Some things come out of this Strictly business:
1. People do seem to want to go on about it. The Mail tries it on with yet another post and people come in commenting. My attitude is that if it’s something people enjoy, then good on ‘em. That type of show is not my thing but there you are.
2. The social fallout though was very interesting. For someone not watching, to read all the comments makes for an interesting study. Just look at this pic of the four contestants and let me make a quick comment on them:
The best two, to me [leaving dancing aside], look to be N1 left to right and N3. N2 seems too full of herself and N4 seems to have no place whatever in there – she seems weird, out of it and not nice in the least. Strangely, it’s the feet, the way the contestants stand, which gives them away.
Then names were put to them – N1 was the winner and she does have looks and poise but her after-win drunkenness betrayed her chav roots, N2 was a ring-in, a real dancer they slipped in there, N3 was very much “the lady” and therefore my favourite and N4 was plain awful, as all the slapping down of her subsequently seems to confirm.
3. I must be a woman because it’s been said that men like N4 and women don’t. I don’t like her at all. She has no style or grace whatever, just like Andie Macdowell. N2 is pretty awful too, graceless.
4. Someone said that if it had been about dancing, then N2 would have been streets ahead – so what were the ground rules?
Take a look at the famous Cyd Charisse and this gives an idea:
… which was a contrast to her masculine persona in her power dancing. But all the comments I’m reading on Strictly seem to come back to poise, grace and style – it’s what people are looking for, with perhaps humility in that mix as well.
Trouble in these times we live in is how to find that again – perhaps we might.