Tagged With: tv

Historically society has apportioned importance according to role. For example Lord of the Manor or Peasent, and until recently people had limited choices in those roles. If you were a farmer’s son then you would be a farmer. One might marry into money or be born with it. Some might aspire to better that themselves and a few might succeed. Methods have included marriage, crime, business acumen, science and the production of art, more recently called “media”.

Different ages of “media” have had different styles. From gladiators fighting in an arena, to the written word with Shakespeare, through silent slapstick with Charlie Chaplin, through rock ‘n’ roll with Elvis, the advent of the music video with Queen, and the Stock, Aitken and Waterman era of early Kylie. The roles and rewards of promoters, writers and performers have changed less, with promoters making the most profits and performers risking the most

The success of any media is usually judged by the size of its patronage. Though in the majority of cases the fans will never meet or really get to know the ‘stars’. Even the name “star” implies something high above us that we can reach for the never quite touch. Talent shows promise a chance of fame to those that crave it. Most recently with the audience empowered to feel that they are part of the judging process. We all have different criteria mixing who we want to win, who we think deserves to win, and in more recent years tactical voting. Promoters, writers, performers and even politicians know this, and often try to present themselves in the best possible light to maximise their chances of success. In clear moments participants known and may even admit that they are gambling their futures in such contests, and that there are always more losers than winners.

You can love or hate the X factor or both. My personal opinion is that it is a modern day pantomime, where the audience cheer and boo like marionettes with tangled strings. If I choose to watch such a performance then I choose to yield to the machinations, and the rollercoaster of emotions, safe in the knowledge that it is not real, at least not real that anyone I really know.

As for katie, she has fallen into the panto role of the villain we should boo; whether this is because of her family.her precociousness, “Gamu”-gate, or a cultural backlash against image styling; she is perhaps the new nasty Nick. While I do not ascribe to the vitriol against her I do agree with the caller last night that the producers of X factor must share some of that responsibility whether their actions have been grounded in incompetence or in deviousness.

To close this essay I will leave you with two quotes that you may or may not agree with; one from Wagner “She’s just a girl from a council estate who got lucky when somebody gave her a job in showbusiness” ; and one slightly more profound from Napoleon Bonaparte. “One must change one’s tactics every 10 years if one wishes to maintain one’s superiority”