Originally Posted by -Sid-:
“I like the guy, but I'm increasingly seeing Louie's role as a redundant one. After all, being figure skaters (and therefore receiving marks for artisitic impression as well as technical ability when they were competing), both Robin and Katerina are more than capable of assessing presentation (and they do so, you can tell from their comments). So if they are covering technique and performance, what does that leave Louie to do?
Still, I suppose I should be grateful that there are no longer two judges only looking at performance!”
Being marked and being able to mark are two different things - or we would let students mark themselves and they would give themselves 100% for putting everything they knew. Being able to act a bit isn't the same skill necessarily as being able to be a critic either, and marking requires a directors eye. As we saw last year, many skaters can't even choregraph themselves .It just so happens that Katerina and Robin can choregraph, can put on shows and can act more than most - so they can cover most of the ground. Neither of them has a trained eye for what works on a stage or small screen though and neither brings either a professional or a general audience perspective from someone in dancing/acting TV or show business. Actually Philiph is far more qualified to judge that.
Its fine if they talk about the performances as a whole, but Katerina is inclined to go on about risk or personal achievement- not relative merit. Her marks seem to reflect that, and anything positive she can see in the technique. She says who impressed her most - but she's by then given marks away for other things. Robin alternates between marking the whole picture, and descending into marking them on blade angles like Nicky used to. Frankly, its irrelevant whether they are skating in cloggs or doing everything all wrong technically if the final result flows, looks artistic or dramatic on screen and conveys the story and emotion of the choregraphy. That will require technique - but different routines and the different sexes will require different techniques Technique isn't an end in itself - it serves a higher purpose. You shouldn't get higher marks for something that has great technique - but has big weaknesses elsewhere and makes less impact - any more than the best handwriting should get top marks in an exam. You also need to mark the two sexes differently enough to reflect what male and females do on DOI, You shouldn't get marked as a female on your football skills, if your teachers have made you learn netball, and you demonstrated netball skills in your exam.
Louie is there to counter that, but he seems to be, or has defined himself as being, too narrow.He says he's there for the dance, but the performance needs more than the skates at the right angle and the fingers pointing as he would point his.I am still not convinced he is as broad as Jason, or even that qualified to comment on the acting.
On top of that they are still stuck with their two big marking problems. They are tending to criticise the routines (Charlene or Chemmy) or they don't get the idea behind the choregraphy (sebastien) They end up marking T and D. They also don't seem to allow for different difficulty in the routines consistently. Thats made worse when they deduct for errors - however much was right in the routine - Chemmy had more correct content than several people with much higher marks. They effectively gained by doing less and avoiding difficulty. You would have to avoid being too complex , but they ought to be able to solve both problems by saying this routine is worth a, say, 5 at best, T and D have given them the best routine they can do , lets mark it from there . You could then still give a 7 routine with a glating error a higher mark.Giving Chemmy a 3, and then blaming T and D, while throwing 6s at sheer enthusiasm in less difficult routines, just isn't good marking.