Monday 27th April 2026
Blog Page 852

Beautiful Thing review – ‘Ruckus Productions has certainly made some noise’

0

Jonathan Harvey’s Beautiful Thing, first performed in 1993, depicts the coming-of-age of two teenage boys, Ste and Jamie, in Thatcher’s Britain and against the backdrop of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. As we begin to mark LGBTQ+ History Month, audiences would do well to remember that, over a decade after its premiere, Section 28 of the Local Government Act, forbidding “the teaching […] of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”, was still in force.

Watching the trailer for this most recent of Ruckus Productions’ runs left me, quite frankly, bemused. Knowing what I did about Jonathan Harvey’s original, I believed the acting, which seemed stilted, and the music, whose relevance I was unable to decipher, to be somewhat dissonant to the plot and the play’s themes. Whether or not it was the intention of the creative team to lead potential audience members down the garden path, so to speak, what is on offer to theatregoers at the Michael Pilch Studio for the next two nights is anything but dissonant.

Scenes of fizzing, mightily comic dialogue are interspersed with more intimate, serious ones. Opting for minimalist staging allows for freedom of movement, but also intensifies moments of awkwardness, particularly in the bedroom. Subtle lighting choices, overseen by Nandana Syam and Sophia Mara Buck, serve to clarify the mood in different scenes, whilst Niamh Calway’s shrewd sound design adds an extra layer to the production. The music that punctuates each scene, in particular the refrain that ‘you’ve got to make your own kind of music, sing your own special song’, reiterates the play’s unashamedly optimistic message, before contributing to its rousing finale. Aural symbolism aside, Chloe Doootson-Graube’s costume choices for Ste and Jamie, in contrast to the rest of the cast, are telling.

Potential abounds in Emelye Moulton and Callum Coghlan; the former’s portrayal of a sassy single parent trying to do right by her son whilst maintaining a sense of personal ambition and coming to terms with what his sexuality might mean for him, results in the frequent verbal and occasional physical outburst, delivered convincingly, whilst the latter’s faultless timing and stage presence convey Tony’s status as a dreamy and inexperienced lover and father figure. Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, whose ability was confirmed in last year’s random, is compelling as the school dropout Leah, at times sharp-tongued and at others caring, whilst Chris Dodsworth gives a strong performance as a character struggling to come to terms with his true self in such a toxically masculine household.

Those familiar with the 1996 film adaptation will soon detect the absence of Trevor and Ronnie Pearce, Ste’s brother and father respectively. However, in keeping with Harvey’s original play, Hambleton’s assured direction of Dodsworth, through whose movement and vocal urgency we discern the violence that takes place behind closed doors, renders this a nonproblem. The standout performance, however, is that of Lee Simmonds. Besides his excellent body language and timing, he carves out the intricacies of the part superbly.

Though I was impressed with the production as a whole, the best scenes are ones which feature all of the characters; it is in these scenes that it is most evident that the cast has enjoyed rehearsals as, throughout, there are wonderfully dynamic interactions, which provoke a lot of laughter. In staging this tender, thoughtful and timeless coming-of-age drama, Ruckus Productions has certainly made some noise, and for all the right reasons.

Colleges fail to pay the Oxford Living Wage

1

No Oxford colleges pay staff the Oxford Living Wage, which is set by Oxford City Council.

Freedom of Information (FOI) requests sent by Cherwell reveal that St. Anne’s and Wycliffe Hall also do not pay the real living wage to all employees, which is currently set at £8.75 an hour by the Living Wage Foundation.

The Chair of the Oxford Living Wage Review, Councillor Mark Ladbrooke, called for all Oxford employers “to go the extra mile and pay their staff the Oxford Living Wage.”

The Oxford living wage, of £9.69 and hour, is set by Oxford City Council to account for the higher cost of living in Oxford.

Oxford is the least affordable city in the UK after London, with an average house price more than eleven times higher than the average gross earnings in the city, according to Lloyd’s Bank. Wycliffe Hall pay four staff below the living wage whilst St. Anne’s pay casual labourers at a lowest rate of £7.50 per hour, the government’s living wage.

A spokesmen for Wycliffe Hall told Cherwell: “Wycliffe Hall would love to pay all its employees the living wage, and is actively working towards being able to do so as soon as possible.”

The government’s living wage is different to the real living wage, which takes account of higher costs of living around the UK.

Last term it was revealed that only one third of Oxford Colleges were accredited by the Living Wage Foundation.

These included Jesus, Christ Church, Hertford, Somerville, Mansfield, Merton, and Queen’s.

Accreditation means that an institution has a “moral commitment” to the living wage and raises its pay levels to match those set by the foundation.

Cherwell asked colleges who are not already accredited whether they would look for accreditation.

Keble, Balliol, Teddy Hall, and Lincoln were among those who said they had no plans for accreditation, despite paying all staff at least the real living wage.

Only Regent’s Park said that they were looking to gain accreditation.

The Oxford Living Wage Campaign told Cherwell: “The Living Wage Campaign values transparency and wage security for workers, and remains committed to Living Wage accreditation in Oxford’s colleges.”

“We are currently building campaigns in several colleges and hope to see movement in this direction in the future, and onwards to an Oxford Living Wage for all workers.”

The FOIs also revealed the top level of pay for college employees. Among those who provided data, All Souls’ warden was paid the highest wage, earning £134,313 per year.

The top paid staff members of both Somerville and Balliol earned more than £100,000 per year.

Councillor Mark Ladbrooke of Oxford City Council said: “More than 40 Oxford employers are accredited by the Living Wage Foundation, and we would like to see more sign up.

“Paying staff the Living Wage helps them to live with dignity, and being an accredited employer is good for business, as it helps to improve staff motivation, retention and customer service.

“It’s often said that Oxford has London prices with Midlands wages – and in the case of housing we are more unaffordable than London.

“That’s why we pay the higher Oxford Living Wage to all our staff and agency workers, and why we require contractors with contracts over £100,000 to pay it to their staff.”

A spokesperson for St. Hilda’s College told Cherwell: “The Oxford Living Wage is set by Oxford City Council as a minimum wage for its own workers.

“It has no statistical underpinning and is arbitrarily set at 95% of the London Living Wage (as determined by the Living Wage Foundation).

“We do not believe that it is an authoritative measure.”

The Principal Bursar of St John’s, Prof Andrew Parker, said: “St John’s is committed to meeting and paying the expectations of the living wage as set by the Living Wage Foundation each year.

“Given the College’s stated commitment to following the living wage, we do not see that seeking accreditation will make an effective difference to our staff.”

Oxford Student Union said: “Oxford SU believes that people should be paid enough to live decently, and the best way to ensure this is to support a Living Wage. Oxford SU believes that employees of the University and its Colleges should be paid the real Living Wage.”

Cherwell sent FOI requests to 33 Oxford colleges and received 23 replies.

St Anne’s did not reply to a request for comment and Oxford University declined to comment.

NUS President accused of bullying

0

The President of the National Union of Students (NUS) has been accused of “deeply dysfunctional” and “antidemocratic” behaviour by fellow union members.

Shakira Martin has been criticised repeatedly on Facebook and Twitter, with colleagues from within the National Executive Committee (NEC) coming forward to denounce her
leadership style.

A member of the NEC, Myriam Kane, told Cherwell: “The reason why I’ve decided to speak out now about this issue is because a number of others within NUS had enough, were getting nowhere with internal procedures, and started speaking out publicly.

“The environment was becoming toxic to the point I have to mentally prepare myself before going to conferences, or NEC meetings, where Shakira will be present.

“I don’t know what the next attack will be on me (Shakira all but names me in her video posts), or how I can fulfil my duty as NEC member holding her accountable when I avoid saying her name because I’m scared if I don’t she’ll make it personal.”

A member of the NUS Postgraduate Student Campaign, Amelia Horgan, has also criticsed Martin’s manner when engaging with colleagues.

Speaking to Cherwell, she claimed that 10 per cent of NEC members had been blocked by Martin on social media for disagreeing with her.

She continued: “Martin threatened to take our phones away if we tweeted negatively about the meeting. Of course, personal attacks should not be tolerated, but the NUS President
has a problem with any kind of criticism.

“The NUS President does what she wants – from ignoring democratically-passed policy, to threatening officers, talking down to volunteers, and to blocking anyone who dares criticise her.

“Her behaviour is unacceptable and the chaos it causes is deeply damaging to the NUS.”

Martin said in a post on social media: “These 6 months I have experienced some of the worst harassment and provocation but I have stayed quiet up until this point for the sake
of needing to ‘get on with the job’.

“Not only this but I have been baited and provoked on purpose and recorded in my own workplace by those who claim to support working class black women like myself but would happily push me to the limit and watch me break.”

Aliya Yule, a former Oxford student, told Cherwell: “I was elected to NEC this year with high hopes and expectations, which were quickly shot through with the realisation of how deeply factional organising divides NUS.

“I don’t think having different groups with different political priorities – and different values – is necessarily a bad thing, but the way that it plays out is horrific.

“I think Shakira has had a really difficult time, and there have been examples in the press of deeply racist and patronising coverage of her, and I am sure that some of her behaviour is a product of how hostile NUS can be.

“But for all my time in student organising, never has it been so difficult to be able to voice opinions without fearing being blocked or yelled at in person or via Facebook live videos, and it’s absolutely hampering the ability of us to work in NUS.

“What kind of example does it set, or what kind of message does it send to people excited to get involved, that this is the kind of behaviour that’s acceptable?”

Martin will stand for election again in March at the 2018 NUS National Conference.

Oxford students will be able to vote for their own NUS delegates in the upcoming Oxford SU elections.

Martin did not respond to Cherwell’s request for comment.

Only two black finalists awarded firsts in 2017

4

Only two black students were awarded first class degrees in last year’s final examinations, new data released by Oxford University has shown. The figures also show that men were awarded more first class degrees than women.

37 per cent of men received first class degrees last summer compared to 29 per cent of women, an increase on 2016.

The University said: “It will take time to fully understand the reasons that underlie differences in performance between individuals.”

8 per cent of black students received firsts, compared to 32 per cent of mixed race students, and 36 per cent of white students.

Femi Williams, ethnic minori- ties rep at Worcester College, told Cherwell: “I’m honestly shocked by the extent of disparity. Such a gap is evidently not a coincidence, and as such the University has an obligation to investigate and address the issues responsible.”

St Anne’s equalities rep Kir West-Hunter said: “Fundamentally, those who are most comfortable perform the best. These statistics seem to suggest that the issue of grades is just a racial one but I think this is far from the truth.

Oxford is a difficult, alien, stressful environment and this is even more true in relation to those who have never experienced anything like Oxford before.

“Assimilation into Oxford life is key to having an enjoyable and academically successful experience – as such perhaps the question shouldn’t be why black students aren’t getting firsts but rather are black students feeling welcome, comfortable and enjoying their university experience here?”

In Mathematical, Physical, and Life Sciences, the gender gap was 16 per cent, a five per cent increase on the previous year.

The difference has increased almost year on year since 2011.

In Humanities the disparity was nine per cent, and in Social Sciences it was two per cent.

In Medical Sciences, 30 per cent of both women and men received firsts, the second year in a row that the proportion of first class degrees has been gender balanced.

The disparity has increased by roughly one per cent on the previous year.

Oxford SU told Cherwell: “We are working closely with the University on reducing this gap, through improvements in feedback

mechanisms and better support for students during their course.

“Other methods are being discussed in various committees with sabbatical officer representation, such as the Student Attainment Working Gap group and Gender Equality Advisory Group.

“Last year’s increase in the disparity in certain divisions are likely to be a result of a number of different factors – which the University is working to identify and resolve.”

An Oxford University spokesperson told Cherwell: “There are a number of different factors that affect attainment in different subjects, and the solutions will vary by department.

“We have a University group looking at the factors that affect performance in examinations, with senior representation from MPLS. Detailed analysis is underway to try to get a better understanding of some of the specific determinants of this, but at this stage no single causal factor has been identified.

“There are also some local pilots and initiatives underway, including changing examination formats to offer more time for all candidates, the introduction of some more thesis projects, and more centralised revision classes.

“However it will take time to fully understand the reasons that underlie differences in performance between individuals.”

Katie Burke, Hertford women*’s officer, told Cherwell: “The eight per cent gap is a sad statistic to see, especially when men and women are coming to oxford with broadly the same academic attainment.

“There was a 2002 study by Joanna Norland on the gender gap in firsts at Cambridge which showed lower levels of self-confidence in female-identified students. It’s hard to say exactly how to solve this, but it’s clearly a long-term and ongoing problem that the University should be taking seriously as it pats itself on the back about finally starting to give as many offers to women as men.

“Gender equality in higher education doesn’t stop once you get here.”

St Anne’s Women’s Officer, Ellie Jerome, added: “I think the gender gap in Oxford students getting firsts is really worrying. It’s not that men work harder or are more intelligent.

The University needs to properly look into what’s causing this gap and do more to try to close it.”

Tabitha Oglivie, a fourth year maths student at Exeter College, told Cherwell: “all that really needs to be said is this comment from the examiners reports on third year from last exam season:

“The examiners were concerned to discover, after the class lists were agreed, that the percentage of male candidates awarded first class degrees was over double the percentage of female candidates awarded first class degrees, and that the percentage of female candidates awarded 2.iis and below was 2.5 times the percentage of male candidates in the same range.

“We would like to bring this year’s very significant gender discrepancy to the attention of the department, which we know is already well aware of this issue.

“This is however just a comparison of percentages – the issue looks even worse if you look at the raw numbers, 7 women got first compared to 45 men so I mean the issue is there and trust me no one is better at understanding numbers than the maths faculty, so if they’re worried we should all be worried.”

Last week, Ucas revealed that more women than men had been offered places at Oxford last year for the first time in history.

A total of 1,070 women were given places compared to 1,025 men in 2017.

Oxford’s dependence on EU funds revealed

0

The European Union provides over half of the external research funding for several Oxford departments, Cherwell can exclusively reveal.

The findings raise further concerns over the post-Brexit future of Oxford’s world-leading research, though the University stressed that they are “determined to maintain and build on” their European links.

The data, obtained by a Freedom of Information request sent by Cherwell, showed that EU funding to University departments in 2016/17 had increased by more than eight per cent over two years.

However, there was a wide disparity in different faculties’ reliance on European funds.

The Faculty of Linguistics, Philology, and Phonetics has the highest reliance on EU income. Over the last three financial years they received more than £1.5 million in EU funds, equivalent to 75 per cent of their external research income.

In the social sciences, the Centre of Criminology’s figure was 53 per cent while the Department of Sociology’s totalled 43 per cent.

Professor Melinda Mills, head of the Department of Sociology, told Cherwell: “The ERC has been essential to social science funding in the UK and Europe since we receive an almost equal amount as the other sciences. This is often not the case with national science foundations where the social sciences receive often less than 10%.”

She continued: “It is our hope that the UK continues to participate in the next European framework programme and in particular allows the freedom of movement of academics to work at Oxford in these innovative projects.”

The Department of Economics and the Department of Politics and International Relations had smaller but still significant figures, with 26 per cent and 14 per cent respectively.

A spokesperson for the Department of Economics told Cherwell: “In the long-term, it is important for the Department of Economics, as for the University of Oxford as a whole, that agreement is reached on the UK’s continued participation in EU funding for research.”

The humanities, too, are subject to large EU research funding. The figure for the Medieval and Modern Languages Faculty is almost 40 per cent while the History and English faculties’ budgets showed 34 and 24 per cent respectively.

Science departments also show significant reliance on European funds. The sub-department of Physical and Theoretical Chemistry’s EU income came to 42 percent of their external research income, with Organic Chemistry’s being 30 per cent and Chemical Biology 38 per cent.

The Department of Physics received a particularly high amount of EU income. EU funding for Theoretical Physics amounted to 56 per cent of their external research funding, while Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics had an average of 31 per cent.

The Department of Computer Science – which vice chancellor Louise Richardson described in 2016 as “the department most dependent on European Research Council funding” – received over £8 million from EU grants over the last three financial years. Meanwhile, the Mathematical Institute’s funding stood at 27 per cent of their external research funding.

Despite these figures and the UK’s impending exit from the European Union, the tens of millions coming into Oxford departments from the EU are secure for now.

According to EU and UK government officials’ joint report on the end of the first phase of Brexit negotiations, British participation in programmes funded under the EU’s research framework looks set to be supported until 2020.

However, the future of the University’s research funding is less clear beyond that.

Professor David Marshall, head of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics, which has secured millions from EU research funds over the last five years, told Cherwell: “The current grants should not be affected, assuming that the UK government keeps its promise to underwrite awards already made.

“I have no reason to assume this will not be the case.

“In the future, the implications are serious. Despite reassurances that the UK government is committed to funding science, and indeed that the science budget is now protected in real terms, this does not match the experience of those of us working in fundamental ‘blue skies’ science.

“A lot of funding is now being channelled through innovation and overseas development calls… So the reality is that the funding for basic blue skies science is diminishing and we are increasingly dependent on the ERC to provide this.

“In terms of EU programmes, obviously it will be difficult to remain engaged at the same level without direct access to EU funding (we briefly experienced this following the Brexit vote when UK involvement became toxic due to fears it could jeopardise bids).

“Collaboration is key to much of what we do, so withdrawal from EU programmes is a real issue. That said, we do manage to collaborate with programmes in the US and elsewhere through the Natural Environment Research Council and other funding, so while the situation will become significantly more challenging, this will not be the end to collaboration with the EU.”

A spokesperson for Oxford University said: “The University has strong research collaborations and partnerships across the European Union which we are determined to maintain and build on.

“It was encouraging to see December’s Phase I agreement state that the UK will continue to have full access to Horizon 2020 research funding until the closure of these programmes in 2020.

“This means that our researchers will be able to continue to apply for European funding until the end of 2020.

“However, the University is actively working for continued access to European research funding beyond 2020 and, more importantly, the free flow of knowledge and ideas that research partnerships can inspire.

“We are therefore working towards a Brexit settlement which will allow the University to continue to participate in future EU Framework programmes and conduct world-class collaborative research; host European Research Council grants; co-ordinate and host collaborative European projects and infrastructures; recruit and retain the best staff regardless of nationality; and recruit the best students regardless of nationality.”

The latest figures on British participation in Horizon 2020, the EU’s research and innovation programme, showed that the University of Oxford receives the highest share of funding not just in the UK, but across the whole of the European Union.

Commenting on the publication of the data, Oxford University’s Head of Brexit Strategy, Professor Alastair Buchan, said: “The European framework programmes have been vital to research at Oxford, and have helped establish the University as one of the very best in the world.

“The benefit of this to the UK cannot be overestimated, and the current high standing of UK universities is undoubtedly at risk as a result of the UK leaving the European Union, whether our exit be hard or soft.”

Brains transplanted into wrong bodies at Uni hospital

0

Two brains were mistakenly transplanted into the wrong bodies during a post-mortem at the John Radcliffe Hospital.

The mishap was one of 278 ‘serious incidents’ which occurred in mortuaries across England, Wales and Northern Ireland from 2014 to 2016, according to a BBC Freedom of Information Request (FOI).

The John Radcliffe, one of four Hospitals in Oxford’s NHS Foundation Trust, collaborates with the University for research purposes and is the most popular base for clinical medical students.

A spokesperson for Oxford University Hospitals told Cherwell: “This very regrettable incident, for which Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and individuals have apologised to the families, was an error in the labelling of two brains during a specialist examination as part of the autopsy process.

“The mistake was promptly recognised by staff working in the mortuary at the John Radcliffe Hospital and rectified.

“This incident was reported to the Human Tissue Authority and the Trust also commissioned an external expert to carry out a thorough investigation and review processes in the mortuary in order to help us ensure we prevent anything like this happening again in the future.”

A medical student said: “From the time I’ve personally spent with corpses or body parts, it can be easy to forget that these were once living breathing people with families.

“When dealing with such sensitive material we should always be respectful and treat the body parts in a manner that their owners would have desired.

“In these incidents I feel that people have perhaps not been as meticulous or thorough whilst carrying out their work as they would have been if they were dealing with a living patient.

“Death can be distressing and when these types of incidents occur it simply makes things even worse for those involved.”

Rosa Curson Smith, a second year at Hertford College, told Cherwell: “whilst this may seem like an amusing mix up to those not involved, it presumably caused deep upset for the families of the deceased.

“Oversights like this should be avoided when operating on the dead as well as the living .”

A St Peter’s student added: “It is key that doctors and medical staff are open and honest to those close to the deceased individual about the mistakes made.”

Tyron Surmon, a student at Corpus Christi, said: “How could they not have done it right? “The operation was a no-brainer.”

Queerfest cocktails reduced to half-pints

0

Wadham College has reformed its alcohol policy at Queerfest and Wadstock, following complaints of drunkenness at events last year.

Reforms will apply to Wadstock, a music festival, and Queerfest, the closing party of Wadham’s Queerweek.

The changes, ratified by college committee members, will scrap drinks promotions at the events. Cocktails will also be limited to half pints , with a maximum alcohol content of 6% ABV (alcohol by volume).

The recommendations were drawn up by the Domestic Bursar and the Wadham Bar Steward in response to complaints of drunkenness at college social events, particularly Queerfest.

Committee members cited a lack of provisions for those attending, such as an absence of food as well as a lack of contingency rooms for those who “due to intoxication would [have been] better off spending the night in the College”.

Several intoxicated students leaving the event were refused service by taxis, and were driven home by sober volunteers.

A spokesperson for Wadham College told Cherwell: “Oxford Colleges have a responsibility towards their students over the consumption of alcohol at their events and licensing law must be strictly applied.

“A decision was made by Wadham College members, including Wadham SU and MCR representatives, at Liaison Committee, that at Wadstock and Queerfest cocktails will be served in half pint glasses with alcoholic content clearly displayed (to a maximum of 6% alcohol by volume) and that no drinks promotions would take place.”

Wadham SU’s Bar and Social officers, who mixed the drinks in question and ran the cocktail bar, declined to comment.

Nicole Dominiak of Corpus Christi College, who attended last year’s Queerfest event, told Cherwell: “I didn’t find the drinking too much of a problem.

“The main thing for me was that there wasn’t enough food provided for people there, especially for people who had drunk too much.

“I’m not sure how much these recommendations are actually going to have an effect though since it seemed like most people had just been pre-drinking before they got there anyway.”

Queerfest is the final event of Wadham’s Queerweek, a series of talks and seminars celebrating LGBTQ+ culture and diversity.

Last term’s event was advertised as a space “to rejoice in a radical spirt of queerness, defiance, diversity and self-expression for six utopian, space-age, magical hours.”

Wadstock is a one-day outdoors music festival centred around student performers, taking place in Trinity term each year.

They are both organised by Wadham SU, though permission to hold the events require the approval of the college Dean, Liaison Committee, and Governing Body.

Around 850 ticket holders attend each of the events.

The reforms also proposed combining Wadham Student Union’s Cocktail Bar with the Marquee bar operated by the college.

This would mean Wadham having a single bar run by college, with two Personal Licence holders on duty, with the sale of alcohol supervised throughout events.

The closure of the separate student-run bar, operated by elected student bar officers, will not impact Wadham SU’s finances, as students were assured that all profits from cocktails sold would go to the Student Union.

The college would take the profits from the sale of other drinks at the combined bar, such as beers and ciders.

Dick and Dom: life out of da bungalow

0

The opportunity to meet one’s childhood heroes is one that can only cause excitement. So despite the fact that I found myself sat mid-afternoon with two 40-year-old TV presenters in an empty room in a Cambridge nightclub, there was something thrilling about the prospect.

Not many people will recognise the names Richard McCourt and Dominic Wood. When I told my friends I’d met them, the overwhelming response was: “Who?” And yet at their peak, the duo were unstoppable. They had over one million viewers every Saturday morning, they won two Baftas, and their show was just the second children’s television programme to be mentioned in the House of Commons.

Indeed, for my generation, Dick and Dom are little short of legends. It is, therefore, with a certain trepidation that I ask them my first question. Every week, Dick and Dom in da Bungalow invited a handful of primary school children onto the show to take part in their games, songs and features.

As an eight-year-old, I myself applied to be on, filled with hope that I would get my fifteen minutes of fame. Why was it, then, that I didn’t make the cut? “We saw your application photo and we didn’t like it. We didn’t trust you,” Dom tells me. “Your CV wasn’t good enough,” retorts Dick, a crushing blow given how much of my childhood was dedicated to networking events and volunteering for local charities. “You had something weird and dark in your eyes that we didn’t trust, so we wouldn’t let you in,” says Dom. Dick reassures me nothing has changed: “And we still don’t trust you
now.”

If anyone has made it this far without a working knowledge of the show – what were you doing with your Saturday mornings in 2003? – then let me offer a quick introduction. Only the hardcore fans will remember ‘Yum Yum Yak’, ‘DCI Harry Batt’s Interrogation Game’ and ‘Prize Idiot on the Job’, but it is almost to impossible not to know about the game that plagued Key Stage One teachers across Britain throughout the midnoughties: ‘Bogies’. In simple terms, the game involved McCourt and Wood finding a suitable public space – be it a yoga session, a performance at the theatre, or a lecture at Bournemouth University – and shouting the word ‘bogies’ progressively louder, until their ejection. With scores measured on the ‘bogeyometer’, the game made no secret of its juvenility, but this was probably the main reason that the show developed such a cult following: it was simple, it was gross, and it was brilliant.

In fact, my own brother was kicked out of the Fitzwilliam Museum as a ten-year-old, after engaging in a game with his friend. When I told her that I would be interviewing Dick and Dom, my mother – still dismayed at the public embarrassment that it caused her on the Cambridgeshire parents’ dinner party scene – demanded that I hold them to account for this.

Dom reveals that he has been accused of “corrupting a whole generation… and that’s you now.” “So, all you lot reading this, you are corrupted by us,” adds Dick. “Apologies.” Indeed, Conservative MP Peter Luff complained in Parliament about the show’s “lavatorial content” nearly thirteen years ago. “You can join me in playing How Low Can You Bungalow?, a test to see your response to grossly embarrassing personal situations, largely of a lavatorial nature,” he said to Culture Minister Tessa Jowell, “Pants Dancers in the Hall of Fame, photos of children with underwear on their heads; Make Dick Sick, a game which I think speaks for itself; and finally Bunged Up, in which you play a character in a sewerage system avoiding turtle poos coming from various lavatories. “Is that really the stuff of public service broadcasting?” Are they proud of those accusations? “Not really,” Dom replies, but I sense that it isn’t something that keeps him awake at night.

Ultimately, Dick and Dom managed to make a very successful career out of acting like children, and it is clear throughout my time with them that they haven’t changed much. But I must admit that there is something strange about meeting them aged 40 and 41. Dom is now married, and has a ten-year-old son – and Dick is his godfather. “He’s very generous with them. It is very adorable, they’ve got some lovely Amazon vouchers [from him].”

“I don’t have children,” says Dick, who remains a bachelor. “He hasn’t got any children, but you can bet your bottom dollar when he does I’ll be about 90 – but I’ll still be happy to be an old, old godfather,” replies Dom. This back-and-forth between them is a feature of my chat with them: rather than just being an on-screen duo, Wood and McCourt are best friends in real life, too. And when so much of your success has depended on two personas so similar to their own, there is little room for reinvention.

As a result, it’s no surprise to hear that it won’t be a case of new year, new Dick and Dom. “Uhh, no. Very much the same. Stagnant, same, similar, boring dull,” says Dom. “It’s like a stagnant pond with like those kinda things…” replies Dick. “Duckwater!” “Frogspawn in it.” While my chat with them is hardly the most serious interview I’ve conducted – how could it be when my journalistic career has featured a job asking drunk second-year PPEists about the geopolitical questions of our time? – I can’t help but notice the pair’s frantic attempt to turn their answers into something absurd.

The pair spoke to The i last year, but very much as McCourt and Wood rather than Dick and Dom, and their comments were perhaps more interesting than might be expected. “The rules have changed,” McCourt said in that interview. “There’s not many things you can get away with. “Things like Bogies could be seen as anti-social behaviour. We did a game [Eeny Meeny Macka Racka Rari Dominacka Shickapoppa Dickywhopper Rom Pom Stick] where we put stickers on people’s backs without them noticing. “I don’t think these days you’d be allowed to be seen to be upsetting people.” “There’s not enough silly any more,” says Wood. “Everybody’s too serious.”

It is an intriguing idea that Dick and Dom are in some ways a relic now. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of the show making it onto Saturday morning TV in 2018. While their comments might seem like a throwaway, it must say something about their attitude to entertainment that not being “allowed” to upset people is a negative. The generation that grew up with them are constantly labelled ‘whinging snowflakes’ by the press, but perhaps this is a sign that while those they entertained have grown up, Dick and Dom have not.

I try to move onto the political: “If you became health secretary tomorrow, how would you solve the NHS crisis?” Dick makes a low, farting noise. “We’re not intelligent enough for this,” he replies. What would they do if they met Donald Trump? “Just turn him upside down and slap him like a human piñata,” says Dom. “[I’d] see what comes out,” Dick replies. “What do you think would come out of Donald Trump, sweets or money?” “Chocolate coins! That covers both, doesn’t it?” How do they think they will find the heteronormative atmosphere in Cindies tonight? “I don’t know. But it’s lovely to be here.”

Their responses – an attempt to get away from anything remotely serious – firmly remind me that I am interviewing Dick and Dom, not McCourt and Wood. While at no point did I try to make this anything other than a light-hearted, jokey chat with them, it is difficult to escape the fact that I’m speaking to two men whose relevance is much diminished. I suspect that this is in part due to their refusal to grow up.

A career in children’s television, followed by a decade of spin-offs, charity shows and occasional appearances must be a bizarre existence, and behind the characters that they assume in public, there must be a real Richard McCourt and Dominic Wood: the middle-aged, slightly balding men getting by thanks to club appearances on a Tuesday night in Cambridge.

However, what is all too apparent is that Dick and Dom, the duo whose antics made us howl with laughter as children, are an odd pairing. They still crack me up, but in a strange, nostalgic way when I think of a simpler time – one without problem sheets, deadlines and the stress of living in the real world, and one in which putting your pants on your head and doing a dance was not only acceptable, but encouraged.

The two characters sat in front of me embody my childhood: they are carefree, stress-free, and, most saliently, remnants of my past.

It’s time to talk about hangover anxiety

0

It was something I had never personally experienced before coming to Oxford, and like all new emotional experiences, you don’t quite know what it is or how to explain it.

It was after a particularly bad case in my first year that I asked a close friend about it, to which they smiled and responded: “so you had ‘the Fear’ then.” I found some relief in finally being able to put a label on what I’d felt, but more so in knowing I wasn’t the only one who had felt this darker side of the morning after the night before.

Most us are familiar with the physical symptoms of a hangover. The dry mouth, ringing ears and pounding headache that come after a particularly heavy Thursday at Bridge can leave us curled up in the foetal position the next morning with the covers right up to our ears.

You curse the ten-pound minimum card payment, and wonder what on earth possessed you to drink all six of those Jägerbombs yourself.

Many of us are less familiar with the psychological symptoms of a hangover (the Fear) however. It’s part of the going out experience that you never really get told about growing up.

For many of us, ‘the Fear’ might be the closest we come to experiencing aspects of social anxiety. More officially termed “hangover anxiety”, it is the emotional state caused by the dehydration and adrenaline rush that comes with removing alcohol toxins from the body.

The less biologically savvy among us may be more familiar with the distress, paranoia and deep regret we can feel as a result of this chemical imbalance. It is often twinned with memory loss or periodic black outs, so we may have no idea what happened the night before, but what we are certain of is that we must have messed up in some way.

Whereas our fully hydrated brains would approach this situation rationally, we can’t but help succumb to ‘the Fear’ in our delicate state. A minor error in judgement that we can vaguely remember we soon inflate and then immediately catastrophise: people will talk, they’ll tell others about it, everyone will find out, and they’ll all hate me.

So you lie on your front staring at the ceiling, too afraid to look at your phone because of the anticipated barrage of messages about what happened the night before. You work yourself into a frenzy, thinking and rethinking over whatever you said or did. By early afternoon however, it’s usually a distant memory. There is no angry mob baying for your blood. No ceremony of public humiliation. You find that everyone else is just getting on with their day, with just the occasional passing comment about how you look like rubbish.

Any of this sound familiar at all? You’ll be glad to know you are not alone. A 2012 survey of 1,410 students found that over half the participants had experienced agitation, confusion and regret after a night of heavy drinking. And despite articles about it in the much-reputed Tab, Huffington Post and Cosmo, it does feel a bit strange we still aren’t widely recognising this part of the whole going out experience.

When debriefing over lunch about what happened the night before, we are happy to talk about how X climbed the pole at Bridge, or how Y dropped their chips on his way back, but no one brings up that existential crisis they thought they were having in their bed not three hours before.

We sweep it under the rug and act like it never happened, often happier not to confront it than show emotional vulnerability to friends and mates.

What’s the solution then? The obvious advice of “drink less” is one that not many of us can claim to listen to. We enjoy going out and we have reason to. The endorphins released can do wonders for our mental health, self-confidence and in creating lasting memories with some of those closest to us.

It’s just unrealistic to say we’re going to give up the Wetherspoon’s pitchers, the exotic cocktails or the surprisingly strong Bop Juice. If a student manages to complete ‘Dry January’ then much respect to them – they’re made of stronger stuff than most.

But if we decide to ignore this advice, however unhelpful it may be, it does come at the cost of experiencing the very opposite effects the next morning, where we can often feel our most worthless and isolated. Wasting precious library time overthinking the apparent mistakes we perhaps made the night before. Did I drunk text my ex? My mum? Oh God, is that a drunk email to my tutor?? Goodbye Oxford. In my own opinion, like with most issues surrounding our mental health, the answer lies in conversation. We just have to talk about it, however uncomfortable it makes us and however it goes against every fibre of British-ness in our beings.

In speaking to a friend about my experience with ‘the Fear’ I was able to both name and normalise something I didn’t fully understand at the time. I may have made myself vulnerable for a minute or two, but it was definitely worth it.

What did I learn? I learnt that a hangover is often more than just a headache and a dry mouth, and can leave us unnerved and emotionally vulnerable in a place still alien to a lot of us. For Freshers, it’s only the second term in Oxford. You’d be lying if you said you’d completely settled into every aspect of your life. Does knowing this make it any more bearable if or when you experience it again though?

It honestly depends on the person. Maybe, maybe not. I personally find knowing that there may well be someone in the room next door, going through the same thing, a little bit reassuring. And, I’m also more inclined to give them a knock and offer them a cup of tea, knowing full well the ensuing chat will probably do the both of us the power of good. All through the simple and everyday action of talking – it’s easier than you think.

When movie marketing becomes maddening

0

It seems somewhat bizarre that a director would spend months carefully crafting the tone of a film, only to have a marketing department deconstruct clips into an attempted viral video; yet increasingly audiences are complaining that the film they see is not what was promised. The sheer number of film releases today means finding an audience is becoming increasingly competitive, and a trailer could make or break its chances.

For a studio, misleading trailers often present an opportunity to salvage what they think will be a potential box office bomb. This doesn’t necessarily mean the film is bad – they may just be worried that their film won’t naturally appeal to a large commercial audience. Take Tim Burton and Johnny Depp’s adaptation of Sweeney Todd, where the trailers almost entirely neglect the fact that the film is a musical in order to capitalise on a more widely appealing theme of adventure.

Recently, the fantastically suspenseful It Comes At Night made back eight times its $2.5 million budget, by any accounts a successful box office performance, but the disparity between audience ratings (44%) and critic ratings (88%) on Rotten Tomatoes is telling; some will likely have been expecting a zombie horror romp given the trailer, so could be understandably upset by the sizeable amount of its 90 minute run-time taken up by sitting at a dining table or chopping wood.

Less cynically, sometimes there is no sneaky ploy to deceive audiences. Trailers are often needed before a film has fully finished shooting, and particularly in post production there can be changes made to the tone of the movie itself. Zack Snyder’s Justice League suffered from this when Joss Whedon took over from him to finish the project, and brought his more light-hearted style with him, resulting in a rather inconsistent tone. And while the promotional material for Kingsman 2 heavily featured Channing Tatum’s stetson-wearing agent, he doesn’t feature for the majority of the film due to scheduling conflicts.

But, paradoxically, a misleading movie trailer is often in itself a good trailer. Designed to be captivating and likeable, trailers that sacrifice representing their film have more scope for making something that excites an audience regardless of if they go to see it or not. Whether you liked Suicide Squad or (hopefully) thought it was boring and generic, the trailer synced to the soundtrack of Bohemian Rhapsody probably deserves an Oscar in itself. Granted, it failed at a trailer’s main purpose – being an informative teaser – and falsely positioned the Joker as the main antagonist, but was as much a part of the films cultural impact as the film itself. If viewed as a standalone hype piece it epitomises the fact that the use of deception shouldn’t always be frowned upon.