...That's the average day for a runner on SCD. I found the behind the scenes segment today mind-blowing, and it was great to see that the celebs seem to appreciate how much the production runners hold the show together. Having dabbled a little in a stage management myself (tiny scale in comparison!), I find myself fascinated by the logistics of how a show is put together, and I loved this little insight into a Saturday behind the scenes at Strictly.
Ravioli - I don't think I have ever seen a couple so lacking in chemistry...I was immensely irritated by Aliona's rolling of her eyes while Rav was talking, and of her criticisms of the judges. I think she mis-judged the standard of choreography needed for her celeb and for the show completely, and needs to show a little more self-awareness. It is interesting to see that her profile on the BBC SCD site emphasises that she is youngest dancer this decade to turn pro in the States. It is a shame that the BBC seem to put the pursuit of younger, sexier dancers ahead of actual ability. And here I am not talking solely about dance ability, but the ability to teach and mentor a novice and to choreograph to their strengths.
I have often thought that the pros best suited to SCD are the slightly older pros - those who have achieved all that they want to achieve in the dance world, and so have nothing left to prove in their own dancing; those who the experience to deal with celebs with confidence problems or lack of ability; and those who have the maturity to deal with beginner dancers who may be a novice on the dance floor, but who already have a level of success and acclaim in their own field. Lilia, Darren, Karen, Matt Cutler, Erin and Ian have these qualities in abundance, and I would hate to see them frozen out of future series in favour of the young and more glamourous.
And so to the judging.....Craig probably deserved a 7 for his outfit tonight, but although articulate as ever, didn't really address the problems with the leader board.
On SCD the individual marks are really only for the pantomime aspect ("10 - that is so overmarked, it is so unfair; 3 - never that was worth at least a 6") that get us all talking and voting. It is the position on the leaderboard that is all important. I can honestly say that I have only disagreed with the leaderboard twice - when Bruno gave an undeserved 10 to Kelly and Brendan, and when all judges underscored Austin and Erin's A/S in last year's quarter finals. It takes quite a bit of skill to get the leaderboard right, and generally I think the judges do a pretty fair job.
But this weekend's board was pretty out of kilter, largely as a result of some bizarre scoring for Lynda and some undermarking of Chris and Phil. I don't want to turn this into an Alesha bashing session, but part of the problem is that she is still bedding in. The former panel had worked together for so long, that they could largely predict what the individual scores needed to be, to get a fair leaderboard. They may not always have agreed with each other, but at least they understood where the scores were coming from.
Alesha is scoring quite unpredictably, and although she is using a very safe range of paddles (largely 5 to 7, with the odd 8 thrown in), she is not using them in a very consistent way.
The other wild card is of course Bruno. The reality is that it is really Bruno who has taken over the Arlene role, and he is actually doing a pretty good job of balancing his customary eccentricity with a new emphasis on technical critique. But his scores don't seem to yet be matching up with his new role, leaving a certain unpredictability there. Len and Craig seem to be attempting to level the scores, but without knowing quite which way the other two will jump.
The other new factor is of course the slight difference in scoring with a tie. It is of course fairer to those stuck behind a tie, but when the tie happens near the bottom of the leader board, it can (as it did on Saturday) throw the points out of whack. In the old system, Joe, as bottom of the leaderboard, would have received 1 point from the judges; this Saturday he received 3. Maybe the judges need to do a little more to differentiate between the bottom couples, instead of the "lumping together" that we saw on Saturday. Too many ties at the bottom will make a mess of the points position.
It has been traditional wisdom that the couples in the mid table have been those most in danger. But this year, the mid table couples (Chris, Phil, Ricky G and Natalie) are actually reasonably good dancers, have a journey in front of them, and are entertaining both on and off the dance floor. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the public vote is mainly going to them, with the sympathy vote coming in next, and the "leaders" actually coming in last with the public vote. Last year, two very popular men, both good dancers, were pulling in the vote for the top end of the leader board, but I just don't see that happening this year. Could make it very interesting in a few weeks time as the field narrows - could there even be a Ricky/Ali dance off by about week 9 or 10?
As for this week, I am kind of feeling a shock exit coming on. A certain "popular" couple hit a bad dance (a ballroom expert dealing with a salsa perhaps), a lack of sympathy vote, a problem for the BBC solved?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment