I bought both the dresses. Now I'm spending the first day of June being sick.
So, Eurovision was in Moscow this year. I toyed with the idea of going, but I hate crowds, it would probably be cold, being May and all, and I'd get a better view of things on TV anyway. It also ends really late and I live outside Moscow. On the other hand, it's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. In the end, I decided I wanted to go, only to find that tickets were (and had been) sold out forever. Anyway, I totally made the right decision. Or, rather, I made the wrong decision too late so it defaulted to the right decision because I am Homer Simpson.
First I'd like to address the voting, which was always, to me, the most interesting aspect of the whole thing.
They CHANGED it!!! The voting, I mean. Or, rather, they changed it back. Well, halfway
(It's a little more complicated than this, but...) Before 1975, the results were determined by professional juries. In 1975, the move was made to televoting. Now (at least in Russia), you vote by text message. I don't think viewer voting will ever be dropped entirely, and for good reason.
The problem was western Europe. Voters aren't allowed to vote for their own country (if they were, you could basically just change the name to Russiavision and get on with it). The voting trends are block voting, which is geographical, and diaspora voting, which is what happens when immigrants vote for their country of origin. So, if your country is nice enough that people don't want to leave it and stable enough not to have been divided into a bunch of little countries recently, you don't get a lot of votes.
I would argue that both of these trends are a) interesting, b) more cultural than political, and c) part of Eurovision. (I also think it pays to look at the list of winners over the past ten years. No repeats).
But Britain started complaining about its bad results, and Britain is one of the four big sponsors of the contest. The others are France, Spain, and Germany, and I don't know if they were complaining or not. Anyway, without the four biggest sponsors, Eurovision apparently doesn't happen, so something had to be done.
And so, the new voting system was introduced. Now a country's results are determined half by televote and half by professional jury. This was their choice:
Cons: he can't really sing. It also sounds like he's making up the lyrics as he goes along. I don't know if that's a problem with his singing or a problem with the lyrics. I suspect both.
Pros: nice eyes.
Obviously, the pros outweigh the cons.
I've spent the past few weeks explaining to people that I don't really object to this being the 2009 Eurovision winner. You know what I object to? This being the Eurovision winner with 387 points (out of 504 possible). I don't really object to this breaking the previous record. I object to this breaking the previous record by 95 points.
Way to go, Britain. Way to go.
Now there's some speculation that the juries chose Norway because Norway is in a good enough financial position to put on a show next year. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but that is the only way this makes sense. Maybe next year they can conspire together to give Portugal a win (they've never won, and they started competing in 1964). Hopefully, they'll make it a little less obvious.
Speaking of Portugal, I kind of love this:
Also notice the little Russian lessons that appeared at the beginning of each song. It's not a bad idea, but do not try to pronounce them as transcribed, as they will make no sense.
Iceland and Denmark just reminded me of American music (the sound, not the look). Let's see if you agree or if I've just been out of the country too long:
Second place. At least check out the background at 1:47.
I like this one.
Anyway, I saw these two and thought, "wow...northern Europe must be having an American music moment right now." And then Norway came on. "Never mind." The less said about Finland (which came later), the better.
But you were probably expecting something disastrously over the top and inappropriate. Here's Ukraine:
And Germany:
Easily my favorite song of the night (oh pseudo-retro German Eurovision entries, why can't I quit you?), but I can't take the staging. The singer is American, by the way. You'd think at some point he'd be like, "this looks kinda like Cabaret. I'm just not sure that's a good idea."
So that's my Eurovision dissertation. I didn't even get started on the semifinals, mostly because I avoid them. I like to be surprised. But the semifinals impact the voting, and apparently I feel very strongly about Eurovision voting.
If I weren't who's to say
15 years ago
3 comments:
I totally enjoyed this entry.
Wow. They are all over the top in their various ways. You're right about the two that sounded a lot like American music, though Iceland, oddly, sounded like country music. Denmark sounded like what you hear whenever you turn on the radio these days.
But the winner? Okay, he's boy band cute, I guess, and he can play the fiddle, but you are right that he can't sing, and I laughed about what you said about the lyrics sounding like he was just making them up. Awful.
Thanks for Ukraine. I loved the gladiators with the steam spurting up. Nice touch.
I'd say that most of the performances look something like either Ukraine or Iceland, though Ukraine was the most over the top. Azerbaijan and Turkey (3rd and 4th) were in the same style as Ukraine, as was Greece (7th), but with a male lead singer. The UK (5th. I hope they're happy) was closer to the Iceland model.
A couple insane ones I forgot about were Armenia (what?) and Bosnia & Herzegovina (I like the song, but it looks like the cast of Twilight decided to do a (American) Civil War reenactment).
If you look for the youtube user ESCEurovisionESC, you can find all of them.
Most of them...that user doesn't have Albania for some reason. You need to see Albania.
Post a Comment