Wednesday 2nd July 2025
Blog Page 89

Lost in translation?

0

As someone who is half Japanese, I’ve become accustomed to reading literature in different languages. Some books I’ve enjoyed so much that I’ve read them in both languages, such as Haruki Murakami’s Norwegian Wood. Contemporary Japanese authors like Murakami are often described as being quite dry and direct, with dialogue that sometimes translates awkwardly into English. And while I understand these criticisms of translations, I often feel the essence of the original novel is able to shine through despite these flaws.

Murakami’s writing style reflects his approach to the physical craft of writing. In his book Novelist As A Vocation, he mentions that with novels, there is a possibility that “the reader can be stifled if the screws are too tight”. Murakami leaves room for some passages to be long-winded, convoluted, even, to allow the other free-flowing passages to breathe. As a result, his writing style emerges like a sphygmomanometer, constantly constricting and then relaxing to make those “tightly restricted sections achieve their full effect”. This very feeling is crafted meticulously in their translated counterparts, thanks to the translators’ deep understanding of the source material. Take Scheherazade, translated by Ted Goossen, for example: about a man who is having an affair with an older woman. In between lengthy sections of mundane, almost unnatural sounding conversations about lampreys and breaking and entering, we read vivid details about the protagonist, from the way she undresses herself to the way her house is decorated. The awkward dialogue in all its glorified translated form works in creating a break between heavy sections of pure description.

However, not all translations are as fortunate  – and it’s not entirely the translation’s fault. A few years ago, I read a book called Snakes and Earrings by Hitomi Kanehara, another Japanese author. I picked it up in English after seeing someone mention it on social media, piquing my curiosity due to its unconventional plot. The novel follows Rui (bizarrely named after Louis Vuitton), who develops a deep obsession in body modification after seeing her new gangster boyfriend’s split tongue. She embarks on a journey to also get her tongue split and subsequently begins a violent affair with a tattoo artist.

The book is incredibly short, just over 100 pages, and was extremely slow-paced until the last fifteen pages or so. Despite receiving literary awards and high praise, I felt Kanehara’s writing style was clunky, as though written by a teenager who had recently discovered smutty fanfiction. I wasn’t surprised to learn that Kanehara had indeed written it at sixteen, albeit with the guidance of her father, a sociology professor.

While the pacing of Snakes and Earrings felt inconsistent with its abrupt, unsatisfactory finale, this was perhaps not the fault of the translator, David Karashima. The novel did offer an interesting sociological insight into youth gang culture in Japan, but I felt let down by the literary limitations of Kanehara, who perhaps did not have the experience of the literary means to express her story in a truly impactful way. It certainly appealed to younger readers due to the simple language and shorter sentences, but of course, the subject matter felt potentially inappropriate for such an audience. Ultimately, I concluded that I may have resonated with the story more if the writing and pacing had been stronger.

Not trusting my initial judgement, however, I decided to give it another go in Japanese: could Kanehara  redeem herself? Perhaps she was more articulate in Japanese and it was simply that the translator did not capture her work effectively, which was entirely possible. But how does one wrongly translate pacing? In the end, I faced similar problems whilst tackling the original, feeling that even with my slightly lacking Japanese reading skills, the plot may have been more exciting if written in a more captivating way.

 Examining translated fiction highlights the pivotal role of a translator in engaging with an entirely new literary audience. The constant decision-making required throughout translation is crucial in determining how a book will be perceived by international readers whilst simultaneously maintaining the original tone and meaning. On a smaller scale, I’ve come to understand this myself while studying Italian. In translation, maintaining the integrity of the text while adapting certain elements to fit more naturally in the target language is key. However, it is not the translator’s job to manipulate the text into something it’s not. After a certain point, surely, we can no longer call it the same book. In the same way that Murakami’s directness is reflected in the work of his translators, I can admit that Kanehara’s English counterparts are also faithful to her craft. As much as I want to blame the translation, perhaps my problem lies with the original storytelling.

Now I understand that Snakes and Earrings in English indeed captures the heart and soul of the original, even if not up to my taste. At least it was an authentic reading experience, which perhaps means more than simply having a great book in your hands.

Dozens walk out of Oxford Union debate in protest against ‘institutional racism’

0

During Thursday night’s debate, 17 Oxford Union Committee members threatened to resign as part of a protest against “institutional racism.” They delivered a list of demands, including the reinstatement of disqualified ex-President-Elect, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy. If not met, they will resign on Monday. 

Details surrounding the “unreasonable claim” that Osman-Mowafy was removed for making remain unknown.

Secretary Rachel Haddad Moskalenko, the highest-ranking officer who walked out, said in her speech: “The deep-seated issues within our institution cannot be overlooked, cannot be excused, cannot be ignored.” She said that Osman-Mowafy’s “only crime was to make this Union a more inclusive and diverse place.”

Her other demands include calling for the tribunal report to be published Monday morning and the Appellate Board to be called by Thursday 6pm. Given that Osman-Mowafy was only given 36 hours to prepare for his tribunal, Haddad Moskalenko believes this is enough time.

President Louis Wilson acknowledges that the three governing bodies passed motions declaring the Union “institutionally racist” and that he “recognises the pain and emotional distress” from recent events. After the business, dozens of attendees walked out of the chamber instead of staying for the debate.

This follows Monday’s motions by the Union’s three governing bodies – Consultative Committee, Standing Committee, and Secretary’s Committee – each declaring the Union is “institutionally racist”.

Osman-Mowafy alleged that a Clerk made Islamophobic comments regarding hijabi women, after which Graduate Officer Sarah Rana had resigned, stating that she felt “unsafe, disillusioned, used, and extremely disturbed.”

Recently, a number of ex-Presidents of colour and top officers signed letters stating that the Union has been overly litigious and those proceedings have been “disproportionately targeting individuals from non-traditional backgrounds.”

The debate’s motion was ‘This House believes Britain is no longer a fighting force.’ Speakers in proposition are former British army officer, Lord Robathan, former Commander Joint Forces Command Genera,l Sir Richard Barrons, and Union President Louis Wilson. Speakers in opposition are retired British army officer Lieutenant General Sir Graeme Lamb, presidential candidate Israr Khan, and director of press Noah Robson.

Regarding the claims of racism, a Union spokesperson said: “The Oxford Union Society acknowledges the concerns of its members that resulted in the passing of the motions on Monday at its committees. The Union is unequivocal in its condemnation of discrimination in all its forms.

“The union seeks to be an open, diverse, accessible, and inclusive society in which all members feel welcome and are treated with dignity and respect as set out in the society’s equality, diversity, accessibility, and inclusion policy.”

At the end of his floor speech, presidential candidate Israr Khan spoke on the recent events. He said he is saddened by the “entrenched racism and Islamophobia” and discusses his upbringing in villages of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He argues that resigning is not the solution because “you need to be part of the system to make a change.”

Arcadia by Christ Church Dramatic Society review: ‘Mad, bad and brilliant to watch’

“The best prophet of the future is the past” – Byron

In the sweet-preserved garden behind Christ Church Cathedral there stands a table decked with cloth and books and a dark-coloured flower-vase. A sharp but naive 13-year-old and her tutor, both in the dress of 200 years ago, sit at table and discuss the definition of “carnal embrace”. The manner, the accents, the dress and the bearing of the pair is perfectly in tune with their time period; and we the audience, sitting in the gentle green of the garden with the waving of boughs overhead, feel for a moment that this is not merely a play, but an authentic window into an English garden 200 years ago.

The period setting is only one of many attractions in what must be the best play that I have ever seen in Oxford. It is a dual story which takes place in the garden of Sidley Park between the early 19th century and the present day. Some of its weightier themes include chaos theory and the relationship between past and present; but these are enlivened by characters who live and breathe with sharp, often amusing, dialogue; and by an ingeniously structured plot which must be seen to be grasped.

Fittingly, for this year is the bicentenary of his death, Lord Byron plays a significant offstage role. He is an unseen presence without whom the plot would collapse. At risk of exposing the developments of the plot, which has the trappings of the very best kind of historical thriller, I will only say that the poet lives up to his appellation of “mad, bad and dangerous to know”.

So much for the play itself; but this fabulous production by Christ Church Dramatic Society elevates it to heights at which even Tom Stoppard, the playwright, must be astounded. Every one of the characters is performed with the keenest blend of boldness and subtlety; the actors go infinitely further than the script in convincing us that they are human beings rather than the inventions of a playwright.

Catty Claire immerses not only herself but the audience inthe glimmering character of Thomasina Coverly; her sharp-naive attitude, which by a lesser talent would be given the appearance of artifice, comes across here as dazzlingly authentic.

Gilon Fox cuts a vigorous and charismatic figure as Septimus Hodge. Like Byron himself, Mr Fox commands audience attention by the blend of boldness and studied carelessness with which he delivers his lines, and by the tireless energy of his manner.

Alex Still as Bernard Nightingale provides a most convincing view of a very recognisable kind of modern-day intellectual; the character’s bookish charm is matched only by the sharpness of his retorts when he is incensed.

Tia Kwanbock is remarkable in elevating Chloe Coverly, who in the original play is rather a pale character, into a charming and believable human being to whose reappearance the audience constantly looks forward.

Hattie Wellock’s performance, as an aristocrat of the early 19th century, must be called Gissingian for its grasp of 19th-century mores and vivid understanding of character; her command of Lady Croom is absolute (with a first-rate delivery of dialogue) and her presence on stage is captivating.

Amina Poernomo, as the charmingly innocent Valentina Coverly on whom the plot turns, is delightful to watch. She understands the humour of her character although she performs all the same with seriousness and skill. With a bright stage presence, she establishes herself as a most excellent performer.

Conor Tidswell is grand and by turns amusing as Ezra Chater. He possesses, for one thing, the subtle art of wearing period dress instead of being worn by it, and there is certainly a kind of star quality in his bearing. It is a shame that he vanishes after the interval.

Cameron Maiklem’s turn as Captain Brice is a marvellous piece of acting. He gives so much character to his role that it is impossible to think of Captain Brice being played or embodied by anyone else.

The most impressive performance, however, is by Susie Weidmann. As Hannah Jarvis, the academic with an attitude, Ms Weidmann is superb. Her entire attitude – the changes of expression, the reach of her voice, the coolness of gait, even the subtle puffs and flicks at her cigarette – has the rare onstage glow of a living character. Here is an actress for whom the audience now holds great expectations.

It is a shame that the director, Billy Jeffs, gives himself so little to do onstage besides standing around in a tuxedo. His most memorable scene involves a frenetic outburst on the subject of the Emperor Napoleon; and here Mr Jeffs’s comical suddenness was frightening not only for the audience but for a flock of pigeons who had been watching with interest from a nearby tree. The effect was marvellous.

Although his role is only a bit-part, Mr Jeffs’s real talents lie in the art of direction. His mastery of mood and scene and period elevates an already skilful play to one that grips and immerses from start to finish. It is to be hoped that next year he selects another play to which he can bring his keenness of vision and scene. If he can reunite with the same cast, all of whom do such great justice to the characters in this play, then next year’s production could well outstrip this one. Until then, I do not think that there will be a better play to see in Oxford this year.

Film around the world: Japan’s Harakiri

It is not The Godfather or The Shawshank Redemption or any Hollywood epic that is the highest rated film on the app ‘Letterboxd’ (a popular film social media app). Instead, it is Masaki Kobayashi’s 1962 samurai film Harakiri that around 100,000 critics and users have judged to be the best film ever made. There are problematic aspects of ranking one piece of art against another. Yet, as humans, we like statistics that help us quantify things. As Harakiri is so highly rated, I wanted to investigate what made it so special. 

The first and only hurdle was actually finding somewhere to watch the film. It is very difficult to find. Amazon has some DVDs for sale, but the film is unavailable on any streaming platform. Luckily, over the vacation I managed to find a cinema showing it in London. Harakiri is part of the Japanese golden age of cinema. This includes realist classics like Yasujiro Ozu’s Tokyo Story and samurai epics like Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai. Harakiri brilliantly combines both genres to create an unromanticised samurai film that depicts the poverty and desperation of the lives of masterless Samurais, also known as ronins.

The film starts with Tsugumo Hanshiro, a middle aged and jobless ronin, arriving at the estate of the Iyi clan. Tsugumo asks to commit harakiri – ritual suicide through disembowelment – on the clan’s estate. Before agreeing to his request, the clan elder tells him the story of the last samurai, Chijiwa Motome, who requested to do the same. The film is told through a series of flashbacks about the life of Chijiwa. Initially, I thought the film would just focus on Chijiwa’s story, but what followed was better than I could have imagined. Without spoiling it, the film also explores Tsugumo’s past and critiques the Bushido Code. The Bushido Code was a code of conduct for samurais that prized bravery and honour whilst disdaining dishonour and defeat. These principles of valour remained ingrained in Japanese military culture until after the second world war. 

All I can say is that the film lives up to its acclaim. The cinematography is phenomenal. It successfully brings to life exciting action scenes, heartfelt moments, and artistic natural shots. This is accentuated by the acting. Like in a lot of classic Japanese cinema, significant emphasis is placed on close ups which draw attention acting grounded in the expressiveness of faces and eyes. The score is brilliantly menacing. Simply rewatching the trailer sends chills down my spine. This is not a short film, but it does not feel as long as it is. The ending may be slightly drawn out but it serves to heighten Kobayashi’s storytelling. 

Kobayashi’s excellent direction perfectly captures the subjectivity of flashbacks and the re-telling of events. The audience is initially ignorant, adopting the clan’s view of Chijiwa as cowardly. However, the flashbacks are presenting  the clan’s version of the story, not Chijiwa’s. It is only later in the film, when Kobayashi reveals other flashbacks featuring Chijiwa, that we understand and sympathise with him. Yet by the end it is the clan who write and rewrite history. They have the power to sweep over any imperfections. This is epitomised by the film beginning and ending in the same way: with a shot of the beautiful but haunting armour of the Iyi clan’s ancestor. It is not Chijiwa who is the coward, but rather the clan. We, the audience, know the real story. But do the history books?

The film presents a society that is cruel to the individual, prizing elitist social convention above humanity. Honour is of greater value than life itself. Through depicting the hypocrisy of the Iyi clan Kobayashi invites the audience to question the narrative status quo. The filmmaker was a pacifist. This is reflected in his critical portrayal of the Iyi clan. Despite being set in the Japanese Edo period; the film is relevant to modern life. It questions the historical narrative and challenges traditional value systems like the Bushido Code. They should not have had a fraction of the importance they did when they were invented –  so why are they still preserved? 

I recommend this film without hesitation, no one could ever replicate Kobayashi’s masterful storytelling.

The Former Ambassador

0

Steven Pifer greets me at the door with a limp. He’d broken his kneecap en route to Kyiv three weeks ago, and scrambling for hotel bomb shelters in the wee hours of the morning hadn’t done his injury any favours. “The nice thing about this,” he jokes about his injury, “is I got dispensation to use the elevator.” 

Pifer was the American ambassador to Ukraine from 1998 to 2000. His house reflects it. Blue-and-yellow flags, Oval Office photos with Bill Clinton, and a ceremonial mace from Kyiv decorate his home in Morgan Hill, California, where he settled down after twenty-seven years serving in Washington and abroad. Pifer enjoys the change of scenery. “Walk twelve minutes that way,” he says, “and I’m out in vineyards and in orchards. I like it here.” The former ambassador, though, is anything but retired in the larger sense. It’s because of his ongoing involvement in Ukrainian affairs that Morgan Hill Life publisher Marty Cheek and I are here for an interview.

Pifer’s time in the State Department began in 1978. He served his probationary years under Carter, managed the arms control portfolio at the Moscow embassy during the Reagan administration, and was a deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bush Jr. years. It was in the Clinton administration where he found Washington-Moscow diplomacy to be particularly effective: it had the unusual setup of bringing all the people on U.S.-Russia issues into one room. Pifer hasn’t stopped trying to get people together for productive dialogue more than twenty years later. Track IIs (non-governmental conversations between former officials and academics) afford him the chance to continue engaging Russia in discussions in the present day. “I still take part in some Track IIs,” he tells us, “both on arms control and on Russia and Ukraine. For the arms control things we have to go to Istanbul because that’s one of the few places that Russians can get to.” Given the current tension between Washington and Moscow, Pifer reflects, nuclear arms negotiations may not go very far. Though ‘unofficial’, Track IIs may provide a window of opportunity for meaningful engagements while the war continues. “The State Department, they encourage these kind of discussions,” Pifer explains, “particularly because there’s no official Track I conversations going on. Having the Track II conversations at least maybe keeps some ideas going back and forth…When I was managing Track IIs, we would always set up times to go and brief somebody at State, at the NSC, ‘This is what we’re hearing.’ Sometimes we’d actually suggest some ideas. I’m happy to have a couple ideas that found their way into U.S. positions.”

Image courtesy of Steven Pifer.

Pifer’s present-day involvement isn’t limited to influencing policy. As he’d related at the door, he was fresh off his latest trip back to Ukraine. Knee propped up on a couch cushion, he talks us through his time there earlier in March. “Kyiv looked pretty normal,” he begins, “with a couple of exceptions. One was you saw more guys in uniform on the streets than I ever remember. In the building we got into, we had a chance to go and get a briefing from military intelligence. The buildings would be protected by sandbags or pill boxes. There were heavier guards there. When you would drive around, you’d see these tank barriers that were there in case they had to pull them in the street. Then there was the air raid. I’d never been in an air raid before. They said it was the worst that Kyiv had been hit with in six or seven weeks. Thirty-one missiles.” He takes a second to set the scene: 3:15 am, officials ushering guests into a shelter under the hotel. “We had one guy with us who was British—he was kind of our facilitator. He basically was plugged in. They would send us reports. He said, ‘OK, the Ukrainians reported that the bombers left such and such air base,’ and so that gives you an approximate time, by the time they get to their launch points, when the missiles come in… He goes, ‘Yeah, the cruise missiles now are all reportedly turned towards Kyiv,’ and then I think we heard about five or six explosions which we assumed were the air defences engaging overhead.” He worries for those who have undergone the violence for two years now. “I remember talking to a former Ukrainian colleague at the embassy—this was early on in the war,” he recalls. “And she said one day she’d had to go to the bomb shelter five times in the night. That’s just got to be really draining.”  

This visit was not a one-time event. Early in the interview, Pifer speculates on Zelensky’s reasons for passing up a consensus national government, based on a conversation in Kyiv he had “about three weeks before the major Russian invasion.” I have to stop him there. “You were there three weeks before February 24th?” I ask incredulously. “January 30th to February 2nd,” he replies in stride. He notes that during his trip, most Ukrainians didn’t believe there would be a major Russian attack, and something must have changed shortly after his departure. “A lot of the targets that the Russians originally hit were empty warehouses, things like that, because the Ukrainians had moved out.” The Russians, according to Pifer, were less prepared. “A lot of parts of the Russian military, I think, only learned that they were going in at the last minute. There were reports that the Ukrainians had captured some Russian soldiers who had been in the initial invasion force heading forward to Kyiv, and they said they thought they were in Belarus on an exercise. At 9:00 pm, they were rousted out and told to suit up, before being given weapons and informed the operation would start at 4:00 am. After a few sentences of reflection, he draws his conclusion: “I think they [the Russians] seriously thought they would be welcomed as liberators.”

Over two years into the war, Russia’s “liberation” has stalled thanks to fierce Ukrainian counter offensives in 2022 and a gruelling stalemate thereafter. This wasn’t anticipated—Pifer recalls that at the start of the conflict, Ukrainians forces had opened up one of the Russian trucks they had shot down. “It was full of brand new dress uniforms, which [the Ukrainians] assumed was for the [Russian] victory parade.” Even so, doubt as to Ukraine’s ability to continue the war effort indefinitely is growing. Pifer’s view of the conflict’s end is more hopeful. “At some point I think the number of what the Russians call ‘Cargo 200’ (transport aircraft or trucks bringing back the remains of soldiers who have been killed in action) – does that number become so high that people are going to think this is not worth it?” Russia, Pifer reveals, has taken measures to avoid this end, through high salaries in the Far East and Caucasus to promote recruitment. “If you broke down the war by ethnicity, what you would see is that a lot more non-ethnic Russians are being killed than ethnic Russians in part because they’re signing up for this.” In itself, this is not a new revelation—the Moscow Times reported earlier this year that ethnic Russians are underrepresented in total casualties. Pifer’s on-the-ground observations, though, allow him to bring this disparity to bear on an analysis of the war overall. “When I was in Ukraine,” he shares, “one of the Ukrainians said, ‘If you ever got to a point where, to keep the war going, Putin had to begin drafting people from big cities, especially Moscow and Saint Petersburg, at that point you might begin to see the elite turn against the war.’” The former ambassador takes a moment to run back the clock to the 1980s on this analysis, returning to his days under Reagan at the embassy in Moscow. “In Afghanistan, where with probably only 15,000-20,000 Soviet soldiers [killed in action], you had these mothers’ committees organising and they were a fairly strong pressure point. And Gorbachev ultimately concluded that Afghanistan wasn’t worth it. And they left.”

Pifer has alluded to continuing involvement in the conflict on both sides of the Atlantic throughout the interview, so I press him further. These days, he reveals, he’s part of a group of former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine who are still active in current affairs. “When I get back to Washington, I try to see people at the State Department, at the National Security Council, and try to push and pull them, trying to push the U.S. government to do a bit more, but that’s entirely on the outside. It’s based, I think, on our calculation, at least my own calculation [on] helping Ukraine prevail. This is very much in the national interest, setting aside my feelings about Ukraine.” There’s a fraction of a pause as he collects his thoughts. “There’s also kind of a personal reason. Back in the 1990s, I was involved in the negotiations with Ukraine where they gave up what was at the time the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal.” Part of the deal, Pifer details, was that Russia committed to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and not use force against Ukraine. “We told the Ukrainians that if the Russians tried something, we would be supportive.” Pifer caveats his message by clarifying that no official deals were made, but returns quickly to his decades-ago commitment. “We said we would do things,” he states firmly. He believes the United States is now living up to that commitment by providing Ukraine arms and other support. He notes that in the early 1990s, “there was a collective failure. Both we in Washington, but also our Ukrainian counterparts in Kyiv, we didn’t foresee what would happen in 2014 or 2022.” He stops just long enough for me to throw out a quick affirmation as I add to my notes. “But that’s kind of secondary,” he says briskly. “The main reason is there’s an American interest there, and that Europe becomes a much more dangerous place if the Ukrainians lose.”

Pifer has a Zoom meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations to attend, so after a generous hour and a half of questions, he shows us out. We shake hands, exchange numbers, and walk out into the April sun. The door swings shut as the former ambassador limps back to his study to catch the call. Two decades after leaving the foreign service, Steven Pifer hasn’t slowed down in his commitment to the people of Ukraine.

Oxford University to meet with students from OA4P

0

A month after the Oxford Action for Palestine encampment began, students announced that yesterday night Oxford University’s Vice-Chancellor, Irene Tracey, and other senior members of administration have responded to their email request for a meeting, and students are in the process of arranging a discussion.

According to a statement from Oxford Action for Palestine (OA4P), the University is “expressing the desire to work with the students on matters pertaining to OA4P’s demands… Gaza can’t wait, and neither can we. We are eager to meet with the Vice Chancellor and the Administration, and we look forward to working closely with the University to address our collective obligation to act in the face of this genocide.”

With a first camp in front of the Natural History Museum and a second camp on the Radcliffe Camera lawn, the encampment has seven demands primarily relating to the University’s assets and investments, calling for divestment from Israeli companies, arms companies, and Barclays Bank. An initial University statement, released on 14th May, did not include plans to look into divestment and affirmed its ties with Barclays.

Since then, the encampment had escalated, including staging a ‘die-in’ at graduation and a sit-in inside the University administration offices in Wellington Square, where 17 protesters were arrested.

OA4P had stated that the Rad Cam tents will leave as soon as the University begins negotiations with a set of preconditions. Tracey’s statement after the arrests called the preconditions “prejudicial” as it includes “progress towards six demands” and that OA4P “have not been transparent about their membership nor whose interests they represent.”

OA4P has since denied those claims, stating that it never asked for progress toward its six demands. Rather, its preconditions include a willingness to negotiate in good faith, regular meetings, and amnesty for all students involved in the encampment. It is unclear whether the University’s willingness to meet means the Rad Cam encampment will leave.


Cherwell has contacted the University for comments.

The many voices of Franz Kafka: Reading The Metamorphosis

Spilling out of the gates of the Sheldonian Theatre and onto Broad Street, the lengthy queue for a public reading of Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis (1915) took us by surprise: if we had been looking for a sign of the author’s enduring popularity, surely we had found it.

For the 100-year anniversary of Kafka’s death – to the day, the event marked a culmination of the ‘Oxford Reads Kafka’ program: a celebration of the author’s life and works that has involved exhibitions, talks, and performances throughout Oxford in the last few weeks. Although Kafka was Czech, and all of his work was written in German, the bulk of the Kafka archive has been held in the Bodleian Libraries for around 60 years.

The novella, recited in full for the event (using the recent Joyce Crick translation), follows Gregor Samsa – a man who awakes one morning to discover that he has turned into a “monstrous vermin”, usually interpreted as a cockroach-like insect. He attempts to grapple with his new physical state and ultimately becomes completely alienated from his family, who by the end of the story are only relieved at the news of his death.

Speakers ranged from diplomats to undergraduates, artists to University officials, including Vice-Chancellor Professor Irene Tracey. It was truly a convergence of all the walks of life that Kafka had inspired. The audience too – filling the Sheldonian almost to capacity – consisted of an impressive range of ages.

The event ran for almost three hours (an hour longer than scheduled), and whilst a few audience members inevitably had to leave early, the range of reading styles and alternations between different types of speakers provided just enough variety to keep the text alive and ‘transforming’ throughout the evening. In addition, each member of the audience was given a copy of the book to read along. There were certainly moments that dragged a little, especially in the second half (one of the couples seated next to us fell asleep) but these sections did not last long.

The welcoming introduction to the event announced new literary analyses of Kafka’s most celebrated work, discussing the potential readings of the book concerning ideas of body dysmorphia, self-doubt and disease (specifically Kafka’s battle with tuberculosis). This offered a new perspective to us, having both read the text before, which heightened the experience as a whole.

At one point, Oxford Biology professor, Tim Coulson, snuck behind the screen to change into a cockroach costume – a change which, due to the position of the projector, unintentionally cast a shadow onto the screen that gave the impression of the professor’s own metamorphosis, as spindly insect legs and polystyrene wings were flung about in haste. Whilst the shadow was likely accidental, it livened up the room before we encountered the harrowing third part of the book.

After flicking his new antennae over his shoulder with a stylish flourish, Coulson’s reading was interspersed with bouts of chuckles from the audience. There was something delightfully incongruous about Kafka’s words being uttered from a cockroach costume, by a Biology professor, in an almost 400 year-old University theatre: an absurdity that Kafka himself would perhaps have appreciated.

The intersection between Kafka’s works and broader social conflicts did not go unacknowledged. Kennedy Aliu, Vice President of Liberation and Equality at the Oxford Student Union, gave a brief statement before beginning his reading. Citing the ongoing conflicts in Sudan, Palestine, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, he asked that the audience use the text to “bear witness to suffering and atrocities”: situations that he described as “Kafkaesque”. His words were received with a brief round of applause. Similarly, both Jenni Lynam and Mia Clement (also involved in the Oxford SU) made references to the Palestinian flag in their outfit choices. 

The standout performance of the evening was, undoubtedly, that of writer and broadcaster, Lemn Sissay OBE. He playfully brought out the emotional nuances of the text: gasping for air as Grete (Gregor’s sister) lurches to open the bedroom window, and leaping into a breathy falsetto for the voice of Gregor’s mother. Having written a stage adaptation of the novella in 2023, it is no wonder that Sissay’s connection to the writing shone through, and he could be seen subtly but enthusiastically gesturing along to the other speakers’ words throughout the evening. 

The Bodleian Libraries website promised that the readings would “celebrate the power of Kafka’s voice today”, but it is difficult to know what Kafka, who died – virtually unknown – at 40, would have made of the event: a man who, by all accounts, had no designs on fame. In fact, the author requested that all of his unpublished work be burned after his death – thankfully ignored by his friend and literary executor, Max Brod. What was clear though, from the enthusiasm and range of the speakers and the attentiveness of the audience, was that the author’s words are just as vibrant and necessary as they were a century ago.

The event was an evening of poets, pupils and a professor in a cockroach costume: such a jumbled assortment would be difficult to pull off anywhere, let alone the Sheldonian Theatre, but it was one of which Kafka, we suspect, would have been proud. 

Romeo and Juliet review: ‘Seamless and brilliantly acted’

I enter the Duke of York’s Theatre to a thumping soundtrack that rattles through my bones. It feels like I’ve entered the beginnings of a dystopian action film, like I’m waiting for something to jump out from around the corner. If he was trying to build tension then Jamie Lloyd does it well, because I couldn’t wait for the play to start. By the time I found my seat I was practically shaking with excitement (and a slight twinge of fear for what was in store). 

The stage is blackout to begin and then the light snaps on and ‘VERONA’ is projected across the stage; almost bare apart from four mic stands positioned in a semi circular fashion. The actors used these throughout the production to allow changes in volume, right down to a whisper. It added a haunting quality to some scenes, and an intensity to others. Another interesting tech choice came from the way actors entered the stage. Romeo starts in the wings of the stage, with a camera following him as he journeys to enter the main stage; a lady somewhere beside me in the stalls shrieked with excitement as Tom Holland blesses our presence, in all his buzz cut, tight white tank and baggy jeans glory – it was obvious he was the major ticket seller. 

And the love for him does not go unplaced. Holland put on a stellar performance as Romeo harking back to his before-film-stardom-days and fully embracing his theatrical roots; really making me reconnect with a Shakespeare play I have spent years hating (GCSE trauma…). But even more striking was his acting and reacting alongside Juliet, played by Francesca Amewudah-Rivers, that reminded me of the beautiful love that truly connects the play at its base. The tension between the two actors during the infamous balcony scene was undeniable, it had me giggling and kicking my feet, and I found myself truly wanting their love to succeed against society’s odds. The staging went against the conventions of the typical balcony scene, Lloyd placing the two stars beside one another centre stage rather than having Juliet on an elevated platform. Though proxemically they were close, their dialogue and facial reactions indicated that she was indeed still on a balcony above him. When they finally come together the tension mounts a notch further. They seem to be getting closer and closer and yet still not touching. When they finally do it’s like that building tension is finally released – before we remember again the high stakes nature of their meeting. As the scene ends I find myself hopeful for them, even though I know the tragic end that is to come. 

Another key scene in the play that was also utilised on stage was the fight, and ultimate death, scene between Tybalt and Mercutio. Lighting and tech is utilised well again here, a blackout and cacophony of sound disrupting the stage at the height of the fight, only to suddenly stop and snappily reilluminate the stage. The audience now finds Mercutio splayed across the floor screaming ‘a plague on both your houses’ with his dying breath, whilst he and all other characters on stage are smothered in thick red blood. The same cycle repeats except this time reilluminating the stage on Tybalt’s dying body, nevertheless, we are still just as shocked and gripped by this death as we were with Mercutio’s. This was also a smart way of cutting out a large choreographed fight scene that every Shakespeare fan will have seen a million times before, and still maintaining the shock factor that the text tries to convey with these sudden and brutal deaths. 

The production was seamless and brilliantly acted by every cast member. Finishing to a well deserved deafening applause and a standing ovation, Holland and Amewudah-Rivers take their final bow. “New, fresh and exciting” is a hard evaluation to achieve when doing Shakespeare, but I would deign to make that claim for this piece. If you are fortunate enough to get your hands on tickets, you are in for a wild ride.

The Knight of the White Moon review: ‘Mirth, romance, and mediaevalesque larks’

Tactically leaving the Summer VIII’s races early as the women’s Div I race came to an exciting close (up the House), Pimm’s still in hand, I rushed over to Peter’s to catch the performance.  With garden-play season in full bloom, I was excited to see The Knight of the White Moon for the Saturday closing performance. Not being a Peter’s native myself, I did not know what to expect, yet I was pleasantly greeted by an admirable display of mirth, romance, and mediaevalesque larks. 

The Knight of the White Moon chronicles the journey of a young man, as he embarks into the world to make his name as a poet. His yearning for a muse leads him to an oracle, who points him towards a small, nameless town, north of the Sierra Morena mountains, to find his poetic love. The plot was refreshingly unique, as we witnessed the confusions and frustrations of ‘romance’ hilariously enacted through the hubbub of strong characters. Fred Thompson, writer and co-director, has cited his inspirations as Don Quixote, Harold Pinter and Lewis Carroll, which certainly manifested in the distinctive and quirky nature of each storyline throughout the play. 

The traditional staging choice worked perfectly in tandem with the classically romantic setting, which was complemented by the evening’s beautiful weather. With audience members sitting in rows, dotted on the stairs, as well as the occasional curious passer-by, the atmosphere created was truly wholesome. I noted the ‘white moon’ (a paper print out) stuck to a window of the building, which allowed for a subtle and apt signifier of setting. The use of the building behind the stage as backstage area was also an effective measure, allowing for dramatic entrances and exits, especially during the ‘masquerade ball’. 

At the outset, we are led to expect a mere focus on the odyssey of our Quixotesque protagonist towards his end goal of romance, however as the play progresses we are greeted with something altogether more hilarious and eccentric in the form of unexpected affairs, bad husbands and duels. The Mayor’s husband was a particular favourite character of mine, as his initial monologue was an entertaining and convincing display of cruelty, which eventually melted away following his infatuation with a local artiste. Towards the end we saw a ‘dance’ routine between the two lovers: a creative use of physical theatre. Palpable sexual tension was felt through the well-choreographed spectacle as the duo gyrated, gracefully, on stage. Afterwards, we finally met the mayor (an inflatable sex doll). I must commend the utter absurdity and comedic timing from said blow-up toy, it was truly a highlight scene of the play as ‘it’ withstood a one-sided bickering from its husband. 

The costuming was subtle, yet immersive in effect. The billowing shirts, frilly sleeves and eclectic colours were well chosen and added to the whimsy of the production. I especially enjoyed the patchwork jacket donned by the lovesick protagonist (I will be seeking out one for my own wardrobe). 

As my first-time garden play experience, the Peter’s play displayed an amusing array of talent that I appreciated immensely at the end of such a hectic day. Being part of my own college’s garden play acting troop, it was enlightening to see how others tackle the feat of pulling together a production on the cusp of exam season, with minimal budget and a handful of natural chaos. Well done to the cast and crew for their exhibition of lighthearted originality!

The Two Gentlemen of Verona review: ‘Theatrical rom-com’

0

The Two Gentlemen of Verona is almost always referred to as one of Shakespeare’s ‘early’ plays: an apologetic slant which does the play no justice. Gregory Doran’s production – furnished with the best talent OUDS has to offer – camps up the play into a masterful tableau of theatrical rom-com.

The play follows the two friends, Valentine (Will Shackleton) and Proteus (Rob Wolfreys), leaving Verona to live it up in Milan. Both set their eyes on Silvia (Rosie Mahendra), problematically for Proteus, who betrays his bestie and his ‘back-home’ girlfriend, Julia (Lilia Kanu) to do so.

Setting the scene somewhere in the not-too-distant past, with a live jazz-band playing Smooth Radio-esque scores and sunset lighting, the production boasted resonances of year-abroad antics and all the romance of an Italian summer. Think The Talented Mr Ripley, without (as much of) “the gay stuff”. The age-old issue of making Shakespeare relevant to a modern audience was remedied well by crafting a production which felt so relatable, yet still timeless in its golden age charm.

Doran’s production manifestly plays upon the play’s juvenile protagonists and its status as a work of Shakespeare’s juvenilia. Wolfreys as Proteus, a student (yes, in Shakespeare’s original too), stumbles over his lines and mixes up his metaphors as he blusters about in trying to express his love. The delivery worked excellently as a reconciliation of Shakespeare’s early, less-polished prosody with the unrefined, even selfish youthfulness of the character. Shackleton as Valentine balanced Wolfreys well, giving an equally charming performance as a young man of society uncomfortably thrust into the role of heroic lover.

Mahendra as Silvia acted well as a bastion of true love, shooing away unwanted admirers in hopeful favour of her ‘meant-to-be’. Kanu as Julia displayed excellent versatility across the play, swinging from the familiar figure of the slightly embarrassed lover to the defiant, yet heartbroken woman scorned.

Perhaps the defining feature of Two Gentleman is the character of Crab, a role taken up in this production by the spaniel Rocky. Crab, and his owner Launce (Jo Rich) were a dynamic duo that offered comedy, as well as useful points of reflection upon the main plot. I have never encountered a dog with such excellent comedic timing – whether his sporadic running offstage was ad libbed or intentional I cannot tell.

Standout performances were delivered by the exceptionally versatile Jake Robertson (as the Duke of Milan) – whose rendition of Mambo Italiano was one of the many perfectly choreographed set pieces which defined the production for me – and by Leah Aspden (as Lucetta), whose delivery was, as always, wonderfully hilarious.

The placement of the interval divided the play into two generically distinct halves which were balanced out by a wonderfully panto interval-act involving a Hinge profile analysis. In reconciling the all-too-happy ending of Shakespeare’s original with our modern-day sensibilities around pretty awful men (Proteus), the second half grew desperately serious and disjunct from the first. The effect was disruptive, yet poignant, and allowed Mahendra and Kanu to dominate the second half with powerful, yet sympathetic performances in a way that Shakespeare’s writing often denies its female characters.

Doran’s stint as the University’s visiting professor of contemporary theatre has shone a light of ‘real’ drama into the world of OUDS. Imbued with talented performances, and a really, really cute dog, Shakespeare’s most unloved comedy has been redeemed.