BGT Final: Cruel PC joke to play on Susan Boyle ?
Ok, I'm sure I'll get criticised for talking about this, but I just wanted to comment on Britain's Got Talent again. I saw the front pages of the newspapers today and was almost flabbergasted to see that Susan Boyle didn't win it.
I said before I was always wary of Simon Cowell. I don't like the guy. It's more than just his pantomime bad cop part he plays on that show. Cowell's role as both producer and judge reminds me of a politician in government, presiding over something where his control or ability to influence a lot of variables outweighs our ability to give him the benefit of the doubt.
There's something both nauseating and sinister about his almost-camp denigrations of performers, and the way we are supposed to listen to what he's got to say about anything seems to be based around the fact he's simply on the panel.
After watching some of the clips of the Britain's Got Talent final that people have uploaded, there's seems me little question that Cowell knew exactly what was going to happen with Boyle.
Indeed, if we go back, a large part of that earlier show with her was constructed or produced shall we say around her image, and some people I know have said they thought it was incredibly cynical of the producers to do that, knowing this would initially get a certain reaction by the audience. The only I thing I would says is it's not a crime to create or facilitate new, uplifting and phenomenal entertainment that way, but I think it's playing with fire to then to turn the tap off right at last moment.
Obviously, which I didn't know at the time when I first posted about this, this woman has become a phenomenon across the entire internet. Even in the ultra-cynical circles of alternative news, John Stadtmiller of RBN dedicated a radio show to Susan Boyle at the time.
So anyway I had a look at this dance group Diversity's performance who did win. It's very good. And it's great achievement. But there's a lot of dancers who can do that kind of stuff at a very high level, in fact they had another act on the same series called Flawless. It's not that unusual or novel or lends itself that well to concentrated stardom.
I used to dance in an amateur capacity (very amateur) for some years, dance is incredibly tough and a wonderful wonderful thing, and I'm not knocking any of it, but it also somewhat strains reality to see Diversity or frankly any dance act trump Susan Boyle in the kinds of stakes that we would lean towards if this were being run properly.
Again I don't want to take anything away from them and their tremendous abilities and performance, but to me 'Diversity' winning is more about diversity winning, and you can't help but feel there could be a little sinister message being beamed out that it's all about multicultural, multiracial, pro-immigration beats little British quaint white woman Susan Boyle, in her little village which is presumably full of bigots.
That seems to be the message we are supposed to go away with, and which is also a really cruel and utterly inappropriate joke to make at Susan Boyle's expense, and at the expense of her global army of fans.
Also I didn't understand why Boyle was advised to sing that same song again. As good as it was in the final she had already given the performance of a lifetime with it once, no need to repeat it. She should have had a different song for the final, and people have dug up other wonderful things she's sung so it's not like she has to sing that song again.
I'm not too sure as I'm not familiar with these kinds of shows, I've read different things, but people I know who know this show better than I do tell me that the public voted in this final, and that Diversity were therefore the public's choice. Please correct me someone if that's not correct.
Personally, I just find that very difficult to believe. To me it seems to strain reality that she didn't win this show based on the incredible public support she's had. Of course she is a winner anyway with a fantastic career for her, multi-million pound record deal with Simon Cowell and an army of fans around the world so on, but still I just can't see how she didn't win the competion.
But Piers Morgan might have let the cat out of the bag.
People who only appeared on Earth in the last few years might believe that Piers Morgan is just a sort of celebrity socialite and personality in his own right. But of course he does have an impressive track record of being a rightly outspoken critic of the Iraq War, so outspoken he was effectively set up to take him out of being the editor of the Daily Mirror.
Morgan took the Mirror (one imagines kicking and screaming) from being a worthless moron's rag not fit to wipe your ass with, to become perhaps the most outspoken anti-War newspaper in living memory for the time he was editor.
And Morgan seemed to be aware that some sort of tide had been turning against Boyle, and suggested he knew a decision had already been made, and spoke out against that correctly, saying,
"Susan I'm not supposed to favour anyone in this competinon. As a judge I should be impartial. But you know what ? Forget it. That to me was the greatest performance I've seen in Britain's Got Talent history. You should win this competion, I loved it."
Indeed Cowell didn't seem to like it, saying "I don't know who's going to win". I don't believe that.
Susan Boyle should have just won plain and simple.
And I'd just like to comment on some of the commentary I've seen on this in the press today, particularly in The Observer, hard copy of which I was reading earlier, the level of which was actually outrageous.
The journalist started by repeatedly asserting Susan had some difficulties during birth, and therefore had learning difficulties. Unfortunately I can't find the article online on The Guardian's site today, it seems to be only in the hard copy of The Observer. But it was just gratuitous and he repeatedly kept referring to this. So what was the point of it ?
I mean is it ok to start by characterizing this Observer writer as middle aged, having a bald spot, a fat gut and small dick, and that everything he's writing about must be seen through that lens ? That's the level of it. Absolutely shocking, and I have no idea why they wrote what they did in the way they did. They should make a public apology.