On a Growing Sense of Strictly Disquiet
Nov. 25th, 2015 04:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
danieldwilliamI'm feeling a bit of disquiet with Strictly at the moment. I'm feeling a level of artificiality on two fronts.
Firstly, the filler in between the dancing. Secondly, the adjudication and scoring.
Let's take the filler between the dancing first as it's both more a matter of opinion and less controversial.
I was watching Strictly with a friend. This was nice. We usually instant messanger each other during the show but about once a year we get to watch it together. I was bemoaning the filler. The bits of catching up with the training and practise and, and this is the bit I object to, the visits to places or people supposedly to inspire the dance or to bond the dancers. I said something about there being too much journey and my pal responded that what I was complaining about wasn't journey. To paraphrase, not journey but wank. Verily, tis truth.
Here's the nub of my objection. I'm happy with a bit of footage of training and some chat about how the couple are finding this week’s dance or working together. What's hard, what's easy. I don't object to the equivalent in the run up to a big sporting event and part of the enjoyment of the programme is to watch someone who wasn't a practised dancer become steadily better through the appliction of hard graft and skilled coaching. What I object to is vacuous fluff, for example, the couple are dancing a 1940's themed dance so we'll go and meet some actual denizens of the 40's and be "inspired". These are 90 years olds. Half of them can't remember their own names let alone what it was like to dance to Glen Miller. They're certainly in no position to demonstrate how one might interpret the D-Day landings through the medium of DANCE.
Nor do I want to see a visit to Britain's last remaining chimney sweep if the dance is based on Mary Poppins. If your dance is related to the Little Mermaid do not go swimming in Copenhagen harbour in a bikini unless, and I mean this sincerely, you are Denise van Outen or Kelly Brook. Nor, should your dance inspired by Dracula feature a visit to Slains Castle to chase each other round the ruins dressed in a corset and fangs unless, well see above. Ditto a trip to a popcorn factory for movie night. Ditto a visit to A&E if you are dancing to Goodness Gracious Me. Ditto an outing to the West Yorkshire Moors if your song of choice is by Kate Bush. Ditto, just ditto.
They don't tell me anything because I don't believe that that visit had any role in inspiring your performance, shaping your choreography or driving your effort. Mostly, they are excuse for a weak joke behind by one of Bruce Forsyth's script writers.
Unless they actually do feature Denise van Outen wrestling Kelly Brook in a windswept location to three falls, no submission I'm not interested. I'm less than interested. They take time away from what I am interested in which is seeing a dancing competition with an element of personal growth and then watching Doctor Who. We're looking at one to two minutes per couple on these things, so getting on for twenty minutes of prime time television. That's the difference between being able to watch Doctor Who on Saturday night with my son or waiting until Sunday morning. Worse, they are insincere and the distract and detract from my enjoyment of the sincere efforts of the dancers. The time spent producing them could be better spent understanding Latin (Anton I'm looking at you) or personally phone each and every one of your parents and urging them to vote twice so you avoid the dance off week after week (Jamelia).
The more serious allegations comes the Ola Jordan in what amounts to her exit interview from the show. She is reported as saying that the production team are in effect running a seeding system, matching celebrity dancers to professionals based on an assessment of the celebrities likely talent and the professionals recent ranking, basically if you had a Chris Hollins last year this year you get Paul Daniels. Personally not so bothered about this. More damningly she is alleged to allege that the judges scoring is influenced by a desire to shift the public vote and the outcome of the Strictly Electoral College in order to favour certain celebrities to the advantage of the show or the BBC.
Which, if true, basically makes a mockery of the espoused values and format of the programme.
So I'm left with a nagging suspicion that I'm watching groups of people insincerely pretending to compete in an insincere competition. It's not a happy place for a fan to be in.
Am I watching a pantomime?
Firstly, the filler in between the dancing. Secondly, the adjudication and scoring.
Let's take the filler between the dancing first as it's both more a matter of opinion and less controversial.
I was watching Strictly with a friend. This was nice. We usually instant messanger each other during the show but about once a year we get to watch it together. I was bemoaning the filler. The bits of catching up with the training and practise and, and this is the bit I object to, the visits to places or people supposedly to inspire the dance or to bond the dancers. I said something about there being too much journey and my pal responded that what I was complaining about wasn't journey. To paraphrase, not journey but wank. Verily, tis truth.
Here's the nub of my objection. I'm happy with a bit of footage of training and some chat about how the couple are finding this week’s dance or working together. What's hard, what's easy. I don't object to the equivalent in the run up to a big sporting event and part of the enjoyment of the programme is to watch someone who wasn't a practised dancer become steadily better through the appliction of hard graft and skilled coaching. What I object to is vacuous fluff, for example, the couple are dancing a 1940's themed dance so we'll go and meet some actual denizens of the 40's and be "inspired". These are 90 years olds. Half of them can't remember their own names let alone what it was like to dance to Glen Miller. They're certainly in no position to demonstrate how one might interpret the D-Day landings through the medium of DANCE.
Nor do I want to see a visit to Britain's last remaining chimney sweep if the dance is based on Mary Poppins. If your dance is related to the Little Mermaid do not go swimming in Copenhagen harbour in a bikini unless, and I mean this sincerely, you are Denise van Outen or Kelly Brook. Nor, should your dance inspired by Dracula feature a visit to Slains Castle to chase each other round the ruins dressed in a corset and fangs unless, well see above. Ditto a trip to a popcorn factory for movie night. Ditto a visit to A&E if you are dancing to Goodness Gracious Me. Ditto an outing to the West Yorkshire Moors if your song of choice is by Kate Bush. Ditto, just ditto.
They don't tell me anything because I don't believe that that visit had any role in inspiring your performance, shaping your choreography or driving your effort. Mostly, they are excuse for a weak joke behind by one of Bruce Forsyth's script writers.
Unless they actually do feature Denise van Outen wrestling Kelly Brook in a windswept location to three falls, no submission I'm not interested. I'm less than interested. They take time away from what I am interested in which is seeing a dancing competition with an element of personal growth and then watching Doctor Who. We're looking at one to two minutes per couple on these things, so getting on for twenty minutes of prime time television. That's the difference between being able to watch Doctor Who on Saturday night with my son or waiting until Sunday morning. Worse, they are insincere and the distract and detract from my enjoyment of the sincere efforts of the dancers. The time spent producing them could be better spent understanding Latin (Anton I'm looking at you) or personally phone each and every one of your parents and urging them to vote twice so you avoid the dance off week after week (Jamelia).
The more serious allegations comes the Ola Jordan in what amounts to her exit interview from the show. She is reported as saying that the production team are in effect running a seeding system, matching celebrity dancers to professionals based on an assessment of the celebrities likely talent and the professionals recent ranking, basically if you had a Chris Hollins last year this year you get Paul Daniels. Personally not so bothered about this. More damningly she is alleged to allege that the judges scoring is influenced by a desire to shift the public vote and the outcome of the Strictly Electoral College in order to favour certain celebrities to the advantage of the show or the BBC.
Which, if true, basically makes a mockery of the espoused values and format of the programme.
So I'm left with a nagging suspicion that I'm watching groups of people insincerely pretending to compete in an insincere competition. It's not a happy place for a fan to be in.
Am I watching a pantomime?
