Page 725 – Cherwell

The Actor’s Nightmare Review – “a high octane sprint through an abominable nocturnal dystopia”

Theatre

-

19th July 2018

The Actor’s Nightmare Review – “a high octane sprint through an abominable nocturnal dystopia”

Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald’s ‘Dream a Little Dream of Me’ intones over the softly lit Burton Taylor Studio as audience members drip in to fill the proscenium seats. The stage before us is sparsely decorated; an ominously bloody chopping block sits centre stage, accompanied by a rack of dresses and a white sheet draped over an ornate screen.

Louis and Ella fade out and ‘Don’t Dream it’s Over’ by Crowded House comes on, creating the desired atmosphere of dreamy nostalgia. The lights drop and George (Ryan Bernsten) wanders out onto the bare stage. We are located in his subconscious, experiencing the descent into theatrical hell all thespians fear, where George is trapped in a spinning set of plays for which he knows neither the plots nor the lines.

Christopher Durang’s one act satire, The Actor’s Nightmare, is absurd and exaggerated in equal measure. The play, directed by Alex Blanc from Mercury Theatre Productions, runs to half an hour; the pace a high octane sprint through an abominable nocturnal dystopia.

The opening scene is backstage, moments before the curtain goes up, during which the supporting cast cut diagonally across the stage, carving a thoroughfare that approaches and passes George, while exchanging snippets of exposition with him.

Bernsten emulates nervous terror that occasionally edges on hysteria and, while the jokes don’t always land, the anticipation is being built towards the humiliation to come. The absurd nature of the premise is tempered with the blunt panic of the moment, and this is only worsened as the stage is bathed in a crimson glow and a voiceover announces the beginning of the play.

Bernsten is now dressed as Hamlet, but stuck in a performance of Noel Coward’s Private Lives. He begins to settle into the role and his interactions with Sarah Siddons (Chantal Marauta) shimmer. Her expressive face grows increasingly distressed as she repeats cues again and again, while maintaining the inflated body language of Coward’s theatrics, for which George has no response.

Both Sarah and Dame Ellen Terry (Emilka Cieslak) sparkle in their dresses, typical of the Roaring Twenties, and contrast with the bumbling of George. The role of stage manager Meg is gender flipped, played by Robin Ferguson, creating comic moments as (s)he darts in and out as the buxom maid.

We are manoeuvred to Denmark, and although George is unsure of his location, he assumes the role of Prince Hamlet. The dashing Horatio is played by Stevie Polywnka, who leaves the characteristic smarmy sincerity in favour of a quietly humorous demeanour, using minute gestures that complement the slaphappy scene beforehand.

Bernsten truly comes into his own during his unwanted Shakespearean soliloquy, where he is both forced into the spotlight and left persistently chasing it. This climactic moment sees the fear of sudden silence faced; an urge to fill the swelling quiet with words is coupled with an inexpressible horror of saying anything at all, as it becomes apparent that he doesn’t know Shakespeare’s immortal ‘To be, or not to be’ soliloquy.

George launches into a speech of mangled Shakespeare intermingled with anything and everything he has ever committed to memory, including the alphabet, culminating in Lady Macbeth’s famous line screamed in mild hysteria. The moment expertly captures the nature of nightmare, compiled of confession, punishment and vulnerability, to the extent that George is, at one point, literally stripped down before the audience.

In accordance with the illogical nature of dreams and nightmares, the play transitions into another, this time an amalgamation of Beckett, voiced from rubbish bins. The disorientation and helplessness is once again extended to the final play within a play: A Man for All Seasons. George is Sir Thomas More at execution, and here the pacing unfortunately slumps. The moment George finally surrenders to his nightmare feels anticlimactic, with a struggle to evoke the desired tragicomic tone. In accordance with the distorted dream, the audience is left unsure of George’s fate.

Hall and Oats’ ‘You Make My Dreams Come True’ marks the play’s conclusion. After thirty minutes of dynamic shifting between times, places and playwrights, it all seems to be over too soon. It is unfortunate that the audience acclimatises to the mechanisms of the play just as it comes to an end. Getting up to leave, there is the sense it should be an intermission before another one act Durang play. However, leaving people wanting more is never a bad thing.

Daniel Craig and the rescue of James Bond

Culture
Film

Fraser Maclean

-

19th July 2018

0

Daniel Craig and the rescue of James Bond

Daniel Craig’s tenure as James Bond began with Casino Royale, and the highly successful 2006 blockbuster proved a fitting starting point for the ‘Blonde Bond’. The film was an immediate break from recent Bond offerings that had featured Pierce Brosnan in the central role. Many fans, including this one, would say the pivot re-energised the franchise, and that Craig was what it desperately needed.

In 2006, the changes were evident from the opening scene. Craig’s Bond was tougher, with more action scenes, stunts done by Craig himself, and harsher, bloodier violence. Yet this Bond was emotionally softer and more vulnerable, falling for Vesper Lynd and considering giving the spy game up to pursue her. And yet despite the pivot, the traditions were there – Craig was at home in the Casino, the Aston Martin, the dinner jacket, and comfortably delivered the tongue-in-cheek one–liners that have been a staple of the Bond character since the days of Connery. The Martini was ordered, and there was a grand opening title sequence set to the basic yet powerful ‘You Know My Name’ from the late Chris Cornell.

Twelve years on, the majority of critics and fans see the reinvention as a necessary and welcome change that brought a new edge to the iconic British spy, whilst retaining beloved traditions.

It isn’t hard to explain why this was so necessary. Simply, the franchise had lost its way, and a re-watch of some Brosnan numbers shows this. Brosnan himself gave a number of fine showings in the role – but the script and casting was muddled and made the movies hard to take seriously. John Cleese’s cringe-worthy role as clumsy understudy to the ageing Q will leave a viewer wondering whether they are watching a Bond film or an old Monty Python sketch. Robbie Coltrane as a Russian gangster isn’t much better, and what the hell is Goldie doing anywhere near a Bond film? There was also external pressure from other franchises – Matt Damon and Tom Cruise were enjoying massive success with their respective hard-hitting action series, Bourne and Mission Impossible.

The Bond franchise had to find an identity – was it to fade into ridiculousness and become obsolete as an overly tongue-in-cheek running gag action film, or was it to move forward and develop an edge as a series that could deliver thrilling action and violence balanced with the traditional gadgets, beautiful cars, tuxedos, and memorable one-liners that made it a British institution? Thankfully, the latter was the chosen path, and Daniel Craig was the perfect option. The success of Casino overwhelmingly proves this.

His films have, however, been of mixed quality. His second outing, 2008’s Quantum of Solace, is not particularly highly rated, however Craig himself has almost universally avoided criticism in discussions of Quantum’s shortcomings. Blamed instead is its confused and unimaginative writing, and an excessive stripping down of tradition. Craig cannot be held responsible for this. We can, however, credit him with some responsibility for the brilliant success of his third showing, 2012’s Skyfall. An iconic Adele number, a truly captivating plot with Judi Dench giving one last memorable performance as M, Javier Bardem’s chilling portrayal of Raoul Silva, and a Bond that confronts his own physical and mental vulnerabilities are all reasons for the success of Craig’s finest hour so far as 007. Skyfall is, crucially, more than just ‘a brilliant Bond film’, but simply, ‘a brilliant film’. It is the greatest example of how the Bond franchise must hold on to some tradition (the classic car, the iconic music, the British feel, the witticisms, and the pure cool) if it is to stay on top.

Unfortunately, the same heights weren’t reached with 2015’s Spectre. Some may argue the franchise went too far in the way of tradition, with plot devices like the Spectre organisation and Blofeld as the main villain borrowed from the classic Bond films of the Connery era. As with Quantum, Craig wasn’t the subject of much criticism.

With an eye to the future, it should be expected that Craig’s next performance will be his last. The infamous ‘rather slash my wrists than do another film’ comment after Spectre thankfully proved to be nothing but a silly remark, and we should look forward to his final showing. He recently visited the CIA in preparation for shooting. This may be an indicator of continued attempts to place his Bond in a more modern setting. Details are currently limited – but the presence of Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, Slumdog Millionaire amongst others) as director is promising. To make sure Craig’s final number is a classic, Boyle and producers will have to balance old and new perfectly, with a fresh and thrilling plot and smart and dynamic casting.

Lastly, on tradition, which mustn’t bar progress. The Bond franchise is old – older than many of its current participants. This, invariably means both good and bad traditions will exist in today’s manifestations. The echoes of 1960s Hollywood gender roles that still resound in recent Bond numbers are an example of tradition that shouldn’t be held on to, and a reason for contemporary criticism. To stay relevant, this must be changed.

The production of a Bond film cannot be an easy undertaking. There is pressure – it is a global favourite and is truly iconic. Every plot aspect will be compared to other movies – to the classic villains, car chases or fight scenes. The comparison most talked about is the one between the men who have played the role themselves. Our Bond, Craig, has advanced the character and reconciled tough and tongue-in-cheek masterfully. Whilst his films have not all been classics, his portrayal of 007 has been memorable and he has given us at least two brilliant films, with another hopefully released next year. It is telling that every former Bond has praised his work.

Hassan’s named among best ‘drunk food’ student takeaways in UK

News

Daniel Hall

-

15th July 2018

0

Hassan’s named among best ‘drunk food’ student takeaways in UK

Broad Street kebab van Hassan’s has been named one of the best “drunk food” spots in the UK.

The Oxford favourite was ranked 13^th on a list of 40 takeaway establishments located in highly student-populated areas.

The list, compiled by the website mystudenthalls.com, rated eateries based on their opening hours, proximity to the university, and value for money.

The news marks the second time this year that Hassan’s has received national recognition as a leading late-night food establishment, after it was voted the second-best kebab van in the country at the British Kebab Awards in March.

Hassan’s came higher than competitors in London and Leeds. However, Oxford’s prized kebab van was beaten by its Cambridge counterpart, Trailer of Life, which was ranked 3^rd in the mystudenthalls.com list after scoring higher in the ‘value for money’ category.

The list was topped by a fast food restaurant in Liverpool.

In response to the list’s publication, Hassan told Cherwell that “the lamb or chicken kebab” were the most sobering options on the menu.

Oxford student activists condemn London Pride

News

Angus Brown

-

15th July 2018

1

Oxford student activists condemn London Pride

Oxford student groups have slammed the decision to allow “transphobic” activists to march at the head of this year’s London Pride Parade.

Oxford SU, Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society, the Oxford SU LGBTQ+ Campaign and the Oxford SU Women’s Campaign led condemnation with a joint statement on Monday. Further criticism has since been levied by students on social media against Pride’s organisers.

Activists criticised the fact permission was given for “a hate group of eight women…bearing transphobic and trans-mysoginistic signs,” calling for “cisgender lesbians to form a separatist movement,” to “lead” the parade.

In their statement, Oxford SU and Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society said such events suggested that Pride in London “condoned a hostile, trans-exclusionary atmosphere at an event where trans people should be able to celebrate their identities in safety.”

Organisers claimed that the group was permitted to march the front due to “safety” concerns pertaining to hot weather, but that they did not agree with the group’s message. They claimed that “sadly, we could not forcibly remove the group” but did “move them to an area far in front of the official parade…to separate them.”

However, Oxford campaigners argue that this is part of a wider pattern of behaviour at the London Pride event in recent years. Pride in London, they claim, has engaged in “historical bi-erasure” as well as “ace/aro-erasure” (asexual and aromantic), and suffers from “recurrent transphobia.” This highlights the enduring “cis privilege” within the Pride movement.

Criticising organisers’ justifications, the statement added: “A hate group should under no circumstances have been permitted to march in the parade.”

According to the Oxford campaigns, the “hate group of eight women” also distributed “leaflets opposing trans-friendly reforms to the Gender Recognition Act” and called for a ban on trans-women from women-only spaces.

The same group also reportedly attacked what it claims is a tendency by “transactivism [to] erase lesbians.” One member argued that “men are saying they are trans, they are lesbians and they pressure lesbians to have sex with them.”

In a statement to Cherwell, Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society said: “The OU LGBTQ+ Society condemns the participation of a transphobic and trans-misogynistic hate group in the parade of London Pride, and the failure of the organisers to prevent their participation.

“We are distressed to see that transphobia is still so prevalent within the LGBTQ+ community, with it not only permitted at London Pride, but also given a place at the forefront of the parade.

“For members of Oxford’s trans community to attend London Pride, some for the first time, and be greeted with signs and shouts that they’re a threat to the community and that their identities should not be respected or even tolerated, was deeply upsetting.

“The welfare of trans members of our society is of paramount importance to us and we send our solidarity to anyone who was affected.

“We must not seek to replace our history with latent transphobia under the guise of free speech, but to foreground the trans activists responsible for this important day.”

Such condemnation comes at a time when London Pride has already been roundly criticised by LGBTQ+ activists. Peter Tatchell has argued that limits placed on the number of attendees were tantamount to “discrimination”.

Tatchell and others have also criticised the Parade for being too dominated by corporate sponsors, rather than its radical activist roots.

Pride in London did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Buffet breakfasts should be sent back to the kitchen

Lifestyle

Freddie Hayward

-

14th July 2018

1

Buffet breakfasts should be sent back to the kitchen

A buffet breakfast isn’t a normal breakfast. People try things they wouldn’t dream of having at home – whether it be coffee and tea or three different types of eggs. It can be seen as a challenge to try as many dishes as possible. But at the end of it, guests are often left feeling lethargic and sluggish.

To begin this unusual meal, we have to be admitted by the breakfast bouncers and shown to our table, passing the food on our way. Which seems rather pointless because as soon as we sit down we immediately get up and head back to the buffet – bums hit chairs for mere moments.

After returning with our food, we attempt to finish the plates of yoghurt, fruit, omelette and pastries that surround us, only to fail and head to the orange juice jar to refill our oddly small glass.

Whilst fiddling with the nozzle handle on the juice jar (is it up or down?), a basket of cake, often a dry attempt at lemon drizzle, catches our eye. The adding of this final plate to our little mound of crockery not only makes us feel bad for the people doing the washing up but tips us over from satisfaction to lethargy.

This staple part of a hotel stay can be as important as the room or the service, often being the last thing guests experience before they leave. And yet, we are frequently left feeling sluggish.

The buffet’s spectacle convinces us that the volume of food compensates for the drop in quality. Two questions then: why do we feel the need to eat in such a voracious manner? And, rather than a buffet, shouldn’t hotels focus on a small selection done well? The former is probably best answered by value for money, curiosity and our lack of self control. The latter, is answered through the remarkable case of Ariyasom Villas in Bangkok, Thailand.

This boutique hotel, which is tucked away at the end of Soi 1 Sukhumvit, holds a modicum of serenity unknown to the rest of the city. Its simplistic décor echoes the tradition of Bangkok’s not too distant past. Thankfully, this simplicity is reflected in its food.

Guests are given a menu from which they can order as much as they like. There are blueberry pancakes, eggs benedict, porridge and a full English.

Despite the richness of such dishes, the kitchen maintains a freshness that doesn’t weigh the stomach down. The pancakes, for example, are darker and more savoury than their American cousins, the sweetness coming from the maple syrup and the fresh berries. The baked beans are a combination of kidney, black and pinto beans in a light tomato sauce, rather than the sugar-coated ones we are used to. The result is a meal that leaves you feeling light.

This isn’t to say that there is no gain from the rich tastes of buffets. We all enjoy the novelty of being able to eat as much as we want. But a quality is lost with a buffet, whether that be the warmth of the food or the freshness of taste.

Now, there are drawbacks of a la carte. For starts, the cost of producing food ad hoc is much higher than mass-producing a buffet. This is in addition to the cost of extra staff needed to serve the food. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t the best option from the guests’ point of view.

Having a menu gives guests the time to pick what they actually want. Instead of just seeing something and taking it to their table.

A la carte also means that dishes maintain their proportionality. Rather than drenching our pancakes in maple syrup leaving them sodden, each mouthful can be comprised of the optimal proportions of ingredients. Of course, chefs don’t always get this right, but they are usually better at it than the average person who’s faced with endless choice.

There are, perhaps, more pressing issues for the human race, but if hotels learnt a thing or two from Ariyasom Villas the world might be a more palatable place.

Why I won’t be protesting Trump

Opinion

Daanial Chaudhry

-

13th July 2018

0

The Sun is the only media outlet to have interviewed Trump so far on his UK visit. As the President of the United States of America, Trump had his pick of the media crop, but he chose a 40p tabloid. The paper that a YouGov poll suggests that 52% of people consider to be fairly to very right wing, is well-known for expressing xenophobic and homophobic attitudes in the past, not to mention its less than exhaustive efforts to get rid of page 3. Through choosing The Sun, Trump has chosen to voice his opinions in yet another echo chamber, much like the scores of yes-men he surrounds himself with daily.

So far Trump has made a lot of noise it what was never going to be a quiet trip across the pond. He’s already questioned Theresa May’s fragile position as the head of state and proven himself typically bashful in destabilising the careful balancing act that she has constructed, and then reconstructed, following numerous resignations.

He revealed in his interview that he thinks Boris Johnson would make a more effective Prime Minister. Boris’ resignation appears to be laying the paving stones for a leadership contest, and Trump’s comments are quite clearly meant to aggravate the situation further. In his already packed schedule, he also found the time to accuse Sadiq Khan of causing the increase in terrorism and crime in the capital.

Of all the pies that he stuck his infamously short fingers into however, none were larger than that cooked up at Chequers. When it came to that ever-so-simple issue of leaving the European Union, he said to The Sun: “I actually told Theresa May how to do it, but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me”.

Theresa May was right to ignore Trump’s advice, whether we agree with her on policy or not.

In fact, she should not be afraid to publicly dismiss Trump, not just on the issue of Brexit, but on more of his what he spouts where his input is neither asked for nor required. This seems unlikely however. In all the photographs of his trip so far, he and Melania appear comfortably confident on foreign soil, whilst both Theresa and Phillip May both seem slightly awkward and uneasy on what should be terra firma. They are visible cautious of preserving this ‘special relationship’, while Trump places little concern on decades of cohesion and mutual respect.

The rationale for our decision to leave the European Union was that we did not want our country to be externally governed by unaccountable foreign politicians, so let’s not now sign over our sovereignty to Donald Trump. This is what will happen if Theresa May puts courteousness over country.

Yes, we should be protesting, but rather than kicking up a fuss over Trump’s visit, we need to protest for clarity at home. The outcome of the Chequers talks provided us with little insight of what the final deal with the EU will look like, despite the vote to leave happening two years ago now.

We should be protesting the lack of confidence our leadership has, as well as Theresa May’s own unwillingness not only when it comes to challenging Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to foreign leadership, but also the over-inflated egos of her own Conservative backbenchers.

We must ask why we are protesting a democratically elected foreign head of state, but why we did not bat an eyelid as the future of this country is decided behind closed doors. We have become consumed by a herd mentality: fashionable protesting for the sake of protesting, while the biggest issues affecting this country remain unchallenged.

This type of organised disapproval will serve only to further inflate one man’s already over-inflated ego. Like a baby, Trump appears to thrive on the attention, regardless of whether it’s good or bad. Knowing that thousands of individuals have left work, missed school or paused Love Island to protest his visit will make his head grow even bigger. We should not give him this pleasure.

Review- V&A’s Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up

Culture

Lara Drew

-

13th July 2018

0

Review- V&A’s Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up

Art can be, and is, appreciated for its own aesthetic value. Frida Kahlo’s paintings are works of art in their own right, smooth serene self-portraits imbued with traces of surrealism and magical realism. However, it is clear that in her almost obsessive interest in painting the self, and the ways in which that ‘self’ is presented, lies a story. The V&A’s retrospective, Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up, narrates the life and motivations of the pioneering Mexican artist through a collection focused upon the possessions of Kahlo herself, discovered in 2004 in her home in Mexico where they had been locked up since her death fifty years before. The exhibition proves the age-old adage ‘art imitates life’ to a startling degree: the way in which Frida Kahlo presented herself, her clothes, hair, jewellery and make up, in her paintings tell a personal story of heritage, politics, heartbreak and pain.

Magdalena Carmen Frieda Kahlo Calderon was born in Mexico in 1907 to a German father and a mother of Spanish and Italian descent, and this blend of heritage and culture, evident in her full name, was to have a profound influence on her style, both sartorial and artistic. Although she wore garments which reflected her parents’ nationalities, her preferred style, which reached iconic status through her paintings, was Tehuana costume, the dress of a tribe from the Oaxaca region in Mexico. The style formed the basis of her wardrobe for her entire life, and in the sartorial symbol of the matriarchal Tehuana society Kahlo found appropriate metaphor for her own sense of independence.

The statement was not only social however, but also political. Her husband was celebrated US artist Diego Rivera, and during the height of his fame, she dabbled in contemporary American fashions. However, when Diego was sacked from his commission decorating the walls of the Rockefeller Centre, New York, in 1933 for including a representation of Lenin in his mural, Frida firmly and irrevocably reverted to traditional Mexican dress in defiance of the political slight. In the final room of the V&A exhibition, twenty shop-dummy Fridas, complete with plaited hairstyle and high cheekbones, model the artist’s outfits. It is a riot of colour and pattern, yet the essential composition, of short sleeveless blouse and full skirt, remains the same throughout. Photographs, sketches and paintings by the artist line the walls, echoing the exact same outfits displayed.

Frida Kahlo’s clothes were not only about the messages they exhibited, but also the pain they obscured. She suffered from Polio as a child, and the disease left her leg deformed and gangrenous. This she hid underneath her full skirts and with shoes with heels of different heights. When her leg was amputated in 1953, she had a prosthetic leg fitted (displayed in the exhibition with a high red leather boot, embroidered with green dragons, still laced on.) Such ostentatious footwear would hardly have been glimpsed under her skirts, yet similar approaches to under garments can been seen in her corsets.

These were moulded out of plaster and fitted to her body, designed to hold together her spine, shattered by a near-fatal crash in 1925 which also crushed her pelvis and impaled her womb. The thick white straps can be seen in her tortured self-portrait, The Broken Column. The loose Tehuana dress hid these structural necessities from the world, yet Frida decorated them intimately. Flowers and Soviet symbols (Kahlo was a lover of Trotsky’s during his exile to Mexico) adorn the plaster busts, and, most heartbreakingly, an unborn foetus, a tragic reminder of Frida’s miscarriage in 1933.

A friend once described Kahlo with the words ‘she lived dying’, and her fashion choices are testament to this pain. She took to painting during her recuperation after her accident, lying on her back and painting her reflection. She remained bedridden for intermittent periods throughout her entire life, and had a mirror fitted into the canopy above her bed so she could continue working: her invalid condition became her subject matter, and her body her canvas. Her pride in her appearance remained unaltered, and she always dressed elaborately even if confined to bed.

She distracted from the visible manifestations of her polio and broken bones with heavy gold jewellery, several rings on every finger, and elaborate hairstyles, plaits piled high on her head and interwoven with bright flowers. Her rings and earrings are on display in the V&A, alongside her favourite Revlon lipstick and black eyebrow pencil, which she used to emphasise her iconic monobrow. Her style was a curious blend of femininity and androgyny, something she noticed early on, admitting ‘in general, I have the face of the opposite sex.’ In an early family portrait by photographer father Gustav Kahlo, she appears amidst hordes of sisters and grandparents dressed in a sharp suit, masquerading as a young man.

Photographer friend André Breton once described Kahlo, in a throwaway comment, as ‘a ribbon around a bomb.’ Viewing the intimate and powerful collection at the V&A, which so successfully combines biographical material such as photographs, films and letters, with Frida’s own clothes and jewellery and their direct pictoral representations, the statement takes on new meaning, speaking of hyper-femininity and androgyny, flamboyance and concealment, beauty and pain. It communicates the vast importance of Kahlo’s life experiences and the extent to which they dictated her style and appearance. In turn, such choices directly and completely impacted her emotive and intimate work.

Frida Kahlo: Making Herself Up is on at the Victoria Albert Museum, London, from 16^th June until 4^th November

Lagerfeld: Too comfy in Chanel?

Culture

Skye Humbert

-

12th July 2018

0

Crazy couture season has come around once again. While some designers continue to turn art into fashion and fashion into art, Lagerfeld at the house of Chanel has followed the footsteps of its fashion cousin Maria Grazia Chiuri at Dior in a particularly subdued collection. After 35 years at the brand, has Karl gotten too comfy in Chanel?

Up close the pieces contain the usual painstaking beading, crystals and subtle expensive details, but the overall effect is decidedly dull. Essentially the collection became a mass of ‘classic’ Chanel suits in grey, a grey kind of blue and some tweeds. Most likely drawing from the prominence of its iconic features i.e. Chanel No.5 and the iconic logo, the collection was somehow ‘finding its roots’ again. The Chanel suit is an infamous part of the brand, but haven’t we seen this time and time again? There appears to be a strange need within many of the older fashion houses to constantly define their look based on when the house was first created. This, to me, seems backwards. A sense of fashion history and respect for the original designers certainly has its place; but a haute-couture collection that is effectively read-to-wear only highlights a lack of confidence in the brand’s ability to reinvent the Chanel woman.

Where is the blame to lie? Lagerfeld has designed for Chanel since 1983; his name being as synonymous with the brand as Coco Chanel herself. When one investigates the reception of his collections over the years, he’s consistently called out for playing it safe – his 1960 spring collection was described by Carrie Donovan as “clever and immensely saleable ready-to-wear, not couture”. Seems like history repeats itself.

Chloe, Gucci and Givenchy have all employed new fashion directors for their brands in the last 3 years. The expectation: fresh looks, fresh creations, fresh ideas. There is always a buzz in the industry when someone new is brought in. How will they put their own personal mark on the brand? What direction are they taking things? Unlike her predecessor at Givenchy, who rarely referenced the labels’ archives, Clare Waight Keller looked to original sketches to influence her work. At Gucci, Alessandro Michele, a virtually unknown designer, took over in 2015, turning the Italian brand, very much set in its ways, into a playful, sartorial and luxurious success.

If we got into a severely detailed study of their collections compared to those before, I’m sure we’d find the changing impact of these houses far more exciting than Chanel. Of all the brands, only Chanel could get away with so little criticism – Lagerfeld has made his mark, for sure, and I’m in no way begrudging respect or celebration but now I find myself asking: what’s new?

We might wonder why Lagerfeld has been so successful at all these fashion houses he’s worked in – Chloe, Fendi and Chanel. The stability and consistency of his work must be a businessman’s dream. When designing both haute-couture and ready-to-wear, one can only imagine the constant battle between the designer’s creative vision and being able to sell to the masses. Often at the mercy of money, brands have been in and out of disrepair due to the ability and vision of its creative director (or at least they get the blame). The balance of innovative fashion and appealing to its customers is not an easy task – how often do such creative minds also acknowledge the limitations of practical work?

Then again, perhaps Chanel is no longer cut out for fashion forwardness? Huge applauds to AW18 collections from Valentino and Guo Pei, epitomising the variety of shapes, themes and colour that haute-couture allows. Although falling at different ends of the spectrum, with huge billowing cloaks in satin prints and block colours from Valentino compared to the structured black laced, wiry underskirts from Guo Pie, the brands showed compelling innovativeness in designing for the modern woman. Sure, Chanel epitomises luxury and beauty, but the stakes are getting higher. Their collection relied on appealing to its staple; its classic silhouettes and its chic, elegant inoffensiveness. Is this a by-product of a lack of change in society’s fashion needs? Perhaps this stagnation is being reflected by these older fashion houses – nothing is forcing them to do better. Either way, I think Chanel has stopped competing.

Of course, I am aware of my (still) very limited knowledge of the fashion world; I’m sure that the next season of haute-couture will see everyone doing subdued collections, or maybe grey suits are just in again. I hope this is not the case. Chanel needs to freshen up (with something other than Chanel No.5). Whether that means letting Lagerfeld leave with dignity or come under fire a little more, let’s hope the brand can continue to succeed where is always has…but in a new way?

Oxford students protest outside Chequers

News

Libby Cherry

-

11th July 2018

0

Oxford students protest outside Chequers

Oxford students attracted national attention as they protested outside Chequers as part of the anti-Brexit youth group Our Future, Our Choice.

The Prime Minister met with cabinet officials at the Buckinghamshire manor house this week to decide on the government’s vision for the country after Brexit.

The students bore a banner emblazoned with the words: “Your Brexit deal screws our future. Explain yourselves.”

Prior to the demonstration, OFOC members had sent invitations to cabinet ministers to meet the group. None of them were accepted.

Co-founder of OFOC and St Peter’s College student, Will Dry, told Cherwell: “A recent poll showed 80% of those aged 18-24 want to Remain. It’s a figure this government has no time for – evidenced by every cabinet minister’s refusal to meet or debate with our group. Hence we felt we had to track them down to Chequers and deliver our message there.”

Speaking to Cherwell, first-year History student, Dominic Brind said: “From the 4 am wakeup to the day spent under the hot Buckinghamshire sunshine, Our Future, Our Choice’s demonstration at Chequers shows the lengths that we went to to have our voices heard.

“After every single member of the cabinet rejected or ignored our request for a meeting to discuss the impact that Brexit will have on young people, we decided to take our message to them. Stitching up a calamitous Brexit stance in the Jacobean stately home, they refused to answer our cry for them to ‘explain themselves’ to us and an entire generation.

“This is why young people especially, many of whom did not have a chance to vote in 2016, need a people’s vote on May’s Brexit deal. Given the overwhelming anti-Brexit stance of our generation and Oxford students, the government’s blithe refusal to engage was telling.”

Principal of Hertford College and co-author of Saving Britain: How We Must Change to Prosper in Europe, Will Hutton, told Cherwell: “I think the view of young people in the month’s ahead is going to be critical: it is their future in jeopardy.

“Innovative and peaceful demonstrations in western democracies have a long and honourable history of effecting change. OFOC seems to me firmly within that tradition.”

Oxford students also took part in the demonstration at Labour Live in June alongside For Our Future’s Sake, another anti-Brexit youth campaign group whose spokespeople include Amatey Doku, the NUS Vice-President for Higher Education.

Both groups form part of the People’s Vote campaign, which is calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

Richard Brooks, chief communications officer for FFS, told Cherwell: “Stunts alone won’t change Brexit or make a People’s Vote happen, but are a useful way of showing how strongly young people and students feel about Brexit.”

More public engagement has been promised by all anti-Brexit groups before October, when the government hopes to finalise the final EU withdrawal treaty for the UK.

Email blunder reveals names of 1st year medics on pass/fail borderline

News

Libby Cherry

-

10th July 2018

0

Email blunder reveals names of 1st year medics on pass/fail borderline

The Medical Sciences Division have apologised for an “administrative error” which led to the names of students required to sit additional first-year exams being emailed to all first year medics.

The examination timetable was meant identify students by their candidate number, but instead a document (labelled “for tutors”) showed a list of their full names of those required to return for verbal “viva voce” examinations.

Medical students are asked to return to Oxford after Prelims to attend these exams if they have fallen just below the pass level in a particular topic, on which they are then questioned. If candidates perform successfully, they can be awarded a pass for that section.

A University of Oxford spokesperson told Cherwell: “An apology was sent to all affected students as soon as the mistake came to light. The Medical School is taking steps to make sure this type of incident does not happen again.”

In the email to students, the Medical Division noted the need to offer candidates “the maximum amount of notice” before the viva as the cause of their mistake.

Oxford Medical Students’ Society said in a statement: “We have become aware of what appears to be an honest mistake on the part of the medical school, with regards the viva list for first-year examinations, which may have some distressing consequences for some students.

“Oxford MedSoc is not involved in the setting or marking of any medical school examinations, nor any other part of the medical course at Oxford, but would encourage anyone affected by this to contact our dedicated welfare reps, Aoife Lyford and Charlotte Rose, in full confidence.”

One first-year medical student student told Cherwell: “I am disappointed by their blaming of the mistake on our requirement for knowing about vivas as soon as possible, when checking the attachment on an email takes three seconds.

“But ultimately it was just a mistake, and I think some people are blowing this out of proportion.”

Speaking to Cherwell, another medical student condemned the faculty error as both “dumb” and “mean”.

This is not the first time that the University has compromised candidates’ anonymity. In October last year, University administrative officials accidentally revealed the names of the nearly 500 Moritz-Heynan scholars, after students were CC’d rather than BCC’d into a group email.

In January this year, Hertford College also shared the personal information of 200 unsuccessful candidates through a similar error in email procedure.

UrbanObserver

Oxford's oldest independent student newspaper, est. 1920