Friday 15th August 2025
Blog Page 1581

Is the Revue back from the dead?

0

“Tell me about Audrey.” This isn’t an enquiry about an elderly relative, but rather the Oxford Revue’s New Big Thing. Audrey is a fortnightly event being held above the Wheatsheaf this term, which aims to widen participation and establish a decent and popular comedy scene in Oxford. It’s a kind of auditioned open-mic night, where prospective participants try out during the preceding week in front of the Oxford Revue, and can test their various ideas out in front of a large friendly audience. I spoke to Will True­fitt (President) and Barney Iley (Director) about this attempt to kick-start student comedy.

“It provides a platform for those who oth­erwise wouldn’t be able to try things out,” ex­plains Truefitt, “even if it’s a bit rough around the edges. It’s a service to performers. Histori­cally in Oxford, comedy has been cordoned off into specific groups. This is a way of liberating it from that.”

The concept is essentially mimicking the successful formula used in Cambridge. It’s a way of encouraging new writing, and creating an atmosphere in which it’s the norm to take the first step and give comedy a go. “If you go to Cambridge,” says Iley, “there’s a culture that you will write comedy if you want to, and you will perform it if you want to. Here, one of the biggest challenges is saying ‘go on, do it!’”

But whereas in Cambridge the Footlights act as an umbrella organisation for the comedy scene (similar to the way OUDS operates in re­lation to Oxford drama) the Revue are keeping themselves distinct and separate from Audrey performances. “One of the great strengths of the Revue,” says Iley, “is that we can operate as a closely knit group, a comedy troupe. We just make sure Audrey happens; Revue members are just in the pot with everyone else. It’s not a Revue show.”

The first show was popular – with an audi­ence of around 120 – and many of the perform­ers were doing stand-up routines for the first time ever. To succeed, though, the events will need to keep up their momentum. “Hopefully there were people in the audience who came and saw that it wasn’t a hyper-critical environ­ment; people are there to have fun and it’s very relaxed.” says Trufitt.

It’s surprising that nothing has been done to try to kickstart student comedy before now. Oxford has no comedy culture; what is pro­duced seems to be almost solely for the per­formers and their close group of friends, and there’s nothing like the scale of involvement or interest as there is in Cambridge, where the Cult of the Footlights reigns supreme. The Imps are fine before the novelty wears off by the end of Michaelmas of first year, and after that they become just another irrelevance wheeled out for college balls. And the general student con­sensus towards the Revue is negative; Oxford’s most recent and widely-known comedy suc­cess, the sketch group Rory and Tim, left the Revue in a state of disillusionment.

This all seems at odds with the plethora of successful comedic alumni: Rowan Atkinson, Michael Palin, Armando Iannucci and Patrick Marber all started their careers here. And al­though their Cambridge counterparts are famous for their Footlights involvement, the Oxonians seem to exist as independent enti­ties. This must be down to the fundamental structural difference in the way in which the comedy scenes are set up. Truefitt defends the Oxford model: “We have a set group of reper­tory writer/performers, who work together on each show, and they take that to Edinburgh. It can create something that is altogether dif­ferent from a Footlights show. Theirs is often much more disparate, despite their high yield.”

So if the structure’s going to remain the same, then something quite drastic is going to have to change in order for Oxford’s comedy culture to undergo a resurrection. The Revue puts on two shows each term. Of this I had no idea. Whereas plays are heavily marketed through posters, trailers, interviews and re­views, until this year the Revue has done very little to promote itself.

“Hopefully the Audreys will establish a com­edy scene, like ramming a flag in the ground and saying ‘comedy is here!’” says Iley. The question remains, however, as to where exactly that flag needs to be rammed. One of the prin­ciple difficulties Oxford comedians face is not having an established performance space, a hub around which a culture might congregate. The Revue, Iley says, “has to be nomadic”; their next show is at the Old Fire Station, which is lovely but seldom frequented by students. Over the year they’ll pop into the Burton Taylor Stu­dio, show up at a couple of comedy debates at the Union, do a one-night-only Playhouse show, and then whisk themselves off to the Fringe. It’s quite easy to miss.

Marketing and location aside, it all comes down to quality. If the Audrey events can widen participation, give people the space to practise, and forge good working relationships, then we can hope to see not just more comedy, but bet­ter comedy.

Cryptic Female Choice: This is a Woman’s World

0

Nature has a reputation for being red in tooth and claw – a warzone with bloody battles ensuing between the biggest and bravest males of a population. The prize? The hand of a fair maiden and the guarantee of an heir to carry on the family line. If nature were to be hollywoodised the film might be called “Clash of the Titans: Survival of the Fittest” – a lesser known sequel to a well known franchise. It would be a macho, action-packed thriller starring the animal equivalents of Tom Cruise, Bruce Willis and Liam Neeson. The trailers would be full of large male mammals drawing blood and fighting to the death – there would be close-ups of bared teeth and wounded rhinos. The only light relief would come as the audience watches two giraffes whip their long necks and propel their heads into each other’s backsides (for those of you who haven’t been following David Attenborough’s “Africa” you need to watch the end of episode one to see this highly entertaining display!). Females would occasionally appear but they would not venture far from the sidelines as they looked upon the scene, passively awaiting their fate. The victor would claim his prize and walk off with her into the sunset, and the trailer would finish with the big booming Hollywood voice declaring; “Clash of the Titans – who will get the girl?! Only the fittest survive!”

The above view of sexual selection is rooted in Victorian sexism. The idea is that exaggerated male weaponry evolved in order to win battles against rival males. Darwin tried to convince people that, whilst this is almost certainly true, females do actually have a choice in the matter. Male elaborations that seemingly serve no adaptive purpose evolved purely as a way to attract the opposite sex. A female can therefore use these elaborations as a proxy for detecting the quality of her mate and make her choice according to the brightness of his plumage or the length of his tail feathers.

Further research into sexual selection has uncovered an even higher degree of female control. “Cryptic female choice” occurs after mating and it is a way in which females are able to bias the outcome of sperm competition. A situation might arise in which a male forces himself on a female, and the cost of resisting the forced mating is too high so the female lets it happen. However, the female may well have already decided not to mate with this particular male because she did not deem him to be good enough. Through mechanisms of cryptic choice the female is able to prevent her eggs from being fertilised by this male’s sperm and therefore prevent her offspring from having unworthy genes.

There are many mechanisms of cryptic female choice. Female insects use sperm storage organs (spermatophores) which prevents direct fertilisation of the eggs. If a female has mated multiple times then this delay between copulation and fertilisation allows her to sieve off the sperm which contain “less fit” genes that she does not want for her offspring. Female mice prevent inbreeding by producing enzymes in the vaginal passage that break down sperm containing the same MHC genes as their own. MHC genes are responsible for control of the immune system – the more diversity an individual has in these genes the greater the flexibility of the immune system. Individuals with flexible immune systems are more likely to fight off infection and survive to the age of sexual reproduction. A female mouse, therefore, increases her offspring’s survival chances by stopping her eggs from being fertilised by the sperm of a male that possesses an immune system that is too similar to her own.

Ducks provide us with one of the best examples of “girl power” that nature has to offer. Males have evolved to have extremely long and elaborate penises that rotate in an anticlockwise direction in order to allow “forced copulation” of the female – a polite, scientific way of saying rape. For a long time it was thought that there was nothing that the female could do to prevent this from happening and that her offspring would be fathered by the last male that raped her. However, recent research has shown that female ducks are not powerless and that they have evolved mechanisms to counter these forced copulations. In many duck species females have evolved vaginal passages that rotate in the clockwise direction – this reduces the efficacy of forced copulation as males are unable to fully penetrate. Only the sperm of the fittest males will be able to navigate the vaginal passage and fertilise the female’s eggs – the fittest male will have the fittest sperm containing the best genes. Whilst the female still has to put up with periodic, and unpleasant, forced copulation, she is able to bias the outcome of sperm competition so that ultimately she has the best offspring with the best genes.

If Hollywood were to make “nature” into a film it would be much more interesting to follow the female of the species. It would be a tale of intrigue and espionage in which the females play the damsels in distress in order to determine the fate of their male counterparts. The female would test her potential mate in ways unknown to him in order to assess his suitability to father her offspring. Ultimately, all females will produce offspring but only the very best males that can prove themselves worthy will be chosen to help females propagate the species. In reality nature is run through the choices that females make, not the aggression that males display – this is a woman’s world, but it wouldn’t be nothing without a man or a boy!

Check out wwww.bangscience.org for more articles , as well as events, and past issues of Bang!

"Middle Class Food Column": Houmous Wars

0

Houmous is a true staple of the bourgeois diet. It is to the middle-classes what gasoline is to automobiles, and what pastry, coal and batter are to people in the north (presumably). No dinner party warm-up, picnic or fully loaded trip to the local racecourse would be complete without this most ubiquitous of dips. So when we set forth to sample Oxford’s finest non-essential lifestyle foods, the ol’ chickpea paste seemed as good a place as any to start.

Like most influential world religions, Houmous was invented in the near east, under Egyptian influence, by people living somewhere between the desert and the sea. Nonetheless, it soon spread to all surrounding regions, and has been at the heart of Mediterranean dipping culture for centuries. Naturally, it was adopted by the British middle class near the end of the last century.

Like most aspects of life in this volatile and contested part of the world, houmous has never been far from controversy. Precisely which people invented it remains the subject of brain-achingly convoluted debate. How best it should be served, whether it should be smooth or grainy in texture, whether it should ever be used as a paste, or eaten with raw carrots; all are questions over which gallons of scholar’s ink have been spilled. Most controversial of all however, is the question of who makes the best houmous. Greek vs Turk, Jew vs Arab, Sunni vs Shi’ite, the French vs almost everyone, no rivalry in the eastern Mediterranean has yet to be touched by houmous’ sticky and slightly aromatic embrace. In the ends of resolving conflicts as old as civilisation, (and finding a decent dip to sit alongside salsa and guacamole at our next canapé sesh), we set out to find the best houmus in Oxford. Belt up.

 

Hummus #1: G & D’s Big, Fat, Greek Hummus

Lewis: Not the best texture: harsh, and reminiscent of an under-done Stifatho. A pleasant flavour, subtle as an Aegean breeze, but with a slight kick, like spending five minutes in Kavos then being air-lifted out. 7/10.

Katie: A mouthful of sand, redeemed by some lemon and a couple of chickpeas. Should we blame offshore thrift or longshore drift for Greece’s national crisis? 3/10

 

Hummus #2: Taylor’s Turkish Delight

Lewis: Horrible. This is probably a bit like how Albanian peasants felt when they were kidnapped for the Ottoman Sultan’s armies- robbed of all life’s pleasures. Lacking flavour, and with an unpleasant, buttery consistency. Beware of Turks bearing chickpea pastes. 2/10.

Katie: Horrendous. As seemingly innocuous as the Turkish command structure at the siege of Vienna, this textureless, odourless substance came with a nasty gustatory surprise: porridge. After thoroughly washing my finger, I announced that this houmus would not be making it to the falafel test. 2/10

 

Hummus #3: Franco-Israeli Jewmus

Lewis: Confused provenance probably accounts for limited resemblance to actual houmus. A weak, Gallic imitation of houmus, trying to be a cheese. I don’t want to stick my finger in this one. 4/10.

Katie: A strident substance that unashamedly breaches the spread/dip divide, landing very creamily in the former category. Pleasant in taste to begin, it hits with a dry aftertaste of sesame. Although tempting in its own right, this multinational spread has little to no resemblance to houmous. 5/10

 

Hummus #4: Tesco’s ‘Made in UK with Lebanese chickpeas’ surprise

Lewis: A solid option, acceptable to bourgeois sensibilities. Authentic texture (I think), and a multi-layered flavour. Yields hidden delights, like the world food section of Tesco itself. Aftertaste too creamy. 6/10

Katie: International relations at its finest. A delightful Middle-Eastern texture matched with an ingenious kick of red pepper. Abandon the weekly M&S shop and venture down the road to try this hidden gem. 8/10

 

Hummus #5: Chez Hassan’s ‘Assyrian’ morning-after cure

Lewis: The surprise King of Oxford Hummus, a perfect accompaniment to inebriation, vomiting and nocturnal misadventures. Good, thick texture and a flavour that can punch above the inevitable, lingering taste of Jagerbomb. Probably not actually from ancient Kingdom of Assyria (sadly). 8/10

Katie: It does exactly what it says on the tin. Which, in this case is a lurid, paper box. Dry and cement like, the stodgy texture was only outdone by its viciously pungent flavour. Like cockroaches, this substance has somehow survived the test of time, and, having brought about the decline of the Assyrian Kingdom is back and ready to plague naïve, drunken students. 1/10

 

Lewis’ conclusion: The old ways really are the best, at least when it comes to hummus.

The Assyrians, it would seem, did three things well: 2-dimensional stone carvings, genocidal campaigns of conquest, and hummus. We can only thank Hassan and his team for their superb archaeological work in uncovering this genuine ‘fossil-food’. (I think he meant ‘Syrian’- Ed.).

Katie’s conclusion: Step back and relax.

Too busy competing for idiosyncrasy, the celebrated houmous-bearing nations were all unfortunate let downs, with (As)Syria and Turkey producing shameful, and potentially dangerous, products. Britain, in its splendid position of isolation, had the nous to survey the available options and, albeit in Tesco, came up with a majestic, all-conquering substance. Rule Britannia! 

WikiLeaks accuses Union of "censorship"

0

WikiLeaks has accused the Oxford Union of “censor[ing]” footage of Julian Assange’s address to the debating society in January.

It alleged on Twitter that the Union had replaced the backdrop of the video, which was personally selected by Assange, with a plain still of the Oxford Union logo.

The footage that Assange selected came from a controversial video released by the whistleblowing organisation in 2010. Popularly known as ‘Collateral Murder’, it shows the gun crew of a US Apache helicopter firing on Reuters journalists and civilians in Baghdad, Iraq in 2007.

WikiLeaks stated that Assange chose to use the video “to highlight the importance of whistleblowers”, and denounced the Union’s contention that using the footage would expose them to copyright claims by the US government.

In a statement to Cherwell, the Oxford Union said, “After taking extensive legal advice on this matter, the Union was advised not to display the background video in question for copyright reasons.”

WikiLeaks said they themselves had “advised” the Union by asserting that “by law and practice the US government does not claim copyrights on footage or documents that it produces”.

In response to accusations of censorship, the Union said, “We would like to point out that none of the speeches made during the evening in question were ‘censored’; neither was any part of the Q&A sessions.

“Mr Assange’s speech was broadcast in its entirety, and as such we would encourage people to appreciate the distinction between censorship and respecting copyright.”

WikiLeaks have tweeted the “censored” footage with the ‘Collateral Murder’ backdrop three times since Friday.

Julian Assange addressed the Oxford Union on Wednesday 23rd January amid debate over whether or not to host him. He spoke as part of the Sam Adams Awards for integrity and ethics, via video link from the Ecuadorean embassy in London.

Review: Zero Dark Thirty

0

★★★★★

Five Stars

Any film that is ‘based on true events’ or labelled as a ‘historical drama’, creates an altered viewing experience. The plot is tautological, we often know the outcome, and the film instead becomes about detail, nuance and interpretation. At least, that is what a good film should do.

Zero Dark Thirty, a highly controversial work from director Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), is no exception to this. In a blur of documentation and dramatization, the film details the decade long hunt for America’s Public Enemy No.1, Osama Bin Laden, culminating in his grisly assassination. From that description alone, I had my misgivings, furthered by the inevitable backlash from all corners regarding Bigelow’s extremely uncomfortable depiction of torture. This film could have so easily become a vehicle for patriotism, propaganda, and large men dressed as Navy SEALS chanting ‘USA’ in front of a rippling star spangled banner. However, Bigelow’s intense, pared down filming combined with Mark Boal’s unforgiving and unsentimental script  creates a brilliant take on what is vast becoming its own genre; the ‘War on Terror’.

The secret lies in the film’s main motive. This is not a film about torture, or politics, or America. It is barely a film about Bin Laden. Much like The Hurt Locker, it is a film about obsession. CIA agent Maya (Jessica Chastain) is almost fanatical in her search for OBL (the film is thick with jargon); to the extent that the emotional core of the piece is the search itself.

Characters come and go, torture is used and dismissed almost ambivalently, and leads are found futile, until the only thing left is Chastain’s fragile, exhausting, and utterly compelling performance. She, like the majority of the characters, is without past or future, and figured only within the context of the mission.

This centrality allows Bigelow to depict the political undercurrents and relationships without letting them become the chief objective. In this creative environment, co-stars Jason Clarke, Mark Strong and Joel Edgerton give excellent performances with little material to work from. Bigelow did deviate a little from her nameless character trope by casting John Barrowman as a White House suit, however. Go back to Wales, Captain Jack.

Though the tracking progress takes centre stage in Zero Dark Thirty, the film’s climax is of course the success of the mission. After hurtling through years of work, with some slightly clumsy examples of terrorists attacks (including the London bombings), we finally reach the night Maya has waited for. And Bigelow makes us wait as much as her heroine has to. The pacing is steady, but the suspense is relentless, drawing out every detail of the raid until the task is complete and the audience’s energy is utterly spent. Here Bigelow is at her filmmaking best.

Unexpectedly moved to tears during the last part of the film, I am made to face the most uncomfortable reality yet. Though a ‘historical drama’, unlike Lincoln or some others of this year’s Oscar contenders, the politics of Zero Dark Thirty is on-going. However, it is not the political element that inspired the strongest reaction, but a single shot of Chastain’s face when her task is finally complete. The film may have its controversies and its flaws, but it remains a fantastic piece of cinema and for that, I give it full marks and any Oscar it wants. 

Once upon a time in Utah…

0

There is a faraway land that independent filmmakers dream of. It is a land of untold (six-figure) riches. It is a land of ice palaces and pleasantly guffawing Hollywood bigwigs. It is a land where the manicpixiedreamgirl roams free. It is Utah. Welcome to the Sundance Film Festival.

Sundance is the uncontested champion of independent film competitions. Founded by Robert Redford (the original Sundance Kid, hence the iconic name), the festival takes place in Park City, Utah every winter. The festival was originally called the Utah Film Festival and took place in the height of summer, when Utah is about as interesting as the Book of Mormon, but was rebranded and moved to winter on the advice of the late Sydney Pollock, who sagely noticed that the movers and shakers of Hollywood would be more interested in the film festival if they could use it as an excuse for a skiing holiday.

Sundance has cemented its position as one of the most important film festivals in the world: whilst Cannes, Venice, Toronto and Berlin are still the go-to prestige events, Sundance is a showcase for films financed outside of the studio system. Filmmakers like Quentin Tarantino, David O. Russell, Paul Thomas Anderson and Darren Aronofsky all got their big breaks at the festival and, as a result, the queues of independent filmmakers lining up to follow suit are miles long. In 2012 there were in excess of 10,000 feature films submitted, with only 200 films programmed, which works out as a one in 50 shot at getting in. Apparently that slim chance is worth the $100 entry fee.

But whilst the festival is something of a gladiatorial arena for indie filmmakers, for the discerning cinephile it’s a veritable bordello of unheard treasures. Last year’s top winners in the Documentary and Dramatic awards, The House I Live In and Beasts of the Southern Wild, have both been nominated for Oscars. Other recent hits at the festival include Lee Daniels’s slightly nauseating social chore Precious; the greatest hillbilly Western of all time, Winter’s Bone; and 2012’s unnerving but electric Martha Marcy May Marlene. Not a bad selection of films to get to see, especially given the fact that the distributors will all be in the audiences in Park City, like circling sharks waiting to snap up a commercially viable indie hit, so these films won’t be in cinemas for another year or so.

The 2013 Sundance promises to be every bit as intriguing. Given that Redford’s experimental Sundance London project at the 02 has been a massive critical and commercial failure, you probably won’t be bothering to watch these films for a while (unless you’re planning to hotfoot it to Utah and bail on 3rd week). Matthew McConaughey’s Mud is being pushed for acting prizes already, whilst Before Midnight (the sequel to Before Sunrise and Before Sunset) is hot property and currently without a distributor. I think Park Chan-Wook’s Stoker looks dynamite, whilst there’s also some good buzz surrounding The East, starring Brit Marling and Ellen Page. And, if worse comes to worst, you can always fix your attention on Kill Your Darlings, which stars Daniel Radcliffe as Allen Ginsberg (looking strangely like Dan from Gossip Girl).

Sundance is a film festival that holds enormous power in the industry and, therefore, gets a huge number of column inches devoted to it. But it deserves every one of them, because it’s the single biggest platform for indie films and manages to level the playing field somewhat. So, Sundance, have a few more inches, courtesy of Cherwell.

Review: Gags (Oxford Revue)

0

★★★☆☆
Three Stars

Gags left me feeling cautiously confident about Oxford’s comedic future.

This was a performance that was in many ways akin to having a deep, unctuous full body massage: initially rather painful and awkward, but surprisingly enjoyable and refined at the end (if leaving you slightly conflicted).

Comprised of a series of small sketch pieces, Gags highlighted contemporary obsessions with the minutiae of social mores, from the Attenborough-eqsue “mating ritual” in a seedy Sainsbury’s to politics of Power Rangers clothing. The ensuing chuckles certainly held a mirror up to the great British obsession with social mores, whether concerning those who sniff the scented air of society’s upper rafters or those you find lurking in the smoking area at Camera at 2am. A sketch about a man in his car frantically trying to reach his child bearing wife only to be obstructed by a ticket machine left me cackling quietly away to myself, although this could only be because I’ve witnessed this problem several times at Heathrow Airport.

The first half was definitely the weaker of the two, but was marginally redeemed by its emphasis on physical comedy rather than witticisms; perhaps that’s why some of the writing in the first half stood out to me as weaker than the second. Thankfuly this was raised by strong performances from Rachel Watkeys Dowlie and George Mather, the latter of which has one of those semi-innate senses of comic timing. Funniest of all though, was a performance from Joseph Morpurgo, giving us a quick succession of stereotypes with sharp improv and a nice bit of audience interaction thrown into the mix. Whether or not this was purely down to him, the humour in the second half seemed to be sharper and the writing tighter, particularly the slightly metafictional doctors sketch about a dying joke- or to paraphrase, “penises are always funny”.

Gags is not a bad show. More to the point, it is not an unfunny show, and it’s laughs come by cleverly either confirming or subverting our preconceptions-particularly in the latter half. But as I left I left the Old Fire Station, I couldn’t help but feel that the humour was a bit, well… safe. The darkest it got was a few puns about a professional assassination service. Next time, less Armstrong and Miller, and more Frankie Boyle please guys.

Bueller… Bueller…

0

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%6849%%[/mm-hide-text]

Hacked Off film’s immersive cinema screening of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off always sounded like a great way to spend a Friday evening. My only concern was whether expectation would match the reality of screening an 80s classic in an academic building. How would the escapism of Ferris Bueller translate to a space more used to Shakespeare, Milton and Literary Theory?  Would the joy of John Hughes’ vision be dulled by the subterranean setting?  But as I swiftly realised, this was a stroke of excellent planning by Owen Donovan and Edd Elliott, the brains behind Hacked Off Films. As the 120 strong crowd started to seat themselves (about the size of my own school year back in ’03) I felt increasingly part of Ferris’s world. In our assorted 80s gear, inside our own concrete classroom, we were the ‘sportos, the motorheads, geeks, sluts, bloods, wastoids, dweebies, dickheads’ of Hughes’ High Schools. A postgraduate tutor (Michael Mayo) who had been fortunately coerced into portraying Ferris’ economics teacher emerged into the Lecture Theatre. This led to a genius sequence in which he used the audience to call the register. We scrambled to claim “Atkinson” “Blasingham” or “Bruton-Jones” for our own before leaving “Bueller…Bueller…Bueller…” hanging as the opening titles rolled.

There was a collective sigh of meta-cinematic satisfaction as the English lecture scene on screen echoed the audience, right down to matching lecterns (a parallel not even the Hacked Off team anticipated, as I later learnt). These moments of grin-inducing realisation were what characterised Hacked Off Film’s approach, bringing surprise and novelty to a film that I imagine most of the audience had seen many a time before. There were slight technical issues but these were minimal and dealt with well, using the same economics teacher we’d met at the start.

The actors mingling with the audience in the foyer set the tone from the beginning. Several carried Pepsi cans, asking for donations to ‘Save Ferris’ whilst really collecting coppers for their chosen charity ExVac. Dougie Young, last seen in Angels in America, brooded in the corner as the drug-addled delinquent played by Charlie Sheen. Becca Fallon, a fantastically cast Jennifer Grey lookalike, scowled at all and sundry as Ferris’ sister Jeannie.

Donovan and Elliott had clearly thought a lot about their immersion experience, keeping it casual but clever, and full of little surprises. The duo say they’re proud that they’ve managed to keep their events cheaper than regular cinema, and they’ve clearly spent their limited funds wisely.  Details like placing a packed of Oreos and a Pepsi (the original sponsors) at each place, and borrowing paintings from Exeter JCR to make a mini-gallery were both low-key and greatly appreciated. They left the larger stunts for appropriate moments later on in the film – complementing the ‘Twist and Shout’ carnival scene by releasing balloons and firing confetti cannons.

Producing ‘SAVE FERRIS’ t-shirts was a smart move, showing just how tuned into the cult the organisers are. They matched savvy audience awareness with their own ingenuity at every turn. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off is a much-loved film, as indicated by the audience’s quiet chant of “Let my Cameron Go” and our crooning along to Wayne Newson’s ‘Danke Schoen’ at appropriate points. Its cult following made the film a brilliant choice for this sort of screening and gave Hacked Off a bit of a head start for success. What Donovan, Elliott and their team did so well was tap into its tongue-in-cheek, camp, homespun energy.

This is only Hacked Off Film’s second immersive cinema event, building on the success of screening Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban in Exeter’s Dining Hall last Michaelmas. But they’ve clearly hit on a winning formula, and are aware of the importance of their choices of film and location, not using the same space twice so that each time it really fits the theme. The commitment to detail and sheer enjoyment evident throughout Friday’s show promises great things for the future of Hacked Off Films. Their other endeavour, the Oxford leg of The Future Shorts Festival is already a firm favourite of the Oxford Hub, and fast approaching as part of the Turl Street Arts Festival.  Further information about this and all of their future projects can be found on their facebook page, which is well worth a look and a ‘like’. Elliott told Cherwell that the main focus for him was always “how much fun can we have”. This is precisely what came across. The experience was fun rather than flashy; the film was enhanced rather than overpowered. I felt like this was something thrown together by and for Ferris’s friends. And I loved it for that.

5 Minute Tute: Philosophy

0

What is Philosophy?


Most academic disciplines are defined by their subject matter, but with Philosophy this is tricky, because its subject matter is, well, everything. We could say that Philosophy is a critical investigation into any aspect of the universe or of human experience. Maybe Wittgenstein’s approach is more useful here: he said that Philosophy is an activity rather than a subject. It is the activity of rational reflection, of challenging assumptions and asking questions. You can philosophise about absolutely anything; so philosophers will never be out of work even if they are not always paid!

 

Which philosophers have had the biggest impact on modern Philosophy?


For our 21st anniversary issue we recently circulated a questionnaire to professional philosophers asking them which historical philosophers they thought the most interesting or important. Aristotle came top, followed by Immanuel Kant, then Plato. In terms of philosophers who have influenced modern developments, Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein (and later Quine) were crucial to the development of the analytical school of Philosophy. He- gel is still the point of reference for most strands of continental Philosophy. My own favourite is Oxford ethicist Philippa Foot who had so many great ideas about the foundations of morality that I still see her as underrated, despite her fame.

 

Who is Friedrich Nietzsche and how has he influenced modern day society?


When I started studying Philosophy I remember one lecturer dismissing Nietzsche as “more a poet than a philosopher,” but really he was both. He was a brilliant young professor of Philosophy at the University of Basel, who resigned his chair due to poor health and spent the next ten years or so wandering around Europe writing books about what he saw as an imminent crisis of values. He saw Christian morality – which he hated anyway – as being fatally undermined by a widespread decline in religious faith (“God is dead”) and he called for a “revaluation of all values”. Did he cause the crisis of values or merely foresee it? Probably the latter, but he gave an early and influential voice to the idea that values had no firm foundation.

 

Isn’t it all a bit wishy-washy?


The usual accusation made against English-language Philosophy – especially that done in Oxford – is that it is overconcerned with precision about language. However, given the great difficulty of some philosophical problems and the long history of disagreement about them, I think that there is no such thing as being “over-concerned with precision,” and that it is better to move slowly and test every footstep carefully, if you want to make real progress.

 

Can we all be philosophers?


Yes of course – it doesn’t even require any expensive equipment! We all stumble across philosophical problems at one time or another: Is there a God? Should we eat meat? What is life for? What comes after death? Is it sometimes all right to lie? How should we deal with this or that ethical dilemma? Some of these problems are inescapable, so the only question is whether we deal with them well or badly. Sadly, many people deal with dilemmas on the basis of emotional responses, tradition, or peer pressure rather than reasoned argument. As Bertrand Russell said, “Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do.”

Here’s why you should all join your college choir

0

So you’re back in Oxford, collections are long gone, Christmas is a memory only your waistline remembers and the rigours of Oxford life are back in full swing. Fifth-week blues are yet to come and still many delicious weeks of hard work and academic inadequacy stretch ahead, with some hard partying – maybe, if I can just get this essay and reading done – added in. But sometimes you wonder if you could be making more of your Oxford experience than leading a life tied to the twin poles of booze and books. Your college choir is here to help.

The wonderful thing about your college choir is that it probably doesn’t audition, and if it does, it shouldn’t. Sure they are there to sing at important college events for the great and the good, but musical quality is really not the main point. It is all about fellow feeling, friendships, and the well-documented psychological benefits of singing in a group. That spiritual uplift need not be of a religious kind: at my college the vast majority of the choir do not take communion. It can actually get quite embarrassing sometimes. Instead the music is the real joy, as it drifts from the chapel into the fading light and monastic calm that only falls over college on a Sunday evening.

One term in my choir has furnished me with some of my most memorable encounters. My friend and I found ourselves dining opposite Gail Trimble of University Challenge fame (a.k.a. ‘The human Google’) at a choir formal. “What meat is this?” My friend asked me. “Dunno, Chicken?” I guessed. Gail did not look impressed. Earlier in the term I had opened the chapel door to find myself face to face with the Bishop of Oxford. We stared at each other for an agonising moment before I clocked that the man in front of me was older, wiser, more grandly dressed, and in every respect more important than me. I abased myself and stepped aside.

Of course the world of chapel carries its olde-worlde trappings without apology or irony. When we hosted the University sermons we said prayers not only for the monarch, nation and more colleges than I could count, but also “all the aristocracy of this realm” (which, I must note, still includes Jeffrey Archer). It was positively Elizabethan. I mean Bess I, not the current Queen. For those of an OCA bent this sort of thing is probably rather comforting. For the rest of us we accept it as part and parcel of the whole shebang.

And if you’re still not convinced, remember that whereas rowers have to pay for their hobby, college subsidises you in choir. Free formals are a real boon for all you freeloaders out there, even if you do have to sing for your supper.