Britain's got psychological problems
In the wake of the Susan Boyle controversy Britain's Got Talent judge Amanda Holden has said that it'd be 'impractical' for them to psychologically screen all entrants to the competition. She's right of course, but instead of impractical she could also have used the term 'counter-productive'. The entire joy of watching the initial audition process would be destroyed if they were to exclude people due to borderline personality disorders.
It probably says something about my personality but I have no interest in seeing people with moderate talent trying to prove their worth, I'm far more interested in the legions of the misguided and (possibly) psychologically-impaired who think that they have something special to offer, when in truth they've always just had special-needs.
The malignant spread of reality TV seems to prove that I'm not alone, clearly most couch-potatoes like a dose of delusion with their evening meals. We all like to laugh or gasp at the 'hilarious' efforts of those who believe themselves to be the next Madonna, or Elvis. It's the modern-day equivalent of bear-baiting, or maybe it's dog-fighting for non-chavs or bare-knuckles for non-pikeys. Seeing Cowell savage would-be contestants, tearing their hopes into tiny pieces, is a bizarrely-ritualistic form of entertainment taking us back into the arena with the gladiators and the emperor who can turn fate with a simple twist of thumb-up or thumb-down.
A psychologist friend of mine has written a blog on our generally spiteful nature with regard to these programmes, a prescient piece considering that it was written before Ofcom mentioned the 350 complaints they'd received about BGT. It seems that the vast majority were not complaining about Boyle (only 20 phoned in concern for her) instead they were raging at the treatment of ten-year-old Hollie Steel, who broke down in tears during one of the semi-finals. Before you think that this should warm your heart please note that 50 were questioning the morals of subjecting crying children to the nation, the other 280 were complaining that Cowell gave her a second chance to perform after the tears had been shed. The complainers said this was just unfair.
As the tabloids look to feast on the remains of the competition and carve their pound of flesh from its rotting corpse, the 'qualities' have been keen to establish whether ITV or the programme-makers could've done more to assist the psychological well-being of the contestants. To which the answer surely has to be, yes, but do they want to? It may be impractical to offer screening or testing to all contestants but they could've done more for those they knew to be at risk.
The massive worldwide reaction to SuBo was based entirely upon the shock reaction that someone who would initially appear to be 'slightly unusual' in demeanour could sing in an above-average way. Since all of modern-life is based on our shallow values of youth, beauty and vitality, perceptions massively reinforced by television and other media, the impact of seeing someone 'old & ugly' with a modicum of talent was ridiculously over-inflated.
Susan then became big news, bigger worldwide than Twitter at one point in the week after her first appearance. Twitter actually amplified her status via celebs like Demi Moore and others pointing at the youtube clips taking her even more widely across the globe. Given her back-story which we've all subsequently read - starved of oxygen at birth, learning difficulties as a result, spent all her life in a small Scottish community - ITV/Syco owed her a massive duty of care.
It's a perfect example of the 'global village' theory, Susan Boyle went from being one of probably many lonely old spinsters in dullsville-upon-twee, tartanland to being the western-World's most-talked-about individual with an invite to perform at the White House and her own celeb-style abbreviated name.
All of this happened within the space of seven days. It's extremely doubtful that anyone could have withstood this kind of attention, and whilst you may choose to belief the TV hyped shock-reactions of the judges you should be under no illusion that TV gold comes that easily, loads of people are involved in making it look that good.
The other relevant point is that they had more than long enough to ensure that this happened. Her first TV appearance was very early in the competition and the hysteria started immediately. At that point they knew she would be amongst the favourites to win and they should've been working with her. I don't know the timeline or whether they did take the necessary steps, the evidence would suggest otherwise.
Older/Newer
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Britain's got psychological problems.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/cgi-bin/mt421/mt-tb.cgi/130516
1 Comments
Leave a comment
Authors
Paul Flower - Paul Flower works in the music industry, a promoter, critic, (self)-publicist and all-round consultant to clients.
It seems that some people are jumping on the 'psychological screening' bandwagon. The first point that needs to be made is that if we applied the same criteria to all 'talent', a significant percentage would be 'screened out'.Britain's Got Talent is a different kind of show to Big Brother. In the former people with a modicum of talent are hoping to get a break, in the later, people without talent are hoping to become celebrities (at any cost). The second point is that kids cry all the time. They cry when they have to go to bed early, they cry in supermarkets and roll round the floor and wet themselves if they can't have sweets (I know I did). Then you have to look at the other kids that appeared on BGT. Shaheen Jafargholi gave a vocal performance that a adult would be envious of, and Aiden Davis had to cope with having a moving stage sprung on him at the last minute. By contract Holly Steel got preferential treatment to all of the other acts.
The third point is that there has been a lot of emphasis on what the producers should have done to protect Susan Boyle. One thing that springs to mind is hiring 24 hour protection from media intrusion but clearly that's not practical. The Susan Boyle phenomenon could not have been predicted. Instead, we all have to take responsibility and rethink out attitudes to celebrity and whether we condone editors paying fortunes for pap-snaps of people in distress. In the hotel incident, two journalists allegedly deliberately set out with the intention of causing Boyle distress. They did not report the news but created it, just for the sheer hell of it.
Susan Boyle has 'enjoyed' a lightning speed rise to celebrity-dom, which apparently makes her fair game. Some have commented that 'she needs to get used to it as it goes with the territory' but few have questioned the morals of hounding someone who just 'entered a talent contest' a couple of months ago. Even seasoned professional media-manipulators would have had problems had they been subjected to the attention that Susan Boyle is receiving.