Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Century Properties
Geo Estate

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:

 
Inquirer Entertainment Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > Showbiz & Style > Inquirer Entertainment

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  

  RELATED STORIES  

GALLERY
 
Zoom ImageZoom   

“SHOWTIME.” Success and excess need not be contrary objectives.




imns



Shrill, protracted finals for ‘Showtime’

By Nestor Torre
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:01:00 07/30/2010

Filed Under: Entertainment (general), Television

THE BIG DEAL on late-morning TV recently was the staging of the first grand finals of the group talent discovery tilt, ?Showtime.? Eleven finalists competed for the top prize of P1 million?and a good, shrill and raucous time was had by all.

The first group to perform was also one of the best and most unique, a ?black theater? ensemble that created fantastic and lyrical images with their be-gloved hands and creative use of the power of suggestion.

Knowing the show and its audience?s penchant for more in-your-face and less subtle entertainment, however, we sensed that the group wouldn?t be ending up in the winners? circle that day.

Enthusiasm

True enough, the louder, brassier and trendier rock and hip-hop groups quickly took over, and the audience responded with great unction and enthusiasm.

To be fair, each group has its own take or twist on the group-dancing format, but they still ended up more similar than not.

That?s why, as the two-hour finals show continued to frenetically unreel, a sort of dull predictability fell like a pall over the proceedings. We welcomed the exception that was a group of young ballroom dancers?
but, after that, it was back to the old, frenetic grind, which was only alleviated by the occasional, less predictable routine.

That?s why, after all was said and done, we couldn?t for the life of us figure out who the big prizewinner would be. The show?s judging system made the guessing game even dodgier by having some 40 past jurors evaluate the finalists? performances.

The 40 jurors included a midget and a puppeteer with his puppet (did their score count as one, or as one and a half?), and the wide range and depth (or lack of it) of their reactions was no help at all.

When the smoke finally cleared and the overlong program had yelled its last hurrah, the winning group turned out to be a scrappy, ?hungry? and ?angry? team from General Santos, Cotabato City.

They were singled out for their urgency, rage and seething passion, which was given a ?political? color by some as a ?representation? of the anger and urgent quest for peace of our brothers in the Philippine south?!

If that ?colored? conclusion was excessive and over-the-top, no problem: It dovetailed perfectly, with the finals? generally shrill proceedings.

Problem

At the end of the competition, the finalists were utterly exhausted?
and so were we. Part of the problem was the fact that the show was poorly paced: By our watch, it took 30 long minutes before the first group was finally able to perform!

?Showtime? has, through the months of its first year of existence, piled on too many heavy, distracting and unproductive adumbrations that it should more decisively prune on its second year.

On TV, nothing succeeds like success, of course, but in professional production people?s hands, success and excess need not be contrary objectives.



Copyright 2012 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


Share

RELATED STORIES:

OTHER STORIES:

COLUMNS:


  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2012 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Pacquiao
Jobmarket Online
Inquirer VDO
Property Guide
Inquirer Mobile