Carole Cadwalladr writes in today's Observer about the risk of humiliated Britain's Got Talent contestants contemplating suicide. The article uses the example of Alyn James, a contestant with a history of psychiatric units and mental health problems, who was, by the sounds of it (I didn't watch the "episode" in question), recently jeered off the stage by a crowd baying for blood. I don't watch the show at all, though I'll admit that I have done in the past. Soon enough, I came to the realisation that if I wanted to see a hairy misanthrope tear people to shreds, I might just as easily watch Peter Jackson's King Kong.
This story is, predictably, the most recent in a long line of criticisms of Simon Cowell's talent contest-cum-reality TV shows. Little more than thinly-veiled exhibitions of Britain's weird and wonderful (though far more air time is devoted to the weird), BGT is both a symptom and a cause of a mainstream culture that deals in schadenfreude and the considerable clout of rose-tinted underdog stories. When Susan Boyle appeared on the show last year (and I'm again working from second-hand information; I've managed never to watch that YouTube clip), she was ridiculed by audience members:
"What are you doing here, fool? Don't you know that people who aren't preposterously attractive can't si- WOW! Incredible! My socially conditioned prejudices never conceived that this unconventionally dressed, middle-of-the-road woman might be at all talented!"
(I'm guessing the reaction went something like that)
Yet anyone who thought that BGT might finally have offered a fair and unbiased opportunity to a diamond in the rough was sorely mistaken. As highlighted by TIME, Boyle was expressly approached by Cowell's talent scouts to appear on the show, while 1970s Cambodian dictator and previous BGT winner Paul Potts had performed before Pavarotti, and with the Royal Philharmonic. Far from being incredible discoveries, their performances were carefully orchestrated pieces of human-interest drama. But then, as many people must know by now, the televised auditions are in fact the second stage of contestants' tribulations: for they must attend an 'untelevised' audition with BGT underlings before they entertain the panel of international supervillains Cowell, Piers Morgan, and Amanda "I know you were singing for your babies/parent/grandparent just then" Holden. This filtration process obviously ensures that the contestants most likely to elicit an extreme response from the audience are put through, as opposed to those with the very best acts. Because that's what TV is all about, right? An exposé of regular people whom we are encouraged to deride because they don't meet our absurd expectations? Right.
And, of course, in last year's grand final, Boyle apparently fell out of grace with "the public", who voted instead for some kids who shuffled about whilst wearing hats (the fact that their act was named 'Diversity' made their victory seem like the fulfilment of an Equal Opportunities quota). I arrived back in London from a holiday in France to the hilarious-yet-awful tabloid headlines of "SuBo in Priory". I'm certain that any irony in one woman's struggle with ceaseless and unscrupulous media coverage receiving ceaseless and unscrupulous media coverage was not lost on the bigwig red-top editors; they who eat irony for breakfast and wash it down with a warm cup of capitalist depravity. Yum.
Cowell's shows have propagated the belief that members of society have not only the right but the obligation to ridicule others on the basis of a very artificial, very public portrayal. His projects throughout the previous decade mutated from glitzy-tacky singing contests to national spectacles showcasing various 'talents', all the while revolutionising the manner in which the viewing public interacted with what they saw on television. Somewhere along the way, laughing at failure become more enjoyable (and doubtless more profitable) than celebrating success. His is a multi-million pound trade that deals in personal strife and public exploitation, offering transient fame and the impossible promise of contestants' unadulterated self-expression.
Rumour has it that he's on the Queen's birthday honours list.
Sunday 30 May 2010
Sunday 2 May 2010
A response to the actions of Leeds University Union Activities Executive, 12/03/10
The recent events surrounding the LUU Activities Executive’s dealings with the Palestine Solidarity Group, and some of the proposed referendum motions, convey mixed messages. Not only those that contradict one another; for instance, advocating the closure or expansion of the Peanut Gallery, only one of which may be put to referendum; but also those that seem to fly in the face of a democratic and principled union.
From the list of referendum motions, the Peanut Gallery issue has become one of the most controversial, challenged only by the proposed elevation of Jack Straw to Honorary President (I presume this will be somewhat like the position of North Korean ‘Eternal President’ Kim-Il Sung, who continues to preside eternally since his death in 1994).
The main case brought against the Peanut is that it has become the intimidating domain of a ‘highly political clique’. Not only does the use of the word ‘clique’ belittle the sentiments of serious political groups that use the space, but it is an all too easy label to apply to a group that holds ‘asymmetrical’ views. Those who feel intimidated by it are likely to be those that wouldn’t use it anyway, but that’s no case for willing its closure. The invocation of ‘intimidation’ is utterly arbitrary. Students will inevitably feel intimidated by the confidence of others, whether manifest in political activism or nights out in Fruity. The condemnation of the political nature of the Peanut – for one cannot and should not deny that it is the refuge of such groups – seems not only illogical but irrelevant. The Union is not an isolated entity, and the suppression of politics within fosters the kind of apathy that saw a minimal turnout of students in the Union Executive Elections. Though as stated at the outset, this is not the only gripe that I currently hold.
As you may be aware, the Activities Executive moved to ban the Palestine Solidarity Group from using LUU facilities following protests that took place when the deputy consul of the state of Israel, Ismael Khaldi, was invited by the LUU Jewish Society to give a talk at the university. The ban coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week, for which PSG had organised a series of events in conjunction with other societies, like People & Planet, Liberty at Leeds and Revolution, who decided to go ahead in hosting the events despite the ban. Yet in an ‘emergency meeting’ of the Activities Executive on March 2, to which none of the societies in question were invited to defend themselves, members came to the decision to cancel all the week’s events. Justification seems to revolve around the Executive’s unwavering desire to reprimand PSG, with the claim that allowing the events to go ahead would amount to undermining the original suspension of the group.
The meeting’s minutes argue not only that ‘separate’ Facebook pages were not made for the Liberty or People & Planet events, apparently enough to render them null and void, but that it was ‘dishonest’ of PSG to force other groups to ‘act on their behalf’. The Union embargo against PSG was made on the grounds of their behaviour at Khaldi’s talk; grounds not wholly without precedent. yet the motivation behind the events’ cancellation seem inane at best, and at worst, spiteful. The political messages to which the week sought to draw attention are in danger of being repressed: their occurrence under the mantle of a Liberty or P&P event would not have demeaned their importance, an importance now lost in the pursuit of needless one-upmanship. Their outright expulsion from the Union professes not only a vendetta against PSG but a further de-politicisation of the Union space.
The presence of political sentiments within the Union should be encouraged, and under no circumstances quashed. As a physical space, the Peanut Gallery is far from perfect, but as a refuge for those who do wish to be explicitly political, it is something to be cherished. Improve, expand, but do not eradicate. The Union has a bank, a beauty salon, a hairdresser, three clothes shops, two bars, three music venues, and only one democratic cooperative space. The move to cancel the Israeli Apartheid Week events, events spearheaded by both PSG and fellow societies, has sent out the message to such societies that their use of Union space is conditional only upon the consent of a capricious Executive. Let us not allow the freedoms of a ‘highly political clique’ to be threatened by the whims of an anti-political clique.
From the list of referendum motions, the Peanut Gallery issue has become one of the most controversial, challenged only by the proposed elevation of Jack Straw to Honorary President (I presume this will be somewhat like the position of North Korean ‘Eternal President’ Kim-Il Sung, who continues to preside eternally since his death in 1994).
The main case brought against the Peanut is that it has become the intimidating domain of a ‘highly political clique’. Not only does the use of the word ‘clique’ belittle the sentiments of serious political groups that use the space, but it is an all too easy label to apply to a group that holds ‘asymmetrical’ views. Those who feel intimidated by it are likely to be those that wouldn’t use it anyway, but that’s no case for willing its closure. The invocation of ‘intimidation’ is utterly arbitrary. Students will inevitably feel intimidated by the confidence of others, whether manifest in political activism or nights out in Fruity. The condemnation of the political nature of the Peanut – for one cannot and should not deny that it is the refuge of such groups – seems not only illogical but irrelevant. The Union is not an isolated entity, and the suppression of politics within fosters the kind of apathy that saw a minimal turnout of students in the Union Executive Elections. Though as stated at the outset, this is not the only gripe that I currently hold.
As you may be aware, the Activities Executive moved to ban the Palestine Solidarity Group from using LUU facilities following protests that took place when the deputy consul of the state of Israel, Ismael Khaldi, was invited by the LUU Jewish Society to give a talk at the university. The ban coincided with Israeli Apartheid Week, for which PSG had organised a series of events in conjunction with other societies, like People & Planet, Liberty at Leeds and Revolution, who decided to go ahead in hosting the events despite the ban. Yet in an ‘emergency meeting’ of the Activities Executive on March 2, to which none of the societies in question were invited to defend themselves, members came to the decision to cancel all the week’s events. Justification seems to revolve around the Executive’s unwavering desire to reprimand PSG, with the claim that allowing the events to go ahead would amount to undermining the original suspension of the group.
The meeting’s minutes argue not only that ‘separate’ Facebook pages were not made for the Liberty or People & Planet events, apparently enough to render them null and void, but that it was ‘dishonest’ of PSG to force other groups to ‘act on their behalf’. The Union embargo against PSG was made on the grounds of their behaviour at Khaldi’s talk; grounds not wholly without precedent. yet the motivation behind the events’ cancellation seem inane at best, and at worst, spiteful. The political messages to which the week sought to draw attention are in danger of being repressed: their occurrence under the mantle of a Liberty or P&P event would not have demeaned their importance, an importance now lost in the pursuit of needless one-upmanship. Their outright expulsion from the Union professes not only a vendetta against PSG but a further de-politicisation of the Union space.
The presence of political sentiments within the Union should be encouraged, and under no circumstances quashed. As a physical space, the Peanut Gallery is far from perfect, but as a refuge for those who do wish to be explicitly political, it is something to be cherished. Improve, expand, but do not eradicate. The Union has a bank, a beauty salon, a hairdresser, three clothes shops, two bars, three music venues, and only one democratic cooperative space. The move to cancel the Israeli Apartheid Week events, events spearheaded by both PSG and fellow societies, has sent out the message to such societies that their use of Union space is conditional only upon the consent of a capricious Executive. Let us not allow the freedoms of a ‘highly political clique’ to be threatened by the whims of an anti-political clique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
