Oxford's oldest student newspaper

Independent since 1920

Blog Page 83

Oxford places second in Good University Guide, beaten by St Andrews

By
Bintia Dennog
-
Image credit: Tansholpan via Pexels

After placing first in the The Sunday Times and The Times “Good University” ranking last year, Oxford has fallen down to second place in the 2024 rankings. While it still ranked first in the South-East region, St Andrews has come out on top overall.

The ranking is based on teaching value, student experience, research quality, entry standards, graduate prospects, first-class and upper-second-class (2:1) degrees, staff-student ratio, and the continuation rate. 

Out of the criteria, Oxford placed first in the highest staff-student ratio (10.3), ranking second in first-class and 2:1 degrees (94.1%) and the continuation rate (98.5%). 

Oxford scored fourth place for graduate prospects, with 92.5% of students continuing into professional jobs or graduate study. The average graduate salary was £32,000. 

It also offers the second-best degree in terms of earning potential, with graduates in the area of business, management and marketing expecting to take home £58,000 within 15 months of graduating. This was only outperformed by Imperial College’s computer science degree, where the average salary reached £64,000. 

The metrics for teaching value and student experience for Oxford are absent from the final table, as they rely on the National Student Survey (NSS) results from 2022 and 2023. However, the SU and students previously boycotted the National Student Survey over concerns that the link between the survey and the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) could have permitted high-performing universities to raise their fees. 

Since no results from 2022 were available, the Good University ranking adjusted data from 2016 for its calculations, yet chose to omit the exact values from the tables. 

However, the 2023 results from the NSS survey are available since no active boycott of the NSS took place this year. The Oxford NSS website further states that “the previously perceived link to the TEF framework and fees and the commercialisation of Higher Education” has “now been considered.” 

In these recent NSS results, Oxford placed 51 with a 79.4% positivity rating. This was based on 32 questions related to teaching, learning opportunities, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management, learning resources, and student voice.

Besides the general ranking, the Good University Guide measured social inclusion, in which Oxford progressed from place 115 to 109. This included the % of state-schooled students (53.5%) and students with an ethnic background at Oxford (24.6%).

Oxford also placed first in ten subject-specific Good University Rankings, including in English, Mechanical Engineering, and Medicine.

Four Year PhD Scholars Programme at The Radcliffe Department of Medicine

By
Cherwell
-

This is sponsored content.

The Radcliffe Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford is a large, multi-disciplinary department, which aims to tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges by integrating innovative basic biology with cutting edge clinical research.

The department has internationally renowned programmes in a broad spectrum of sciences related to medicine, including:

  • Cancer Biology
  • Cardiovascular Science
  • Cellular and Clinical Imaging
  • Computational Biology
  • Diabetes, Metabolism and Endocrinology
  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Haematology and Pathology
  • Immunology
  • Stem Cells and Developmental Biology

Our research spans the translational research spectrum, from basic biological research through to clinical application. A full list of supervisor profiles can be found on our website.

Our PhD Scholars Programme is open to outstanding candidates of any nationality. It provides fully funded awards for students wishing to undertake a four-year PhD in Medical Sciences.

Further details on the projects available and the application process are available on the RDM website.

Before you apply, you should identify an academic member of staff who is willing to supervise you and has the resources to support the proposed research project. Although not part of the final selection process, contact with the prospective supervisor is a key part of the admissions process to ensure there is a good fit between the student and the lab.

The closing date for applications is 12 noon (UK time) on Friday 1 December 2023.

Interviews will take place during the week commencing 8 January 2024.

Offers will be made in February 2024 for an October 2024 start.

The Radcliffe Department of Medicine actively promotes a family friendly working environment.

Oxford University and CEPI to develop vaccines against “Disease X”

By
Sloane Getz
-
Image Credit: NIAID-RML / CC BY 2.0 via FLICKR

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) has pledged up to $80 million USD to develop rapid-response vaccine platforms in partnership with Oxford University with the goal of combatting potentially-pandemic pathogen outbreaks.

CEPI, an organisation financing research projects that aim to develop vaccines against epidemic pathogens, and Oxford have focused their efforts on combating “Disease X”, a term the WHO uses to refer to as-yet unknown diseases with the potential to cause pandemics.

Researchers with the Oxford Vaccine Group will focus on creating vaccines effective against several high-risk viral families, including flaviviruses like Zika and West Nile, viral hemorrhagic fevers, coronaviruses, and other diseases with the potential to spread rapidly. According to Dr. Richard Hatchett, this program aims to enable researchers to prepare prototype vaccines that could be adapted to a specific pathogenic outbreak in as little as 100 days. 

This partnership will build on Oxford’s existing ChAdOx technology, which uses adenoviral vectors to develop vaccines. This technology was crucial to the development of the Oxford-Astrazeneca COVID-19 vaccine, and has potential to advance further research in vaccine manufacture.

According to CEPI, as globalisation, urbanisation, and climate change increase human contact with animals and with each other, the eventual outbreak of a future Disease X is “all but inevitable”, but programs like the CEPI-Oxford partnership aim to mitigate the spread and severity of a Disease X epidemic and prevent the devastation caused by pathogens like COVID-19 and Ebola. 

The partnership will also work to address issues of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine-related misinformation in communities affected by epidemic disease. 

Oxford student groups like Effective Altruism (EA) Oxford have lauded this partnership. Sofya Lebedeva, a DPhil student specialising in immunology and member of EA Oxford told Cherwell: “I am excited by the growing investment in biosecurity, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic.”

The Queen’s Death: To Mourn Without Love

By
Hamzah Sheikh
-

A year ago, on 8th September, Queen Elizabeth II died. 

At the time, there was plenty of discussion about how we should mark the occasion, enlightened as we were in 2022 by an awareness of the Royal Family’s colonial history and our obligation to face difficult truths relating to race, class and power in this country. For me, this boiled down to a single decision – to post on Instagram or not.

Amidst the discussion online about whether or not it is acceptable to celebrate someone’s death, I would like to weigh in, a year on, as the child of immigrants from within the British Empire, with some thoughts on inheritance, Britishness, and what it means to mourn.

First, the Queen inherited an Empire which was, at its black heart, racist, exploitative and oppressive. The Empire killed millions, extracted trillions of pounds worth of wealth and probably began the process of rapid global climate change. States were chewed up and spat out, incapacitated after independence. Many have not fully recovered from their economic losses alone.

But the majority of Elizabeth II’s reign was spent overseeing the decolonisation of her dominions. Her inheritance, immoral as it was, was not something she could control. And her commitment to the Commonwealth of Nations predicates, fundamentally, that the UK is an equal to the 55 other, sovereign, member states – an idea that Margaret Thatcher did not support. She was not Winston Churchill, whose political actions resulted in the death of millions in Bengal, nor Queen Victoria, in whose name British India was made into a colonial possession. 

The challenging part is what many see in the Queen: the class system enshrined, the superiority of the English, a living reminder of the Empire. The many around the country who were genuinely devastated at her loss could only have known her as a semi-mythical celebrity. As such, it was deeply troubling to see them mourn the Queen as they did; placing her on a pedestal of esteem like a martyr, making remarks about her extraordinary life as though they knew her personally, flouting their grief as though it made them more British.

It was troubling because when we mourned the Queen, we all mourned different things. Some mourned the stability they felt they had lost, others a celebrity they had come to love. But many, I believe, mourned in the nationalist, cult-like fashion that was the philosophy of the British Empire, tinged with divine right and a nostalgia for a bygone age.

I did mourn. For me, the Queen is a temporal link to my family’s colonial history, proof that the country we live in today is the same that ruled over Malawi two generations ago. She is the reason we had passports and a right to live and work in the UK. Without her, it is as though we have lost our place; neither entirely English nor Indian or African, my family is a direct consequence of the global Empire.

To people from her former colonies, Elizabeth II meant a great deal. Whereas the English had the privilege of forgetting about the monarchy’s existence (unless you were accused of a crime), the colonised were constantly reminded of it. State visits by senior royals, like the Queen Mother to Nyasaland (now Malawi) in 1957, required locals to parade before their rulers. In many British colonies, most of the goods available came from Britain, as the market was strictly controlled. Everywhere one looked one faced a reminder of British colonisation. As was common in England at the time, my grandfather recalls how he was expected to stand and sing ‘God save the Queen’ in the cinema, at the end of every showing. We grieve the Queen, but grief is a lot more than the ‘price we pay for love’. There’s no love lost here.

What is lost is her symbolism, her position as a target with which to criticise all 15 former prime ministers, the social and cultural changes of the last 70 years and the consequences of the last 18 general elections. It is so much easier to concentrate our criticisms on what we think the late Queen represented than it is to figure out how we can address the specific injustices of the Iraq War, and every other atrocity Britain has committed under her rule. 

Although she may have had soft power to influence policy throughout her reign, especially if you believe Netflix’s The Crown, the nature of Britain’s constitutional monarchy meant that she simply acted as the government of the day wished. This includes when she gave Tony Blair a knighthood shortly before her death, even though many in the country would have rather seen him put on trial for an illegal war. She did this because we voted him in as our Prime Minister, and prime ministers are often awarded honours following the end of their term.

Those who saw her death as cause for celebration, or simply didn’t care about it, missed something vital. The poignancy of her death, and the reason that I mourned her loss, is that we are left divided in her absence. Russell Brand said that the Queen bound us to each other and to God. That includes binding us to the part of the country which brought about atrocities. Now, there can never be fair reconciliation for this country’s history under her rule; it might instead happen under Charles or William. The monarchy, and the Empire we have yet to take responsibility for, is our inheritance.

A year on, the growing irrelevance of the monarchy is severing the links between our country and its colonial past without us having first acknowledged it. I worry that King Charles’ unpopularity distracts from the reality that our history has shaped our lives and continues to be important in this country. Much of what we take for granted in this country, especially the wealth we enjoy, is built on a racist past. The Queen’s death has only served to further entrench the divide between those who believe this and those who do not, and soon there will be no hope for reconciliation.

I did, in the end, post on Instagram. I chose a picture in which the Queen was turned away from us, addressing a crowd of thousands in the Commonwealth – her then-subjects. A figurehead for a nation with a grey past.

Image Credits: Communicate New Zealand – National Archives – CNZ Collection // CC BY 2.0 via Flickr

UCU votes to end marking and assessments boycott

By
Oliver Adelson
-
Image Credit: Olivia Boyle

The UCU has ended its marking boycott, with 60% of members voting in favour of the decision. Markers have been instructed to resume “working normally” on examinations that have been left unmarked from the boycott. The UCU leadership, however, advised markers to contact their UCU branch if they are given “inappropriate or unreasonable instruction to speed up marking and assessment in order to ‘beat’ the marking and assessment boycott.” 

The UCU has confirmed that, although the boycott is being suspended, this is not the end of its industrial action. It indicated that from Monday, 25 September, to Friday, 29 September, lecturers at 136 universities across the UK will go on strike. Since Oxford’s Michaelmas term begins on 8 October, the lecturer strike is not expected to affect Oxford students. 

The end of the boycott comes at a time when many Oxford students have not received degree classifications due to missing marks—according to a Freedom of Information Request made by Cherwell, over 400 Oxford students have, as of 22 August, been provisionally given unclassified degrees. While markers will resume working on marking papers for these students, it is unclear how soon the marking will be complete and a degree classification conferred. Despite these uncertainties, the University has made it clear that all assessments will be marked.

In a social media announcement, the UCU indicated that the Higher Education Committee (HEC) has also voted to launch another national ballot on this year’s pay offer. The following reason was given: “Only by renewing our mandate with another massive YES vote can we force our employers to make the type of pay + conditions offer that members deserve.” 

The UCU continued, reiterating that “the fight is not over,” and that “we will not give up until we have delivered the deal that addresses years of pay cuts, unbearable workloads, rampant casualisation and unacceptable pay inequalities.”

The decision to end the boycott was not without dissent. One university lecturer replied to the social media announcement by tweeting, “You have absolutely betrayed your MABbing members if you’ve decided the call-off is effective immediately, as opposed to when the mandate was due to end on 30/9 as we were reasonably preparing for. How am I supposed to mark over a hundred papers while preparing for the new term?” 

The Student Union told Cherwell: “From the perspective of affected students, the end of the MAB signals relief and the return of their long-awaited grades. Despite this, we also recognise that this end sacrifices industrial action that we, as a Student Union have and will remain in full support of. Not only are we democratically mandated to support UCU industrial action, but we are institutionally built upon values that promote causes that are intended to improve the educational experience of students.

“By improving staff pay and working conditions, current and future students will find themselves in a better educational environment- which for many, will one day be their own working environment.”

The University told Cherwell: “While recognising the right of our colleagues to take industrial action, we regret the impact the boycott has had on some students. We are working to ensure that any outstanding marking is undertaken and we are working with colleagues across the University to put the necessary processes in place to deliver this in a timely way.”

This article was updated to reflect comment from the Student Union at 14:14 8th September 2023 and the University at 10:24 13th September 2023.

OUCA President resigns following two disciplinary complaints

By
Bintia Dennog
-
Image credit: Jess Buckle via Pexels

Peter Walker has resigned as president of the Oxford University Conservative Association (OUCA), officially citing “personal reasons following the stress to his mental health caused by the last two terms.” Cherwell can reveal that this occurred whilst a second disciplinary complaint was being made against Walker, which has since been withdrawn following his resignation. 

Walker was previously found guilty by OUCA’s Disciplinary Committee (DC) at the end of June for violating Rule 5(1)(a)(iii) by using “sexist language at a meeting of the Association.” OUCA confirmed to Cherwell that the particular instance upon which Walker was found guilty referred to him describing a woman in the Association as a “bitch”. 

As a result of Walker’s “unacceptable language”, the DC passed a Motion of Censure against him. Walker was admonished “to offer an apology to those to whom he has caused offence, and to consider his language more carefully in future.” The topic of the second disciplinary complaint is unknown. 

Walker told Cherwell: “In June at our Termly General Meeting, I misdelivered a joke using a different word than the one I had prepared. It is an error which I am deeply regretful of and I have since apologised profusely in private to the person it offended and in public at a subsequent meeting of council. 

“This action fell short of my personal standards and those that ought to be expected of a president and I was subsequently given a ‘motion of censure’, the lowest sanction that the Disciplinary Committee can hand out.”

Walker further explained to Cherwell that he offered to resign both before and after the disciplinary proceedings, but “was persuaded against doing so by senior officers of the association on the basis that this was not what the complaint wanted and was an excessive response.” 

He also stated that the disciplinary issues weren’t the cause of his resignation: “I had planned this before the recent disciplinary complaint, in which I would be more than happy to prove my innocence.” He cited the “combination of stress” following last term’s constitutional and electoral crises, alongside personal traumatic events, as the reason for his resignation.

An ex-committee member who has held several senior positions told Cherwell: “In my view, the Association has done a poor job as of late at adjudicating complaints from women members about the way they are treated by the predominantly male membership. 

“Legitimate complaints of sexist language and behaviour have not been taken seriously by the internal disciplinary procedures, and I am aware that a number of women members feel this has created a toxic and hostile environment for women in the Association.”

Franek Bednarski, who has taken over as Acting President following Walker’s resignation, told Cherwell that he is “saddened and distressed by the senior ex-committee member’s experience, and plan[s] to do everything possible over the next few weeks to further improve safeguarding and women’s safety within the Association.”

He added that OUCA “takes all accusations of sexist language, toxic or hostile behaviour very seriously.”

A special subcommittee on Safeguarding and Women’s Safety has also been called.

OUCA’s former Women’s Officer previously posted a statement on social media on 17 August, saying that she cannot “in good conscious [sic] recommend more women, especially freshers, join what [OUCA] is now.” She added: “I am frankly ashamed. University has desensitised me to behaviour that would be unacceptable in the world of work.”

In response to this, OUCA told Cherwell that successive Women’s Officers have “made OUCA a much more welcoming place for women”, and encouraged “all freshers, especially women” to participate in OUCA.

The current Women’s Officer, Suzy Elliott, told Cherwell: “It’s good for the association that Peter Walker has resigned.” She noted that the current committee “all want OUCA to be a place where women feel respected and I am confident that this will be able to take place.” 

The geopolitics of speech at the University

By
Aissa Dearing
-
Image Credit: Peter O’Connor aka anemoneprojectors/CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

[CW: Transphobia]

In the wake of the controversy around Kathleen Stock’s invitation to speak at the Oxford Union, as a geographer, I found it necessary to critically reflect on how society delineates what is, and is not, considered free speech. As an American, I’ve been instilled with the concept of free speech; why it should be a human right, why it’s necessary for democracy, and why it must be protected. It’s my First Amendment right. 

As Evelyn Hall (commonly attributed to Voltaire) noted: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to death your right to say it.” It’s a useful byword for how the state should interact with civil society, the press, and those associated with protest; in a democracy, even the government is not beyond criticism and condemnation. Yet, we tend to forget the significant roles that many Western democracies play in regulating permissible speech, as speech that is threatening, fraudulent, obscene, or disturbs public safety can lead to an arrest or a civil suit against the speaker. 

Commenting on the allowance of Kathleen Stock’s invitation to speak at the Union, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak declared that debate is the “hallmark of a tolerant society”. A letter, signed by 44 Oxford University academics from all sides of the political spectrum, asserts that universities are spaces that promote “free inquiry,” and the fact that the Union has invited a controversial speaker is a part of the university’s “pursuit of truth by means of a reasoned argument.” By blockading controversial speakers like Kathleen Stock, there is a worry that the University will become a ‘propaganda machine’ for particular political views. 

Yet, the university is not the state; and therefore, has a different duty to speech. As an academic institution, correctly or incorrectly so, the University of Oxford is considered one of the world’s leading knowledge generators. People look to the University to see the greatest debates unfold and answer the world’s unanswerable philosophical, moral, and ethical questions. Within the School of Geography and Environment at the University of Oxford, where my work is housed, there isn’t room for ‘experts’ who dabble in climate denier rhetoric to be invited on faculty, or even to participate in department-hosted debates and lectures. As the University’s policy on free speech reminds us: “Not all theories deserve equal respect. A university values expertise and intellectual achievement as well as openness.” The School of Geography and Environment is precisely that first – a school – where academic inquiry is pursued. It would clearly be a waste of university resources to host climate denialism and it would validate an argument that not only is unfounded, but unacademic. 

I’ve experienced hate speech and witnessed the pathologising of vulnerable communities under the auspices of free speech. Using a geographical lens, it becomes ever more apparent that a person’s positionality plays a significant role in their ability to speak freely. Speech is not simply something that everyone has innate equal access to; it is both a right and a resource that can be controlled and bordered. Those who hold identities outside of the ‘universalized man’ (male, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered, able, and of means) can experience impaired ability to speak freely, especially in the presence of hateful rhetorical devices that undermines their personhood. It often then becomes the burdening responsibility of the person who holds identities outside of the universalized man to defend their right to exist. 

The LGBTQ+ Society at Oxford called for the dis-invitation of Kathleen Stock because her thoughts contribute to physical and psychological harm to the transgender community. While some may consider a debate on transgender people’s rights an intellectual exercise, others, especially those belonging to the trans community, find the debate on whether their existence is valid not only harmful but dehumanising. 

When the Oxford Union platforms misinformation by inviting those who distort statistics and engage in rhetoric and pathologies, society can interpret this action as inherently validating what they have to say. Kathleen Stock is no longer famous on the dark corners of Twitter for being ousted (Stock claims she left of her own volition) from her last teaching position for her “gender-critical views,” but she is validated as a subject-matter expert in her field by the Oxford Union. We must be careful who we grant this privilege to. We aren’t self-selecting what is beyond discussion, but we are mindful to not validate blatant misinformation. Just as there is no question whether or not to invite people who engage in blatant climate denialism, why do we draw the line at transgender people’s existence? A controversial view becomes hateful when it advocates for the de-existence of other people through the removal of rights, resources, or otherwise. Then, activism is forced to emerge, often by people who hold the identities that the rhetoric harms the most, putting the most vulnerable communities in mental, emotional, and physical danger. By platforming anti-trans rhetoric, we strip transgender people of not only their right to free speech, but their right to simply be.

Here, philosopher Karl Popper’s thoughts on the tolerance paradox resonate: “Unlimited tolerance leads to the disappearance of tolerance.” This in no way advocates for the dismissal of debate nor the canceling/de-platforming of controversial views. Tolerance demands discomfort, as it allows our society to critically reflect on the values we wish to adhere to and those we wish to transform. As we enter into contentious debates, it’s essential for us to reflect on why we are arguing in the first place, approach the other side with humility and a willingness to learn, and perhaps even remain flexible to having our minds changed. I’m reminded of an old adage that folks in my community would say when starting a debate: “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” When we permit hateful speech to fester, it undermines the rights of others to exist safely.

Image Credit: Peter O’Connor aka anemoneprojectors/CC BY-SA 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Embarking on the year abroad

By
Phoebe Walls
-

The year abroad takes third-year modern languages students away from the Oxford bubble and into the world of the unknown. As a seventeen-year-old fresher, this time felt like a distant, tropical idea. It was something fun to say to people I’d just met. Yet in second year, the reality began to sink in. Navigating job applications, and the nightmare that is obtaining a Visa post-Brexit all whilst juggling the notorious Oxford workload, proved a stressful time. 

The year abroad meeting from the languages faculty left us all shell shocked, frantically typing away. We all felt green with envy at those lucky enough to possess EU passports, the golden ticket to freedom of movement. The year abroad office told us that they are not able to offer support with Visa applications. The necessary websites and documentations proved a minefield. You’d think you were applying to MI6. When TLS purged my application because I hadn’t been able to book an appointment in 20 days, my friend peered her head through my basement window to find me weeping. 

Trinity was our final term as languages students to let loose and make the most of Oxford before waving it goodbye, with the knowledge that when we returned for our fourth year we’d have finals chaining us to library desks. The workload in our final term did not lighten, despite us drowning in year abroad admin. It was a hectic time, filling in form after form, whilst still churning out two essays a week – and having fun.  

Friendships and relationships also begin to feel fragile as moving away loomed. However exciting the prospect of meeting new people, leaving behind my close friends was bittersweet. For some year abroad students, relationships disintegrated before their year abroad. Heartbreak and Trinity seem to go well together. The sun can dry tears. 

Before we knew it we were running down the High Street in pyjamas for our final bop of the year and drunkenly confessing our love for each other in the toilets. 

After a week at home, I packed everything into one suitcase and arrived at the airport. I’ve never felt more like an adult. I was delighted to have found such a cheap hotel to break up my long journey across Germany, one of Booking.com’s hidden gems. I managed to accidentally walk up to the entrance of the next door mental hospital which had a creepy doll staring at me from the window, sending a shiver down my spine. The sign for a mother and child convent made me laugh. The converted convent hotel was indeed a peaceful haven. On my first night I enjoyed dinner, watching couples intertwined, waiting for heartbreak. I indulged in people-watching and the peace of my own company. 

I love writing postcards and sending frantic texts, a running commentary to my Mum of this rollercoaster ride. Despite all its flaws social media offers a chance to share the highlights of our lives online.  

Embarking on the year abroad is one of the most nerve-wracking things I’ve ever done, pushing me out of my comfort zone into a foreign culture. For us languages students, this summer marks the beginning of a brand new chapter and I’m excited to see what it holds in store.

Image credit: Phoebe Walls

Fringe: “Quite absurd”, Review of Blue Dragon

By
Anuj Mishra
-
Juliette Imbert and Lorenzo Allchurch in Blue Dragon. Photography Credits: Lorenzo Allchurch

“It’s beautiful, isn’t it?”, says a harried wife to her brooding husband as she looks out onto a small and scattered audience in an Edinburgh community centre. She doesn’t mean us. The couple are actually on a train platform with a mountain view, and it is on this same platform that we remain for the entirety of Blue Dragon. “Innocent enough”, I thought as I geared up for an Agatha Christie style romance-mystery, but Oisin Byrne’s play quickly devolved into Pinteresque absurdity with a heavy helping of black comedy.

Blue Dragon, we learn, is the name of a sort of euthanizing (or perhaps just homicidal) express train. Very good, except for some reason its passengers (a series of three couples, all played by Juliette Imbert and Lorenzo Allchurch) are stranded on the platform with ‘the Driver’ (Leah Aspden) and ‘the Artist’ (Katie Peachey). The play effectively follows each of the couple’s interactions with ‘the Driver’, while ‘the Artist’ comes and goes in an anxiety-provoking hurry: it is rather a lot to take in for a fifty minute Fringe play.

The highlight of the play was the character of ‘the Driver’, who dominates the stage. Aspden delivered this role with excellent comedic timing, perfectly pacing her character’s degradation from hubristic dominance to emotional breakdown. 

The binary of player and audience is obfuscated by Byrne’s writing: ‘the Driver’ looks out at us from time to time, sensing the audience’s presence, and certain lines are delivered by Aspden to a sort of ‘onstage audience’ as she narrates her backstory. Harry Brooks’ direction furthers the confusion: the actors enter from a door behind the audience – we can tell they’re coming while the previous scene is still unfolding – and they sit in the back row between scenes. I charitably regard this as an artistic choice rather than a venue constraint – the effect is the same.

The play had an overbearing preoccupation with art, dealing with various forms (shadow puppetry, art writing, and aqua beads, to name a few). Indeed much of this was transmitted through the character of ‘the Artist’, whose main function was to bang on about, well, art. Peachey’s monologuing successfully drew minutes into what felt like hours, and touched on all the areas of theory that any respectable humanities reading list would. The success of this characterisation was only slightly marred by my unshakeable concern that this tortured artist was a sort of double for Byrne himself. 

In search of a pithy statement to wrap up the review (and to tack onto the headline), I find myself at a loose end. For I, in all honesty, have no idea what Blue Dragon actually meant. Blue Dragon strategically trades meaning for sensory intensity – it is hilarious, somehow touching, and quite absurd.

An Exciting New Productions’ Blue Dragon had its initial run at Oxford’s Burton Taylor, and continued at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe at the Just The Tonic, Nucleus venue.

Fringe: “Continuously Shocks”, a Review of Cruelty

By
Eric Balonwu
-
Luke Nixon in Cruelty. Photography Credits: Coco Cottam.

“Imagine. You’re a character. You’re in a club.”

This may be Oli’s (Luke Nixon) first line to the audience but it does not feel necessary. Even before the play has begun, the work of Sound Director (Julia Males) and Lighting Designer (Alva Orr) means I already feel like this is the case. The combination of pop music played throughout the play (such as Lizzo’s ‘Tempo’) and bright iconic lighting choices make Oli’s dancing in a nightclub both convincing and successful from the get-go. Seeing lots of Oxford University Students in one space and the slightly sweltering Bread and Rose Theatre also helped make the stage feel like a bad nightclub. Where else, apart from ATIK, Bridge or Plush, do you get to see so many Oxford students in one building (including those who you did not expect to see) in an uncomfortably hot environment? 

Oli, the protagonist, is ostensibly introduced as just a ‘nice and chill’ guy who seems to enjoy clubbing (not because he is a “hardcore rat” but instead because he just likes to dance). While Cruelty may be a one-man play, the plot is driven by Oli’s interactions with other characters (disembodied voices that the audience can only hear but never see). 

However, it is never in doubt who this play is centred around: it’s Oli’s world and all the audience can do is watch him react to others. And Luke Nixon’s performance is captivating enough that this does not pose a problem for the play. The audience never seems to lose focus on Oli, and in fact, I found myself continually engrossed by Nixon’s stellar performance.

By easily switching from the intensely serious to light comedic relief, he left the audience mesmerised and brought all aspects of the play to life. Funny throughout, Gabriel Blackwell’s Cruelty moves towards the increasingly macabre as Oli goes from the club to a disturbing hookup, all while the audience is learning about Oli’s Father with the eventual revelation of his suicide. 

Blackwell’s writing continuously shocks. The abrupt descriptions of a gun, an abandoned baby, a homeless man and rotten food in an orgy prevents the audience from ever feeling relaxed and caused me to feel a continual sense of unease throughout. 

However, Cruelty definitely had many comedic moments which the hysterical audience (and even Julia Males in the back) absolutely loved. These jokes landed largely because of Luke’s delivery – my personal favourite being a self-aware joke about a one-man play in Clapham.

Though the disconcerting nature of the script prevented the jokes from being as funny as lines on a page, I don’t know if this is a positive or negative. Was the audience meant to sit shell-shocked, or laugh along guiltily? Blackwell’s writing was discomforting largely because he made a point of ‘breaking the fourth wall’ and making the audience feel as if they were unwelcome voyeurs. Repeatedly, Oli acts as if we should not be looking, shaming the audience, while recognising and stating that we are compelled to look anyway. 

Cruelty does slightly disappoint in one political way – something that as a PPE student I just can’t help but mention, even if others may disagree. Cruelty‘s cursory mention of US police violence, enough to evoke feelings of pity from the audience (but not much else), seems to me symptomatic of a wider problem. Political activism that is viewed as an ‘aesthetic’ designed to solely attract attention for the activist rather than help the marginalised communities they claim to represent. Cruelty fell into this trap. It mentions police brutality but it functions just as another way to shock the audience and as a tool to develop the character of a white man.  It would have better served to either centre the play about police violence or otherwise completely ignore it.

On a final note, Cruelty has succeeded in demonstrating Blackwell’s talent as a first-time writer. By intentionally blurring the line between the audience and the actors, Cruelty set a higher bar than most other student productions. I believe they were able to follow through.

1...828384...2,439Page 83 of 2,439

Explore

Follow us

Oxford Student Publications Limited © 2024 - All Rights Reserved | Privacy Policy