Whatever happened to scaling down?

Apart from the actual competition, one of the big things that was unveiled and discussed in Baku 2012 was the new EBU approach towards the size of the ESC and the now clearly pronounced goal to scale down the event and make it more sustainable financially, ecologically and - basically - in every thinkable way.

This new plan of course sprung from the recent financial crisis that left a number of countries almost unable to take part in the ESC due to the heavy costs, not to mention it would be virtually impossible for many countries to host a contest that kept on growing and growing. More entries, more journalists, more delegates, bigger venues. Unsustainable in the long run. Like the Olympics.

Next year, SVT was the perfect pupil that played along with the new guidelines. Instead of the huge new arena in Stockholm, they opted for a much smaller venue in Malmö and other steps were taken to reduce the number of accreditations at least a bit.

Since then, we haven't seen much of this ambitious plan. Denmark decided to renovate an old warehouse in the middle of nowhere - not an inexpensive stunt - and even if the venues selected in 2015 and 2016 were no huge at least they showed no signs of the event getting smaller.

Fast forward to 2017, where one of the big financial contributors suddenly decides to use the upcoming final in Kyiv as a tool to push their own agenda. Russia was given a lot of space to challenge a perfectly reasonable piece of Ukrainian legislation and the supposed reason the EBU was so understanding was of course the large participation fee paid by Russian television.

Another reason to reboot the process of scaling down the Eurovision Song Contest is of course to be less dependent on individual participating countries. The EBU insists that the ESC is an nonpolitical event, but in order to be that it must also be independent and able to stand up and talk back whenever someone is using their money to push a political agenda into the event.

If the event was smaller and had a smaller budget, then it would be easier to tell a single participant to drop out instead of making trouble as their absence would leave a smaller hole in the overall budget. That shouldn't sound too bad to an apolitical broadcasting union.

Not to mention that it would be easier for Malta, Cyprus or FYR Macedonia to host the thing should they finally win.

ESC 2017: some songs and a big fat scandal

The 2017 Eurovision Song Contest in Kyiv is one month away and there are still so many things to look forward to. And yet I think I already know what this edition will be remembered for. Sadly, it is not the songs.

Many people could smell trouble already when the EBU allowed Ukraine to compete with the highly political "1944" last year. I don't necessarily agree with that. We always had political messages in the ESC - Greece 1976 och Portugal 1977 spring to mind - and where does one draw the line what kind of political message is acceptable or not? Singing about world peace is also a political statement, mind you.

It was a tense moment as the 2016 final turned out to be a duel between Russia and Ukraine, the latter having already stated they would not take part in a final hosted by the former. 

The run-up for ESC 2017 suggested Russia was not too keen on being seen in Kyiv either as they failed to participate in several meetings prior to the contest and never booked any accommodation. Suddenly they presented an entry anyway, set to participate.

The Russian entrant was carefully selected: a former talent show participant suffering from a muscle disease that confined her to a wheelchair. She was armed with a ballad about peace and hope and - perhaps most importantly - she had had concerts in Crimea. 

Ukraine has very clear laws on this matter: anyone entering Crimea from Russia is violating Ukrainian territory and is seen as a criminal. Russia's singer was slapped with a travel ban to prevent her from coming to Kyiv at all instead of being arrested upon arrival.

This is where the EBU lost their marbles altogether and did everything they could to ensure Russian participation. They suggested Russia could perform via a satellite link - a suggestion so silly and against the spirit of the contest I can hardly phrase it in words - and once this idea was discarded went on to try to bully Ukraine into lifting the travel ban and a letter from the EBU sent to the Ukrainian prime minister contained a number of pretty vague threats.

1) Ukraine's international reputation will be damaged if the Russian singer is not allowed to enter. 

I somehow think neither NATO nor the EU will care an awful lot about a song contest as they make their strategic decisions.

2) Other countries will withdraw if the Russian performer is not allowed to enter. 

So let them withdraw. There are rules how to handle late withdrawals: the broadcasters in question must pay their full participation fees and could be slapped with extensive fines for pulling out at a late stage for no valid reason.

3) Ukraine's future participation in the ESC could be in danger if the Russian performer is not allowed to enter. 

Dear EBU - Ukraine is a country at war. This law was made for a reason. You can agree or disagree with it but it is in no way controversial that a country reserves the right to deny entry to people for various reasons. If the government has to choose between standing their ground or participate in a song contest, I think you are not on the winning side.

The very thought that the EBU - not a political organisation - would have a mandate to force a member state to give up their own legislation for the sake of an entertainment show is absurd and very damaging for the idea that the ESC is not a political event.

There - I got it off my chest. Let's move on to the songs instead. My big ESC 2017 review is about to begin.

ESC 2015: booing and censorship

Let me say it like it is: now and then during the voting sequence of the final in Vienna I didn't really understand what was going on. I didn't get why the presenters and Conchita suddenly looked so stern, even less why the Russian singer was reduced to tears every time we saw her in the green room.

The next day it all fell into place as I understood the audience had been booing heavily from the moment Russia took the lead and on. On the request of Russian television, apparently, EBU and ORF had foreseen this, muted the sound of the audience and added pre-recorded cheering and applause instead.

I can agree with the live audience on one thing. Russia wouldn't be my dream choice of host under the current circumstances. I'm not convinced it would even be possible to combine this event with the present Russian legislation. But that's another thing.

Polina Gagarina had spoken up for equality, vaguely but still. She had told her social media feeds what an admirable and exceptional performer Conchita is, and defended her when people wrote nasty comments. For a singer representing Russia abroad today, this is about as far you can go. Polina Gagarina was not playing it safe and yet the audience would boo her.

Could anything she said or did have made a difference? I doubt it. She could probably have wrapped a rainbow flag around her and ended her career and still get booing in return.

I'm no big fan of booing but I enjoy censorship even less. I don't know what is the official EBU line on this, but at least SVT - next year's host - often pride themselves with being "free television" and underline the importance of trustworthy public service broadcasting.

Muting booing on political grounds, replacing it with cheerful applause, is definitely crossing a line. Altering an event, pretending that what you show is the real thing, is propaganda. It doesn't matter that this is just an entertainment show. If you start airbrushing reality in entertainment it won't be long until you change things in other areas too. To please somebody. To make somebody look better.

If public service is going to mean anything to anyone, I sincerely hope we will have more backbone and a whole lot less fake applause in the future.

ESC 2014: How prejudiced are we?

Usually you'd think that Eurovision was a competition between songs, but this year it seems to be bigger than that. It is more like a complex fairy-tale where good stands against bad. Tolerance against bigotry.

I think (and hope) we will have the closest voting in many years, hopefully we will still have at least two countries in the running up until the very end. And I believe we are all getting stuck in prejudiced ideas.

If we assume automatically that the former Soviet countries wouldn't vote for Austria because Conchita Wurst is a controversial figure, especially in the light of the Russian anti-gay legislation, then we are really under-estimating these countries.

Somehow the prejudiced people are always the loudest. Also in various eurovision discussions throughout spring, there have been loads of intolerant voices criticising Austria's choice, belittling the judgement of ORF, belittling the performing qualities of Conchita Wurst. Also among LGBTQ-people, there has been a lot of judgement and negative comments. They are still there, but in the end it seems that those loud, negative voices were fewer than they seemed to start with.

Just because there is a lot of prejudice, racism and intolerance floating about right now does not mean that the haters will sit at home tonight and vote or that they will have an important influence on how the juries vote.

Why wouldn't a Russian juror be able to appreciate the Austrian performance? And why wouldn't the televoters in Ukraine - who selected Verka Serduchka to represent them already seven years ago - vote for Austria?

Another thing that could make everything possible tonight: if the voting is all over the place, you will need fewer points to actually win.

In 2011, Azerbaijan won with a modest 221 points with 43 countries participating. This year, with six countries less voting, you could theoretically win with less than 200 points and afford scoring zero from a number of countries.

Everything is up for grabs and I just hope we will have a close, tense and exciting evening and may Slovenia as the last country have the decisive vote - just like they had in 1988 and 2003.

ESC 2014: And the audience went boo

Just like I wrote yesterday, the Russian delegation feared the Copenhagen audience would boo their performance and that is exactly what happened. When the hosts read out Russia as one of ten finalists the audience in the hall gave a very vocal sign of not being pleased.

My personal point of view is unchanged. You do not boo people at Eurovision. It is not civilised behaviour. But I'd like to develop my thoughts a bit further anyway.

One common argument in defence of the Tolmachevy Sisters is that they are very young girls and hardly responsible for anything the Russian leaders would do or not do. A wild guess is they have not harassed many minorities or acted particularly hostile towards any neighbours countries. Why would they deserve this treatment?

Unfortunately you cannot disassociate yourself from the country you represent. If you agree to represent Belarus in a competition, you are also giving your silent approval to the dictator in question. If you sing for Azerbaijan you are signalling that their poor human rights record doesn't really bother you. And these twins have to bear the burden of representing the most controversial country in Europe right now.

Ironically enough, the audience reaction is counter-productive in many ways as it suits the Russian narrative perfectly. The Tolmachevys are clearly selected to represent the pure Russian youth and sound Russian values and when they get booed by the depraved and immoral west it just underlines that the ESC-critical voices were right the whole time.

It is a strange situation that Russia take part in a contest they themselves heavily criticise - calling it a sodomy contest and so on - and then send in innocent young singers to take a beating for the team.

Of course the ESC is open for all active EBU members, but what do you do with a country that seems to participate against their own wishes only to use the contest as a domestic propaganda tool? No doubt that there will be more booing in the final and nobody gains anything from that. The Tomalchevy Sisters least of all.

ESC 2014: Boo for Russia?

According to an article in PinkNews the Russian delegation in Copenhagen fears that they will be subject to hostility when they appear in Eurovision this year. There are fears that the audience will boo or otherwise show their discontent with Russia's current politics.

There is the situation in Ukraine as well as recent anti-gay legislation, but there have also been numerous cases of Russian officials slandering the contest, calling it a sodomy contest and other less appealing things.

For me personally, this is a hard nut to crack. At this very moment I am strongly opposed to many things that go on in Russian politics for obvious reasons. I think the Russian delegation is very right to be worried - people are not happy with the situation and are likely to be vocal about it.

But how do you make it clear you are protesting against Russian politics and not against Russia as a nation or against the Russian people?

It is unfair towards the Tomalchevy Sisters who are unlikely to be any driving force behind neither Russian minority treatment nor Russian foreign policies. But a song in a song contest like this doesn't just represent itself but also the country it is connected to.

I'd like to question Russia's foreign songwriters more than the singers: are you comfortable representing Russia under the present circumstances?

But I also insist that songs should be judged on musical merit alone. If a song is good, then it is good. If a performance is brilliant, then it is. At some point you have to disconnect these two things.

And I really hope the Russian entry won't get booed in Copenhagen. For the simple reason that booing is never an OK thing to do. Booing is for fools. If you dislike something or disagree, you can remain silent. Don't clap, don't cheer, don't boo.

Cows go moo. Fools go boo. And that's what I have to say on this matter.

Is it OK to care about Eurovision?

Last Saturday, during the last stages of Andra Chansen when the second duel had just been announced and things started getting interesting for real, something happened that rarely happens. My interest just suddenly shrunk and vanished.

I had accidentally flipped from my Twitter feed onto a news site and suddenly disturbing headlines and pictures from Ukraine overwhelmed me and Melodifestivalen seemed very unimportant in comparison.

The political situation in Europe is very tense and very worrying and during the last week, whenever I felt like posting something on this blog, I couldn't help thinking that a little song contest is a very trivial thing in the big universe.

In short: is it OK to use your time and energy caring about Eurovision under these circumstances?

The answer I came down to is: Yes. It is. It isn't just OK, it is even pretty important. Necessary. This is my defence speech on why that is so.

In 2012, I wrote a column I was pretty pleased with about what was wrong with the contest in Baku. How it stole the fun away from us, how we suddenly talked very little about songs and key-changes and choreography and turned our full attention to politics of all sorts.

In my opinion, the ESC is our joint coffee break where all of Europe can take a little time off from everyday life and just have fun together. Do something light-hearted, listen to some songs, look at some performances and just feel like we were one unit for once.

So this is my disclaimer for the rest of this season as well as for all eternity: I will keep blogging about Eurovision even if it is a bit trivial. Because trivial is what we need to get by. Whatever happens in the news, I hope the Eurovision Song Contest will be the last european institution standing.

Tonight: Junior Eurovision Song Contest

It takes more than the word "Eurovision" to enthuse me these days. I was never a fan of the short-lived Eurovision Dance Contest and I never blogged a lot about Junior Eurovision either.

I used to like it in the beginning, thought it was a fun little show and a good chance for talented kids to try out singing for a greater audience. There is nothing wrong with that, really.

But I feel the rule changes through the years have changed the JESC into something less pleasant. The creativity has been taken further and further away from the competing kids on all levels. I can't shake the feeling that many of them are just put there to sing a song that some adults decided that other kids will like.

I'd like to know how many of tonight's participants really had an influence over their own performances. How many had a real input as to how they are presented and styled.

The contest has its fans, and I won't be the evil one who calls for its destruction. I have objections, but it is not my party. I hope all participating kids have a good experience in the end and that they will be able to put this experience in good use for the future.

What I really have a problem with is that tonight's final from Kyiv will show host country Ukraine in a blindingly positive light, as a happy clappy fantasy world where everything is fine for everyone, at the same time as police forces brutally act against the people protesting in the street.

That, if anything, leaves a bitter taste this year. Apart from that - may the best song win, and may the Junior fans have a great night.

EBU on Russia and hosting

A lot of stories have gone around in the last few days that the EBU should have put its foot down and told Russian television in no uncertain terms that the current anti-gay legislation would make it more or less impossible for them to host the Eurovision Song Contest.

It is hardly a secret that a large part of the fan community are gay and that the ESC has a strong standing within European LGBT communities. Of course it would be a tricky situation if a large portion of the fans attending the event on location would risk ending up in prison.

Needless to say that this piece of news was welcomed with enthusiasm around the net. But was it true? Had the EBU really spoken up on the matter?

According to Gay Star News, the EBU had sent an official letter to the Russian broadcasters, voicing concerns that these could be unable to guarantee the security of Eurovision delegates in the event of Russia being the host country again. An anonymous member of the Swedish delegation was quoted as saying Sweden would pull out of a contest staged in Russia under the current circumstances.

This looks like quite a clear stand, right?

But in a statement published today, contest supervisor Jon Ola Sand calls the situation "completely undramatic" and says there is no reason to believe Russia could not host the contest. The EBU underlines that Russia has already hosted the ESC very successfully in the past.

Of course the EBU can't go around singling out member countries as unfit for hosting. Where would you draw the line for what is acceptable and what isn't? If Russia did not match the host criteria, should they even be allowed to take part? And what other countries should be thrown out in that case?

But then we shouldn't credit the EBU for doing something they haven't done and even are pretty unlikely to do at all. For them, this is not a problem until the day when Russia wins. If even then.

Copyright: EBU