So The Sun called it correctly back in June, and Arlene Phillips’ place on the Strictly Come Dancing judging panel will be filled by 2007 winner Alesha Dixon.
Is this a calamity for the show? Is it a sign of the beginning of the end of Strictly Come Dancing?
Contrary to some reactions, I’m going to say no.
Although the Daily Mail has been quick to accuse the BBC of ageism, BBC1 controller Jay Hunt refutes those claims:
What has happened with Strictly is about refreshing that brand and ensuring it remains as compelling for viewers as it always has been. Is it about ageism? Absolutely not. I am committed to reaching out to the broadest possible audience on the channel, and it would be perverse in the extreme if that saw us take off an array of different people of different ages and ethnicity. I am trying to achieve exactly the opposite.
And it can hardly be ageism if Len Goodman, 65 years young, remains head judge.
What appears to be behind Arlene being dropped rather than any of the other judges is an attempt to retain a sense of balance. Craig is the theatrical choreographer with a line in bitchy putdowns; Len is the master of ballroom technique; Bruno is the showman. Arlene’s strength is that she embodies all three of those characteristics — and that, unfortunately, has also made her the most vulnerable of the three judges.
By bringing on a judge who can approach the job of judging from a performer’s perspective, Alesha Dixon will bring a new approach to a panel that was previously dominated by choreographers. And while one may suspect that choreographers may be able to give better feedback on the pros and cons of each performance, one has to be honest and say that previous series of Strictly Come Dancing aren’t exactly dominated by useful feedback from the judges.
And that itself comes down to the key issue: much as they may protest otherwise, the judges are among the least important part of the format. The strength of the show is purely down to the professional dancers, the celebrity amateurs and the magic of ballroom dance. Or, as in the case of John Sergeant, the lack of ballroom dance.
Dancing with the Stars, the American version of Strictly, copes perfectly well with a completely different type of judge sitting alongside Len and Bruno. And they only have three judges, not four (or five, as Strictly will have in its final weeks as Darcey Bussell joins the panel for the last three live shows).
Look also at ITV1’s closest Strictly comparator, Dancing on Ice: they brought in Ruthie Henshall, who has no ice dancing experience, to add an alternative perspective from the judges’ desk. That move worked, and I think the addition of Alesha Dixon will work in the same way.
What really threatens Strictly are clumsy errors, such as the scoring system that caused voting to be suspended during last year’s semi-final. Beyond that, Strictly Come Dancing is impregnable.
Update: Len Goodman, speaking exclusively to The Stage’s Matthew Hemley, says:
I am sad Arlene is no longer one of the judges because we got to know each other. We all got on, and knew what to expect, so it sort of changes the whole dynamic of the panel maybe, which is a little bit scary. I do feel sorry for her, because we are friends. But who knows, maybe Alesha will be fantastic and bring a different dynamic to the judging panel.
I am sorry to see Arlene go. She has a wealth of knowledge about dance which will not be avilable to us now. I liked Alesha Dixon when she was on the show, but not long agao she was a competitor herself - I don't think she is qualified to judge herself, certainly no where near as much as Arlene. This seems like attempt by the BBC to use a star whose career they helped to revive, while sacrificing someone who helped to make the show the success it is.
Ageism or not, I don't think that quoting the fact that Len Goodman at 65 years old is still on the panel, or additionally, that the host Bruce is 81, proves that it isn't ageism. The fact that they are men is what is important. Yet again, the older female is sacrificed in this industry! Disgraceful.
Presumably this is in response to the success of Cheryl Cole on X-Factor who also came from the background of previous competitor.
This only goes to prove what a farce Strictly has become. Alesha knows next to nothing about ballroom dancing (you only have to watch her dance to see that - the judges may have raved about her, but I thought she was all style and no substance) so how can she judge others? It's especially ridiculous given that Camilla Dallerup offered to become a judge. Why turn down a talented professional with one of the best records on the show in favour of an ex-contestant who is little more than an enthusiastic amatuer? It's all about ratings. She's just there to make the judging panel look a little prettier and tone down the harsh criticisms of the others so that they don't have another John Sergeant fiasco. I already swore never to watch again after the judge's highly suspect scoring knocked Austin Healey out last year, but this has just put the final nail in the coffin.