Sunday 3rd August 2025
Blog Page 569

Between a rock and a hard place

0

This week I went rock climbing at the Brookes Sports Centre. For 9 pounds you get to strap yourself into very hard shoes and pull yourself up a very sheer wall on very small handholds. I am very bad at rock climbing. I am also very afraid of heights.

When I was a child my mother would have to hold my hand as I shut my eyes walking across overhead bridges. This article isn’t about overcoming fears. I was at a 21st this week and somebody asked me what interesting things were going on in my life. I said that I’d been rock climbing.

They responded by telling me that it was a very white thing to go rock climbing. I am still trying to figure out what she meant. What about rock climbing is white?

That being said, now that I think about it most people at the Brookes climbing wall at 830 am on Wednesday morning were white. But the population of Britain is 86% white, so it follows that the population of the Brookes climbing wall at 8:30 am on Wednesday morning, October 2019 would be at least 86% white as well?

I am not British, so this does not matter, or occur to me. There are two kinds of rock climbing you can do at Brookes. There’s bouldering, where you climb up a three-meter wall following various routes without a harness.

The roots are tagged according to difficulty, from green to black to red. I don’t know the order but green is the easiest. The handholds vary in size from tiny to manageably large.

I went with my friend who is around 6 ft 2. She says this gives her no advantage but I think it does. You can also do more traditional rock climbing where you climb up a 15-meter wall with a harness. There’s an automatic belay that catches you when you want to drop off. I did not attempt this wall.

 There’s a third kind of rock climbing where you hook yourself to the wall as you go along. I did not attempt this either.  When you finish a route, you can drop off onto the padded floor. This is the scariest but also most fun bit about rock climbing.

The first thing my friends taught me was how to fall. Apparently, you’re supposed to land on your bum rather than your knees. This is more difficult that it sounds. I spent a lot of my time lying on the floor. It is quite fun to watch other people climb, especially if they are good.

The other friend I was there with has been climbing for three years, and is also generally talented at moving his body around. He was doing a route where you have to jump from one set of holds to another. And also, another where you have to climb in a circle.

I think there’s a case to be made for rock climbing as a spectator sport. But not like in Free Solo. Free Solo is, according to Channel 4: “The unflinching, extraordinary and multiaward-winning documentary that follows rock climber Alex Honnold as he attempts the first ever free solo climb of the 3200-foot vertical face of El Capitan.”

It was filmed by his friends who watched him as he climbed.  I haven’t seen Free Solo. When I was lying on the floor I met a medical researcher named Tomiko. She has been in Oxford for 13 years. She is Japanese. Her husband is a medical fellow. She met him in New York when they were graduate students.

 I told her that’s very romantic. She said that it’s that nice people think that it was romantic. I asked her if she has children, she said her eldest daughter used to rock climb as well. All her children were born in the UK. We cycled together down Headington Hill.

Finding friends: what’s the hurry?

0

We talk about the rat race: the fiercely competitive struggle for success, the unrelenting battle we rage against our peers to come out on top. But what remains unmentioned is the implicit yet equally intense social race that breaks out the moment we cross the gates into higher education.

The race to hunt down the pack who will provide us with comfort and security, who will save us from the piranhas of social alienation and vulnerability which await those who have failed to reach their safe retreat and are left behind to fend for themselves.

 A frenzy, a week of fierce and violent socialization during which friendship groups are formed and promises of loyalty and adhesion are made. And suddenly, in the very first week, emerge these islands of sanctuary within the vast and menacing sea of unfamiliarity that surrounds this year’s new catch of freshers.

The term ‘good friend’ is thrown around as if it were a lifeline. There are, of course, those few who truly find their kindred souls within the first fifteen minutes of being at college, but for many, declaring a new ‘squad’ is a promise of safety.

With one word they’ve locked down and secured themselves a spot within this group of peers, people who five days ago were strangers, but who will nevertheless, be their solid support as they take on this new beginning. But why this urgency to find refuge – are we truly drowning when we arrive?

Sure, it feels like it. We’re suddenly thrown into this foreign world, where no person, no road and no moment in our routine is recognizable. Piled on relentlessly one after the other, the unfamiliar aspects of this new life engulf us until we feel as though we can no longer breathe.

And because all we can hear is the noise of the craze that runs rampant around us, all we can see is the sight of our peers fighting furiously to stay afloat, we believe that we’re on the brink of going under.

But if we just remembered to breathe, if we momentarily retreated from the commotion that surrounds us and gained perspective of our situation, we’d see that we’re not drowning at all. We’d realize that this chaos is being affected not by danger, but simply, and solely, by fear.

Fear of being alone, fear of being judged, fear of the unknown. Upon this realization, friendship and companionship are no longer a necessity for survival. They are not something we form tactically in a desperate attempt to endure through the turbulent and uncertain future that awaits us.

Rather, a relationship formed on the grounds of genuine and authentic affection, something we seek from our own desire for connection. And so it follows, that there is no urgency to find friends.

We’re told that university is the time we’ll find ‘friends for a lifetime’, ‘friends who’ll be with us forever’ – as though the connections we form during this time will be it for life.

That after we don our graduation caps and bid farewell to our time in education, the time for bonding and building relationships will be closed off forever.

But life isn’t compartmentalized into these precise, clearly definable phases; these are the barriers we ourselves impose onto our timelines in an attempt to digest and comprehend our experience.

But in reality, time forever ticks on, consistently, constantly and without a pause. When we look back, the rigid distinctions we once enforced have blurred, leaving behind a continuous reel of moments which bleed seamlessly and perfectly into one another.

There is no ultimatum, no be all and end in our journey to making ‘good’ friends – the time to do so will continue on after university, just as it did before, and keep on ticking throughout or lives. Who knows how old we will be when we find our next soul mate?

People enter your life continually throughout life, as you enter new phases of existence. Some will come and go, and some will stay forever. Remember the many faces who you were so close to at school? How many of them are you still so familiar with now?

It seems to happen to most of us: a gradual drifting from friends gone by, and new friends entering your life spontaneously.

 Although it is hard to imagine in Fresher’s Week, with three long years of hard work and revelry before us, University friendships will be the same. Some of the people you are close to now will be your companions for life; others will drift away with time. And that’s completely fine.

People come and go and that’s just the nature of it all. Some people make their best friend for life during Freshers week,whilst some people might not meet their platonic soul mate until much later in life.

In light of this, I propose a different approach to making friends. One where we let friendships happen organically, naturally. Where friendship is something that we don’t desperately seek or exhaustively work for.

One which perhaps develops through laughter, through the glance between strangers who have shared a moment of joy. Maybe one which comes from a common interest, through the rush of excitement when you realize that that peculiar, unique passion you thought only you harbor also stirs the heart of another.

Or maybe one that just develops as a result of time, the unexpected one that emerges simply from passive existence next to another, when you wake up one day and realize you know this stranger like your own brother. 

So whether you find your best friend the moment you sit down for your first meal in hall or whether your best friend comes into your life through the door of that bookshop you work in parttime after retirement, there’s only one that that really matters: that it’s real

From Istanbul to Oxford

0

The display ‘From Istanbul to Oxford’ at the Ashmolean does exactly that: it succinctly takes you through the journey of coffee (or ‘coffa’, as it was originally known) from its Turkish origins to its arrival in Oxford in 1637, followed by the 1650 creation of the first British coffee house in one of the rooms of the Angel Inn, recognisable today as ‘The Grand Café’. The transitions and adaptations from the Ottoman Empire are revealed using an interesting and varied selection of artefacts, including examples of an illegal currency of coffee tokens used in Oxford in the 17th Century – an idea not dissimilar to today’s Costa card! The exhibition highlights coffee’s sociable origins embedded within a culture of meeting to talk and read. Although sadly underplayed, the most insightful element of the display is the recognition of the culture clash, as public opinion was split into those who embraced the addition to Western society and the conservatives who actively opposed it – a rhetoric indisputably centred around its ‘Turkishness’, and one that is still relevant to today’s society. However, the integration of coffee into British culture (by the 18th century there were between 500 to 600 coffee houses in London) is shown as the display concludes with a William Hunt still life painting featuring a coffee pot – giving some hope that Britain is an inherently evolving and accepting culture. The display is open until 15th March 2020 in Gallery 29 of the Ashmolean with free admission.

Ai Weiwei: Roots

0

Ai Weiwei’s ‘Roots’ exhibition at the Lisson Gallery in London may seem rather abstract upon first glance yet it provokes reflection on a range of issues from the ‘uprootedness’ of the refugee crisis to government corruption and civil disobedience. In the wake of the forest fires which have ravaged the Amazon rainforest in recent months, bringing international attention and renewed urgency to the question of the environment and deforestation, however, these pieces take on a greater significance.

The imposing sculptural works that give the exhibition its name were cast in iron from the roots of the Pequi Vinagreiro tree, native to the Atlantic Forest of Bahia in the Northeast of Brazil. Their enticing and twisting forms conjure up mystical creatures which take centre stage both within the gallery and in its outdoor spaces, where they sit at the mercy of the stormy skies of a British October. A puddle had formed in a crevice of one of the exterior pieces, reinforcing the idea of their belonging to a natural environment and thus emphasising their incongruity and uprooted status within the white walls of the gallery space; a subtle reflection of the experiences of refugees around the world who have been a focus of the artist’s work in past years. Weiwei himself has led a rather nomadic existence since leaving his native China in 2015 where he had previously been arrested for speaking out about government corruption, democracy and human rights.

Political meanings are teased out of the root sculptures via their association with the other works in the exhibition. Contrasting with these natural, three-dimensional forms, born of trees that can live a thousand years, are examples of Weiwei’s work with Lego. In the first room hangs a four metre tall reproduction of the front page of the Mueller Report on the investigation into Russian interference in thee 2016 US Presidential Election. The plastic bricks are a symbol of industrialisation and consumerism whose manufacturing process is at odds with the ancient methods of ‘lost wax’ moulding and iron casting used for the root sculptures. Another seemingly abstract Lego work depicts the route taken by a migrant rescue vessel refused port at Lampedusa. Each change of direction in the line represents rejection and despair.

The third group of works in the exhibition are a pair of delicate compositions in silk and bamboo, utilizing the craftsmanship of Chinese kite-makers from the Shandong province. Hung from the ceiling, their lightness provides a balancing counterpoint to the weight of the iron roots in the centre of the room. All Fingers Must Point Down (2015) references the artist‘s earlier Study of Persepective series, whose middle fingers held up to monuments and institutions of national importance are downturned here, cascading down among disjointed creatures from ancient Chinese mythology. Weiwei’s often talks about the fragility of democracy and freedom of speech, which are not to be taken for granted. He feels a responsibility to speak out for those who have no voice.

It is no coincidence that the artist has chosen to source his materials from Brazil and to work with Brazilian curator Marcello Dantas and local craftsmen in putting together this exhibition which was initially shown at the iconic, Oscar Niemeyer designed OCA Pavillion in São Paulo. Brazil’s fate and that of the world is intimately linked to the health of the Amazon rainforest which President Jair Bolsonaro’s policies put in danger. During his election campaign he declared that he wouldn’t leave Brazil’s indigenous peoples a single square centimetre of their demarcated reserves. The crisis in the Amazon is not only an environmental one but one of human displacement. This week the president has been visiting Xi Jinping on a charm offensive in China, Brazil’s biggest trade partner. He invited Chinese investors to participate in mega-auctions of Brazilian petroleum signed an agreement on a saintary protocol for thermo-processed meat in the hopes of increasing meat exports to China, bearing in mind that the meat industry is one of the main factors in deforestation. The two presidents found they had many points of agreement, with Bolsonaro declaring support for China’s “territorial integrity“ in relation to Taiwan and showing thanks for Chinese support over what Bolsonaro saw as an international threat to Brazilian sovereignty, sparking tension with French President Macron, over the reaction to the forest fires.

With censorship in Brazil an increasingly real threat and Bolsonaro’s antagonistic relationship with the free press, it is not hard to see a link suggested in Weiwei’s work between the Chinese and the Brazilian realities. His thought provoking exhibition stresses the globality of issuses of democracy and displacement. Our roots connect us all to the same earth.

Location, Location, Location

Picture that place you call home. The furniture in decorated rooms, pictures of children and adults interacting. Those rogue posters you’ve kept on your walls from your teenage years. Those old board games tucked away in a corner, tattered by long nights spent fighting over the cards. Though separate memories may be associated with each object, it is the combination of them in a specific place, at a specific time, that allows you to conjure up that glowing feeling of home. There are laws all over the world protecting your right to that home. Your right for every single one of those objects and their specific place around the house. Were someone to come in, take any of your property with them to be displayed somewhere else, and the police would be on the case faster than you can say HURRAY. And yet, why is it that there are galleries all over the world full of these games, chairs, pictures, in a word, memories of homes, that don’t belong there? Why is the destruction of these homes not seen as the same theft?

Picture the entrance hall to any material culture museum you’ve ever been to. There’s a great chance you’ll be immediately handed a brochure with the map of the building planted across a three-way folded paper. Where that’s not the case, panels on the walls will doubtlessly inform you of your whereabouts. It seems location is of the outmost importance to those in charge of running galleries. Not unlike the furniture in your own home, there is nothing random about the place they choose to display their artefacts, context making a huge difference to the dissemination of whatever message they wish to disseminate. And yet, as you stand there, in front of those ominous glass cases, something doesn’t feel quite right. You wonder why it might be. Not the light, it’s bright enough and fits the ambience of the room. It’s definitely not the object itself, that beautiful piece of ancient Greek pottery is perfect as it is. No. It’s the location. Puzzled, you turn back to that brochure. The map says this is where it should be, there’s even a small picture of it next to the room number. And yet it’s wrong. Despite the number of hours, late night shifts and spreadsheet compilations, that went into finding the perfect location for the object within the museum, standing in front of that glass case still feels out-of-place. And then it hits you. It feels out-of-place because it is out-of-place. Someone took this piece of pottery from a corner in a far away home, and no matter how great an effort went into finding the perfect spot, that piece shall remain forever homesick so long as it stays in a glass case somewhere along a different shore.

Debate over whether historical objects currently found in what once was the metropolis of an empire should be returned to their place of origin is something which should transcend academic discussions. It is a debate among the value we place on the things that constitute our homes. On the little things that make our spaces unique, that add up to a specific material reality of our abstract identities. Countless wars have been fought over the years in the name of patriotism, nationalism, and religion. The claim for self-determination in different areas of the world has far from died down, it’s arguably stronger than ever. And debate over the relocation of countless objects should be taken as a crucial aspect of each and every one of these discussions.

Current distribution of objects within Western World galleries and Museums act as architectonic realisations of the Enlightenment’s definition of what constitutes as art and is significantly representative of culture it wishes to showcase. From chronological ordering to erroneous, or overly vague, descriptions of the treasures, these exhibitions inherently project a colonial understanding of the world. Though intended as centres for learning through the exposure to an array of different cultures, the story of how these objects came into the museum’s possession cannot, should not be neglected. Furthermore, the simple act of making the executive decision to display these stolen goods in a particular manner, places the used-to-be metropolis in a position of superiority over all other cultures. No number of exhibitions, regardless of their post-colonial ethos, can change that, so long as the objects are still being displayed within the walls of a neoclassical building, miles away from their home.

It could be argued that, despite the end result, there was nothing particularly malicious about the acquisition of these objects in the first place. Often, the individuals (archaeologists, explorers, historians) who went on expeditions seeking these objects did it out of an absolute fascination with the culture they belonged to. People like Schliemann had grown up reading Homer’s tales, wanted to see Troy for themselves, and if in the journey there was anything like Odysseus’ travels, then the better. When they were successful, they were so proud of their discoveries they wanted people back home to be a part of it. But the childish ingenuity and purity of heart associated with these discoveries ends there. The moment these treasures left their homes, the moment they left the archaeologists hands and were given in to the “culture authorities” of the metropolis, passion for different cultures became an ideological weapon of colonial superiority. Their new location stripped them of their individuality. The museum gave them a number, placed them in a glass container with others of a similar kind. Galleries aren’t the home of remembrances of the past. They are the systematic swindlers of cohesive, contextual memory, and by extent, individuality.

Location. Location. Location. While convenient for tourists to walk around when visiting an old metropolis, while enabling the preservation of treasures which may otherwise have been lost or deteriorated, we must think about the location of these objects critically. We must aim to recontextualise them, find their old homes and send them back. Allow for them to realise their full potential: that of conjuring up countless memories of lives long lost in the ripples of time. Until then, the best we can do is be critical of the manner in which they are replaced, aim to add whatever individuality we can to our experience of them. In a sense, bring them back to the life they were designed for, bring them back to the chaos that is human existence.

Photo credit: BRENAC

Remembering Toledo

0

I had been living in Oaxaca for two months when Francisco Toledo died on the 5th of September 2019.  Toledo was the ‘grandfather’ of Oaxaca’s artistic community and one of Mexico’s most well-known contemporary artists. I spent the two months prior to his death visiting museums, art galleries and other cultural institutions that were funded or created by the 79-year-old Oaxacan artist – a fact that, I was often unaware of. These places do not bear his name, and it is easy to visit Oaxaca and leave largely ignorant of the crucial role he played in this community. Toledo was a reserved man who shied away from the fame and celebrity he attracted throughout his career, avoiding interviews and photographs whenever he could. Yet as an artist, an activist and a philanthropist, he helped shape Oaxaca into the creative and rebellious city that it is today; one fiercely protective of its heritage and cultural identity.

Although records of Toledo’s childhood are vague, he reportedly spent a large part of it in Juachitán, after being born in Mexico City in 1940. He was of Zapotec heritage, one of Oaxaca’s indigenous groups. At age seventeen he studied graphic art in Mexico City at the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes. It was in the capital that he learnt a variety of artistic techniques-painting, sculpting, drawing, lithography that he would continue to use throughout his life. He gained recognition during his studies and held his first solo art shows when he was only nineteen. With the money he made he was able to move to Paris to continue his artistic education. Rufino Tamayo, a fellow artist of Zapotec heritage, took the young Toledo under his wing and helped him establish a reputation. Yet, nostalgic for his hometown and culture, he moved back to Mexico, eventually settling in Oaxaca city in the 1960s.

Toledo’s broad technical education manifests in his multidisciplinary works. Ranging from black and white lithographs, to vibrant paintings, and brazen sculptures, to painted kites; his work never tried to fit an aesthetic mould. Yet it is a love for Mexico, more specifically Oaxaca, that defines his art. While his time in Europe introduced him to expressionism and surrealism, with critics often highlighting influences of Klee in his work, he remained firmly loyal to his Zapotec heritage. He incorporated the myths and legends of the pre-Hispanic Oaxacan culture into his art, depicting images and scenes of deities and sacred animals that are almost hallucinogenic in expression.

However, Toledo’s pride for Mexico did not merely manifest in his art’s folkloric currents, but so too in its civic preoccupation. He used his art to draw attention to the inequality, corruption and brutality that too often defines Mexico. In September 2014, a group of students from a teaching college in Ayotzinapa were on their way to the town of Iguala to protest against the discrimination towards rural teachers. While returning from Iguala, they were stopped by police who opened fire on their bus. Three were killed, one was found mutilated the next day, and the other forty-three were abducted by police. An official yet highly disputed government report stated they were handed over to the local drugs gang “Guerreros Unidos” by corrupt police officers, who killed them and burned their bodies. What really happened remains unknown. Outraged by the police brutality and government corruption, Toledo took a stand by painting individual portraits of the forty-three missing students onto forty-three kites. Ayotiznapa Kites brought national and international focus to their abduction, becoming a symbol of outrage.

Toledo saw the civic role that he as an artist can and had to play. As a caretaker from Toledo’s Instituto de Artes Gráficos (IAGO) told me when I visited, it was the artist’s social commitment that ultimately came to define him. He invested his wealth into Oaxaca, helping bring the community together. He funded ‘El Centro de las Artes’ in San Agustin, converting the ex-textile factory into the first ecological centre of arts in Latin America. It continues to offer traditional artisanal techniques classes, as well as exhibition spaces, and residential stays for up and coming and established artists. The IAGO offers workshops for school children and artists alike, as does his Centro Fotográfico Álvarez Bravo. Toledo also donated grants and scholarships to people of all ages, from schoolchildren up to post-graduates. Oaxaca is the second most vulnerable state in Mexico: outside of the tourist areas, an estimated 272, 000 families are living in extreme poverty. Toledo used his wealth and fame to help make art accessible to all, to support those from poor communities, and to help bring people together through creative expression.

His commitment to Oaxaca led to his mission to empower marginalised communities. He heavily campaigned to preserve the Zapotec language. In common with the other sixty-seven recognised indigenous languages found across Mexico, Zapotec is disappearing at an alarming rate. Many in contemporary Mexican society perceive indigenous languages as impracticable, favouring Spanish and English as the languages of business. Toledo, who could speak Zapotec, recognised that losing the language meant losing an integral part of Oaxaca’s identity, and so he set out to help save it. The publishing house “Editorial Calamus”, that he funded produces books in Zapotec to help people to learn the language, as well as to create written records of it. His Centro de las Artes de San Agustin set up an award for literary creations in Zapotec in 2017. 

Toledo also recognised how the drive for profit and the draining influence of globalisation can ruin a city and its culture. When McDonald’s was on the verge of opening in the Zócalo, the city’s bustling main square where people meet up and artisans sell their crafts, Toledo organised a demonstration. He and other artists handed out tamales, a staple of Mexican cuisine, to protest the looming hordes of hamburgers. Toledo even threated to stand naked outside the proposed site for the fast-food chain until it conceded. His protest was a success and the historic centre remains free of any ‘golden arches’, encapsulating how Toledo not only brought the community together, but so too embodied the activist spirit of Oaxaca, inspiring people to be proud and protective of their city.

Upon arriving in Oaxaca, you’re immediately struck by its rebellious and artistic character: the multi-coloured walls boast bold and political street art, small lithograph workshops pepper the streets and after school young children hawk their drawings on the main street. While it may have always been a city of activism, infused with a creative energy, Toledo bolstered its spirit throughout his life. He brought Oaxaca together with his art and protected the city with it too. When I revisited the museums, libraries and galleries he helped set up, I saw black bowties adorning the doorways. These tributes were not only there to celebrate Toledo, the man and citizen, but to acknowledge what he helped create in this city. He reflected the importance of the artist as not only an individual creator, but as a political force: one part of a wider community. The people of Oaxaca will mourn the death of “el Maestro” for years to come.

CREDIT: Jorge Luis Plata/Reuters

Preview: Life Of Galileo

0

In a single book published in 1610 Galileo Galilei demonstrated the first observations of spots on the Sun, mountains on the Moon, phases of the planet Venus, the stars of the Milky Way, and the four moons of Jupiter. To a people that had long thought the Moon to be the only moon and the Sun, like all heavenly bodies, to be without spots or blemishes, this book was revolutionary. Velvet Vest Productions will retell the story of Galileo, his moons, and his world in Life of Galileo, opening Thursday, 31 October at the Keble O’Reilly Theatre.

This original translation of the 1939 play by German playwright Bertolt Brecht follows Galileo and his friends as they risk life and love for a novel vision of the world. As historical fiction, Life of Galileo focuses not only on themes of truth and belief, but also on the commercial and emotional cost of science. This Galileo is a refreshing break from the recently popular image of the cold, removed genius (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes or Alan Turing), and yet scientific progress demands its sacrifices. While Galileo may try to save his friends from the plague, for instance, his devotion to his studies ultimately demand those he loves to commit extraordinary sacrifices. These sacrifices provide an emotional undercurrent that can be felt even in the intellectual debates between Galileo and his contemporary scholars.

The performance has a minimalist, small troupe feel to it with each of the twelve actors and actresses flitting in and out of scenes, androgynously taking on a host of different characters. The actors never fully leave the stage, rather they are always lurking in the wings as if to represent the eyes of history trained on Galileo’s critical life and trial. Costuming, staging and props are also minimal, with clever uses of technology and art to convey the story visually without distracting from the emotional and intellectual significance of the text. 

One wants to pay attention especially to the text in this performance. The Brecht estate has authorised this never before performed translation of the German original. The translation was completed by a team of eight students, led by Caroline Wallace and Director James Murphy. Not only did this team translate the prose lines, they also undertook the more daunting task of translating Brecht’s original poems which introduce each new scene. These poems were then put to an original musical setting written particularly for this performance by Sam Woof McColl. The result is a series of beautifully performed short choral pieces punctuating and emphasising the larger narrative arch.

In a sense, this production of Life of Galileo feels very Hellenic. Each player’s multiple androgynous roles, their dramatic painted faces, the choral interludes all are vaguely reminiscent of the ancient Greek tragedies. Yet, the use of electric orbs to simulate models of the universe, of projections in place of traditional stagecraft, of stagecraft dominated chiefly by a single, white curtain all seem wondrously modern. It seems fitting that Galileo’s tragedy should be presented in such a confluence of ancient and modern; his own ideas were simultaneously harkening back to ancient Greek heliocentric models of the universe while paving the way towards modern astronomy, physics, engineering, and the Scientific Method as we know it today.

The relevance of Galileo’s trial against the those who refuse the evidence of their own eyes seems all too obvious in the current day of climate change deniers and flat-earthers. Yet, Life of Galileo invites us to look deeper at our quest for knowledge, to ask serious questions about the cost of science and who pays it. It’s a wonderful combination of art and science, of the past and the present, and is well worth seeing. 

Review: Hannah Gadsby’s ‘Douglas’

0

How does one follow up “Nanette”, a stand-up show about the perpetuation of trauma in comedy and the difference between humility and humiliation? Those who had watched Hannah Gadsby’s big break on Netflix (or “Nanette-flix” as she jokingly calls it) must have had this question sitting in their minds when they filed into the Oxford New Theatre on Thursday night. However, they needn’t have worried about Gadsby’s ability to deliver an equally compelling sequel, which she did in the form of “Douglas”, her new show affectionately (and badly, she noted) named after her dog.

In a very unexpected move, at the very beginning of her show, Gadsby gave the audience a blow-by-blow rundown of exactly how the show was going to go. This served two effective purposes: it managed the audience’s expectations of how this was to be different to “Nanette” in terms of content (no trauma, no self-deprecation, and more traditional, laugh-out-loud comedy), but was also a convenient vehicle for Gadsby to casually drop in the fact that she was recently diagnosed with autism, meaning she wasn’t a big fan of surprises and therefore wanted the audience to feel as comfortable and prepared as she did. This was only the first of many unconventional things Gadsby did for the rest of the evening; other antics included a PowerPoint presentation on art history delivered at breakneck speed, a passionate rant about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and a hilarious story about how she went from “teacher’s pet to teacher’s nemesis” in a single lesson when she was at school.

As a queer, autistic woman myself, I instantly fell in love with Hannah Gadsby when I first watched her performance of “Nanette” in 2018. The show has since won an Emmy and multiple other awards, and Gadsby subsequently skyrocketed to worldwide fame. With “Douglas”, Gadsby kept the promise she made in “Nanette” in that she no longer pokes fun at herself for the sake of comedy; instead, she takes a hatchet to the patriarchy with her impeccable wit, making seemingly random yet brilliant connections between things like golf, The Lactation of Saint Bernard, and the Where’s Wally? series. I found her description of her autism “like I’m the only sober person in a room full of drunk people” intensely relatable, and the sharpness with which she aimed an onslaught of puns at “the 10-20 anti-vaxxers in the room” had the entire crowd in peals of laughter. There were serious and poignant moments interspersed throughout, too, but she never lingered on them for too long to be uncomfortable, and before long, she would be off on another train of thought and taking her audience along for a wild ride.

My favourite thing about Hannah Gadsby’s comedy, which was prevalent in both “Nanette” and “Douglas”, is how she predicts exactly how her audience is going to react, sets a high bar for the response she will get, and then delivers on it with uncanny accuracy as the reaction to her performance plays out exactly as she promised. She described this as adding another layer of mirth to a metaphorical cake, because when the audience laughs at her jokes, they laugh because the joke is funny, but also because they responded exactly how she said they would and are laughing at themselves for it. Gadsby’s knowledge of comedy and how people react to it is almost scientific in its precision, and it is here that her genius lies; I simply cannot fathom the number of hours she has spent studying the nature of comedy, the devices used, and how she will turn said devices on their head. It was what made “Nanette” so brilliant, after all: that show was less of a traditionally uproarious comedy show, and more of an arrestingly powerful deconstruction of comedy itself. The fact that Gadsby is autistic also means that she has likely had to learn why and how people find things funny from scratch. I vividly remember when, as a child, I was utterly confused by deadpan humour and sarcasm because of my tendency to take things literally, as many autistic people tend to do. Learning social skills and what made people tick step-by-step was a laborious process, and I treated concepts like personal space, using my ‘inside voice’, and body language like I was a foreign species learning the language of human beings in an almost academic fashion. There is a reason why autism is often colloquially (if problematically) referred to as “wrong planet syndrome”, this was the main reason why I was so impressed by Gadsby not only mastering comedy but taking it above and beyond my expectations.

Overall, “Douglas”, like “Nanette”, was an utter masterpiece, and a showcase of a truly gifted mind. I simply cannot wait for what Hannah Gadsby has in store for us next, now that her career has well and truly taken off on the world stage.

P.S. A short commendation also to Hannah Gadsby’s introductory warm-up act, another notable lesbian comedian named Sarah Keyworth, who delivered an absolutely riotous set about fish fingers, Mooncups, and My Little Pony.

Review: The Three Sisters

0

The characters in Rudabeh Gray’s production are already clustered on stage, dressed in warm reds, greens and browns and talking quietly amongst themselves. The studio is warm and the set looks cosy, filled with books, mugs and patterned fabrics, creating an impression of comfort and shelter in the space before the audience which during the course of play will come to be characterised instead by a sense of stagnation and containment. The insularity which Chekhov develops so painstakingly is not for everyone, but this is a condition for the most part of the text, not of this production. 

As one would hope, the Three Sisters themselves give excellent performances in this production. Millie Tupper is exceptional as Irina. She is beautifully light and radiant in her initial excitement for work; she is devastating in her ultimate disappointment with life. The authenticity in the way she broke down over the realisation that she will never go to Moscow nor have the life that she dreamed of made was my standout performance of the production. Masha (Martha West) stalks around the stage with dark, fervent eyes, providing moments of relief with her wry humour and offering a sense of profound knowledge and sadness. The groundedness with which Laura Henderson Child plays Olga means that she is most striking in her anger, capable of unsettling the stage with a few words of suppressed rage. 

The male roles in this production suffer somewhat in comparison with the emotional intensity of the sisters. Andrei (Charlie Barlow) performs exasperation and exhaustion easily, but is perhaps never electric enough for his descent into mediocrity to be truly sad. Vershinin (Tom Bannon) is best in his interactions with Masha. Gray makes interesting use of multi-rolling, and praise must be given to Ruby Gold for her effortless switching between parts. She is superb as Natasha, using a twitchy physicality and perfectly pitching her voice in her rendering of control executed through the pretence of affection.

The production is pervaded with a sense of limitation which is amplified by the constant presence of the cast on stage – what begins as comfort and security becomes restriction and dissatisfaction. More could have been done with the characters hovering in the background, who had the potential to magnify moments of intrusion or insularity through simple gestures or movements. The figures lounging around the back of the stage also detract from the play’s sense of liminality as the understanding of who is coming out and in is muddied. 

There is preoccupation with knowledge, with the loss of it, the good use of it, the waste of it. There is intimacy and the shattering of it; the pain of interruption. There is nearly always someone reading. If you too are tired and dissatisfied, the performance may be a draining one. But I would place emphasis on the clarity and nuance of emotional expression which make this piece so very good. The cast is tuned in beautifully to each other and the sisters in particular interact with a wonderful familiarity. I loved the production precisely for its intensity and its self-conscious submersion.

Review: Sübverse

One could very easily mistake Sübverse, the first sketch show from comedy duo Beef Comedy, as nothing more than a random assortment of wacky sketches, featuring absurd characters doing preposterous things. Indeed, there would be no shame if this was all Sübverse offered – escapist comedy delivered by performers who are simply happy to play for laughs. However, what struck me as particularly impressive about this show, performed by Tommy Hurst and Matt Kenyon, was the incredibly subtle but recurring exploration of male insecurity across the sketches. It was only in the final minutes of the performance that the two drew the strings together and highlighted that so many of these outlandish characters were actually burdened by everyday insecurities and issues. 

The show began with Hurst and Kenyon taking on the roles of former rising stars in CBBC who hinted at a scandal which ended their careers in children’s entertainment and led them down a dark road ending at The Wheatsheaf – a weird pub for Oxford w*nkers apparently. The two would return to these roles throughout the show, often to spit venom at Tracey Beaker’s Dani Harmer – the apparent mastermind behind the duo’s fall from grace. Whilst I enjoyed hearing libellous anecdotes about the lecherous and seedy behaviour of CBBC’s Raven and Hacker T Dog, there were points at which these segments felt a little dull, repetitive and lacking in fresh material.

Hurst and Kenyon evidently enjoy keeping audiences on their toes, unsure of what is next to come. Being someone who enjoys live comedy but who breaks out in cold sweats at the mention of audience participation, I cowered in my seat as the duo dragged members of the audience on stage and forced them to play a role in their idea of a perfect party. One unfortunate soul was stuck singing two or three lyrics from ‘Take Me Home, Country Roads’ in a torturous cycle reminiscent of the punishment of Sisyphus. These sketches, while not to everyone’s tastes, gave many in the audience a great opportunity to laugh at themselves and each other. 

Other memorable scenes featured South African slam poets, devious hypnotists, public school rap battlers and mimes forced to play a role in state-sponsored propaganda. The sheer variety of characters who came and went in a matter of seconds behind a canvas sheet really demonstrated the natural quick wit of the performers and the dedication which they must have shown in rehearsals to reach this level of slickness and polish. 

The show then came to its conclusion – a musical apology to Dani Harmer (and her legal team) for the allegations made against her earlier in the show. This was initially very funny but made for a somewhat anticlimactic final sketch which dragged on and lacked much of the manic energy which made the earlier sketches so enjoyable. This problem had arisen once or twice earlier in the show but comedy is subjective and it is by no means easy to judge the point at which a sketch has exhausted its material and needs to come to an end. 

Overall, this was a strong debut which made effective use of meta-humour, absurd characters and the intimate setting of The Wheatsheaf to deliver lots of laughs and occasional moments of poignancy and reflection.