefeated in the group stage. Against all the odds, with some incredible chemistry and defensive organisation, Keble beat Catz in the semi-final. In the final, they had to face the team from Harris Manchester College, who had just come from an extraordinary 7-0 win in their semi-final, and looked like the favourites to win the trophy.

The Keble team knew it would be difficult, but they were fixed on winning the Cuppers trophy. An early goal from Harris Manchester turned the match into an uphill battle for Keble. However, they were determined to put up a fight. Keble striker Saad Rana hit the post from an excellent pass by his teammate straight after they conceded, but it wasn’t enough. In the second period, the match went from bad to worse for Keble, as Harris Manchester scored their second goal of the final. In the dying moments of the period, Isaac Ettedgui, Keble’s star striker, scored his third goal of the day to make the game 2-1, giving some hope to the Keble team, as winning the Cuppers trophy now became more of a possibility for them. Despite this, in the last period of the game, the small size of Keble’s squad became apparent. Most teams were composed of six or seven players, but Keble’s team only had five members, meaning they were unable to make any substitutions. As the Keble players grew tired, Harris Manchester found themselves having more space and were able to capitalise on this advantage. They scored one more goal to seal their victory, and Harris Manchester were crowned Floorball Cuppers champions.

The Keble players, although disappointed that they could not snatch a win, were nevertheless proud of their performance. “Cuppers was an emotional rollercoaster: from the ecstasy of victories to the despair at missing out on silverware, Floorball Cuppers epitomises why floorball is such a captivating sport,” Keble’s enthusiastic defender Omar Mohamed told Cherwell. Sylvester Siew, captain of the victorious Harris Manchester team, was not only proud of his team, but also highlighted the admirable sportsmanship which was observed throughout the tournament. Speaking to Cherwell he said, “Every team was giving it their all, fiercely competing on the field. Yet at the end of it all they were all congratulating one another! It was really nice to see suchsportsmanship.”

Despite intense competition for the Cuppers trophy, many players had come to Cuppers simply to try something new or to have a fun afternoon. Julian Quak, an experienced defender who played for Teddy Hall, emphasised the importance of this tournament for beginners. “It was a tough and highly competitive tournament, and allowed many new players the opportunity to experience and enjoy floorball in a competitive setting. Overall it was a great experience and I am already looking forward to next year’s tournament.”

Next up for the floorball club is a one-day university tournament at Iffley Road where they will be taking on the likes of Bath, Nottingham, UCL, Warwick and York to battle it to win the largest university floorball tournament of the academic year.