Friday 8th May 2026
Blog Page 837

Pension dispute resolution in sight

1

The University and Colleges Union (UCU) and Universities UK (UUK) have reached a provisional agreement over pension reforms impacting academics, potentially bringing an end to 14 days of industrial strike action.

It comes after a dramatic week of events in Oxford, with Louise Richardson reversing her stance on the pension dispute following pressure from hundreds of academics.

Mediation talks between the two parties begun at the end of last month, though progress was frequently reported as disappointing.

However, employers and union leaders have this evening agreed a revised proposal to reform pensions, which – if endorsed by all parties – will be introduced as part of a three-year transitional arrangement.

During the three years, both employers and members will have to pay higher contributions – 19.3 per cent of salaries for employers, and 8.7 per cent for members.

The deal also includes external scrutiny of the Universities Superannuation Scheme’s valuation methodology by an “independent expert valuation group”, as a result of the concerns raised by some employers and UCU about the scheme’s valuation methodology and assumptions. The group will contain both academics and pension professionals.

The three-year arrangement means both parties will have to find another solution soon and have committed to exploring risk sharing alternatives from 2020, “in particular collective defined contributions”.

UCU have a meeting of their Higher Education Committee and branch leaders tomorrow, where a decision will be made regarding this new deal and the continuation of strikes.

If the proposed agreement is deemed satisfactory, industrial action will be suspended immediately.

Last week, leading academics accused Louise Richardson of “threatening to shut down the debate” on the pensions dispute, after she opposed the prospect of it being debated at last week’s Congregation.

Despite the debate not being heard after the required twenty members opposed, hundreds of academics left the Sheldonian and held their own symbolic vote outside.

The next morning, Louise Richardson cited “the depth of feeling of so many colleagues” in her decision to call an emergency meeting of University management with the intention of reversing Oxford’s response to the UUK survey on pension reform.

The survey was used to justify the controversial changes to the pension fund, citing that 42 per cent of institutions, including Oxford, wanted the scheme to have “less risk”.

Hassan’s beaten to van of the year at British Kebab Awards

1

Broad Street establishment Hassan’s has missed out on the title of best kebab van in the UK.

The student favourite was pipped to the award by Atalay’s in Thame, Oxfordshire, at the British Kebab Awards ceremony at the Park Plaza Westminster hotel on Monday night.

Hassan’s came second in the voting, winning a highly recommended certificate.

This is the sixth year that the awards have been held.

Hassan told Cherwell: “It’s disappointing, but we were very privileged to be nominated in the first place.

“But at least we won a highly recommended award, which we are very happy to have received.”

According to the competition’s website, over 1200 guests, including more than 300 MPs, lords, baronesses and councillors, and 800 businesses and community representatives attended last year’s ceremony.

The awards were founded in 2013 by the Centre for Turkey Studies, and celebrate an industry which brings £2.8 billion to the British economy annually.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and London Mayor Sadiq Khan were both guests at the awards in 2016.

Tickets for the ceremony started at £216 including dinner and drinks, and are regularly snapped up by politicos and journalists.

The award was voted for by the public, and it was hoped by many that Hassan’s popularity among students might lead to victory: a post on Oxfess encouraging students to vote received over 400 reactions, while Hassan’s own post was reacted to by over 250 people.

However, it was not to be, as Atalay’s retained the title it won in 2017.

At the time of his van’s nomination, Hassan told Cherwell: “At first we were not even aware we were nominated until we actually got a call from the British Kebab Awards.

“We were completely happy and shocked. We do our best to provide good customer service and food with a smile.”

Hi everyone I would like to say a massive thank you for all your support Unfortunately we didn’t win but we came second and won highly recommend award

Posted by Hassan's street kitchen on Monday, March 12, 2018

Two weeks ago, Hassan’s was forced to stop trading on Thursday night after heavy snowfall in Oxford city centre.

In a 2016 interview with Cherwell, Hassan revealed that his favourite item on the menu was a “chicken wrap, with cheese and chips, chilli sauce and garlic mayonnaise… just a little bit of chicken and just a little bit of chips and I’m done for the whole night.

“The most ordered item has got to be chips and cheese, and then chips and cheese and meat – chicken or lamb,” he added.

The kebab awards were the fourth-most mentioned topic on Twitter on Monday night: #BritishKebabAwards was trending in the UK just below University Challenge, Russia, and Stoke City vs Manchester City.

Booze Cruise: Balliol Combine Harvester

As far as the grapevine extends, it has been said that anyone buying a Balliol Blue in the Lindsay bar is either a tourist or a moron. However, what they may not tell you is that beyond the sickeningly sweet blue hues of their most (in)famous drink lies another gem: the Combine Harvester, possibly the most divisive cocktail ever to grace a college bar. Containing a lethal mix of ginger beer, Somersby cider, three shots of vodka and two shots of port, it is indisputably good for getting smashed, but only if you’re already drunk enough that you will literally down anything. Balliol’s drinks are known for their low prices on Tuesdays, but if you’re looking for quality, just give this one a miss.

To put it into perspective, the experience of drinking a Combine Harvester is like Bridge Thursday: your friends tell you it’s a great idea and it looks snazzy on the outside, but it has a disconcerting smell, and it usually ends in vomit. The flavours come in stages: first, the sweet taste of cider washes over your tongue, lowering your guard. It’s like the “free trial” period everyone enjoys before you’re in a pyramid scheme. Like rowing for the first time, for the first five seconds, you may think, “This is alright, I wonder why people hate this?”, until the disappointment hits.

The flavour is completely overpowered by the rich taste of port, except that the fizz from the cider still remains. Just imagine drinking watered down fizzy port, or the taste of sweet plums clashing with sour apples, and you’ll come pretty close to the mess that is the first layer. This only lasts for a few seconds before the flavour ebbs away, and for a moment, you think the ordeal is over, but no – there is more to come.

The ginger beer mixer and vodka, previously masked by the more strongly flavoured drinks, now enter the scene. Instead of providing the sweet tang of ginger and the smoothness of vodka, one can only detect the foul aftertaste of some unknown E number and concentrated boot polish, which is a taste not even a Bud Light drinker could love.

Why any respectable Oxford student would subject themselves to this omnishambles of a drink is completely beyond us. Then again, kebab van stash is a thing too.

For more weekly reviews of college bars and their drinks, please visit us at www.facebook.com/ocbr2017.

Remembering Wallace: Biography and Memory

0

After the suicide of postmodern author and cultural icon David Foster Wallace in 2008, the question of how to remember got difficult. David Foster Wallace meant a lot of things to a lot of people – his work is achingly personal and emerges from a place of deep emotional intensity.

The death of Sylvia Plath, in 1963, had a similar effect: both Wallace and Plath were writers who wrote from experiences of serious pain. The people who loved their work felt a powerful and almost evangelical devotion towards it, and to the story of the writers’ lives – look at how Plath fans defaced her grave, appalled at the memorialisation of Hughes’ Plath, and not their’s. Remembering these writers is difficult because of exactly this; whose version of Plath, or Wallace, do you chose to remember?

The film The End of the Tour takes this problem to its conclusion. Released in 2015, The End of the Tour concerns a road-trip across the midwest made by Wallace and David Lipsky, a journalist tasked with profiling him as the tour promoting his soon-to-be magnum opus Infinite Jest comes to a close. Much of what’s difficult about The End of the Tour is that it’s a really good film; Jesse Eisenberg and David Segal, who play Lipsky and Wallace, are both talented and sensitive and the dialogue is fast and evocative.

But, as is basically true with any biopic, The End of the Tour depicts a version of Wallace miles from the man many remembered. “I found The End of the Tour risible”, wrote Glenn Kenny, a journalist in The Guardian, who knew Wallace: “I lay awake obsessing over the best phrase that could sum up Jason Segel’s performance as Wallace. I came up with ‘ghoulish selfaggrandisement’”. Kenny might take it a little far, but it can hardly be denied that coming up with an on-screen version of anyone historical, let alone a person like Wallace, is difficult.

And Segal comes close, particularly with his voice – some of Segal’s cadences echo “This is Water”, Wallace’s 2005 commencement speech, closely. It’s often been said that Wallace would have hated the idea of The End of the Tour – his agent Michael Pietsch wrote “David would have howled the idea for it out of the room had it been suggested while he was living”.

But following Wallace’s death, what duty, if any, do we have to memorialise Wallace in a way that he would have liked? And what is the value of literally accurate depictions of historical characters? The End of the Tour is a powerful and moving film, but, by all accounts, it gets Wallace wrong. Does that matter? Perhaps. But perhaps it doesn’t.

London Proud

0

It’s hard to imagine Burberry without Christopher Bailey. After a transformative 17 years at the brand – Bailey has been chief creative officer and CEO since 2014 – his final show has just premiered at London Fashion Week. Bailey’s last show magnified what we have come to expect and enjoy from the man who revolutionised the once flailing ‘heritage’ brand.

Though there are nods to Burberry’s past throughout the collection, Bailey delivered a powerful twist: the rainbow stripes of the LGBTQ+ flag; So simply infused. So powerful. So, Bailey. In a perfect fusion we see the classic cap has been re-imagined with the LGBTQ+ flag, as has the tracksuit top. T-shirts stamped with ‘Burberrys’ on them nodding to the knock offs the brand once unintentionally encapsulated. Cara Delevigne’s long faux fur rainbow coat flaps as she closes the show, revealing the Burberry checked lining. This triumphant image serves as a lasting reminder encompassing Bailey’s unique talent.

Ahead of the show, Bailey told how his ‘final collection here at Burberry is dedicated to – and in support of – some of the best and brightest organisations supporting LGBT+ youth around the world.”

However, the collection is not the only commitment made to LGBT+ youth; Burberry have donated to the Albert Kennedy Trust, the Trevor Project and ILGA.

Tim Sigsworth, CEO of The Albert Kennedy Trust, said “24% of the 150,000 young people facing homelessness in the UK identify as LGBT+ after experiencing abuse and rejection just for being brave enough to come out to their families. Burberry’s donation will support our ongoing work to provide safe homes and support to young people,” The importance of Bailey’s last show reaches beyond the catwalk and illuminates the struggles of LGBTQ+ youth. The collection is breath-taking. It’s a good-bye, but not a wholly sad one.

The interweaving of the rainbow flag alongside the classic Burberry check has created a whole new layer to the brand, reflecting on how fashion has changed over the last 17 years. The pattern that we associate with ‘Britishness’ has just broadened its image. Although, there is the sense that this inclusivity has always underpinned Bailey’s Burberry. Bailey’s threads of diversity, inclusion and progress have always been at the root of his ethos.

By opening with Adwoa Aboah and closing with Cara Delevigne, Bailey’s final show layered icon upon icon – the new rainbow check, iconic models of Bailey’s era, and the final icon – the man himself. Bowing onstage and almost skipping off like a child, this is less of a sad goodbye when bathed in such brilliance.

Whilst we may not be able to purchase from Burberry just yet, Bailey’s contribution – to fashion, music, charity, and the LQBTQ+ community- is priceless.

‘Unacceptable’ students damage St Peter’s JCR

6

Students at the St Peter’s College finalists’ bop on Thursday caused £594 of damage to the ceiling of the JCR.

In an email sent to all St Peter’s undergraduates, Dr Roger Allen, the College’s dean, said the “state of the room on Friday morning caused the scout who looks after the space considerable personal distress.”

“This is a serious matter which requires a robust response,” he added.

Circumstances surrounding the incident remain unclear. One St Peter’s student, who wished to remain anonymous, said: “The bop was particularly busy due to it being [the] finalists’ bop so turnout was strong.

“I didn’t spend enough time in the JCR (the main bop venue) to comment on exactly what caused this level of destruction but I imagine it happened during the usual crowd surfing and getting on each others shoulders [sic] and chanting ‘Angels’ part of the affair.”

Students at the bop caused £594 of damage

The College arranged for immediate repairs to the ceiling to be carried out on Friday morning. The “full sum will be charged in full” to the JCR.

“Such treatment by the JCR of the recently refurbished living space provided and maintained by the College is unsustainable and unacceptable,” Dr Allen wrote.

St Peter’s College and JCR officers did not reply to Cherwell’s requests for comment.

The news follows several anonymous posters on ‘Oxlove’ and ‘Oxfess’ alluding to rowdiness at other college bops.

One post read: “Exeter Final Bop. Fuck me what an evening. So much love. So much skin.”

Another claimed: “I think the bass from Magdalen bops may have given me heart arrhythmia.”

Union reverses ruling after election error

0

The Oxford Union has reversed its decision not to amend last week’s incorrect election results, after it was revealed earlier this week that there had been a counting error.

The returning officer, Stanislas Lalanne, issued a revised statement last night stating that he had reconsidered his interpretation of the Union’s electoral rules, concluding that the results should be amended so as to reflect the correct vote counts.

Previously, the Union had informed a ‘defeated’ candidate for the Secretary’s Committee, Rai Saad Khan, that he would not be elected, despite winning more votes than his nearest rival.

Last week saw the first contested Union presidential election in five terms, with the race for Secretary’s Committee also being remarkably competitive.

Only the first eleven of over twenty candidates would make it onto the committee, and the results announced on Saturday morning showed that Rai Saad Khan had been pipped to the final spot by Mo Iman.

However, on Wednesday evening it was revealed that there was mistake with the vote count. In a document outlining what happened, Lalanne said he had “discovered an error in the Excel spreadsheet formula for vote change for Rai Saad Khan.

“I subsequently went through the spreadsheet to investigate whether there were any further errors, and also produced a corrected version,” he said. “I asked an ex-Returning Officer trained in using STV [Single Transferrable Voting] to independently confirm this.”

Rai Saad Khan’s election to the Secretary’s Committee has finally been confirmed.

He discovered that Khan should have had a vote value of 86.298 by the final round. The other candidate, meanwhile, only had a vote value of 81.490. As such, the other candidate should have been eliminated in the final round, with Khan taking his place on Secretary’s Committee.

Despite this error being clear and labelling it “an injustice”, Lalanne concluded he could not change the result. He referred to Union Rule 33(b)(vii)(1), which states that the Returning Officer may order a recount if an error is brought to his attention by a member within 48 hours of the close of the poll – meaning the deadline had long passed when the mistake was discovered.

Lalanne, however, has now revised his judgement, concluding that Khan should be elected at the expense of Iman.

Key to his change of position was his belief that he was the only person in a position to spot the mistake, and thus no member could reasonably have alerted him to the error within the 48-hour period.

Khan told Cherwell: “I want to express how grateful I am for this opportunity. This ordeal has highlighted the importance of transparency, which I want to continue to fight for, and I hope my experience can encourage individuals to step forward and stake their claim, and not be intimidated by the Union’s reputation.

Khan (front, centre) was running as part of Stephen Horvath’s ‘Ignite’ slate

“The Union is one of the best things at offer in Oxford, and its novelty, significance, and success make it something which is worth fighting for.

“I look forward to working with Gui [Cavalcanti, president of the Union for Trinity Term] and the team in making next term a rewarding experience for all.”

In his ruling, Lalanne said: “As in the statement I made on Wednesday, as the Returning Officer of this Society I take full responsibility for the error having been made and apologise for it, in particular to Iman.

“For the public record, I would like to state that when I informed Iman of the error and of my initial decision on Wednesday, I also informed him that there is no need to resign under the Rules. Iman has acted in a manner consistent with the original advice I gave him.”

Iman declined to comment, citing his concern for the welfare of those involved.

College families – bizarre or beneficial?

1

Recently, whilst immersed in the ritualistic escapism from the woes of a reading list that is a Bridge Thursday, I found myself witnessing my college mum entangling herself in the arms of a good friend of mine – a fellow fresher. This in itself may seem an unspectacular occurrence, and yet it was nonetheless a peculiarly unsettling thing to see. But why? It was not as if it were an actual family member I was watching make dubious drunken decisions (thank God – to be honest, the less said about the last family wedding, the better).

That night in Bridge, as these nights have a tendency to do, provided some uninvited inspiration for retrospection; in particular, about the semi-institutionalised peculiarity that is ‘the college family’. So readily accepted by new students from the moment of receiving that first welcome email by college parents, the entire family system itself is strikingly, but brilliantly bizarre when we stop to think about it – much like many of the wonderful quirks of being at Oxford.

Visits from family and friends are perhaps the occasions when we become most aware of how unusual college families are from an outside perspective. I defy anyone to have explained the concept of having other, unofficial (and slightly more youthful) parents to those not indoctrinated into Oxford life, without having faced a reaction of some incredulity. Even more surreal is the experience of introducing friends and family to your college spouse. I don’t blame my non-Oxford mates at all for looking as confused as an unsuccessful Union hack when the words ‘oh, this is my wife’ cross my lips without a hint of humour.

Because of the normality of college families in Oxford, it is easy to forget that people at other universities don’t regularly find themselves opposite their ‘grandmother’, ‘second cousin’, or ‘nephew’ on a night out, and so tales of family bar crawls and nights out tend to be met with perplexity and hilarity during the vac.

However, like families in general, college families can be extremely varied. At one end of the scale are those with parents who have seen an introduction to the myriad joys of Oxford’s nightlife as an essential part of their ‘pastoral’ role. While bonding over several rounds of shots may be a fast way to establish strong family ties, it’s hard to believe that raucous nights out were the intended function of the college family system when it was first introduced back in 1458 (trust me; I’m a historian). But on the other end of the spectrum are the ‘parents’ who encourage their ‘children’ to attend their lectures, give advice on reading lists and generally guide their little ones through the trials of Oxford academic life. I’m not saying either type is better than the other. In fact, they both have their perks.

It is perhaps true that the more active college families are a fantastic representation of the system working. It’s generally accepted that the whole phenomenon of ‘college family incest’ is possibly a step too far in establishing a close relationship between college parents and children. Is it strange that ‘close interactions’ between members of a college – who are actually not remotely related and only linked through the superficial family system – are quite often criticised, if just in good humour? Very possibly. Does that make it any less disconcerting when horror stories about cross-generational one-night stands come to light? Speaking from first-hand experience, I’d say not at all.

Of course there are those college families who have very little interaction with each other. That family formal is right around the corner…just as soon as you’re all free at the same time. With all jokes aside, it can be surprisingly difficult for those in a more inactive college family when friends receive fifth-week-blues gifts from their parents, or help in the form of old notes and general advice. It may be easy to make jokes about ‘dysfunctional’ college families, but it is true that having decent parents, or otherwise, can have a huge impact on a fresher’s experience, particularly in their first Michaelmas term.

By all means, the college family system, when it functions properly, is excellent. It is a way of ensuring new freshers have an approachable point of contact upon their arrival, that they have someone to answer any questions (that tutors would suggest rustication for the moment they dared ask them), and it’s a way of guiding them through the baptism of fire that is Michaelmas of first year. All in all, college parents can be truly invaluable.

But the question must be asked whether it is fair to place such responsibility on second years? Whether or not a fresher feels ‘loved’ by their parents is hardly the determining factor in how successfully they integrate into the world of Oxford, yet having a consistent and reliable aid can certainly help.

Is this something that should be considered when hasty proposals are being made left right and centre during fresher’s week? (God forbid you’re the one still single in Hilary). The rush to desperately get down on one knee to the first person who seems fairly normal may be entertaining, but can undermine the long-term purpose of a college marriage. Come next Michaelmas, there will be new arrivals who will look to you, a battle-hardened second year, for guidance and advice, but you and your spouse will hardly have spoken since freshers’ week.

By no means should college families become an overly-institutionalised element of life at Oxford – part of the joy of them is their inherently tongue-in-cheek nature. But it’s nevertheless important to remember how much a college family can change the Oxford experience, whether simply as a friendly face around college or as a support network for notes and advice.

Coming to Oxford is for many a terrifying experience – at least at first – and college families can serve as a highly effective means of reducing the difficulties faced upon arrival, whatever place on the aforementioned ‘spectrum’ they may take.

Oxford defeated in dramatic boxing Varsity

0

The refined extravagance of the Oxford Town Hall appears to be a strange setting for the Varsity Boxing Tournament, in light of what was to come. The blood, the sweat and demand for one to physically break down another.

It is not.

In fact, this apparently strange juxtaposition was nothing of the kind. Instead, it was the perfect setting: a visible materialisation of the beauty of the sweet science and the history of the battle for the Truelove Bowl.

As the room slowly began to fill, the Oxford boxers had one thing on their minds. They looked focused and nothing was going to get in their way. As the fighters from both sides lined up in the ring, the MC gave a moving tribute to the late Sir Roger Bannister, for which there was an applause and subsequent silence.

After some last-minute illustrative shadow-boxing from the coach, which was met with receptive nodding, the first two fights got underway, both of which were stopped by the referee in favour of Cambridge. Both of Oxford’s fighters, Lara Kotecha and Sasha Skovron, showed immense heart and desire, continuing to throw back and standing firm against an onslaught of leather, and would, no doubt, have carried on had they been allowed. An admirable performance by the two women and one for which they should be proud. By the end of the second fight, it appeared obvious that it was a competition between two styles. On one hand was Cambridge’s hectic, charging style and on the other was Oxford’s skilful blend of counter-punching and ring craft.

The score was 2-0 to Cambridge. Hoping to change Oxford’s fortune was Lydia Welham who was set to face Emma Baghurst. From the bell, both fighters showed blistering hand speed, with Cambridge being especially successful with work to the body. Welham answered with formidable straight shots to the face of her opponent. Both fighters displayed an abundance of skill and grit, both shipping heavy blows. The round finished with solid jabs being traded between the pair – a very competitive first round with both finding success. As the second round began, Welham, determined and focused, walked straight through a barrage of heavy shots, forcing Cambridge to exert effort with little reward against her unrelenting pressure.

As Cambridge appeared to fade, Welham sensed the chance and began her own assault, forcing Cambridge to seek space around the ring in order to escape. Welham, covered in blood but undeterred, began to tee off. The bell sounded to end what had undoubtedly been an Oxford round. Welham, keen to carry on the momentum from the previous round, was up and ready before her opponent had left her stool. Straight back into the fight, Welham’s work forced her opponent to cover her face with a tight guard which Oxford’s fighter only took as an open invitation to work the body. Cambridge’s Baghurst went back to basics, working behind a stern jab and lining up her straight right hands. Welham responded by stepping up the gears, showing her class. As the final ten-second warning rung out, Welham had the Cambridge boxer against the ropes. Not content with settling for a points win, she worked until the very end. A remarkable performance, worthy of a captain, was rewarded with a unanimous decision in favour of the dark blue.

More brave battles and skilful exhibitions followed. The fourth fight was awarded to Cambridge via a split decision for a fight that I had given to the Blue, Joel Howells. The judges were clearly impressed by the work of the Cambridge fighter early on, as Oxford came on strong in the latter stages.

The fifth saw Oxford’s Sam Luxa take on Tim Benger. Benger came straight in with big clubbing punches whilst Luxa remained calm, working well behind his jab, letting his hands go when appropriate. Cambridge achieved limited success with his speculative right hands but Oxford counter-punched well, negating any success enjoyed by his opponent. Luxa finished the round well. In the break, the Oxford coach encouraged his fighter to defend against the wild punches of his opponent.

In the second round, the Cambridge boxer remained aggressive and continued to search for big shots. Luxa, again, remained calm, refusing to be drawn into a brawl and wobbling Benger with a solid jab. Oxford displayed great ring craft, snapping back the head of his opponent with stern one-two combinations. Frustrated, the Cambridge boxer swung again, this time finding success and finishing the round strong. The third round saw a continuation of their respective styles, with Luxa managing to drop his opponent. Valiantly up and willing to carry on, Benger showed his spirit but the fight was waved off by the referee, giving Oxford the victory. The score stood at 3-2 to Cambridge.

The sixth and seventh fights saw points wins for Christopher Huang and Polchate ‘Jam’ Kraprayoon via respective unanimous and split decisions, leaving the score at 4-3 to the Dark Blues. Alec Murphey put on an impressive performance at Light Middleweight but was beaten with a split decision, making the score an even 4-4.

The ninth and tenth fights were entertaining although they gave Cambridge a two-point lead, with Ravi Hayer coming up short based on the early work of his opponent and a loss for Gabriele Abbati. Coming on stronger and stronger as the fight went on, another round and the result might have been very different for Hayer. The Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight boxers both showed skill and power but were stopped by the referee. Both fighters looked despondent but should not have done. They threw everything into their fights and displayed great bravery, neither willing to give up, just being beaten by the better men on the day.

Cambridge took the Truelove Bowl with a victory of 8-4, and it would be hard to argue that they did not deserve it.

Regardless of the differences between the two clubs’ styles, both had an abundance of bravery and strength to get into the ring and, for that reason, all should hold their heads high.

The Flick review – ‘a little theatrical masterpiece’

0

We often talk of ‘works of art’, but rarely its workings. In the case of theatre, we often forget how the performance itself performs. We forget its artifice, the ‘art-making’. Isabel Ion’s production of The Flick is a triumph in theatre-making. Having debuted Off-Broadway in 2013, winning the Pulitzer Prize for Drama the following year, Annie Baker’s play opened at the National Theatre last year. The play follows three movie ushers – Sam (Peter Madden), Avery (Lee Simmonds) and Rose (Antonia Clarke) – as they labour amid the detritus of a failing movie theatre. As Jesse Green, reviewing for New York magazine, remarked, “No one does anything generally regarded as theatrical.” So how is Ion’s The Flick a little theatrical masterpiece?

Green is right. Nothing really happens. The action never leaves the movie theatre, and is contained amongst four cast members. On the surface, the dialogue is as mundane as the detritus. Lewis Hunt’s design presents a set strewn with burger buns and yoghurt pots, coke cans and coffee cups. Popcorn is constantly swept up as if by a tide. The set is quite literally a wasteland. The dialogue and the rubbish are closely connected: “Are you sure it’s not, like, shit?” Avery asks, confronted with a suspicious remnant of a screening.  Sam’s reply is simple: “Definitely not shit.” The dialogue is like listening in on a kind of verbal garbage, conversational leftovers. Drawn-out debates about film, like naming “one great American movie”, seem more like fillers than communication.

The focus then shifts from content to performance. We are entertained not by what is said, but how it is said. The Flick was so successful because it presented the best student acting I have seen. The result was a striking naturalism. The rhythm and inflection of the dialogue was so natural that I forgot it was scripted. The mannerisms of all actors – be that biting of nails, awkward glances, frowns – meant that we witnessed the behaviour of real people, of how real people act. We cringe at awkward conversations, we are cast adrift  with Avery’s alienation; we’re moved by Rose romping to ‘Gold Digger’.

But it was the interaction between the characters – the way the actors worked off one another – that produced a compelling energy. This was especially apparent in the scene between Sam and so-called Dreaming Man (Sholto Gillie). The exchange features little to no words. Gillie finishes his coke, drives the drink towards the usher and suspends it in his grip for a few drawn-out seconds. But the two actors cooperate in such a way that this moment of suspended action speaks for itself; Gillie’s acting makes us notice a man we could lose in the silence.

The fact that The Flick is set within another theatre space – the movie theatre – means that the play acknowledges its own performativity. It is these moments that are particularly dazzling. The play opens with the end scene of Woody Allen’s Manhattan (1979) projected onto the wall behind us. We had to unscrew ourselves, turning around to view another performance. It means we were highly aware of The Flick as a spectacle, and as ourselves as spectators. The play revels in the nuts and bolts of production. Scenes transition seamlessly with films shown with a large projector in the middle of the stage. The beam of light evokes a kind of magic: it reveals wisps of smoke that seem to dance. The darkness is pierced by colourful light, blue and orange hues broken with threads of red. The way the film is produced is more alluring that the film itself.

The same can be said for the play. Unlike works by Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter – famous for the same stripped dialogue – it was difficult to find meaning in the mundanity. But the production of The Flick is a masterpiece, the best piece of theatre I’ve seen made by students. So buy your tickets, take your seats, as every element of this performance is wonderful – in the true sense of the word.