Strictly 2009 will be less about dancing, more about entertainment
Strictly Come Dancing news now, and judge Arlene Phillips (66) is to be replaced with Alesha Dixon (30). It's sexism, says Mark Lawson. Which is odd, given they're replacing a woman with a woman - if anything, it's surely ageism. But the outraged coverage misses the implied radical shift in the programme's ethos: the dancing will be less important.
Until now, the Strictly format hasn't changed much: couples dance, judges judge their ability to dance, the public do whatever they like. This worked ok until last year, when the John Sergeant affair devolved into hysterical tedium. He couldn't dance, the judges told him so, and a vocal proportion of the public accused them of bullying and elitism. It all boiled down to one question: is Strictly a dance competition or an entertainment show?
Obviously, it's both. Everyone treats it differently, and the question has no objective answer. But in all situations the judges have to be there to judge the dancing, or what's the point of them? Their expertise is in dancing - if they start judging entertainment, taking into account people's age / how-hard-they're-trying / etc., they're no more informed than the general public, and so don't deserve an important vote. Whether competition or entertainment, that the judges value skill is, I think, a crucial foundation of the show.
It's important because the competitors know the judges' marks are the most important factor. All competitors need the votes of the judges and the public, but the latter are notoriously unpredictable. The judges, though, are the opposite: you get good marks by dancing well. So, the competitors learn to dance. Sure, plenty work hard on the wow factor, but the footwork comes first - without it, they'll be slated. And I like this about the show: it's the only reality TV programme I watch precisely because dancing is difficult. The competitors have to work very hard, for a long time, to achieve good results. I admire that. But replacing Arlene changes this entire interaction.
Arlene was a dancing expert, but Alesha isn't. She can't be there to judge dancing ability: she must be there to judge entertainment value. She's the public's representative on the panel, and essentially there to stick up for the John Sergeants of the next series.
But if the judges are watching for entertainment as well as dancing ability, the competitors' priorities change. Putting on a good show becomes as, if not more, important than the dancing. Yes, there'll still be three judges watching for skill, but Bruno's capricious, and Alesha plus (much of) the audience will be after something else.
Whether you think this is a good thing is up to you. Hell, for all I know the show may be better for it. But it's still a fundamental change: Strictly will be less about dancing, more about the whole performance. And when Alesha stands up for the entertaining dancers, the other three judges will appear curmudgeonly and old-fashioned: exactly how the John Sergeant fans portrayed them. That's a cheap trick, and unfair on them.
Personally, I find this less interesting. Thinking up novel ways to entertain an audience is an entirely different skill (and one that could be outsourced pretty easily). I like that competitors put in huge amounts of effort, and it would be disappointing to see people's hard work trumped by a flashy gimmick or comedy moment. I'm the polar opposite of the viewers complaining about John Sergeant.
I can actually understand the BBC's motivation. Alesha's presence should avoid a repeat of last year's shenanigans, as she'll break the judge's united 'bullying' front. Alesha is also extremely easy on the eye, which should help bring in the younger viewers1. And I can even see why Arlene should be the one to go - the head of BBC1 said:
It was not an easy decision to take. When I looked at the four people we had, Bruno is the joker, Craig is the Simon Cowell of the show and Len is the head judge. Arlene has elements of all of them, but when you look at it, Arlene was the obvious one to change.
I can buy that - if you have to lose one, you lose least if it's her. I'll let them off the ageism/sexism charges. But at the same time the BBC1 controller admits Strictly is shifting from dance-competition to overall-entertainment-show:
Strictly is not the Olympics for ballroom dancing, it's an entertainment show. Alesha has lived through it, [but] we've still got all the experts who understand the technicalities of the Argentinian tango. Strictly will feel like an event on the channel that you haven't seen before.
That's a shame. I adore Strictly, and I hope it doesn't become Britain's Got Dancing Talent. I like that it's difficult. I like that it's an unpredictable mixture of competition and entertainment, but I liked that the dancing was always the top priority. I hope the changes don't spoil it.
- I love that the head of BBC1 said "The average age of the BBC1 viewer is 52, so why would I take older women off the channel?" - I think 52-year-old men still want to see attractive young women. [↩]
A Strictly analogy you may not have heard before
This dude wants to get the voting figures for the last series of Strictly. He's quite anxious about it:
Former North Cornwall MP, Lord Tyler, is engaged in a fierce exchange of letters with the BBC over the disclosure of the number of telephone votes in the controversial semi-final of Strictly Come Dancing.
The botched semi-final saw three, rather than two, couples progress to the finals last month and the incensed Lib Dem peer wants to find out exactly how many votes were cast for each competitor.
Right. The maths wasn't hard to understand on the night, but whatever. Thing is, the BBC aren't keen on releasing actual numbers, so as not to embarrass the participants1. Lord Tyler is unimpressed by this.
Tell you what, before you read on, try to guess what Lord Tyler thinks this is analogous to. Remember, this is the BBC not releasing phone-vote numbers, because people might be embarrassed. I'll give you a clue: it's not Hitler.
Had a go?
Lord Tyler said: "These are standards of transparency more resonant of Zimbabwe than of a democratic country with effective freedom of information rules. Even Mugabe eventually had to release voting figures once the election was over."
Right. Good. I think someone needs a sandwich and a lie down. Weirdly, the guy's TheyWorkForYou page has no indication of nutjobbery.
- which it would in this case, because I have concluded that every woman in the country hated Lisa Snowdon for Reasons That Are There And Very Important But Cannot Be Explained, despite her clearly being the best (I am extrapolating from a few (bizarre) conversations here). So her numbers would likely be very low. [↩]
Strictly final
w00t! I do enjoy the Strictly final. I always end up emotionally investing in one of the couples, and have to hide behind a cushion during their routines. And don't even mention the final - endless - 'moment of truth'. My favourite has always won, but it's a bit more open tonight. My bias going into the show is Lisa, but she's probably the underdog against Rachel...I'll try to judge by the dancing alone, though. That said, Lisa's showdance is apparently to I Would Do Anything For Love, and you know me and power ballads...
Halfway point: ZOMG. My girl pulled it out of the bag - 80/80! But I'm worried. The public's votes last week obviously put Tom at the top and Lisa at the bottom...if they do the same this week she's out. Which would be awful, as she got a perfect score. Everyone vote Lisa!
End of show: Hmph. The public votes were a reversal of the judges', so Lisa went out first. Then came the two big showdances. Tom's was undeniably better than Rachel's, but I'm not a fan of the smarmy Fred Astaire swingy arms / silly expressions / style - it's forced and annoying. That's just me, though, and it certainly seems to be the minority opinion. To be fair, that's been Tom's schtick the whole way through, and if that floats your boat I'm sure it was lovely. So the result was a bit flat for me, but then I've had five years of the 'correct' result, so it had to happen sometime 
Christine out of Strictly
I'm sad to see Christine go, but I think it was the right decision. The other four dancers are so ridiculously good it would have been unfair to knock one out in her stead. And reaching the final five is no mean feat - it's not like she left before her time or anything. Still, I'll miss watching her dance - I don't think I've ever seen anyone look so happy on the dancefloor, and that smile was a thing to behold.
A few mental jottings from this weekend:
- Did anyone else find Lisa and Brendan's Amy Winehouse cha-cha totally bizarre? The dance was good, but it didn't seem to fit the music. It was like I had the tv muted and the stereo on.
- Best quickstep ever from the professionals on Sunday. I like its usual elegance, but a bit of attitude made it much more fun.
- I liked it when Len said 'cheese' and the ten audience members who'd watched It Takes Two fell about laughing, to the confusion of everyone else. I wonder if 'smorgasboard' was a similar challenge.
I still don't have a favourite. The final four are all very good, but none have grabbed me yet. I'm waiting for the Holy Shit Moment: in series 4 it was Mark & Karen's Argentine Tango, and last year it was Alesha & Matthew's Viennese Waltz, but this time, despite the high standard, nothing's made me sit up and take notice. I'm thinking it might come from Lisa, though. Tom & Austin have been pulling the same schtick all series, and Rachel literally couldn't get any better, technically. But Lisa, after starting from not-so-great, has improved enough to be their equal, and I'm hoping she'll properly take them on with something remarkable.
The Sergeant Situation
The circumstances surrounding John Sergeant's decision to pull out of Strictly are increasingly odd. I didn't appreciate them before the last couple of days, and I now see two bizarre points I think are worth noting: one from the media, and one from John himself.
Until Wednesday, I understood this story. Here's the gist of the pre-Wednesday furore: is Strictly a dancing competition or an entertainment show? If the former, John should clearly be voted off. If the latter, maybe not.
Personally, I see the show as a dancing competition with error bars. The idea is that celebrities learn to dance, and the best progress. But it's flexible, and the capricious nature of public voting means sometimes you end up with Emma Bunton or Gethin Jones prematurely exiting the comptition, while their slightly-less-able counterparts survive. I like this drama of the unexpected, but it can go too far: in the first series Christopher Parker made it to the final at the expense of far, far superior competitors. I didn't like that - I didn't think it was in the spirit of the show. But that's me. If others watch it with less interest in dancing and more interest in the personalities, I don't know how to argue. I don't understand why they'd find that interesting, but it's not like the BBC has a written statement of What Strictly Means.
So John's progess was pretty frustrating to me, especially when Cherie exited last weekend. But when John pulled out my initial reaction was disappointment. It's sad he decided to sidestep the rules of the show1 and I was interested in his reasons. He said he was mainly worried he'd win, which would be be 'a joke too far'. Fair enough. I didn't think he would win - I have more faith in the voting public - but if that's his opinion, ok. I'd rather he hadn't, but it's probably better for the show, as I enjoy it, for him to be gone.
Then a couple of things turned me around. My grandmother said everyone should vote for John, and she doesn't watch the show. My Dad runs a committee of, um, late-middle-aged, quite-often-grumpy, probably-conservative people - not your average Strictly viewers - yet last weekend they were arguing similarly (Dad tried to argue back, but didn't get far). Paul has a post criticising the judges for not understanding the nature of democracy. These are just anecdotes, but suggest that John Sergeant's appeal is greater than I anticipated. But that's not the most interesting part. I wanted to know why these people were such fans, and a little questioning revealed the answer: they think he's being bullied by the judges.
This was a total surprise. I like to think I understand the Strictly universe. I am, after all, an enormous fan - put it this way: I'm aware the website has fixed-camera videos2 of all the dances. I've missed maybe two episodes of Claudia3 this series. I know what's going on. Except, apparently, I don't. Because it turns out the tabloids have been victimising him. These judges, they'd have you believe, are evil and all-powerful, and are being positively beastly to John Sergeant, who seems like such a nice man. From the tabloid description you'd think the judges have been organising rallies and funding anti-Sergeant leaflet campaigns.
It's like these people don't watch the show at all. Anyone who's seen it more than once would know Craig, Arlene, Len & Bruno wouldn't hurt a fly. Their 'nasty' comments are exactly the kind of thing they've been saying for six series. Their job is to judge the dancing, and they regularly take pains to remind competitors the criticisms are nothing personal. They all view the show as a dancing competition, and when asked whether John should have been voted out, say yes. That's it. The idea that this demonic quartet are wielding malevolent power to destroy a nice old man is crazy. John Sergeant has dealt with far worse, and clearly - from his appearances on It Takes Two - couldn't have cared less what the judges say. He seemed to be enjoying himself tremendously. Yet still this notion he's being treated badly. There's a little of the Ross/Brand affair going on here: do all these people think they're standing up for an old dude who's been insulted?
With this in mind, maybe John was right. Maybe he picked up on the support of the uninformed masses, and realised he might actually win. Now I have a bit more knowledge of the wider picture, I can understand this motivation. So maybe it did make sense for him to go. But there's something else that puts a spanner into this argument.
The other oddity came during John's not-widely-seen4 appearance on Wednesday's It Takes Two. While giving his reasons, he said continuing would be like walking into a trap: if he won it would be bittersweet, but going out in a dance-off would be 'humiliating'.
That annoyed me, as it's a) ignorant and b) pathetic. Ignorant because nobody has ever been humiliated in a dance-off: the producers of the show make damn sure everyone gets properly treated. The audience regularly give standing ovations to weaker couples, and to think that John and Kristina, with the public support they've had, would be embarrassed in front of the nation is just silly. It's hard to believe he actually thinks this, but if he does, and it genuinely played into his decision to leave, it's a bit pathetic. As Loulabelle says, every other celebrity has to face a dance-off, that's just part of the show. Sure, they're stressful if you don't want to leave - who hasn't felt for Lisa and Rachel in the last couple of weeks - but John clearly wouldn't be bothered about being sent home. It's a bizarre thing for him to say, and completely incongruous next to his supposed just-in-it-for-the-laughs attitude up to now.
And he's getting a special send-off dance on this evening's show: he'll perform a waltz, totally without risk or (presumably) comment from the judges. I'm not particularly impressed by this - if he wants to leave he can leave, but I don't see why he should get a swansong.
So on the one hand I'm giving him credit for being astute enough to pick up on the popular vibe. But in the same breath he's saying he can't face the humiliation of a dance-off. That doesn't fit. I don't know what to think, but I'm increasingly glad he's gone.
Right, that's all I have to say except for go Christine5! The quality's never been so high, but I'm confident she'll pull through. Tonight's show, apart from the John & Kristina bit, should be excellent.
- especially as this means another two-person final [↩]
- from which the dances look totally different. Really. When I was at the live studio I agreed with everything the judges said, and I think it's because you can see the dances unhindered. [↩]
- little bit in love with Claudia [↩]
- it started half an hour early, and not many people knew [↩]
- little bit in love with Christine too. Come the inevitable day when I must decide between Claudia and Christine, I have no idea what I'll do [↩]
Strictly exit for Cherie
Yesterday's Strictly was stunning - seven of the eight couples performed blisteringly well, a standard far higher than any other series at this stage, and it's certainly the closest competition yet. But it's being somewhat spoiled by the public voting for John & Kristina on sympathy alone. Last week a relatively weak couple were voted off in their stead, but tonight it was the opposite, and it's a shame.
I don't know what you do about weird public votes. Obviously the show isn't purely a dance competition, and it probably wouldn't be as engaging if the public didn't have a say, but everything falls apart if the public don't stick (within reason) to the spirit of the show. The couples all work incredibly hard - that's part of the reason I enjoy Strictly so much - and to ignore all that in favour of personality is a) mean and b) pointless. Who benefits?
I like John Sergeant, but I think he's going to come unstuck this week. The dancers, the judges, the studio audience and even Bruce/Tess were clearly appalled by Cherie leaving the competition. I don't think John's joking around will work so well, and I'll be interested to see how he handles it.
Still. Bloody amazing dancing last night. Rachel & Vincent's rumba will forever be known as that rumba: total filth. I'm with Craig1 - I loved it. I'm still backing Christine, though.
- who's somehow stealing the show atm [↩]
Strictly Come Pole Dancing
TVScoop has videos from Argentine and Spanish versions of Strictly Come Dancing, and there's fire and pvc and motorbikes and pole-dancing and exposed chesticles and oh my. Len would not approve. Craig would.
Countdown to Strictly
It's not that I'm obsessed with Strictly Come Dancing, it's that...
er
Anyway, today they launched the publicity machine for the new series. Most exciting. It starts on the 20th September, and there are two extra couples this year - although three new professional dancers, as Nicole Cutler is bizarrely missing - so it'll run 14 weeks. Hooray!
The Sunday results show is back, and is extended to 45mins. I was a bit unsure about the Sunday show last year - it's all filmed on the Saturday night, so it can feel a bit false when Bruce / Tess use ambiguous time references. And I have to be careful to avoid the Strictly sites on Sunday, as the studio audience hit the forums on Saturday night and report the results. But it did win me over eventually, as they put on a good show, with a decent professional routine every week (and I've no idea where they find time to rehearse those). The main site is also explicitly pointing out that Sunday isn't a live show, which is a step up.
It Takes Two is also returning on weeknights, with Claudia presenting (yay!). Thankfully I'm not so obsessed with the show that I watch...
Anyway, all this means that from mid-September to Christmas there'll be Strictly every day. THIS IS AWESOME.
Today was also the first official reveal of the celebrities. First jumbled thoughts:
- Totally unfair initial impressions suggest there are at least four very strong couples, but you couldn't write any of them off, other than possibly John+Kristina. It seems a little more balanced than previous years, and could be quite the scrap.
- I'm glad Karen has a possible contender this year. I like Karen.
- Gotta feel sorry for Anton. Gillian Taylforth isn't that old, obviously, but is probably a bit above the average. As ever.
- I've had complaints about the dearth of young male totty. I pointed out Sam Strachan (I think he has a real name, but that's who he is in my head), and was informed that this does not compare to Rachel Stevens, Christine Bleakley and Jodie Kidd. Fair enough. Can't bring myself to care, though.
- Christine Bleakley is going to have a hell of a workload if she goes on presenting The One Show. I think she's well positioned for the insanity of the public vote, though - I mean, who doesn't like Christine? (not like that, although yes, but she's generally very endearing on The One Show. Not that I watch...oh, who am I kidding).
- I note they're all ex-Eastenders actors this time around. I imagine the two can't coexist, as every Eastenders dancer so far has left the show the same winter.
- What's going on with the Heather Small / Brian Fortune photo on the contestants site? Couldn't he have picked her up or something?
Tickets are randomly selected via a lottery, thank goodness. I'd better update my previous posts on the subject, or I'll be inundated.
23 days to go.
Intermediate jiving
We went to an intermediate jive class on Monday. It wasn't our usual venue, but I admit to being fairly confident about my ability to keep up, as the jive has generally come fairly naturally over the past few years.
Ha.
They used a different timing. Where we go quick-and-quick quick-and-quick quick quick, they go slow slow quick quick. It was like a different bloody dance. Lynsey adapted without a problem. I was pitiful.
The thing about getting to an intermediate dancing level is that you begin to do things automatically: muscle memory takes over and you can even forget what comes next then find yourself doing it anyway. This leaves you free to concentrate on arm movements etc.. Which is what we did. Except I couldn't concentrate on steps and arms simultaneously. I got a bit pissed off before realising this was pathetic. Sorry, Lynsey!
I've been practicing around the kitchen. Don't want to make a fool of myself again next week. The bright side is I won six lessons for me and a partner in a competition last year, so it's not costing us anything.
Meanwhile, here is what jive looks like done properly:
See look, they go quick-and-quick quick-and-quick quick quick.
Yay Alesha!
Definitely the closest final yet. I thought they were neck and neck after the first half, so it was really down to the show dances. Matt's was probably technically better, but it just didn't do much for me - the style of the music and costume was good, but it didn't have the extra spectacle I wanted from a show dance. Alesha's was, to be fair, a little messy once or twice1, and I suspect the final lift went wrong, but I still preferred the powerful performance and style overall. It's just a shame she didn't completely blow everybody away with a Darren & Lilia / Mark & Karen style final dance, though, and I'm sure she could have. I can see how you could argue the other way based on tonight's show only, but imho there's no doubt that talent-wise Alesha was the fair winner.
No more proper Strictly for 9 months. What am I going to talk to people about now?!
Update: I take it back. Just watched the show dances again (shut up) and Alesha's messiness was mostly camera angles - what looked like an imbalance was just the supporting arm while the other was hidden from view (directing such things must be a nightmare). Not spot-on perfect, but better than I thought; still not sure about the final lift though. Somebody pointed out that Matt didn't move much in his, which is true but a bit mean - he was still pretty damn sharp. Would that I were that good. Am in the mood for dancing now. Shame it's 2320.
- although the camera angle can trick you in this regard - I didn't think the earlier ballroom dances were shown to their best effect [↩]
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
