Sergeant: a carry-on
Even if you are not watching BBC1's Strictly Come Dancing on a Saturday night, you will no doubt have picked up on the fact that former political journalist John Sergeant and his professional dance partner Kristina Rihanoff are at the eye of a storm. The chatter has gone overground. Let me quickly decode it for you.I am a huge fan of Strictly and watch it every week avidly - albeit I sensibly fast-forward through the Sunday results show to around 36 minutes in, thus arriving at the crux: which two couples must compete in the "dance-off" to secure their place in next week's show (the rest of the Sunday show is filler and need not trouble anyone beyond actual ballroom dancing nuts, or fans of Anton du Beke, who was jettisoned from the competition in week two, due to being paired up with Gillian Taylforth). For a total of seven mixed weeks, we have watched John Sergeant, not a natural dancer but a man of great good humour and a wry sense of self-effacing realism, be among the worst contestants technically and yet escape the dance-off. The professional judges have been, by and large, savage and yet each week, the public have voted to keep him in. What was once a bit of a laugh when dead-legs like Gary Rhodes and Phil Daniels were weeded out has now curdled into a diplomatic incident, as able hoofers like Heather Small and now Cherie Lunghi have been forced out. Gordon Brown will be forced to comment any day now.
The purist line is this: it's a dance competition, and nine weeks into it there should be no bad dancers left. Favourites like rugby's Austin Healey, acting's Tom Chambers and pop's Rachel Stevens, not to mention polo's Jodie Kidd who is one of the most improved contestants (and my favourite, for what it's worth), are still joined in the spangly line-up by a portly little fella who used to be on the news but is now on the Dave channel, giving it a good old go, but not really cutting it. Dancers who work their legwarmers off, week after week, are now being eliminated, despite the judges' through-the-floor marks, due to the way the vote is divided between professionals and the public. (Judge Arlene Phillips went on Breakfast News and moaned that John sits around reading the Guardian instead of giving himself a heart attack.)
The democratic line - the line I take - is this: it's an entertainment programme, and if the public want John in, they have the right to vote him in. Are we not entertained? I don't believe it's a case of Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards Syndrome - Britain loves a loser etc. - as Sergeant isn't that bad. Julian Clary, with a much more promising build and a background in showbiz, was much worse technically in series two, and the same thing happened. You can't argue with love, and the public loved him. They love John. (Actually, we don't know the proportion of the votes, so it may be that John is squeaking through every week by a mere handful, and that his time is nigh. Then snooty people who don't watch the programme can shut up and go back to not watching it.)
I've read some really cruel things about John Sergeant in the papers this week. Some hack columnist in the Standard yesterday called him "ugly", which is a) irrelevent, and b) subjective. He's a 64-year-old man who never set himself up as "handsome", so what's with the bitchy attacks on his looks? (He also called him "balding", which is true, but again hardly relevent.) Strictly is actually the very definition of a Popularity Contest, and John Sergeant is currently among the most popular seven contestants. Phillips called him a "dancing pig", which is also below the cummerbund.
If you hand the direction of a TV programme over the electorate, you must live by their collective decision. I say, if somebody is prepared to crank up their phone bill in a recession, continually voting for a man to be on a programme, they deserve him to be on it.
posted by Andrew Collins @ 1:37 PM
38 Comments
Contact
Andrew at
38 Comments:
I agree heartily. I was a bit sad to see that cheesy swine Daniel voted off the X Factor on Saturday so may even waste some money keeping Sargeant in.
Whouldn't a better headline be:
John, I'm Only Dancing
?
And how do you spell 'relevant'?
Here here. This is the same as the ludicrous recent outcry over Laura White's elimination from X Factor. It's a democratic show and if the public didn't vote for her to not be in the bottom that's the way it is.
Unless their is some phone rigging (a possibility) then the bottom line is she was eliminated because not enough people voted. As you say, if Sergeant is still there because people don't want to vote him out then that's the way it is.
I agree with everyone who got here first. This is a fantastic marketing campaign. I'm even tempted to watch.
It feels like christmas. It feels like one of those Children In Need novelty dancing newsreaders. Why has Angela Rippon never been on by the way (she may have been, I guess). She would be too good, there'd be no *journey*. Sarg's journey is like some slacker comedy film - I've just realised, he's 'The Dude' only it's the Guardian and not pot he uses. Hey man, chill out. I hope he comes at least second. It's a wonderful British pantomine - and Arlene Philips has voted herself an Ugly Sister. Sargent you will go to the ball... hurrah
The same thing happened last year on 'Let's Dance', the Swedish version. Old actor Lasse Brandeby performed with the same style and panache as I understand John Sargeant is doing now. And the public refused to vote him off, week after week. And there was just the same 'outcry' that it was a dance contest, and it was making a mockery of the whole thing.
Here he is in action:
http://www.tv4.se/polopoly_fs/1.311381!image/3352927116.jpg_gen/derivatives/w450/3352927116.jpg
In the end he started begging people to vote him out 'so this hell will end'.
Yes - 'whould'.
All charges of hypocrisy should be aimed at me when it comes to spelling errors.
As for Laura White - she was rubbish, then she got voted out...
Didn't you complain about Maestro being handed over to the public for the final vote, and you were angry at the result of the less able but more popular composer winning?
You've changed your stance a bit?
"why, oh why, did we have to get involved at the end? we know nothing!"
(I know there's a difference, Maestro only went public for the final round)
I haven't got time to go back and check my exact words, K, but having given the power to the professional judges throughout the series on Maestro, I felt it was a bit out of step to suddenly hand it over to the public for the final round. One or the other, I say. In point of fact, once the pros have narrowed it down to the final two, there's not much damage the public can do. I'll take either methodology, but demand consistency!
So, no, I haven't changed my stance, but thanks for keeping me on my toes.
And Dan, I really don't think any phone rigging is occurring on any programme on any channel at the present. Not after all that mucky business before.
My only moan about Strictly is the fact that they run the phone numbers from the beginning of the show but keep reminding us not to call the numbers as the lines aren't open. Well don't fucking run the numbers until they are then!
The exact wording was the "why, oh why, did we have to get involved at the end? we know nothing!" quote, or the one that summed it up the most anyway. I wouldn't have bothered looking but I knew it wasn't that long ago.
P.S. I accidentally posted as K before due to a horrific typo.
I don't think there is any rigging at all going on. But a quick glance over this list of all the incidents that were uncovered does underline why we should at least stay a little sceptical in matters of this nature:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6915136.stm
That's what you get for reading The Standard, which isn't even any good as toilet paper as the print tends to come off on your arse. Apparently.
I agree with you, AC.
Strictly is all about entertainment, and anyone who thinks differently only switched on to watch the controversy unfold.
If the BBC really have a problem with it, they'll remove the public's right to vote in future.
If the judges really feel so strongly, they'll leave. I can't see CRH et al throwing over the Strictly cash cow in the name of their artistic principles!
The criticism has all been really personal about John, and I think that's really inappropriate. Would they have called Cherie Lunghi old? Of course not. So why is it OK to comment on John's face or shape? I don't think he'll win, but he's been great fun to watch. Saturdays will be all the dimmer without him.
Kirstie
if it was purely a technical dance contest, there wouldn't be a public vote - just the verdict of the expert panel. But the public have spoken !
John actually isn't that bad at the slower, more stately dances such as the waltz and the smooth.I think my cat could dance the latin ones better !
It's only a 'game', people, and John has provided great humour and entertainment value.
K (I really am K!)
I've never watched "Strictly..." but such has been the unnecessary criticism of John that I’m sorely tempted to vote this weekend just to put the judges’ noses out of joint.
Yes, the cruel comments are a bit much, especially as the poor man obviously expected to be out by now, and isn't doing anything to prolong his presence aside from being his charming self. However, I remember chuckling long and hard many years ago at Danny Baker on Radio 1 compiling a list of celebrities you never want to see naked. John Sergeant was just behind Stan Richards, aka Seth Armstrong from Emmerdale Farm. In the poll, that is.
It feels as though despite John Sergeant's immense and deserved popularity with the public, some old gripes from certain of his journalistic colleagues are being tagged on to this 'issue'. Maybe his seemingly smooth segue from political heavyweight to comedic commentator has provoked some jealousy?
I've only watched 'Strictly' twice; once to see Peter Schmeikel and once to see John Sergeant, both of whom I quite like and am mildly curious about. I was pleasantly entertained both times. Job done!
Agree wholeheartedly that the point of 'Strictly' is that it's an entertainment programme. The judges and those who criticise John Sargent may want a serious programme about dancing, but nobody would watch it and we'd be back to the days of 'Come Dancing' which dwindled out of existence in 1998.
I would like him to win the x factor.
I think it's rather fun to rag the judges on these voting shows by ignoring their 'expert guidance', as they clearly can't take it very well at all.
What a bunch of prima donna-ish "grotesques" they become.
Andrew
Are you and Richard going to cover John Gaunt's sacking for calling someone a NAZI in your podcast?
Now he's not working in radio, he could come and join you two in the studio.
Didn't Richard also get the boot for being too rude for radio?
It would be brave but it could also be great.
I should caveat this by adding that I'm about 2 weeks behind on the podcasts which i realise could be fatal in making an enquiry about the content of a weekly current affairs based podcast. However it would take longer to delete this than end here.
Cheers
Axl
I didn't know you were a fan, Andrew! I loved Jodie's dance this week and like the unpredictability of this year's show.
I think John should have a left a couple of weeks back, but the judges (and some of the media) resorting to personal insults seems unnecessary and likely to make the voting public dig their heels in and vote for him even more.
Hats off to Kristina though, she's working very hard to distract everyone from his moves on the dancefloor.
If you don't already know...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/jon-gaunt-sacked-over-nazi-jibe-1024208.html
Surprising, non?
Paddy
re: "Well don't fucking run the numbers until they are then!"
god yes!!!
They do the same on X-Factor too!
And I agree, there are just no excuses to be mean. It's only a friggin telly show :-)
Tina
I've never watched strictly and had no idea it was currently on and who may have been on it either in the past or the present.I do seem to know a lot about this series however, without ever tuning in.
Is it just the cynic in me which assumes the judges apparent anger is maybe a little bit driven by the marketing department?
I have to admit I do all I can to avoid this, but being a news junkie, I could not help but see some of the snippets about Sergeant-gate, and the judges telling the public to vote him off I am sure will only make people dig their heels in to keep him in. Interesting to see the judges being so condescending, almost telling people you don't know what you are on about when it comes to the votes, but they don't want to go the distance of pulling premium rate phone lines, which I think they should do if they were really that upset; plus there is a credit crunch on, affecting everyone, except those doing some free podcast! Ringing these numbers are almost as valid as texting 1*8*1* (full number censored for Andrew not wanting to advertise 'em)
"You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong" springs to mind (a quote from an anchor of a 'fair and impartial' news network....)
This is fascinating. The more the (self-appointed) 'experts' moan and whine about the 'integrity' of the show, the more the British public vote for John. Ha ha, it is more than enjoyable watching and listening to these people being pulled down a peg or two from their self-satisfied perches. After all, they are the ones who week after week get to ridicule (in the nicest possible way), put down and criticise others, while at the same time boosting their own egos and fees they charge for public appearances. The public want to tell them they don't care much for their priggish patronising attitudes. I feel a surge of satisfaction as if the school laggard gets elected to head boy, while the headmaster and teachers fulminate against the pupils for not taking their little project 'seriously'. Excellent, long may it continue.
I only think Sergeant should be voted off because I have a vicious competitive streak and if I were dancing as well as Cherie, I would hate to have to leave before John.
Also I wonder about the public's motives. If they're keeping him there because they find him entertaining and charming, that's fine. If they just want to see him dance badly and get torn to pieces by the judges again, that's poor form.
He's just quit...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7737447.stm
First Gaunt, now Sergeant!
How ridiculous. Although the reasons he gives in his statement are dignified and credible: "The trouble is that there is now a real danger that I might win the competition. Even for me that would be a joke too far."
At least it never got to Parliament.
Given that he's now left, the furore will die down a touch... but the fact remains that the judges are the exact reason why John Sergeant was kept in week-after-week.
After the likes of Chris Parker, Julian Clary, Georgina Bouzova and Fiona Philips were all kept in, in their respective series at the expense of 'better' dancers, the judges petitioned the producers for a new system.
Thus, the dance-off with judges' decision appeared. The result? People continued to vote even more for the underdog, so the likes of Kate Garraway and John were still kept in... and the judges were forced to vote for a good dancer, making them even more irritated.
What annoys me is that the producers are now thinking of changing the rules 'again' so that if any dancer is bottom 3 weeks in a row, they will automatically get booted off. Total rubbish!
"Will the BBC now suspend the judges for being rude and bullying to a charming old man, to his face, and for encouraging the public to make mass phone calls to get dear old John sacked" is the title of the Letter to the Editor of the Daily Mail I shall be writing later today.
I propose to employ a tone of frenzied outrage coupled with themes of reactionary and selective looking-back. I will probably use capital letters to give certain words greater emphasis and also underlinings.
Do you think this will work Andrew?
He will rise again...probably hosting Have I Got News For You? That is after he's done his speaking job on a Suez cruise.
The man is so familiar with political spin and he's played a blinder here
Must agree with Bethnoir about Kristina, I'm sure people liked her too, she deserved to stay in.
Even John winning shouldn't have been a problem at all if everyone just relaxed. If he were to have still been there (?) in the penultimate week then that week could have been viewed as the final of the pure dancing contest. So be it, let voters get it out of their system. Relax, breathe, don't lose form, it'll all work out - thought the judges and dancers would've known that.
If he were to have still been there (?) in the penultimate week then that week could have been viewed as the final of the pure dancing contest.
Just to clarify that bollocks to myself: view that week as the final just in case you are later denied the best couples in the actual final. I think that's what I meant.
Of course, the simple answer to all this would be not to change the rules a-bloody-gain, but only to book celebs who can cut a rug. However, would as many people watch that?
And now the Guardian reports that over 2000 people have complained to the BBC because he left:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/nov/20/strictly-come-dancing-john-sergeant
What on earth is going on? Does absolutely everything have to be made into a stick to beat the BBC with? I pine for the pre-internet days when you merely suspected that the world was full of idiots instead of having it confirmed on a now weekly basis.
Incidentally, Andrew - were you on the NME when they organised the popular vote for David Bowie to play 'Laughing Gnome' on his Sound and Vision tour?
I really enjoyed the show today. I thought the way he left was very dignified, and though he was good entertainment it will now be nice to concentrate on which of the others will be good enough to become the winner.
Post a Comment
<< Home