If he needs a nurse/help mate to get him through the next few days, let me be the first in the queue.
I just love the way that he comes across on TV as funny and self-deprecating, but I really feel that he loves dancing! His description of his quickstep as "Ring a ring a roses" was hilarious, but his knowledge of some of the more technical dance terms reveals how seriously he is taking it.
Obviously the salsa is going to be a real challenge for him, but his torso and arm action is looking pretty promising, and even if he languises at the bottom of the leaderboard this week, I think his fan base will get him through!
I had mixed feelings about the return of Len's Masterclass, but the new twist of "recreating" famous moments from iconic Strictly dances does give it a slight new twist. It is just proof though that sadly, not everyone is born to dance. I know that Claudia hams it up like a good 'un, but she has no rhythm, no sense of left or right or weight transference, and precious little balance. I am not sure if she is even more dance-challenged than Tess Daly!
Interesting interview with Zoe and James to round off the programme. It turns out that she improvised a section of her paso, because she completely messed up that section. Proof that she does indeed have a hard time remembering the steps, but promising in that she stayed in character, on time, and had the gumption to just blag it to get in place for the final move. I know that Alesha and Matthew had a couple of "blagging it" moments in their Strictly run, but the first came in the Foxtrot, when Matthew could lead, and the second in their Paso, which was very near the end of the competition. For Zoe to be able to extricate herself from her mess in only her third dance shows that their is some natural talent in there somewhere, and James needs to nurture it as best he can!
Friday, 9 October 2009
Thursday, 8 October 2009
"It's not just dance....
...you have got to get out there and entertain, that is what dancers do".
Never a true word, spoken by Ricky Groves.
Loved both Erin and Ricky on last night's ITT. Erin seems to much more laid back this series, and her sense of humour is coming across well. Ricky is taking it much more seriously than the "clown" persona would have us believe, and last night came across as very astute and analytical. I liked the glasses as well!
The next segment was the return of shouty salsa man and his partner, and I rather liked him in commentating rather than teaching mode. Lots of good information (I hope he is wrong about Chris!), and really looking forward to seeing Brian and Ali's salsa. Maybe a proper salsa for once on Strictly - and could it be the first 10 of the series?
Bit perplexed about why Laila and Anton are doing foxtrot though... a salsa would surely have seen them near the bottom of the leaderboard, and a tail off in public voting would have seen an end to the whole debate that has been raging all week. I can see why the powers that be want more lively upbeat salsas in the show than elegant foxtrots, but Natalie and Vincent could have done foxtrot instead of salsa, and Laila and Anton the reverse. It's all a conspiracy I tell you!
Never a true word, spoken by Ricky Groves.
Loved both Erin and Ricky on last night's ITT. Erin seems to much more laid back this series, and her sense of humour is coming across well. Ricky is taking it much more seriously than the "clown" persona would have us believe, and last night came across as very astute and analytical. I liked the glasses as well!
The next segment was the return of shouty salsa man and his partner, and I rather liked him in commentating rather than teaching mode. Lots of good information (I hope he is wrong about Chris!), and really looking forward to seeing Brian and Ali's salsa. Maybe a proper salsa for once on Strictly - and could it be the first 10 of the series?
Bit perplexed about why Laila and Anton are doing foxtrot though... a salsa would surely have seen them near the bottom of the leaderboard, and a tail off in public voting would have seen an end to the whole debate that has been raging all week. I can see why the powers that be want more lively upbeat salsas in the show than elegant foxtrots, but Natalie and Vincent could have done foxtrot instead of salsa, and Laila and Anton the reverse. It's all a conspiracy I tell you!
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
"Chris Hollins - I could eat you!"
Yes, Claudia, I feel exactly the same!
It's only half way through week 4, and so far we have two injuries (Tuffer and Jade) and the controversy over whether Anton should step down/be sacked. What happens if more than one person drops out this series - do we have a 1 couple final? Or even a 0person final?
In a week full of gloom, Chris and Ola were able to steer SCD to calmer waters! Perfect couple for an ITT interview - good chemistry, lots of fun, working hard, and seeing results. I have never seen the humorous side of Ola before "He is counting really well now to 8!), and really cannot appreciate the softer, more caring version we are seeing this year. As for Chris - bless - 38, and between houses so back living with his mum and dad (Chris, if you are stuck, I have room at mine for a little one!) and reduced to ringing up his mum to apologise for missing dinner "Sorry I'm late, I'm dancing". I hope he gets his confidence back for the salsa on Saturday because this couple deserve to go so much further.
Another choreography corner with Karen - yay! Clear, concise, interesting and articulate. I like the way that she didn't shy away from the questions regarding Aliona's choreography, but explained what wrong without putting the boot in.
I also liked the way that she highlighted that beneath the great entertainer, the consummate clown that is Ricky Groves, there is some solid technical work going on there, that should stand him in good stead. She highlighted the way that Erin left him on his own for sections of the Paso, and how much confidence he has therefore developed in terms of moving on his own and getting the timing right.
Karen also made interesting comparisons between Anton and Ian's choreography - the one concentrating on quality, the other on performance - and the gamble between pleasing the technical judges and grabbing the audience's attention. She also talked about the different psychologies of the celebs - Jade, a sportswoman, wanting to be pushed, Laila, an actress, maybe wanting to stay within a comfort zone - and the importance of tailoring the choreography, not just to the physical ability of the celebs, but their mental strengths as well.
Turning now to Jade - I have every sympathy for her injury and desperately want her to look after herself, not just for the show, but for her long term career. I am puzzled by their relationship - at first, I thought it was a BBC edit, but now I am not sure whether there is a genuine "niggle" with the relationship. Ian has previously come across as the nicest, most supportive pro on SCD, but there were a couple of occasions when he seemed to be biting back.
Jade claimed that her quickstep had only seen her go at 50% of her pace, and we should see her go at 100% - to which Ian was quick to say "There isn't room"; Jade began talking about her injury and how "her back didn't like going into that position, because of a previous fracture and a burst disc" and Ian's rejoinder was "It would have been nice to know!". I must admit it did sound as though Jade was directing the "blame" for the incident at Ian's door, and he was having to leap to defend himself.
Anyway, I have a feeling that they may not be polling too well among the public, and if the injury sees Jade and Ian finish a little further down the leaderboard than usual, they could be a shock dance off contender. Hope not, because I had Jade pegged as my fave female at an early stage, and I would like to see Ian back at quarter/semi final stage.
It's only half way through week 4, and so far we have two injuries (Tuffer and Jade) and the controversy over whether Anton should step down/be sacked. What happens if more than one person drops out this series - do we have a 1 couple final? Or even a 0person final?
In a week full of gloom, Chris and Ola were able to steer SCD to calmer waters! Perfect couple for an ITT interview - good chemistry, lots of fun, working hard, and seeing results. I have never seen the humorous side of Ola before "He is counting really well now to 8!), and really cannot appreciate the softer, more caring version we are seeing this year. As for Chris - bless - 38, and between houses so back living with his mum and dad (Chris, if you are stuck, I have room at mine for a little one!) and reduced to ringing up his mum to apologise for missing dinner "Sorry I'm late, I'm dancing". I hope he gets his confidence back for the salsa on Saturday because this couple deserve to go so much further.
Another choreography corner with Karen - yay! Clear, concise, interesting and articulate. I like the way that she didn't shy away from the questions regarding Aliona's choreography, but explained what wrong without putting the boot in.
I also liked the way that she highlighted that beneath the great entertainer, the consummate clown that is Ricky Groves, there is some solid technical work going on there, that should stand him in good stead. She highlighted the way that Erin left him on his own for sections of the Paso, and how much confidence he has therefore developed in terms of moving on his own and getting the timing right.
Karen also made interesting comparisons between Anton and Ian's choreography - the one concentrating on quality, the other on performance - and the gamble between pleasing the technical judges and grabbing the audience's attention. She also talked about the different psychologies of the celebs - Jade, a sportswoman, wanting to be pushed, Laila, an actress, maybe wanting to stay within a comfort zone - and the importance of tailoring the choreography, not just to the physical ability of the celebs, but their mental strengths as well.
Turning now to Jade - I have every sympathy for her injury and desperately want her to look after herself, not just for the show, but for her long term career. I am puzzled by their relationship - at first, I thought it was a BBC edit, but now I am not sure whether there is a genuine "niggle" with the relationship. Ian has previously come across as the nicest, most supportive pro on SCD, but there were a couple of occasions when he seemed to be biting back.
Jade claimed that her quickstep had only seen her go at 50% of her pace, and we should see her go at 100% - to which Ian was quick to say "There isn't room"; Jade began talking about her injury and how "her back didn't like going into that position, because of a previous fracture and a burst disc" and Ian's rejoinder was "It would have been nice to know!". I must admit it did sound as though Jade was directing the "blame" for the incident at Ian's door, and he was having to leap to defend himself.
Anyway, I have a feeling that they may not be polling too well among the public, and if the injury sees Jade and Ian finish a little further down the leaderboard than usual, they could be a shock dance off contender. Hope not, because I had Jade pegged as my fave female at an early stage, and I would like to see Ian back at quarter/semi final stage.
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
A weighty issue
There has been some debate recently about Natalie Cassidy and her participation in SCD, with several critics suggesting that Natalie’s figure will render her incapable of achieving her full dance potential, and hinting that Natalie represents a template for all fuller-figured female dancers.
So what is the truth behind this? Is dance only for the young and slender with perfectly formed limbs? Is anybody who happens to weigh more than 8 stone to be automatically deemed lacking in grace and fluidity?
Dance is, of course, like all other aspects of showbiz, a lookist/sizeist industry. I have heard of dancers being rejected at auditions for all sorts of reasons – too tall, too short, too big, too “individual-looking”, too sweaty etc etc. Very often a dancer needs to meet a particular commercial ideal of beauty and size, as well as attaining high standards in dance. Sometimes that may be in keeping with the choreographer’s vision of the piece; in other cases it may be the producer’s view of the type of dancers that West End/Broadway audiences will pay to see on stage. But this is no different to the music, TV and film industries.
The musical (and film) “Chorus Line” is a perfect illustration of this. One of the auditionees is a young, newly “enhanced” dancer, Val, who sings a song detailing her previous failures at auditions. During the song, Val explains that she experienced rejection after rejection, until she finally sneaked a peak at her score card to reveal the verdict, (and the title of the song) “Dance: Ten; Looks: Three”. It was the moment of truth for her and so she:
“Left the theatre, called the doctor for my appointment to buy
Tits and ass
Bought myself a fancy pair
Tightened up the derriere
Did the nose, and all that goes with it”.
And suddenly she started getting booked for national tours. Fame at last!
‘Twas ever thus in the dance world. Why do we spend so much time pre-show “putting on the face”? Dance is such a physical activity, that on the one hand, it seems ridiculous to devote so much time to hair and make-up, when hair styles go awry, and make-up starts to run under the stage lights. Why do we wear elaborate costumes that look great to the audience, but risk tripping us up, getting caught in the scenery (or other dancers), or otherwise malfunctioning, when practice wear is so much more, well, practical? It is because dancers are not just selling their skill as a dancer; they are selling the dream of the performer.
A well-known instructor, whose workshops I have regularly attended, advises her students to “take care of all the things that are down to you”. Meaning that, on stage, things can and do go wrong, and you have no control over what happens in a live performance. Therefore, if you stay on top of the things that are down to you – paint your nails, take care of your costume, slick the lip stick on – then you can keep smiling, keep the audience believing in the dream, and they might not notice the chaos that is unfolding around you!
So looks and image are an established part of the professional dance world. But what about weight? The extreme end of the scale is obviously the ballet world. I have been privileged to go on a backstage tour of an English National Ballet performance, and to actually sit and watch company class. Seeing the dancers in class was a shock. They were no longer bathed in the rosy glow of stage lighting, nor resplendent in full make-up and costume, as they are during performance. Instead, dressed in simple tights and misshapen T-shirts, bare faces, under the glare of normal electric lighting, many of them looked fragile, pale and bony. Our guide then gave us a tour of the wardrobe department, and proudly showed off some of the tutus worn by the prima ballerina. Seasoned amateur dancers all of us, we gasped, and our guide looked embarrassed, for the tutus looked as though they would best fit a child of 11 or 12.
Of course there are clear-cut physical (as well as aesthetic) reasons for the need for ballet dancers to stay rigorously thin. The corps de ballet need to be a uniform size and shape for visual impact; male dancers need to execute bravura lifts; and any dancer doing pointe work needs to minimise the strain on her feet, ankles and knees. There are also logistical reasons: ballet companies (like other dance companies) provide costumes in just one size (due to expense and limits on how much equipment they can actually take on tour). The dancers need to fit the costumes, rather than the costumes fitting the dancer, especially if a dancer is an understudy, stepping into one of the principal’s roles.
The weight pressures are not so extreme for the Strictly pros, but they do still exist. The dreaded TV cameras add ten pounds, and our celebrity obsessed media are quick to mock a woman who does not fit their narrow stereotype of female beauty.
But what of an amateur, like Natalie Cassidy, for example, learning to dance? Are the criticisms directed at her due to aesthetic preconceptions of what a dancer should look like, or are there underlying physical requirements that prevent grace and elegance?
My first jazz teacher was one of the most fluid and lyrical dancers that I have ever seen. Her arms were graceful and she was so light on her feet she appeared to float. Her fluidity came from strength and control, as all dancers know, but to the onlooker, her dancing looked amazingly soft and liquid. She was 40 and around 13 or 14 stone. No-one ever noticed her size when she was on stage.
What seemed key to her success was that she knew and truly accepted her own body. I don’t remember ever seeing her attempt multiple jumps or leaps; but she could spin like a top – her average spins were five rotations. She knew what her strengths were, and when dancing solo, avoided any weaknesses. My teacher also kept herself thoroughly grounded in sound technique. Everything was perfectly executed, and whether it was balancing, spinning, floorwork, whatever, it was all tailored to support the body that she had then, not the body she had had as a younger dancer, or the body she may have secretly wished for. And when an audience watched her perform, every single person was always mesmerised by the beauty of her dance.
My ballet teacher no longer dances professionally, as two children and a couple of decades have taken a toll on her body. She no longer demonstrates some of the more arduous travelling steps and leaps, but her lines and poses are as striking as any bright young thing, if not more so, as she is imbued with that extra something that only age and experience can bring.
So I would say that I have seen at first hand that size does not in itself preclude grace, nor fluidity. With fitness, good technique, correct posture, core stability and muscle control, and more than anything, an innate musicality, there should be no reason why a trainee dancer like Natalie Cassidy couldn’t whisk us away on a flight of dance fantasy.
So what is the truth behind this? Is dance only for the young and slender with perfectly formed limbs? Is anybody who happens to weigh more than 8 stone to be automatically deemed lacking in grace and fluidity?
Dance is, of course, like all other aspects of showbiz, a lookist/sizeist industry. I have heard of dancers being rejected at auditions for all sorts of reasons – too tall, too short, too big, too “individual-looking”, too sweaty etc etc. Very often a dancer needs to meet a particular commercial ideal of beauty and size, as well as attaining high standards in dance. Sometimes that may be in keeping with the choreographer’s vision of the piece; in other cases it may be the producer’s view of the type of dancers that West End/Broadway audiences will pay to see on stage. But this is no different to the music, TV and film industries.
The musical (and film) “Chorus Line” is a perfect illustration of this. One of the auditionees is a young, newly “enhanced” dancer, Val, who sings a song detailing her previous failures at auditions. During the song, Val explains that she experienced rejection after rejection, until she finally sneaked a peak at her score card to reveal the verdict, (and the title of the song) “Dance: Ten; Looks: Three”. It was the moment of truth for her and so she:
“Left the theatre, called the doctor for my appointment to buy
Tits and ass
Bought myself a fancy pair
Tightened up the derriere
Did the nose, and all that goes with it”.
And suddenly she started getting booked for national tours. Fame at last!
‘Twas ever thus in the dance world. Why do we spend so much time pre-show “putting on the face”? Dance is such a physical activity, that on the one hand, it seems ridiculous to devote so much time to hair and make-up, when hair styles go awry, and make-up starts to run under the stage lights. Why do we wear elaborate costumes that look great to the audience, but risk tripping us up, getting caught in the scenery (or other dancers), or otherwise malfunctioning, when practice wear is so much more, well, practical? It is because dancers are not just selling their skill as a dancer; they are selling the dream of the performer.
A well-known instructor, whose workshops I have regularly attended, advises her students to “take care of all the things that are down to you”. Meaning that, on stage, things can and do go wrong, and you have no control over what happens in a live performance. Therefore, if you stay on top of the things that are down to you – paint your nails, take care of your costume, slick the lip stick on – then you can keep smiling, keep the audience believing in the dream, and they might not notice the chaos that is unfolding around you!
So looks and image are an established part of the professional dance world. But what about weight? The extreme end of the scale is obviously the ballet world. I have been privileged to go on a backstage tour of an English National Ballet performance, and to actually sit and watch company class. Seeing the dancers in class was a shock. They were no longer bathed in the rosy glow of stage lighting, nor resplendent in full make-up and costume, as they are during performance. Instead, dressed in simple tights and misshapen T-shirts, bare faces, under the glare of normal electric lighting, many of them looked fragile, pale and bony. Our guide then gave us a tour of the wardrobe department, and proudly showed off some of the tutus worn by the prima ballerina. Seasoned amateur dancers all of us, we gasped, and our guide looked embarrassed, for the tutus looked as though they would best fit a child of 11 or 12.
Of course there are clear-cut physical (as well as aesthetic) reasons for the need for ballet dancers to stay rigorously thin. The corps de ballet need to be a uniform size and shape for visual impact; male dancers need to execute bravura lifts; and any dancer doing pointe work needs to minimise the strain on her feet, ankles and knees. There are also logistical reasons: ballet companies (like other dance companies) provide costumes in just one size (due to expense and limits on how much equipment they can actually take on tour). The dancers need to fit the costumes, rather than the costumes fitting the dancer, especially if a dancer is an understudy, stepping into one of the principal’s roles.
The weight pressures are not so extreme for the Strictly pros, but they do still exist. The dreaded TV cameras add ten pounds, and our celebrity obsessed media are quick to mock a woman who does not fit their narrow stereotype of female beauty.
But what of an amateur, like Natalie Cassidy, for example, learning to dance? Are the criticisms directed at her due to aesthetic preconceptions of what a dancer should look like, or are there underlying physical requirements that prevent grace and elegance?
My first jazz teacher was one of the most fluid and lyrical dancers that I have ever seen. Her arms were graceful and she was so light on her feet she appeared to float. Her fluidity came from strength and control, as all dancers know, but to the onlooker, her dancing looked amazingly soft and liquid. She was 40 and around 13 or 14 stone. No-one ever noticed her size when she was on stage.
What seemed key to her success was that she knew and truly accepted her own body. I don’t remember ever seeing her attempt multiple jumps or leaps; but she could spin like a top – her average spins were five rotations. She knew what her strengths were, and when dancing solo, avoided any weaknesses. My teacher also kept herself thoroughly grounded in sound technique. Everything was perfectly executed, and whether it was balancing, spinning, floorwork, whatever, it was all tailored to support the body that she had then, not the body she had had as a younger dancer, or the body she may have secretly wished for. And when an audience watched her perform, every single person was always mesmerised by the beauty of her dance.
My ballet teacher no longer dances professionally, as two children and a couple of decades have taken a toll on her body. She no longer demonstrates some of the more arduous travelling steps and leaps, but her lines and poses are as striking as any bright young thing, if not more so, as she is imbued with that extra something that only age and experience can bring.
So I would say that I have seen at first hand that size does not in itself preclude grace, nor fluidity. With fitness, good technique, correct posture, core stability and muscle control, and more than anything, an innate musicality, there should be no reason why a trainee dancer like Natalie Cassidy couldn’t whisk us away on a flight of dance fantasy.
Monday, 5 October 2009
12, 306 steps in a 14 hour day...
...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?
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?
Anton
So it is only week 3 of the series, and already the tabloids are revelling in another anti-BBC story. This time, however, the own goal has been scored by Anton du Beke, who has served up the perfect opportunity for the red-tops to bash both Strictly and Hole in the Wall.
The big story of the day is that Anton is alleged to have used an offensive, racially charged term to describe his partner, Laila Rouass. Anton has issued an apology, no doubt carefully worded by the BBC’s legal department, stating that the word had been used in jest, and that his profound apology has been accepted.
First things first. I tend to take every story published by the News of the World with a whole cellar full of salt. And it is almost beyond belief that the rag should now be positioning itself as a kind of moral compass with regards to accusations of racism. They, like the rest of their ilk, are governed by both commercial and political imperatives – they need to sell more papers, and they have a political agenda against the BBC.
However, an apology has been issued, together with a statement from the BBC, so in this case it would seem that there is no smoke without fire.
I feel shocked and disturbed by Anton’s use of the word. Deeply saddened as well, because it is always hard to admit, when confronted with direct evidence, that those we admire can have feet of clay. I believe that Anton should face sanction by the BBC, and unfortunately, as the original conversation itself has been made public, so I think that the penalty paid needs to be known in the public domain as well.
I know that if I used such abusive language in my job, I would be facing a disciplinary hearing, with a high likelihood of a written warning that would stay on my employment record for some time. It would also most likely have direct consequences for any ambitions of promotion that I had previously entertained, quite rightly so, as my employer would also have to question my judgement, my ability to deal appropriately and fairly with colleagues, and my suitability to represent them in public. It would also raise doubts about the motivations behind my words and actions – if I could be capable of casual racist abuse, then I could well be capable of intentional racism and discrimination, even promulgating racial hatred. (Or for that matter, sexism, xenophobia or homophobia).
In this case, I think Anton can kiss goodbye to any hopes of a mainstream presenting career, and very probably to future contracts on SCD. Whether he should continue to compete in this year’s series is a moot point. If Laila is truly happy to dance with him, then he could be allowed to continue. If she is unhappy with the situation, then this should not jeopardise her position in the show, and she should be allowed to dance with another professional partner.
Whatever happens next, this is an incredibly difficult situation for the BBC, and likely to be an issue that runs and runs. As far as Anton is concerned, he should be learning his lesson the hard way – there are some things that are just beyond decency, even if said in jest.
One of the more shocking aspects of this situation has been the response on the internet, which I think is currently running about 60% in support of Anton.
Let’s get some things straight:
1) It is not different for “creative” types. Just as Roman Polanski is now finding to his cost (and I do not mean to trivialise) rape is rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator is considered a genius by his peers. Racial slurs are racial slurs, whether they are delivered by someone you have heretofore admired or not.
2) The word in question is offensive, end of. It is not a term of endearment or affection, or a convenient abbreviation. It cannot be compared (as so many posters on internet forums have done today) to Aussie or Brit, and to do is disingenuous in the extreme. The term was appropriated in the 1970s by the National Front, not as a harmless abbreviation to refer to specific nationality, but as a term of hatred for all South Asian migrants to this country (and was used about North Africans and Middle Easterners as well). The very fact that the term was not used accurately in terms of nationality makes its use even more loaded, as National Front thugs simply lumped many nationalities together, defining people solely by their skin colour. The word in question was used solely to threaten, to intimidate, to abuse, to degrade, and to inspire fear and hatred. It should not be a part of any decent person’s vocabulary.
3) True, there can be a contextual difference between intended insult and thoughtless comment. But an environment in which casual racism, spoken in ignorance or carelessness, is tolerated, is an environment that makes a more fertile breeding ground for intended racism, discrimination and race hatred.
4) It is not political correctness gone mad, or an end to freedom of speech. For us to live in a society where freedom of speech prevails, we need all of us to accept the responsibilities that that entails. I might believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I please, but if my words or actions were to damage another human being, I also have the responsibility to temper my actions or face the consequences. Children at nursery school are taught that there are boundaries; it is all part of the socialisation process. So why do some adults have difficulty with the concept that there are some things which are unacceptable?
As for political correctness gone mad, it actually makes me mad, as well as sad, to see this much-maligned concept dragged through the mud. Surely every decent person should strive to avoid that which offends or degrades another human being? So why should anybody be able to hide behind the banner of “political correctness gone mad” to justify their own failings and disguise their bigotry? It is as though those possessed of a certain mind set, when deprived of the opportunity to victimise or bully, claim that they are now victimised or bullied by those who promote equality.
So in conclusion, I don’t know what saddens, disturbs or angers me most – the use of a vile term of abuse by one of my favourite dancers, or the headlong rush to defend the indefensible.
The big story of the day is that Anton is alleged to have used an offensive, racially charged term to describe his partner, Laila Rouass. Anton has issued an apology, no doubt carefully worded by the BBC’s legal department, stating that the word had been used in jest, and that his profound apology has been accepted.
First things first. I tend to take every story published by the News of the World with a whole cellar full of salt. And it is almost beyond belief that the rag should now be positioning itself as a kind of moral compass with regards to accusations of racism. They, like the rest of their ilk, are governed by both commercial and political imperatives – they need to sell more papers, and they have a political agenda against the BBC.
However, an apology has been issued, together with a statement from the BBC, so in this case it would seem that there is no smoke without fire.
I feel shocked and disturbed by Anton’s use of the word. Deeply saddened as well, because it is always hard to admit, when confronted with direct evidence, that those we admire can have feet of clay. I believe that Anton should face sanction by the BBC, and unfortunately, as the original conversation itself has been made public, so I think that the penalty paid needs to be known in the public domain as well.
I know that if I used such abusive language in my job, I would be facing a disciplinary hearing, with a high likelihood of a written warning that would stay on my employment record for some time. It would also most likely have direct consequences for any ambitions of promotion that I had previously entertained, quite rightly so, as my employer would also have to question my judgement, my ability to deal appropriately and fairly with colleagues, and my suitability to represent them in public. It would also raise doubts about the motivations behind my words and actions – if I could be capable of casual racist abuse, then I could well be capable of intentional racism and discrimination, even promulgating racial hatred. (Or for that matter, sexism, xenophobia or homophobia).
In this case, I think Anton can kiss goodbye to any hopes of a mainstream presenting career, and very probably to future contracts on SCD. Whether he should continue to compete in this year’s series is a moot point. If Laila is truly happy to dance with him, then he could be allowed to continue. If she is unhappy with the situation, then this should not jeopardise her position in the show, and she should be allowed to dance with another professional partner.
Whatever happens next, this is an incredibly difficult situation for the BBC, and likely to be an issue that runs and runs. As far as Anton is concerned, he should be learning his lesson the hard way – there are some things that are just beyond decency, even if said in jest.
One of the more shocking aspects of this situation has been the response on the internet, which I think is currently running about 60% in support of Anton.
Let’s get some things straight:
1) It is not different for “creative” types. Just as Roman Polanski is now finding to his cost (and I do not mean to trivialise) rape is rape, regardless of whether the perpetrator is considered a genius by his peers. Racial slurs are racial slurs, whether they are delivered by someone you have heretofore admired or not.
2) The word in question is offensive, end of. It is not a term of endearment or affection, or a convenient abbreviation. It cannot be compared (as so many posters on internet forums have done today) to Aussie or Brit, and to do is disingenuous in the extreme. The term was appropriated in the 1970s by the National Front, not as a harmless abbreviation to refer to specific nationality, but as a term of hatred for all South Asian migrants to this country (and was used about North Africans and Middle Easterners as well). The very fact that the term was not used accurately in terms of nationality makes its use even more loaded, as National Front thugs simply lumped many nationalities together, defining people solely by their skin colour. The word in question was used solely to threaten, to intimidate, to abuse, to degrade, and to inspire fear and hatred. It should not be a part of any decent person’s vocabulary.
3) True, there can be a contextual difference between intended insult and thoughtless comment. But an environment in which casual racism, spoken in ignorance or carelessness, is tolerated, is an environment that makes a more fertile breeding ground for intended racism, discrimination and race hatred.
4) It is not political correctness gone mad, or an end to freedom of speech. For us to live in a society where freedom of speech prevails, we need all of us to accept the responsibilities that that entails. I might believe that I have the freedom to do whatever I please, but if my words or actions were to damage another human being, I also have the responsibility to temper my actions or face the consequences. Children at nursery school are taught that there are boundaries; it is all part of the socialisation process. So why do some adults have difficulty with the concept that there are some things which are unacceptable?
As for political correctness gone mad, it actually makes me mad, as well as sad, to see this much-maligned concept dragged through the mud. Surely every decent person should strive to avoid that which offends or degrades another human being? So why should anybody be able to hide behind the banner of “political correctness gone mad” to justify their own failings and disguise their bigotry? It is as though those possessed of a certain mind set, when deprived of the opportunity to victimise or bully, claim that they are now victimised or bullied by those who promote equality.
So in conclusion, I don’t know what saddens, disturbs or angers me most – the use of a vile term of abuse by one of my favourite dancers, or the headlong rush to defend the indefensible.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Shock of the night - Tess was wearing a great dress!
And then all became clear as the dancers entered, and poor Natalie Lowe was wearing a one-shouldered purple and orange spandex number which must have originally been destined for Tess. I know she wanted a 10 for her first dance, but that is no way to treat the poor girl.
It was a very long show tonight - far too long to keep the attention of most of the audience, punctuated by some godawful pasos and some of the worst ever music I have heard on Strictly. No wonder many of the pasos fell flat when the dancers were attempting fire and passion to what amounted to funeral dirges.
First up, Barbie and Ken. Ken is besotted, and poor boy that he is, Barbie doesn't seem to have noticed - heart-breaking. Beautiful music, beautiful dresses, beautiful couple, beautiful dancing - but somehow it seemed to lack personality to really bring it to life. I have a feeling that Ali is in danger of becoming this year's Rachbot - lauded by the judges for genuinely good dance, but ignored by the public because there doesn't seem to be much spark in what she is doing.
Oxo Mum and Colgate Boy - well the fire was in the dress which was absolutely gorgeous, and totally right for Lynda (she has got great pins!), but sadly lacking from the dance. She also seemed to have more of a slightly frozen in terror look than devil woman. Darren had tried his best with the choreo, but the passion just wasn't there (and could have been with some proper paso music!). Didn't really understand the marking of this paso - way too generous. Although prize for comment of the programme must surely go to Lynda for her remark about Darren "And he has got a lovely bottom...."
Oh-la-la and the maths teacher. Boyfriend very disappointed with the amount of coverage of Ola's dress. Went back to playing with his i-Phone. I like this couple a lot - no it wasn't as good as their debut two weeks ago, but Chris puts his heart, soul and everything he has got into dancing. I thought the gapping was a problem (surely it can't be that difficult to get up close and personal with Ola?), and there was a big mistake. But hats off to them for getting it back, because usually when a couple is dancing at that speed and with that amount of intricacy in the steps, if you lose it, you lose it for the rest of the dance. Again, I thought the scoring was off, and can't believe that this scored three less than the funeral march paso that preceded it.
Zoe and Wolverine-with-a-new-haircut. I am green with envy at her dress! Jimmy Jordan was just made to dance paso, but Zoe just cannot match his arrogance. She needs to start believing in herself and selling the dance, because she is rather good, and her shaping was beautiful. Music was so very, very wrong though and only Tess can have thought it a good choice.
Ravioli - well there's a man who could have sold a half decent paso, and instead he gets lumbered with the fleet of foot quickstep. His partner seems to have decided when it doubt, camp it up, and at first I thought Rav was keeping up bravely. Then the dance began, and it became obvious that she had forgotten to teach him any quickstep and was relying on gimmicks the whole way through. Aliona has completely mis-judged the style of SCD, and brought too much of the Dancing with the Stars schtick to her three dance long debut on Strictly. Quite rightly criticised by the judges, I have a feeling the fate of Hayley Holt may be beckoning.
Natalie and Vincent - at last six dances in and the show finally begins. What a difference the music makes! There was possibly a little more drama than dance technique, but in such a crowded field, Vincent knows how to stand out, and Natalie did him proud. I like this couple a lot, and feel that there is bags of potential. I just hope that they stay in long enough for Natalie to realise it.
Craig and Flavia. I don't think he is enjoying his Strictly experience much, and there is certainly no chemistry here. He performed better than last week, but I am afraid that I spent most of the dance wondering what poor sweet Flavia had done to upset the wardrobe department and warrant being dressed in a pink tent several sizes too big for her.
Ok now that was a paso doble! Exciting, tense, brooding, dramatic, masterful! When I was competing, that music (we called it Spanish Gypsy Dance) was played just about every weekend, and I grew to hate it, but Ricky Whittle made it sexy and new and vital. I have a minor niggle about his head and neck line (I think he needs to lengthen up through the base of his neck and his upper spine), but that wouldn't look amiss in the quarter final. Shall we just engrave the trophy with Ricky and Natalie now, and all switch over to X Factor and avoid any more two hour marathon sessions?
The long jumper and the very long legs. This was my favourite quickstep of the night - full of joy, energy, personality and fun. I love Ian's choreo and Jade has made a big improvement in terms of posture and technique. There are very few SCD quicksteps that actually make me want to get up and hop, skip and charleston around the room, but this was definitely one of them.
The Welsh dragon, the cape and Kristina. Oh dearie me. Oh very dearie me. Where has Kristina's magic gone? She used clever choreo last year to showcase John, and this was just one long gimmick after another. It must be devastating for her to be bottom of the leader board, yet kept in by the public's perversity, for the second year running. I hope that she is not experiencing a horrible sense of deja vu, such that she goes running straight to Heathrow, never to grace our shores again.
Laila and Anton. Nice quickstep, basic but nice. Can't remember too much about it though now, so I think Anton needs to work a bit harder on his choreography for the future. It has probably been so long since he has lasted needed some decent choreo though, so I hope the skill comes back for him.
Have a go Jo and Brendan. I had a little snooze half way through this one. Atrocious music again - I have danced faster rumbas, I swear. I do however appreciate that Brendan is working his socks off to protect Jo, and I quite like this new Brendan. He made Fiona Phillips look ridiculous with choreography that was way too difficult for her and was all about him, but this year he is really trying to make Jo look as good as possible.
My beloved Tuffers who can do no wrong. Just one smile from him and I melt into incoherence. Light on his feet, good topline, great performance - the quickstep is a perfect dance for him. I was disappointed with his scores because I felt that he was severely undermarked (38 would have been about right for my beloved!). Compared to that dire stomp around that was Lynda's paso, I felt that both Chris and Phil suffered in the marking tonight.
And now finally the main event. When I am wrong, I admit it, and I got it badly wrong about the use of One Vision as a paso. Ricky Groves strode around the room, channeling St Freddie of Fandango-land like the 70s never went out of fashion. It's a hard job to reference rock's greatest show man, but the boy pulled it off, and the crowd, once again, went wild. His arms need work, his posture has improved but still needs refining, but none of that mattered last night. And as for Erin, cheated of a place in the semi final (as many viewers felt cheated of the final that they wanted last year) by a judging panel that reckoned that Austin lacked pizazz, it was as if she were saying to the panel "You want pizazz? Well here is pizazz served up with double mozzarella for you." Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.
As for the pro dances - after such a long stint, I don't think I really appreciated the foxtrot as much as I should have done, and I was a bit shocked by the salsa. Richard Marcel has done some fab choreo for SCD, but this was about as flat as a pancake. And did I blink and miss the hip action? I have never been a big fan of salsa as it is presented on SCD, and think that so often the pros just trot out a lame kind of cross between a cha cha and a samba - a chasamba lite really. In fact there have only been four salsas that I have enjoyed - Mark and Karen's, John and Nicole's (now that was a salsa!), Matt and Flavia's and Heather and Brian's. And to think we are going to have to sit through 6 or 7 soggy souffles of a salsa next week. I need alcohol just at the thought of it.
And now to the results. There has been a lot of talk about how the new look judging panel has been created to avoid the anti-judge vote running rampant (and to be fair, Bruno is working hard at providing a techinical critique and Craig tried hard for 30 minutes to be a little less mean). And the verdict after three weeks of the new regime, and Js Calzaghe and Wood escaping the dance off once more. Um, it doesn't really seem to be working, does it?
It was a very long show tonight - far too long to keep the attention of most of the audience, punctuated by some godawful pasos and some of the worst ever music I have heard on Strictly. No wonder many of the pasos fell flat when the dancers were attempting fire and passion to what amounted to funeral dirges.
First up, Barbie and Ken. Ken is besotted, and poor boy that he is, Barbie doesn't seem to have noticed - heart-breaking. Beautiful music, beautiful dresses, beautiful couple, beautiful dancing - but somehow it seemed to lack personality to really bring it to life. I have a feeling that Ali is in danger of becoming this year's Rachbot - lauded by the judges for genuinely good dance, but ignored by the public because there doesn't seem to be much spark in what she is doing.
Oxo Mum and Colgate Boy - well the fire was in the dress which was absolutely gorgeous, and totally right for Lynda (she has got great pins!), but sadly lacking from the dance. She also seemed to have more of a slightly frozen in terror look than devil woman. Darren had tried his best with the choreo, but the passion just wasn't there (and could have been with some proper paso music!). Didn't really understand the marking of this paso - way too generous. Although prize for comment of the programme must surely go to Lynda for her remark about Darren "And he has got a lovely bottom...."
Oh-la-la and the maths teacher. Boyfriend very disappointed with the amount of coverage of Ola's dress. Went back to playing with his i-Phone. I like this couple a lot - no it wasn't as good as their debut two weeks ago, but Chris puts his heart, soul and everything he has got into dancing. I thought the gapping was a problem (surely it can't be that difficult to get up close and personal with Ola?), and there was a big mistake. But hats off to them for getting it back, because usually when a couple is dancing at that speed and with that amount of intricacy in the steps, if you lose it, you lose it for the rest of the dance. Again, I thought the scoring was off, and can't believe that this scored three less than the funeral march paso that preceded it.
Zoe and Wolverine-with-a-new-haircut. I am green with envy at her dress! Jimmy Jordan was just made to dance paso, but Zoe just cannot match his arrogance. She needs to start believing in herself and selling the dance, because she is rather good, and her shaping was beautiful. Music was so very, very wrong though and only Tess can have thought it a good choice.
Ravioli - well there's a man who could have sold a half decent paso, and instead he gets lumbered with the fleet of foot quickstep. His partner seems to have decided when it doubt, camp it up, and at first I thought Rav was keeping up bravely. Then the dance began, and it became obvious that she had forgotten to teach him any quickstep and was relying on gimmicks the whole way through. Aliona has completely mis-judged the style of SCD, and brought too much of the Dancing with the Stars schtick to her three dance long debut on Strictly. Quite rightly criticised by the judges, I have a feeling the fate of Hayley Holt may be beckoning.
Natalie and Vincent - at last six dances in and the show finally begins. What a difference the music makes! There was possibly a little more drama than dance technique, but in such a crowded field, Vincent knows how to stand out, and Natalie did him proud. I like this couple a lot, and feel that there is bags of potential. I just hope that they stay in long enough for Natalie to realise it.
Craig and Flavia. I don't think he is enjoying his Strictly experience much, and there is certainly no chemistry here. He performed better than last week, but I am afraid that I spent most of the dance wondering what poor sweet Flavia had done to upset the wardrobe department and warrant being dressed in a pink tent several sizes too big for her.
Ok now that was a paso doble! Exciting, tense, brooding, dramatic, masterful! When I was competing, that music (we called it Spanish Gypsy Dance) was played just about every weekend, and I grew to hate it, but Ricky Whittle made it sexy and new and vital. I have a minor niggle about his head and neck line (I think he needs to lengthen up through the base of his neck and his upper spine), but that wouldn't look amiss in the quarter final. Shall we just engrave the trophy with Ricky and Natalie now, and all switch over to X Factor and avoid any more two hour marathon sessions?
The long jumper and the very long legs. This was my favourite quickstep of the night - full of joy, energy, personality and fun. I love Ian's choreo and Jade has made a big improvement in terms of posture and technique. There are very few SCD quicksteps that actually make me want to get up and hop, skip and charleston around the room, but this was definitely one of them.
The Welsh dragon, the cape and Kristina. Oh dearie me. Oh very dearie me. Where has Kristina's magic gone? She used clever choreo last year to showcase John, and this was just one long gimmick after another. It must be devastating for her to be bottom of the leader board, yet kept in by the public's perversity, for the second year running. I hope that she is not experiencing a horrible sense of deja vu, such that she goes running straight to Heathrow, never to grace our shores again.
Laila and Anton. Nice quickstep, basic but nice. Can't remember too much about it though now, so I think Anton needs to work a bit harder on his choreography for the future. It has probably been so long since he has lasted needed some decent choreo though, so I hope the skill comes back for him.
Have a go Jo and Brendan. I had a little snooze half way through this one. Atrocious music again - I have danced faster rumbas, I swear. I do however appreciate that Brendan is working his socks off to protect Jo, and I quite like this new Brendan. He made Fiona Phillips look ridiculous with choreography that was way too difficult for her and was all about him, but this year he is really trying to make Jo look as good as possible.
My beloved Tuffers who can do no wrong. Just one smile from him and I melt into incoherence. Light on his feet, good topline, great performance - the quickstep is a perfect dance for him. I was disappointed with his scores because I felt that he was severely undermarked (38 would have been about right for my beloved!). Compared to that dire stomp around that was Lynda's paso, I felt that both Chris and Phil suffered in the marking tonight.
And now finally the main event. When I am wrong, I admit it, and I got it badly wrong about the use of One Vision as a paso. Ricky Groves strode around the room, channeling St Freddie of Fandango-land like the 70s never went out of fashion. It's a hard job to reference rock's greatest show man, but the boy pulled it off, and the crowd, once again, went wild. His arms need work, his posture has improved but still needs refining, but none of that mattered last night. And as for Erin, cheated of a place in the semi final (as many viewers felt cheated of the final that they wanted last year) by a judging panel that reckoned that Austin lacked pizazz, it was as if she were saying to the panel "You want pizazz? Well here is pizazz served up with double mozzarella for you." Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.
As for the pro dances - after such a long stint, I don't think I really appreciated the foxtrot as much as I should have done, and I was a bit shocked by the salsa. Richard Marcel has done some fab choreo for SCD, but this was about as flat as a pancake. And did I blink and miss the hip action? I have never been a big fan of salsa as it is presented on SCD, and think that so often the pros just trot out a lame kind of cross between a cha cha and a samba - a chasamba lite really. In fact there have only been four salsas that I have enjoyed - Mark and Karen's, John and Nicole's (now that was a salsa!), Matt and Flavia's and Heather and Brian's. And to think we are going to have to sit through 6 or 7 soggy souffles of a salsa next week. I need alcohol just at the thought of it.
And now to the results. There has been a lot of talk about how the new look judging panel has been created to avoid the anti-judge vote running rampant (and to be fair, Bruno is working hard at providing a techinical critique and Craig tried hard for 30 minutes to be a little less mean). And the verdict after three weeks of the new regime, and Js Calzaghe and Wood escaping the dance off once more. Um, it doesn't really seem to be working, does it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)