The spectacle of a talent contest!

Last night BBC one kicked off its reality singing competition the Voice, whilst ITV 1 began its quest to reign supreme over the talent competitions on terrestrial TV with Britain’s Got Talent.

Now, my intention was to watch neither. Just as it had been my intention to watch neither the X-Factor nor Strictly Come Dancing. Yet just as I did last October time I ended up watching both channels programs, and doing the usual flicking between the two channels during the twenty minutes where they were head to head.

I wanted to be able to sit here today from the comfort of my own home, and moan about the poor standard of performers on Britain’s Got Talent which usually makes me wonder whether the program should actually be called Britain’s Got Confidence (for no apparent reason) – granted not the catchiest of titles, or Britain loves to Embarrass itself on national TV – again I accept that the title could be more quippie! But I can’t. I can’t moan, because last night I wasn’t left wondering if Britain had talent. It clearly does!

Don’t get me wrong there were still very many truly awful acts that were rightly buzzed off, but the show did manage to find a couple of absolute gems. One of which had the Susan Boyle effect. In fact it’s possible that Simon Cowell may wish to change the X-Factor to Susan Boyle factor, and today I believe a lot of people will agree that Jonathon (who with Charlotte) had it.

Yet it seems that despite having witnessed the Susan Boyle phenomenon, we all (as viewers) are still very judgmental. Perhaps Britain’s Got Talent should be broadcast without pictures, and sort of steal the concept of the Voice. Then maybe we viewers would be more willing to just listen to talent, rather than judge it in the time it takes the performer to walk to centre stage. Granted I appreciate this would not be helpful for all those acts that are not singing!

Last night though, I’m not sure that anyone (aside from Jonathon or Charlotte’s family and friends) believed that when he walked out onto stage – looking a little bit like Hurley from Lost, that he was going to be able to prove that he had talent.

Regardless I am sure of everyone’s best intentions, I think we all thought exactly the same as Simon Cowell. This was going to be a quick buzzer moment. Poor Jonathon had been judged harshly straight off the bat, and let’s not kid ourselves the reason he was judged so harshly was because of how he looked!

It was like Susan Boyle all over again. He stood centre stage (granted with his friend Charlotte, so he wasn’t alone out there), shaking and clearly terrified, wanting to show that he had talent. And wow, did he show that! He less started to sing, but more unleashed the power and glory of a spectacular operatic voice. It was instantly clear for all to hear that he has talent.  

For BBC One, I can only think that the kind of chatter that Britain’s Got Talent will be getting on social media in part for the performance of Jonathon will feel like a kick in the teeth. Why? Well, ITV managed to show that you don’t need your judges to sit with their backs to the performers. If you have a voice, or a talent, it will show through.

On an additional note the Voice didn’t really inspire any kind of emotion in me whatsoever, which means that next week I probably won’t bother to flick between BBC One and ITV 1 during the head to head. I’ll instead simply turn over to watch Britain’s Got Talent, because even aside from Jonathon I thought that the show was the better of the two.

My favouritism might also have had something to do with Only Boy’s Allowed – the boys’ choir from the Welsh Valley’s, who nearly had me in tears.  Even though I knew from the lead up that the rest of the choir were waiting in the wings, when just the choir master and the two soloists introduced themselves to the judges. The point at which they all filed onto the stage and sang as one was amazing, and the poignancy of the moment was really something to see.

For me Britain’s Got Talent had a bit of Strictly, a bit of the Voice, and it certainly had an X-factor of sorts. For me, it ticked all the right boxes!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Are we addicted to emoticons ?

In an age where we have all become addicted to our iPhone’s, Blackberry’s, text, e-mail, and all varieties of instant messaging. Have we also become addicted to trying to express our emotion through the ever growing lists of emoticons available to us?

Back in the day when mobiles were still relatively large, had aerials, and often no reception, the only way of expressing yourself was through shortened words, abbreviations, or a series of punctuation marks. Yet the reliance on punctuation marks was quite limiting, and let’s add not very impressive.

Now though you can send an array of faces expressing your emotions, or at least an intended emotion. For example you can send; a face with a halo – I’m an angel, commonly used when saying you’ve done nothing wrong or you’re trying to be flirty and innocent when a previous message may not have been. A red face with steam coming out its ears – I’m incensed, or I should be by a previous comment! Or a face that’s vomiting – fairly obvious what that one means, and also a face that’s crying like a baby – again fairly self explanatory.

With this wide range of expressions available to us to use I, like most, often find myself using them more and more frequently. It often seems far easier, and quicker, than trying to express myself in words. Also it seems far more representative at time of how I am feeling, although please note that this only works when you send them to other people who understand the intention behind them!! It’s not always a good idea to send them to parents or grandparents of the baby boomer generation. I’m just happy when my folks text without the caps lock on!!

Yet I can’t help but think that it is in some way intriguing that instead of moving forward with the written word, we actually seem to be regressing to the age of the Egyptians! Is it possible that we are on our way back to hieroglyphs??

Maybe the Egyptians were onto something. Why write in a text message that you are so annoyed that you are positively steaming from the ears, when there is an emoticon for that? Why write the three annoying letters LOL (laugh out loud for anyone who doesn’t know what that stands for), when there is an emoticon showing someone laughing and rolling around on the floor?

Emoticons not only express emotions, but they have also started to express the degree of emotion that we may wish to express. On my list of symbols for the instant messaging on my phone for example, I count four ways in which I am able to express a smile.

I think that it is this detail, and variety, that allows you as a sender or receiver to show your intentions to the receiver that is very clever. You can be flirty, adolescent, comforting, suggestive, or whatever else, simply through an array of emoticons. Who needs to have a way with words, when you can use an emoticon? Credit where it is due, they are sort of genius!

However, there is a bigger issue here. Should be concerned at this growing reliance on emoticons and the move further away from the written word? I am not referring to those that use them sporadically, but I do worry that one day we might have a generation that -

a) can’t write without the assistance of an electronic device 

b) can’t spell in accordance with a Collins dictionary, and really believe that “you” is spelt with just one letter; “u”  

c) they are unable to express themselves at all using the written word.

There are already a growing number of issues in regards to reading, and many people admitting to the fact that they have never read a book in their life, but instead to prefer to watch a film or television. So if we add our growing reliance of emoticons into this fray, are we going to have a generation that really has gone back to an age that relies on verbal storytelling and hieroglyphs?

The more you think about our reliance on symbols and signs rather the written word, the more fascinating it all becomes. You’ve only got to look at the fact that on toilet doors, you still have a picture of a man on the men’s and a woman on the women’s. I do however often find helpful though when I’m in an O’Neil’s pub! Also in airports, how often do you follow the picture of the suitcase, to let you know that you are heading in the right direction to get to baggage claim?

It seems that we are surrounded by the non written word on a daily basis. If emoticons therefore are an extension of this, where does it all stop? 

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

What is it with the Titanic?

It seems that one century on and we are all still as obsessed with the most famous of all shipwrecks – the Titanic, as we ever were. ITV has only this week announced (or at least started to advertise) that in April, the month in which the Titanic met its untimely end exactly one hundred years ago, their new four part drama cunningly entitled “Titanic” will be airing.

The story of the Titanic apparently has no shelf life, and time and time again the fated voyage is used as the back drop for a melodrama. Yet I can’t help feeling that it’s a little old hat. Let’s face it, someone in the ITV drama is not going to make it. It’s like Jack and Kate all over again. You've only got to look at the newspapers of the day to see the number of fatalities vs. survivors.

I would therefore hazard a guess, that if the ITV program revolves around couples or class, which it probably will! I think we can expect to see not very many happy endings. The men involved – unless very rich and completely unscrupulous, are not going to make it onto the lifeboats, and will have to take their chances with the freezing cold water of the Atlantic. The characters that are in steerage (or basically economy / cattle class as we call it today) are also doomed by circumstance and more importantly fortune, to face a watery demise.

Whilst I understand the logic behind the decision to air in April 2012 (one hundred years on since the Titanic sank), I do wonder if there weren’t a few people at ITV who felt slightly uneasy about this given the recent events off the west coast of Italy with the Costa Concordia.

Yet it appears that from conspiracy theorists to romantaholics, the Titanic seems to offer something for everyone. People are drawn in again and again by stories about the ill-fated ship, and over the years there have been hundreds of films, miniseries, dramas, books, and documentaries told and made about the ship.

The stories are all very similar though, and we already know the characters fate. They are as doomed as their prospects of reaching New York on board the Titanic! I can’t help but feel that it’s like watching a football match where you already know the result. Nothing changes the outcome no matter how excited or demoralised you get about the goals or the way that your team is playing. The outcome has already been decided, and you are merely a late observer.

So what it is about the tragedy that makes the Titanic so appealing to use in terms of a story? Other ships have sunk over the course of history yet it seems that writers, film makers, producers, etc, have no interest in these. It seems that Titanic is to sunken ships, what Simon Cowell is to reality music talent shows.

The true story is harrowing, and I can’t help but think that it is this that provokes and stirs a kind of morbid fascination and overly romanticised sentimentality towards those that were onboard. The idea that only women and children were offered salvation in the scarce lifeboats that were on the ship, and even then it was only the rich and elite women and children.

Or, I wonder, if it is that we are fascinated and drawn by the notion of both our own mortality and arrogance of the day. The fated Titanic was after all said to be unsinkable! Given that it was made out of iron and steel, I can’t help but think – doh!

Regardless of our intrigue or interest and despite the fact that we all know that in the end the Titanic will sink. ITV I am certain can be sure of good ratings, and not least because it appears that Julian Fellows is behind it. So I think they be assured that any Downton Abbey viewer is at least going to show an initial interest!

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk

Quando, Quando, Quando

Quando, Quando, Quando – is just about right. When will the UK realise that we will never win the Eurovision Song Contest, and in my opinion that’s okay!

Eurovision is not so much about the singing as it is the political flexing of muscle, and the political nod that is frequently given between countries that are known to get along and have close ties. It’s a little bit like picking teams for gym class, the UK though is sadly the kid that no one wants to choose. Also I find it ever so slightly amusing that this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, that’s right – Euro vision Song Contest, is in Azerbaijan. Really – is Azerbaijan in Europe??

I don’t think that we should feel too hard done by, by the fact that we’re unlikely to ever win given that a lot of people in the UK don’t really care. If asked what concerns you more, the fact that we have Englebert Humperdinck representing us this year or the current petrol prices, I’m thinking most people care about how much it cost them to get from A – B and not how many times we’ll be told nul point. Also if you answer the other way round, again I say – really??

That said, I do think this year’s choice of representative for the UK is – I was going to say amusing, but I think that I’ll amend that to bemusing.

Englebert Humperdinck is often billed (I read on the internet) as “The King of Romance.” Now, I had to read up on him on the internet because, well, he’s 76, and to be honest unless my mum had said; “you will know him” and then started to sing; “Release Me” followed by “Quando Quando Quando” I’m not sure I would have known who he was. Until that was, all the radio stations also started to play these two songs to prompt their listeners to recall who Englebert Humperdinck was.

I do not wish to diminish Englebert Humperdinck’s successes. The man sold millions of records in the sixties and seventies, and apparently is still very popular today – especially in Europe! A ha I say! Perhaps therein lies the method to what looks a lot like madness.

Could it be that those responsible for the UK’s selection have decided to go less for someone that people in the UK would have voted for, and more for what the European audiences might vote for? In theory you can see why this might seem (well to anyone who’s never seen the Eurovision Song Contest before) a genius idea. Yet given that those making the selection you would assume have seen Eurovision before, then you’d have thought that they might have realised that this is not the X-factor. The political bias on display will, just as it has always done, determine the point scoring. 

Given how much we (well our politicians) have recently been irritating the French and Germans; I don’t think Englebert should hold out any hope of any points from either of those countries.

Yet regardless of the expectations of a UK success story – whether they are in your opinion positive or negative, I think that we should all just be glad that we are being represented by someone with singing talent. Whilst EH will not be everyone’s cup of tea, and a lot of people will have had to Google him, he can at least sing and he has the accolades and record sales to prove it.

We also probably shouldn’t forget that one year we nearly had Katie Price representing us! I don’t even think the politics of the day would have altered the scoring for the UK on that given year.

www.nataschaholloway.co.uk