John Sergeant is leaving Strictly Come Dancing.
To say I am cross about this would be an understatement. I'm genuinely upset and quite disgusted. This is a case of bullying pure and simple, and it doesn't matter that it's on a kitsch sequinny TV dance show, bullying is bullying and I hate it wherever it is. I was bullied myself and it doesn't matter if you're a 12 year old girl or a broadcaster in your 60s, it's incredibly cruel.
All the fuss over whether John Sergeant should go has revealed what was always implicit in the show but that I chose to ignore: that the producers deliberately invite certain people on to be fall guys, stooges who they know will never be able to dance, who the judges can be rude to and who we can mock at home before self-righteously voting them out.
Obviously, we are not supposed to like the fall guy and vote to keep him in. That's when all the hysteria kicks in about "proper dancers" not being able to go through and it not being "fair". Well if that's the case, why not pre-decide an order of who goes out when so that we can be assured of an Austin - Tom - Rachel final regardless of who the viewers - for whom the programme is made - want to watch.
Yes, *want to watch*. That is the whole point. It is just a game. Its only purpose is to entertain viewers. It is not a political election. Nothing rides on it. Every week there are fewer dancers, so you can vote, if you want to, for who you want to stay in. You can vote on the basis of who's got the best fleckle if you like, or you can vote for who you *want to watch* dancing regardless of ability, or you can vote because you like the number 6 so whoever is dancer number 6 gets your vote every week. That's your business and it *doesn't matter*. It is *not important*.
What is important is when the message goes out loud and clear that a contestant is too old, ugly and talentless to be on the show - though not too old, ugly and talentless to have been invited to be on the show in the first place - and now he is no longer welcome. Even though the viewers - *for whom the show is made* - want him to stay in.
Shall we now look forward to a time when every contestant on Strictly can already dance and is young and beautiful to boot? Is that not, as Craig would say, D - U - L - L dull?
John wasn't my favourite and I wasn't voting for him but other people were and given that I have spent the last 32 years in a democracy I have figured out how that works by now. It's what most people want, so the rest of us go along with it.
Now I don't feel inclined to vote for any of the remaining dancers or, for that matter, to watch. The fun has completely gone out of it. I feel like I have just watched someone be kicked out of a party I was at for being too old. Now I want to go home too.
Here's a last question: so what if John had won Strictly? Why would it have mattered? Because someone young and pretty couldn't have the prize? Oh boo hoo.
I think Strictlywatch 2008 may have just reached the end of the road.
Posts
20 comments:
Could not agree more. Don't really watch the show but have been reading about it. The whole thing stinks, and reflects very badly on people like Cherie Lunghi who just look bitter and petty.
Ack. I did find myself fastforwarding through all of his dances, but I thought he was a warm and funny presence on the show and had more personality than Rachel, Lisa and Austin combined. Have to wonder what went on behind the scenes to prompt this, but it does seem desperately unfair.
Male perspective - I'm sure that Jessica meant that Cherie looks "better and pretty"!
Your interpretation is one way of looking at it, and is certainly a valid one. But could it be viewed another way?
John clearly did not expect to win the competition. He was having a bit of fun. He could quite possibly believe that the eventual winner should be one of the best dancers and the results of recent shows have made it clear that he is pulling in by far the biggest audience vote. Therefore when only the audience vote counts he is highly likely to win.
As a true gentleman he could, and I am merely suggesting it as a possibility, feel that winning the whole thing when he is the worst dancer may not be the done thing. He is graciously bowing out.
He could well have been bullied off, he may be fed up with the press exposure, he may be daunted by a few more weeks of physical activity. Who knows for sure.
I do agree though that the show loses something with him no longer in it.
Yes just seen this. Scott may well be right, but I think that it is absolutely wrong that John Sergeant has felt impelled to go for whatever the reason. I loved him and loved the way he brightened up the show. I don't think for a minute he was going to make it till the last show, and the minute he was in the dance off he was going to have to go. I have found Arlene Phillip's spiteful bitching about him outrageous. Not sure I want to watch anymore either.
As usual, Marie, you sum up just how I feel
Marie I agree with you wholeheartedly.
The fact is, as you say, nothing rides on the vote.
In shows like the X Factor,it is a platform for a career ahead. In Strictly this isn't the case. Although with bitter losers like Cherie, maybe she did indeed think that leaving before John would impact on her career ie. the likes of offers for modelling for M&S coming in etc.
The whole thing stinks!
You've said it so much better than I could have done.
As above in all cases.
The show's really not my thing, but the poor guy. If you just want great dancers to win, don't give the public a vote. If you want more than dancing to come into it, stop banging on about the competitors getting married and all the rest on their personal lives, show no rehearsals, no interviews - just the dances.
Backlash time!
Matt has a very good point - they massively up the 'personality' side with the rehearsal footage, 'It Takes Two' interviews, bringing in people's mums to training etc etc, and then cry foul when people vote for the dancers whose personalities they like. Pretty hypocritical.
Scott, I take your point, and you're right, it is just speculation, but do you genuinely think that John would have spontaneously quit if it wasn't for the incessant coverage being given to how he shouldn't be in the competition?
Also despondent over here in camp corner - and I can't be accused of not taking Strictly seriously!
I'm a bit disappointed that he decided to give in though.
Although I also wasn't voting for him, I feel there needs to be some mechanism to register ones support as I believe Charlie Brooker may have suggested in relation to the Ross/Brand affair as well. (Not that I was 'voting' for them either but I hardly think there was balance in the reporting).
Pedro
Does it matter who wins as long as the show is entertaining? It's not like they're picking the British representative for the world dancing championship or anything.
John should have stayed.
I've just watched Arlene on It Takes Two saying how "sad" she is that John's gone, and James showing such breathtaking inconsistency (and bad grace) by saying on the one hand John should go because it's about the dancing but on the other hand he shouldn't because he should have played by the rules. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
I thought John Sergeant was wonderfully gracious and has been put in an impossible position. If the judges (and specifically Arlene) had shut up a bit more he'd have got voted off in the end.
My opinion matches that of Scott Pack earlier in the comments. I'm pretty sure that John never imagined that he would go so far in the competition and that he was embarassed that he may have advanced at the expense of other more "talented" dancers.
He said as much this evening on "It Takes Two" when he said that the judges comments were not the reason that he left - it was the virtual firestorm of interest in the general media which was too much for him to take.
I'm not quite sure where everyone gets this utter rubbish that anyone has said that John's not "young enough" or "pretty enough" - I've never heard anyone insinuate anything of the sort. If he'd been a decent dancer, or had visibly improved his technique, the judges would have marked him accordingly.
I don't think anyone has "cried foul" about the voting process. The judges simply judge the dancing. Len admitted himself that if he wasn't a judge and was watching from home, he would have voted for John. The judges also accept that 50% of the vote comes from the public. Just as the public have the right to disagree with the judges to save the dancer with the nicest shoes, or the weirdest dress, so also the judges have the right to voice their disagreement with who the public have chosen to save. We've had our say - they can have theirs.
When all is said and done, it doesn't take a degree in maths to notice that the voting system is inherently unfair anyway. The system works on ranking the judges and public votes, rather than counting the absolute value of the votes cast. So, (just as an example) even if 7 couples got over 30 points each, and John & Kristina only got 4 points, they would avoid the dance-off if they were only 3rd from bottom in the public vote, so long as the two other dancers in the bottom 3 did not receive as many votes.
As the BBC do not publicise the actual number of votes cast for each couple (as far as I've seen), it's difficult to tell, but I suspect that these controversies could be avoided by changing the system so that the couples with the lowest percentage of actual votes cast would be in the dance-off.
Interesting to note that John is off for a two week cruise where he is contracted to give a series of lectures. Could it be that he never thought he'd get this far and the whole Strictlygate is simply a case of double booking?
I really wish the BBC (and ITV for their programmes come to that) would publish voting figures.
We're always having votes for reality shows compared with how few young people vote in elections. Well elections do publish the final numbers.
And perhaps Strictly should adopt the US "Dancing with the Stars" system whereby points are apportioned by percentage of votes made. That'd mean that if 7 couples scored 35 and John had scored 4, he'd only get less than 2% of the judges votes, compared with the others each getting 14%. In other words, it'd take a colossal public landslide to save him.
In the end I don't really care. Although I think I'd quite like to see the return of a real dancing competition. You know... without celebrities. I bet Anton would be up for presenting.
The cruise thing is a bit of a red herring, they said all along that if he was still in it they'd fly him out mid-week for the talks. But yes, certainly, sticking around here to get a heap of abuse or going off to the Caribbean, that must have been a difficult choice...
PT, when I mentioned bullying, I didn't mean only by the judges, I meant by the press also. And it was getting nasty, I don't think anyone can deny that. (Incidentally does calling the voting system "inherently unfair" not count as crying foul?) But anyway, you are entitled to believe that John is only doing the gentlemanly thing (and bagging himself a nice sea voyage to boot) but I can't help but see a link between the acres of vitriolic newsprint and his decision to go.
I would just add to this Marie - not only the judges and the press but also according to this Times report
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5167807.ece
other contestants too.
Leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth doesn't it?
I was absolutely stunned at how nasty James was last night. He kept saying It's not the John Sergeant show. I think he assumes just because HE's got a big ego everyone else has. In fact apart from Claudia (and Kate Garroway a little) not one of the people interviewed stood up for him. They all said, he should have stayed, and by implication, he's cowardly to have gone. I think he was between a rock and a hardplace, and because he is cleverer then the lot of them, and a gentleman to boot, he sneaked his way out when they weren't looking (don't you think the judges were all miffed to have found out by being phoned up by the press?). I think it all reflects badly on them and well on him. But I'm still sorry he's gone.
Agree 100%. Time to move on
Post a Comment