Tuesday, May 6, 2025
Blog Page 1860

Review: To Hold an Apple (New Writing Festival)

0

With theatre just as much as with any other encounter first impressions count, and here I liked the set. I assumed it was going to be set in an artist’s studio; there were crumpled shirts and fabrics strewn across the floor, stacks of old looking books and a few fruits lying on the table.</p>

What I wasn’t expecting however was that as much attention and care would have been paid to the detail of the characters in the play. A student production and a student writer yes, but an amateur production absolutely not.</p>

The whole premise of the play revolves around improvisation and not a lot is spelled out for you, but despite it being a little cryptic at first it is a compellingly enticing watch. There are two characters, both of whom are actors, and they push each others’ skills to the limit by improvising together.</p>

An absurdly brilliant French accent and belligerent attitude is put on by Sonia (Alexandra Zelman-Doring) who improvises the part of the Impressionist artist Paul Cezanne to get her rather disjointed and unruly thoughts across to her actor-partner Alina.</p>

Alina (Ella Waldman) in response takes on the role of the rather aloof and stark Modernist German poet Rainer Maria Rilke, who questions and pries Cezanne labouring at his easel; bizarre conversations are had, apples are eaten and boundaries are crossed. </p>

The play is absurd but it in no way spirals into a dearth of slapstick and meaningless monologues. Thank god. There is a sophisticated flair to the whole script and its direction by Jamie MacDonagh; moments of delightful pure comedy seem to crop up almost naturally as the actors interact, whether as themselves or as their archetypes.</p>

To Hold An Apple is one of a kind and I won’t hesitate to admit that I would happily watch it again, and maybe even one more time – mainly because I don’t quite get it. It is a pleasure to watch actors acting so beguilingly, and there is a sense that a hidden story runs counter to and underneath what is said between the florid-French-painter-Cezanne and the inquisitive-repressed-writer-Rilke.</p>

That may of course have just been the charm of the play rubbing off on me, but without a doubt Alexandra Zelman-Doring, who wrote and starred in the play, should be paid her dues sooner or later. There is a lot of talk about work or “travaille” and the flaring up of tempers and the dying down of conversations, but on the whole the piece is rather benign and unimposing, like a good work of art. Lasting only 45 minutes and uncertain whether it will ever be staged again all those who enjoy theatre are advised to go and have a look.

 

Review: Faultlines (New Writing Festival)

0

A sandcastle being built; someone swimming out into the sea and nearly drowning; a confrontation with incest and death. Ella Evans has not made it easy for the production team or the audience. The difficulties of staging are dealt with masterfully, with a film of the sea and shore forming the backdrop to the stark BT stage, and some ingenious touches to deal with the other problems. But the script is where the play occasionally lets itself down, with some beautiful images and writing tempered by some bits which just don’t quite work. 

 

It takes a while to warm up, a pretty long while in fact. Cassie sits at the kitchen table, drunk. Her sister Ellen discovers her and they have an overly drawn out and quite mundane conversation: “You’re drunk!” “No I’m not!” etc. Slowly more details emerge. They’re meant to be attending a funeral in two hours. They haven’t seen each other for ten years. Cassie can’t drink coffee without sugar. But in this kitchen scene we don’t really warm to either character, Cassie petulant and childish, Ellen motherly, prim and easily shocked. Their relationship will grow and yield some very touching moments, but not until Ellen has the bright, if slightly incongruous idea of going to the beach to get some fresh air.

 

Some of the best dialogue comes when it is most realistic, and Evans certainly has a talent for capturing the way people speak. Cassie’s drunk speech is spot-on and all the more humorous for it, and when she is at her most passionate and angry, shouting at Ellen through her tears, you could almost forget this is scripted and not a spontaneous outburst. But other speeches, which on the page would read more like poetry, do not work so well on stage. When Cassie turns to the audience for her first very poetic soliloquy, it jars a little in juxtaposition with the realism of the conversation up to this point, and it doesn’t help that we are distracted by the stream of images flashing up behind her.

 

But as the play goes on and the plot thickens, it does get exciting. A new and intriguing element is introduced quite late on in the play which drives much of the later action. We empathise more and more with the characters as they open up to each other and their past and feelings are revealed. While inevitably upstaged by her sister, some of Ellen’s careful speeches are particularly beautiful, and it is a shame that much of her speech is mundane and ineffectual responses to wild Cassie; it is when she lets her guard down that their relationship becomes interesting to watch develop, and the play is all the better for it. Both parts are very well acted by Ruby Thomas (Cassie) and Cicely Hadman (Ellen).

 

This play is certainly worth seeing; despite the slow start and occasionally unconvincing speeches it does draw one in powerfully, and the bombshell revelations that are dropped are worth the excruciating wait. There are funny moments, moving moments and dramatic moments; a combination of the very bright talents of writer, director and actors.

 

Murder, they wrote

0

A scandal has recently erupted in the US involving the release of a made-for-television film, Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy. In this drama Heroes-star Hayden Panettiere plays student Amanda Knox, who has in real life been sentenced to 26 years in prison in Italy for her part in the murder and sexual assault of English student Meredith Kercher. The film was originally to contain a scene in which the victim, wearing jeans and a bra, was pinned down during the attack. This caused great controversy when the trailer aired. The parents of the victim of the still very recent murder did not want the film to be made and the father called the controversial scene ‘horrific’. Whilst star Hayden Panettiere insists upon the production being ‘fact-driven’ and ‘classy’, one cannot help but ask if the offence and upset that this dramatisation has caused are really justified and one could accuse the makers of the film of exploiting a recent tragedy for cheap thrills.

Dead bodies wheeled into laboratories for analysis and flashbacks to startling moments of violence have become so commonplace on the small and the big screen that it seems inevitable that real stories with such high dramatic value should be seized upon by those who want to shock and entertain. For, after all, whatever excuses people may use for watching such productions, it is not really for their educational value or out of some sense of obligation but simply for their entertainment. They are the hour-long equivalent of slowing down when passing a car crash on the motorway.

The Amanda Knox film is by no means the first of its kind. Many high-profile murder cases have had some sort of adaptation made in their wake: 2006 drama Longford, starring Jim Broadbent and written by Peter Morgan, screenwriter of The Queen, which focussed on the vain efforts of Lord Longford to secure the release of Moors-murderer Myra Hindley, and Truman Capote’s book In Cold Blood about the murder of a family by a pair of thieves was made into a 1967 film and then revisited in Philip Seymour-Hoffman film Capote (2005). Recently, ITV has stirred up controversy by hiring popular actor Dominic West (pictured) from The Wire to play infamous serial killer Fred West in a three-hour drama. Murders clearly capture the human imagination and sensational cases inevitably appeal to film and television-makers.

This raises a few questions: why would it be immoral to watch a programme about a murder that happens to be real if we consider it perfectly acceptable to watch a fictional thriller depicting an equally brutal murder? Does sensationalism become more deplorable when it is based upon true events? And when do real cases become fair game for the film and television industry? Is it more acceptable, for example, to create a film about Jack the Ripper such as From Hell (2001), which featured Johnny Depp and Heather Graham, than it is about a more recent case, such as the murder of Meredith Kercher, where Amanda Knox is still in the process of an appeal and the tragedy is still fresh in the minds of those who knew Meredith Kercher?

All that is clear is that the industry is becoming ever faster in translating real-life horror into on-screen thrillers, thus forcing us to reflect upon the use of murder in all screen dramas, fictional and real, historical and contemporary. It is left to each one of us, then, to decide whether the human fascination with murder is something which should be readily indulged with ever more blood-soaked dramas or an appetite which we should do our best to suppress as we switch over to The Sound of Music.

The Oscars: A host of irritations

0

The 27th of February 2011, a date that will be remembered, above all, as marking the night when Anne Hathaway desperately tried to prove that she has a personality. On paper, the Hathaway appeared to have everything going for her: doe-like eyes, glossy hair and wholesome good looks that have a widespread appeal. Unfortunately, and rather worryingly for an actress, she never seemed capable of making the distinction between ‘vivacious’ and ‘vapid’. And yes, audiences do like to see a friendly, welcoming host with glittering eyes and smile, but anyone who presents the Oscars in future really ought to be warned that adopting the wide-eyed stare of Bambi’s mother in the moments before those fateful shots ring out is just going to traumatise the more sensitive members of the audience, myself included. Though she was undoubtedly drafted in to attract tweens who would have enjoyed seeing her in an array of undeniably beautiful dresses, I can’t help but feel that the only people she appeals to are Italian fraudsters who enjoy dressing up as cardinals (Google it).

To be fair to the hostess, her male counterpart was, if anything, even more irritating to watch. The problem with James Franco taking on an aloof, disinterested air is that it’s not all that different from the public persona he normally adopts. I realise that the some-time writer and full-time poster boy for edgy intellectual posing was intended to serve as a foil for Hathaway’s cheery enthusiasm, but, call me humourless if you will, I expect more from an Oscar-nominated actor than playing what is, if anything, a duller version of himself.

Still, as I’ve just demonstrated, it’s easy to criticise the hosts, especially when they’re that young, successful and attractive. Really, it’s the murky powers-that-be who decide on the direction that the awards will take each year, with 2011 appearing to have been selected as the year of the ‘knowing look’. There is, of course, a long tradition of industry in-jokes and spoofs of the year’s films at the Oscars. However, this time round you could barely go ten minutes without the autocue forcing the hosts to adopt a studied air of cynicism, with Franco complementing Hathaway on looking ‘so beautiful and hip’, and in turn being told that he himself is ‘very appealing to the younger demographic’. If we’ve learnt anything from the success of Hugh Jackman’s stint as an all-singing, all-dancing host in 2009, when viewing figures beat those of the previous year by an impressive 13%, it’s that the camper, tackier and more exuberant the Oscars are, the more appealing they become. Most viewers have come to terms with the fact that we are no longer living in the Golden Age of cinema, with stars who embody class and glamour as they did in the time of Greta Garbo and Grace Kelly.

The lure of the Oscars lies more in the sheer comic value of (often unintentionally) funny speeches, and in watching people dressed up to look like startled ostriches (I’m looking at you, Sharon Stone). Any attempt at self-irony seemed a little smug – really, it’s the job of the viewer to poke fun; take away this and there’s little role left for the audience in an awards ceremony that is already insular enough as it is.

On an uneventful night

0

This year’s best film, we are told, is The King’s Speech, which took away four of the top five Oscars (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay) leaving the Award for Best Actress to Natalie Portman. And, for the most part, they seem to have got it about right.

Not that the Academy Awards are to be trusted. As Steven Spielberg aptly pointed out when he presented the Oscar for Best Picture: ‘In a moment one of these ten movies will join a list that includes On the Waterfront, Midnight Cowboy, The Godfather, and The Deer Hunter. The other nine will join a list that includes The Grapes of Wrath, Citizen Kane, The Graduate, and Raging Bull.’ And the list goes on.

There were, as always, some flagrant injustices. Roger Deakin, True Grit‘s director of photography, certainly merits the Award for cinematography (which went instead to Inception‘s Wally Pfister). His spectacular work on True Grit aside, the man regarded as one of the greatest living cinematographers has been nominated nine times in the past, for such monuments as The Shawshank Redemption, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and No Country for Old Men.

There has been some discussion as to whether Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) deserved to win Best Director over David Fincher (The Social Network). The award for Best Director is probably the most difficult and least objective of them all, because the director’s role is to have a say in everyone else’s work and because as a result it is difficult to determine precisely what influence a director has on a film. Pehaps Hooper won because Fincher won the BAFTA and the Golden Globe. Perhaps he won because he started off as the underdog. Who knows?

 

Of course no awards ceremony can be completely objective and the Oscars are hardly an exception. The Academy Awards are voted for by the 6000-odd members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. These are industry professionals, who join by invitation only and sport an alleged average age of 57. Unsurprisingly, people tend to blame the Academy’s obstinate recalcitrance towards anthing other than a heart-warming drama on its members’ conservatism. Yet the explanation has probably more to do with the image and heritage of the Oscars. If festivals like Sundance and Cannes reward creativity and innovation, the Academy Awards honour mastery of craft. And there is a place for both.

 

The rest is rather less contentious. Colin Firth was always going to win (the shortest odds in the history of the Awards), as was Natalie Portman. The writers of The Social Network and of The King’s Speech (Aaron Sorkin and David Seidler, respectively) both received well-earned accolades, being conveniently nominated in different categories (Adapted Screenplay and Original Screenplay, respectively).

As for the evening itself, this year’s proceedings were on the whole rather tame. There were no Roberto Benigni-esque antics; none of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin’s buffooneries; and, truth be told, not much in the way of entertainment at all.

And so, after offering our congratulations to the winners and commiserations to the losers, after indulging in dubious second-guessing trying to explain who won what and badmouthing the presenters, the awards season comes to an end.

 

 

 

Seeing is believing

0

It seems almost absurd to me that “sensible” people are able to deny evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV. Without trying to sound flippant, I would invite these people to voluntarily infect themselves with HIV and see how they fare. From the holocaust to smoking causing cancer, denialism appears to be rife – posing as scepticism. One might argue that we cannot deny freedom of expression. Indeed, revolutionaries such as Copernicus and Galileo held ideas that contradicted the scientific dogma of their time, and some doctrines that were once accepted by the scientific community have turned out to be false. However, it is important that we stick to the scientific method and provide valid proof for whatever theory or claim we may have, be it in line with or against the scientific consensus.

So what are the differences between scepticism and denial? Denialism in science is the rejection of accepted parts of the scientific consensus, perhaps as a means of avoiding the uncomfortable truth. In science, it is always important to keep a sceptical mind and challenge ideas; if they are still left standing after attempts at falsification then we can be reassured that they are scientific and therefore justified. Denialists do not evaluate the evidence and follow where it leads; instead they are motivated by some other ideology, which means that they already have a commitment to a belief before they have viewed the evidence. In a nutshell, sceptics are willing to change their minds, denialists are not.

Proponents of the denial movement portray themselves as underdogs who have dared to speak out against conspiracies and propaganda. Martin McKee (an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) has identified six commonly used tactics that denialists employ:

1.       Allege there’s a conspiracy;

2.       Use fake experts to support the claim;

3.       Selectively pick out supporting evidence;

4.       Demand an impossible level of proof;

5.       Misrepresent the scientific consensus then attack the fallacy;

6.       Claim that the scientific community are still divided in opinion.

Denial tends to be greatest in areas of science that necessitate a level of trust in the scientific method. For instance, the HIV virus is invisible to the naked eye and the consequences of infection are not immediately apparent; vaccines do not work for everyone and may be given for diseases we have never seen; and global warming is meant to be occurring, yet with the icy winds and snow-ridden airport runways it is difficult to see how contradicting weather patterns can co-exist. It may be true that denial is on the same spectrum as scepticism, with gullibility being on one end of the scale, denial on the other, and scepticism having a place somewhere in-between. The emotiveness and sense of gaining authority over nature makes denial so appealing. Moreover, anecdotal evidence laden with scientific jargon makes this pseudo-science appear scientific.

Suppose you are a smoker and you hear that smoking causes cancer. While conducting further enquiries you find several websites with cited research on the association between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. However, you also find a website claiming that the research is inconclusive and severely biased. As a sceptic, you would review the evidence and balance them to come to an informed conclusion. A denialist, though, biased because you have a vested interest in believing that smoking is harmless, you would dismiss the scientific evidence regardless of how conclusive it is.

Lack of faith, trust, or understanding of the core tenets of science can catalyse the transition from scepticism to denial, which may be fuelled by the fallacies disseminated by proficient denialists out there. In fact, the transition from scepticism to denial may be a pathological cognitive process, as per Seth Kalichman (a social psychologist at the University of Connecticut at Storrs), who submits that for denialists “[t]here is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds”. He even goes further to describe the leaders of denialist movements as displaying “all the features of paranoid personality disorder”.

Perhaps our sceptical minds are not solely to blame for denial; indeed corporate industries have a role, especially when it comes to tobacco smoking and climate change. The Waxman Hearings of 1994 are a particularly famous example of denialism in the corporate world. Before the U.S. Congress, seven CEOs of tobacco companies swore, under oath, that they did not believe nicotine to be addictive. The tactics used by the tobacco industry had been around for a long time in order to create doubt with regards to the health risks of tobacco smoking. These tactics were picked up by the coal and electricity companies, which led to the creation of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE). The role of the ICE was to “reposition climate change as theory (not fact)”.

It appears that when prominent scientists indulge in denialism the consequences can be dire. For instance, when Andrew Wakefield falsely reported that MMR vaccinations were linked to autism the immunisation rate in Britain dropped from 92% to 73%. In South Africa, AIDS denialism by the Mbeki government was supported by 5,000 doctors and scientists, including the American Peter Duesberg, who claims that HIV is merely a passenger virus in AIDS victims and that rather drug-use, malnutrition, and the side-effects of antiretroviral drugs lead to AIDS. This has, of course, been falsified and indeed HIV alone has been found to be inextricably linked with the likelihood of developing AIDS. The AIDS denialism movement in South Africa is reported to have resulted in the deaths of 330,000 to 340,000 people and a further 106,000 new infections.

With such a risk to public health, what is the solution to denialism? Censorship is not the answer. Today we may be in the privileged position of holding the popular opinion, but there may come a day when we are in the silenced minority. It seems that the only sensible way to tackle denialism is to try to address the arguments and be faithful to the scientific method of making valid inferences from accurate observations and experiments. It may well turn out that the denialists were right, but the truth will only be ascertained through scientific enquiry rather than unfounded speculation.

It’s not easy being a blue

0

Although many see Blues rugby only in its most important moment, the Varsity Match on the hallowed turf of Twickenham, a lot of effort goes in behind the scenes to deliver a performance worthy of the grand stage the team is given. From early morning hill runs to the horror of ice baths, this article demonstrates the sacrifices and commitments that are required to play Blues rugby at Oxford University.

To begin the 2010 Varsity campaign, the Blue squad travelled to Wales where we paddled two-man canoes for nine solid hours over two days. The rowing was broken up with an overnight stay in leaky tents at the base of a steep hill which was assaulted twice in the course of the night under the watchful eye of the coaching staff. Add to this the compulsory 6am swim in the freezing river and you have a rather brutal team-building exercise which tested the fitness and commitment of a group of players who had come together for the first time just a week earlier.

While Russia as a pre-season tour was certainly an incredible place to visit and we were treated like kings, there was no end to the toil and graft that had begun in Wales. Runs on abandoned Soviet athletics tracks were the norm while assault courses were tackled almost daily over the two-week stay. The upside of this effort was that the squad returned to the UK in prime physical condition, ready to fly into the fixture list with vigour.

Showpiece matches against Premiership ‘A’ teams and the ‘big one’ in December are always on the horizon for those who might doubt the effort is worth it. The early alarms to fit in gym sessions before lectures and the sprints up Headington Hill, followed by 5 minute ice baths, were all justified by being involved in these games.

However, many in the group would say that the opportunity to be a part of a group of players with such incredible team spirit, rather than the victory on 9th December by 21 points to 10 over Cambridge, was what made all the sacrifices over the course of the four months worthwhile.

 

Handing them it on a plate

0

As editor of the sport section at Cherwell I am naturally expected to have an expert knowledge of all the intricacies of Oxford sport. I was therefore shocked, and somewhat ashamed, to find out in the past few weeks that the college rugby cuppers competition is not a straightforward knock out tournament as I had previously assumed. There are, in fact, three different competitions. One (main Cuppers) for those who won their first two games, another (the plate) for those who won their first game but lost the next, and finally the bowl for those teams who lost their first game but won their next.

The thought process behind this setup is obvious and in many ways commendable. In the football equivalent once you lose you’re out, that’s it. In rugby the prospect of a high profile final at Iffley Road is not extinguished by a defeat; the plate or the bowl offers salvation, a second chance. This is how the system should work; the trouble is it doesn’t always seem to happen that way.

I recently discovered that some colleges attempt to ‘play’ the system in order to give them a better chance of winning a trophy and indulging in the drunken and often naked celebrations we all know rugby players are so fond of. The story I heard was of a team that had impressively won their cuppers first round game and had been given a very winnable game next up, a win in which would send them into the main cuppers quarter finals. However they reasoned that the best teams in the University would also be in main cuppers quarter finals (can’t fault their logic there to be honest), and that they would be better off losing their winnable game to send them into the plate with less able teams (still with me?). It was then discovered that their opponents had exactly the same thought and were also planning to lose. Thankfully the two realised that playing a game in which they were both aiming to lose would be farcical (imagine the score), and therefore a contest to forfeit the game first began. One captain won, which meant his team ‘technically’ lost and went into the plate.

This I’m afraid is simply not sport. Sport, and especially a cup competition, is about trying to beat whoever you’re put up against. Imagine if Crawley Town had forfeited their FA Cup match at Old Trafford in order to concentrate on the FA Vase because they would probably lose to Manchester United but could beat Ebbsfleet. I appreciate that rugby is a different sport to football with a higher importance placed on power and strength which makes upsets less likely, but I still wouldn’t want to support the cynical approach of some of these teams. I’d take a glorious failure ahead of a hollow victory any day.

 

Cherwell: Join the Revolution

0

Cherwell is now recruiting for Trinity ’11. Join Oxford’s only independent student paper. Join the revolution.

Not Seeing is Believing

0

Ever since the hosting of the inaugural IBSA World Blind Football Championship back in 1998, blind football has slowly been growing in scale and stature on both a national and international level. Whilst it is a far cry from modern stadia, extensive television coverage and colourful sonic backdrops, being a game played in absolute silence, it’s a game which is constantly providing men and women of all ages and ability, who are visually impaired, a chance to find solace and success in a game free from excess and egotism and instead one full of fair-play and, above all, friendship.

Blind Football is, by its very definition, a very different ball game to mainstream football. It is played in the style of a five-a-side format with the only sighted or visually impaired player eligible to represent the team being the goalkeeper. All outfield players are ostensibly blind and wear eye shields so as to remove any competitive advantage from those players who may have better eyesight than those who have no sight whatsoever. There are no throw-ins as there is a wall surrounding the reduced pitch size (42m x 22m), and each team is permitted one coach to call out instructions from behind the goal. Indeed, the forms of communication that can be made between the players are either through calling out one’s name or by calling out ‘Yeah’ to make one’s presence known. Furthermore, the players must call “Voy” (I’m Here) in order to alert opposition players of their intention to tackle the players targeted. Perhaps the single-most important element of the game is that of the football itself – filled with bearings inside so that players can hear and sense the football coming towards them. Thus, it is a game which lends itself to both constant awareness and technique. 

To start off with, the very dimensions of the pitch require a high quality level of passing and an enormous level of communication between teammates. Command of the ball is ultimately the key, as possession is everything in the fast paced game. Passes cover a shorter distance – they are crisp and simple – and given a well-worked move, can result in a well manufactured goal – something professional footballers would be proud of. The players themselves must make sure that the ball almost literally sticks to their feet – not straying more than an inch or two away from that area. Their footwork cannot be languid, rather, they must be agile on their feet. Furthermore, shooting is just as difficult a skill to master. As well as having good close control, there is a great emphasis placed on having a short backlift when striking the ball thus generating more power behind the shot and giving the player greater control over the direction of the shot. While hypnotic-like footwork and accurate passing is an important element to success in this form of the game, attentiveness is equally important. The rattling ball, a distraction away from the game itself, needs to be heard, lending to a ‘Library at Highbury’-like atmosphere inside the ground. Despite the radically changed atmosphere, it has in no means distracted football fans from going to watch blind football in this country.

In recent years, the blind form of the game has made significant progress. Credit must be given to the Football Association which has generously invested in running both a Partially Sighted England team and a Blind England Football team. As will be discussed below, these teams regularly complete at the European Championships and the World Cup. Furthermore, the Football Association has gone on to form a National Blind Football League which currently includes six teams: Everton, Worcester Blind, Middlesex & Home Counties, Sporting Club Albion, Royal National College for the Blind Academy and, the newest addition to the set-up, Leicester. While this league not only gives these teams an opportunity to compete for the coveted National League title, the Football Association’s regional Ability Counts leagues, also gives players suffering from Cerebral Palsy an opportunity to play regular competitive football, and thus a chance of progressing to the national set-up. Under the stewardship of Tony Larkin, manager of the England Blind Football team, and their talisman, David Clarke, they have overseen the sport’s development which has included a £21,500,000, state-of-the-art sports centre at the Royal College of the blind, home, most recently, to the 2010 International Blind Sports Association World Cup.

Staged at the home of the RNC in Hereford in the surroundings of the superb indoor futsal arena, 2010 witnessed the fifth World Blind Football Championships. Beginning in 1998 with the inaugural staging of the competition in the home of football, Brazil, the competition has, albeit slowly, gained recognition. Nonetheless, very few column inches indeed came to be written about this tournament in the broadsheet newspapers let alone any television coverage. Yet the fact remains that the Championships were the largest disability football event ever to be held in the United Kingdom. In all, ten countries competed, with hosts England finishing fourth, their current world ranking position, after losing the third/fourth place play-off to China. Brazil, the dominant force in world blind football, (surprise, surprise) went on to win the tournament, racking up a third title, following victories in 1998 and 2000 and in the process, guaranteeing their qualification for the Paralympics in London 2012. Nonetheless, the very staging of the event as well as the funding given to the sport reflects that international tournaments, in this case the World Cup, can be held here in the United Kingdom and that the Football Association is committed to investing in disability football – something which we will hopefully come to see more of in future years to come.

While the National Blind Football League has been established for a few years, the England set-up still lags behind other established footballing countries. In Brazil, both the Brazilian Football Association (CBF) and the Brazilian government have extensively funded blind football – the fruits of which have been shown through the emergence of around one hundred blind football teams. In Brazil, Argentina, France, Spain and China, the players are full-time professional unlike here in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the majority of these countries have invested in a full-time manager, with Spain having an impressive six regional blind football leagues. For many amateur professional footballers, life is difficult, especially with an added disability – often having to juggle family life while adhering to a fitness regime and weekly practice sessions. Whilst there is admiration for the work done by the Football Association, the reality is that it still has some way to go to ensure that the message of blind football is spread far enough, in particular to different demographics, as in other parts of the world where there is active encouragement at all ages. However, the one thing in common with all the countries is that they are giving people with disabilities a chance – a chance which is being grasped at all levels. Nonetheless, the successful staging of the Blind World Cup has provoked a reaction in three senses: firstly, it has given more exposure not only to blind football, but blind sportsmen and women; secondly, it has acted as a catalyst for the 2012 Paralympics and thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it has brought home the message that disabled people aren’t interested in talking about their disability rather, they want to continue to live and enjoy the beautiful game and life without the ‘disability label’ attached to them.

Attention is not something this form of the game craves; rather it is something with which it should be rewarded. The group of players representing the England Blind Football Team not only exhibit a remarkable strength of character and are inspirational role models to others but they are a credit to this country’s football heritage – perhaps something the full national team can come to learn a thing or two about. Exposure to blind sport should continue to be actively encouraged and perhaps we should not come to see them as blind sportsmen and women but simply as sportsmen and women. What this team, and millions around the world have shown and will continue to show, is that impossible is nothing and that not seeing is believing.