I've also watched more than one episode of Australian Idol, which under today's standards leaves me fully qualified as a social commentator. Somehow I doubt this would pass close scrutiny, but something about both shows has struck me.
Now I'm a sports fan first and foremost. Like former US Chief Justice Earl Warren, I always turn to the sports pages first: "the sports section records people's accomplishments; the front pages nothing but man's failures".
My sport of choice is cricket, a game that caters to pretty much everyone. You have the option of following the classical techniques (McGrath, Lillee, Hadlee, Warne et al) or the unconventional (Muralitharan, Mitchell Johnson, Malinga). And that's just the bowlers.
Thing is though, ask a knowledgable cricket fan who they'd really like to watch, and they'll probably tell you Johnson or Murali bowling to Afridi or McCullum. What do these four have in common? They're all instinctive players.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but what Dance and Idol seem to lack are instinctive performers.
Make no mistake: technically, these guys are brilliant. The control these guys/girls have over their bodies/voices is nothing short of amazing. To consistently do what they do takes years of training that allows them to do things the rest of us can only sit there and dream of doing.
But...
It's a potential thing. I'd rather watch Johnson and Afridi take risks on the off that it leads to something special; likewise, I'd like to see performers take a risk on the chance that its leads to something unforgettable. Better that than play it safe for something that you remember for whole minutes.
Unfortunately Dance and Idol's formats don't lend themselves to this kind of risk-taking: wouldn't it be compelling viewing if they did?
No comments:
Post a Comment