I admit that after the shambles that was 2008 and the decision of Sir Terry not to continue commentating, I was planning not to watch what I though would be another whipping for the UK. I did, watch this, however, off-live, with very liberal use of the fast-forward button.
A word about the presentation to begin with. I ignored the presenters, who were largely generic. The vignettes with the hats of architecture were overly fast, hard to follow and not much use in actually identifying the countries pre-on-screen-announcement.
The songs in the final themselves were very samey. I've watched five Eurovisions now and little here stood out as different. It was all big ballads. Britain's entry was well done, but largely forgettable. Lord Webber has earned the right to do this again next year, that's for sure.
Norway had a singing violinist in a night of singers and that proved sufficient to walk away with the contest. He was the best of a fairly uninspiring field.
Other countries of note:
Russia. The singer looked like she was wearing a shower curtain. She also looked like Cate Blanchett, but that's beside the point. I suspect I was not the only one reminded of "City of Death" with that ageing sequence
Azerbaijan. Oh please. Being the Ms Fanservice of Eurovision doesn't do you any favours.
Ukraine: Not doing the women of Eastern Europe any favours.
Turkey. Belly dancing? Again? Something new please.
The voting was considerably less political than previously. That's not to say that it didn't occur- the Nordic countries handed their points to Norway. Russia's 10th place would not have occurred under the old system. I was pleasantly surprised at where the UK was getting points from- although I suspect that was more due to the judges liking us than anything in the phone vote.
I'll conclude with a discussion of Graham Norton. I don't consider myself a Norton fan- he does Camp Gay too much for my tastes. That said, the guy provided a good amount of snark. Could have provided some more though.
All in all, a rather mediocre contest. Nothing really stood out (except for Norway) and it felt too generic. That said, roll on 2010.
Main Less Political Voting, Less Style, But Plenty of Snark- the 2009 Contest
I admit that after the shambles that was 2008 and the decision of Sir Terry not to continue commentating, I was planning not to watch what I though would be another whipping for the UK. I did, watch this, however, off-live, with very liberal use of the fast-forward button.
A word about the presentation to begin with. I ignored the presenters, who were largely generic. The vignettes with the hats of architecture were overly fast, hard to follow and not much use in actually identifying the countries pre-on-screen-announcement.
The songs in the final themselves were very samey. I've watched five Eurovisions now and little here stood out as different. It was all big ballads. Britain's entry was well done, but largely forgettable. Lord Webber has earned the right to do this again next year, that's for sure.
Norway had a singing violinist in a night of singers and that proved sufficient to walk away with the contest. He was the best of a fairly uninspiring field.
Other countries of note:
The voting was considerably less political than previously. That's not to say that it didn't occur- the Nordic countries handed their points to Norway. Russia's 10th place would not have occurred under the old system. I was pleasantly surprised at where the UK was getting points from- although I suspect that was more due to the judges liking us than anything in the phone vote.
I'll conclude with a discussion of Graham Norton. I don't consider myself a Norton fan- he does Camp Gay too much for my tastes. That said, the guy provided a good amount of snark. Could have provided some more though.
All in all, a rather mediocre contest. Nothing really stood out (except for Norway) and it felt too generic. That said, roll on 2010.