Wow! What a result. Austria's win at Eurovision was truly remarkable and huge congratulations Conchita Wurst. The victory is good on so many levels and as the singer said when she received her trophy, it was a triumph for freedom. Things didn't go too well for the UK but I don't think we should be too downhearted, it was a close contest and ultimately, if you look at the points, we weren't all that far away from the top ten. Well done to Molly.
The top three were all western countries. Austria stropped off from the contest a few years ago and yet here they are, proving that western countries with few voting allies, can win this contest. The Netherlands came second in another stunning reversal of fortunes. For the first time ever, Azerbaijan failed to make the top 10 - in a year where there was much more transparent voting. Note that Azerbaijan's jurors and public unsurprisingly put Armenia in last position despite it being one of the favourites. Politics in the Eurovision Song Contest?
I'll write a more comprehensive account next week, once I've had the chance to properly review the contest. For now, it's time to finish my final media interviews and catch up on some much-needed sleep!!
The name Ukraine has been interpreted as "borderland" over the centuries. Today Ukraine effectively represents a border between the EU and Russia. Since independence in 1991 the country has experienced a turbulent transition from Soviet rule and has effectively been caught between East and West ever since.
Last week Ukrainian politicians voted to suspend preparations for the signing of an association agreement paving the way for closer ties with the EU. The deal also stipulated that former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko should be released from prison for medical treatment. Ukraine came under intense pressure from the Kremlin not to sign the agreement. It seems that in this case, they've bowed to Moscow. For now.
Protestors have gathered in the capital Kyiv in scenes reminiscent of the 2004 Orange Revolution. However, this situation, as with the Orange Revolution, is not straightforward. This isn't a case of East V West, nor is it a case of Russian speakers identifying solely with Russia, indeed many ethnic Russians in the country are pro-EU, further complicating the issue. Ukraine is a fascinating, complex and contradictory country; the return of Viktor Yanukovych from the ashes of the Orange Revolution exemplifies this.
It'll be interesting to watch the developments in the country in the coming days and weeks. At the weekend Kyiv will host the 11th Junior Eurovision Song Contest. Will this impact upon the show? Probably not. Unlike in 2005, where the adult version of the Eurovision Song Contest was used as a political platform by President Yushchenko's government, the junior version has tended to be a more benign affair. That said, Azerbaijan and Armenia are both entering again this year so there's plenty of opportunity for the politics of pop to rear its ugly head during the voting!
Instead of borderland, I'd describe Ukraine today as a battleground, caught up in a geopolitical tug of war. It's difficult to envisage how developments will unfold in the country in the future. Ukraine is anything but a united country. The Ukrainian entry for Junior Eurovision this year is called "We Are One", the irony of which is plain to see.
Eurovision 2013 has
officially started! It’s scary how quickly time flies. I’m here in Malmo where
it’s all kicking off. Armenia is back after withdrawing last year so no doubt it’ll
be business as usual for them and Azerbaijan (i.e. ignoring each other!) Whilst
it’ll be interesting to see the interaction between the Swedes and the Belarusians
following the teddy bear incident last year, after the controversy of 2012, it’s
looking like a tame year in comparison, politically speaking.
So far so good here in
Malmo, the city is small but friendly, expensive but clean and it’s shaping up to being the perfect city for Eurovision. Often
when the event is in larger cities it gets lost somehow, Moscow and Istanbul
were classic examples of this. Small cities like Tallinn, Helsinki and Malmo allow for
an intimate atmosphere. I’m in a hotel with my friend Elaine for the first week
before moving to an apartment in week two. It’s a rather small hotel, with a
transparent shower screen. Good job we know each other pretty well! (We
certainly will do after this trip!)
Eurovision of course
has a massive gay following and the Swedes, unlike our Azeri hosts last year,
are not afraid to reach out to the contest’s core fans. In the hotel reception
there are gay magazines, Eurovision guides and maps of the city’s gay scene. We
certainly won’t have any exciting experiences this year like we did in Baku;
underground gay bars and local pubs for local people. However, it’s quite
refreshing really to feel welcomed in a city where people are safe to live
their lives.
The theme for the show
this year is “We are one” which is an interesting one, fashioning Europe as a
united entity when in reality it’s a fractured construct, economically,
politically and socially. Much has been made here in Malmo of the multicultural
vibrancy in the city, so perhaps it’s fitting that such an international event
is here, in the city where over 150 languages are spoken.
The Swedes are doing
things differently this year, they’ve arranged Eurovision on a much smaller
scale. The venue is small, the press centre is restricted until Friday and
currently the assembled press are crammed into the Slaghuset (the slag house,
and venue for the Euro Club). SVT are undoubtedly aiming to present a slick,
professional television show. For them, this is just that, a television event.
Unlike previous hosts where Eurovision has become almost like a circus, the
Swedes don’t appear to be engaging in a quasi-propaganda offensive. To be
blunt, they don’t need to prove anything to anyone.
Rehearsals began in
earnest this morning. I will try and update the blog daily, although I am going
to Ukraine for two days tomorrow, back Thursday. Euro Club opens tonight so no
doubt there will be a few sore heads and lighter wallets tomorrow! More later!
After Armenia's somewhat controversial, albeit unsurprising withdrawal from Eurovision last year, they're back. I thought after their nemesis Azerbaijan won and hosted Eurovision that they would pull out all the stops and try to win the contest. Judging from the national final it appears that this is not the case. He has an impressive monobrow but that's about it. Looks like another year without Armenia in the Eurovision final.
Social media is a funny old world isn't it? Facebook, Twitter and
everything else in between really does put us in touch with the world like
never before. We now see so much of each other's lives and seem to know more
about each other than ever before. Politics is one example. Before social
networking took off I didn't really have much of a clue about who my friends
voted for, what their thoughts on abortion are or indeed their views on gay
marriage. It's a totally different ballgame now. People often seem so willing
to share their thoughts on the issues of the day (myself included at times).
However all too often people fly off the handle and resort to personal remarks
or even fall out when they don't agree on something. If it wasn’t for Facebook
then they might never have had that conversation, either online or in person.
Politics is a tricky business and outlets like Facebook and Twitter have
brought this into our lives like never before.
The current escalating conflict between Israel and Gaza highlights this
perfectly. It's not something that I know a great deal about to be honest, nor
is it something I wish to discuss in great depth for that very reason. It is
interesting reading the posts on Facebook though; the apartheid of opinion is
striking. These are certainly troubling times for the people in the region and
indeed for the world as a whole. The on-going tensions and violence in the
Middle East has also had an impact on Eurovision.
Controversy is never far away from Eurovision in any given year and even
more so when Israel's participation is considered. Israel debuted in the
Eurovision Song Contest in 1973 and over the years their appearances have often
been politically sensitive. Several Arab states do not enter Eurovision despite
being eligible to do so. Israel is undoubtedly the main reason. Many Arab
states do not recognise Israel as a sovereign nation state. Eurovision rules
state that each country must broadcast the contest in its entirety, for many of
these countries this would mean broadcasting the Israeli song and therefore
providing a platform of sorts for Israel. Take 1978 for example, when it became
clear that Israel were winning, Jordanian television cut the transmission.
Indeed Morocco is the only Arab and African state to enter Eurovision, in 1980,
when Israel was absent. In 2005 Lebanon were due to make their Eurovision debut
yet when it emerged that they would screen commercials in place of the Israeli
entry they were forced to withdraw. The controversy between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Eurovision highlights the difficulties of enemies coexisting on a
Eurovision stage and if Israel's neighbours were to enter then
Armenia-Azerbaijan issue would seem miniscule in comparison.
Even Israel's Eurovision entries have proved to be hot potatoes over the
years. In 1983 Israel's Ofra Haza performed "Hi" which is widely
interpreted as a metaphor for Israel. Despite the attempts to destroy the
modern Jewish state or the Jewish community, Israel is still alive. This was a
significant entry not only because it was performed in Germany, for obvious
reasons, but also because the Eurovision stage was in Munich, the scene of the
1972 massacre of Israeli Olympians. Remember though, Eurovision is not a
political contest according to the European Broadcasting Union.
In 1998 the Israeli Broadcasting
Authority (IBA) selected a trans-gendered artist, Dana International to
represent Israel at Eurovision. This caused uproar in the country with
ultra-Orthodox Jews, who considered Dana International to be peripheral to
their ideal of national identity. Others such as composer Svika Pikk
highlighted the fact that it was a chance to promote Israel as a liberal and
tolerant country, changing the way the Middle East is imagined. Politician
Shlomo Ben-Izri claimed that the decision“symbolised the sickness of a secular
Israel”. Such discourses show how seriously some nations approach the
Eurovision Song Contest; a Eurovision entry is seen as representative of the
entire nation.
The 1999 Eurovision Song Contest in Jerusalem was also dogged by
controversy. The interval act featured Dana International singing below
Jerusalem’s historic city walls caused further outrage to ultra-Orthodox Jews,
who were also incensed at religious lyrics being used in the performance. The
rules of the Eurovision Song Contest state that a full dress rehearsal must
take place on the Friday evening before the contest. This violated the
traditions of the Jewish Sabbath where all activity is forbidden from sunset on
Friday through to Saturday evening, again provoking angry reactions from
conservatives regardless of the fact that Israelis officially a secular state.
A compromise was reached, the IBA held the rehearsal in private. The Israeli
entrants of 1999, four-piece boy band Eden, with the song, “Happy Birthday”,
was a celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the state of
Israel.
At the 2000 contest Israeli
representatives, Ping-pong, waved Syrian flags during rehearsals. Israel and
Syria were officially in a state of war at the time and Israel’s then Deputy
Education Minister, Shlomo Yahalom called for the group’s participation to be
banned claiming that they failed to represent national values. The waving of
the Syrian flag during rehearsals on Israel’s Independence Day May 10th, in
particular, caused further upset to officials who publically boycotted the
group leaving them to cover their own expenses. Despite threats from Israeli
broadcasting officials to ban the group from performing altogether, they
appeared at the 2000 ESC and waved the Syrian flag along with the Israeli flag
in a call for peace. Again, Eurovision isn’t a political contest…
The case of Israel has shown how the
Eurovision Song Contest often touches on sensitive subjects such as gender
identity, sexuality, religion and politics. Indeed in Israel and Jerusalem,
these issues often intrude in even the most unlikely of situations. The
reaction of some officials in Israel has shown how seriously they regard
Israel’s image. Such controversies therefore represent a struggle in Israel
between secularism and religious freedom.
In 2009 Israel's Eurovision entry was called "There Must Be Another
Way" and was performed by an Arab-Israeli duo, Mira and Noa. This was the
first time an Arab singer had represented Israel and the first time Arabic had
been performed under the Israeli flag at Eurovision. Whilst critics can argue
that this was merely a clever public relations exercise, it is a significant
entry for Israel and indeed for Eurovision. In particular the line "When I cry, I cry for both of us, my
pain has no name", struck a chord with me when I saw the news this
week. Given the current conflict in the region, which seems to be escalating by
the hour, the message in that song is now more pertinent than ever.
Just two weeks ago I was in the middle of the Eurovision bubble, in Baku. Now, it's like it never happened. Eurovision 2012 may be over but it won't be easily forgotten by those who were there.
Something interesting happened this year though, the big fan favourite of the contest actually won! Sweden's Loreen was riding high in both the betting odds and fan polls and yet somehow I didn't think she would actually take the trophy. There have been too many times when a big fan favourite has failed at the final hurdle; Hungary in 2011, Iceland in 2010, Sweden in 2008 and of course two of the most spectacular flops: Belgium in 2006 and Cyprus in 1999. Personally, I didn't mind the song, I thought it was ok and still do. It wasn't my favourite (good old Eesti was, and still is!) but I am happy that Sweden won. Why? Well two reasons: firstly, it's a massive hit all over Europe which is good for the contest. "Euphoria" is currently sitting at number three in the UK top 40. This is an amazing achievement and means that the 2012 Eurovision winner is the biggest non-UK Eurovision hit since Germany's Nicole hit the top spot 30 years ago! The second reason is a purely selfish one; Sweden is easy to get to and accommodation will be (hopefully) pain-free to arrange! Now the beer prices, well, that's a whole other matter!
Hard luck to the UK, finishing second last was certainly disappointing. I thought the BBC made a brave decision to choose The Hump and in terms of UK audience, it was a stroke of genius. When it was announced that Engelbert Humperdinck would be representing the UK in Eurovision, there was intense media interest. The story featured on both the BBC and ITV news programmes. In terms of the profile of the contest, it was a triumph.
As for the song, it was pleasant, unoffensive and perfectly crafted. However, it wasn't instant enough for the average viewer and poor Engelbert's renditions were just a little bit off. On the Friday evening, when the juries were voting, The Hump didn't turn in his finest performance. That will have undoubtedly cost the UK valuable jury votes. On the Saturday night final, he looked a little out of his depth and ultimately delivered a disappointing performance. There was also the draw which didn't help poor Engelbert and the fact that this year was deemed by many fans to be a strong one and the winner too close to call.
I don't buy into the notion that "Europe hates us". We just weren't good enough. As much as I think the BBC made a brave and genius decision to select The Hump, he hadn't had a hit since the 1970s. Yes, there is always neighbourly voting - that's always been the case in Eurovision and probably always will be. The UK and Ireland are just as guilty of that these days. Ultimately though, the winner received points across the board with only one country, Italy, failing to give Sweden anything.
If the UK are hated so much by the public then how come Blue finished 5th in the televote last year? How come Jade Ewen finished 5th overall in Moscow in 2009? Eurovision is a television show on a Saturday night, do we really think people are sitting at home thinking "that's a great song from the UK but I couldn't vote for it because of David Cameron"? I think such notions, quite frankly, give too much credence to the average voter in Eurovision. Part of the issue may also lie in the voting structure in Eurovision. Only ten countries score points (1-8, 10, 12) so technically The Hump might have been mid-table with many countries and failed to score.
In a strong year, in a field of 42 entries, what makes us think that we deserve to be up there for simply gracing the stage? If the UK public couldn't get behind the song (it charted at number 60), then how can we expect Europe to vote for it? Such attitudes fail to acknowledge that Eurovision has changed and we have to change with it, come back next year, with something fresh and new and give Europe a damn good thrashing! Hard luck Engelbert, you were a fantastic ambassador for the UK and didn't have a thing to lose! Thank you for the music!
Azerbaijan was an interesting setting for the 2012 contest and one which I am incredibly glad that I went to. It was a year to remember for a number of reasons. Baku is four hours ahead of UK time which certainly played havoc with the old body clock! Allegations of human rights abuses, concerns about freedom of the press and freedom of expression, coupled with tensions between Azerbaijan and both Armenia and Iran meant that Eurovision 2012 was perhaps the most politically-charged contest of all time. I met some incredibly brave and inspiring people in Baku and I salute those from organisations such as Sing For Democracy who put themselves on the line. Activists did not want us to boycott Azerbaijan, they wanted us to come to the country and experience it for ourselves. A year ago there was no discussion concerning Azerbaijan's human rights record, where as now, there is a dialogue and I see that as a positive thing. I hope that the work that human rights activists do is allowed to progress without hindrance. It was interesting to note that Anke Engelke, one of the presenters from 2011, directly addressed the political situation in Azerbaijan during the voting:
"Tonight nobody could vote for their own country. But it is good to be able to vote. And it is good to have a choice. Good luck on your journey, Azerbaijan. Europe is watching you."
The volunteers and the ordinary people I met in Baku were wonderful. They were so incredibly friendly and helpful and were a credit to their country. Special thanks should also go to my friend Zuly who helped to arrange accommodation and contacts for me and also her brother Haji who was incredibly hospitable and provided us with a memorable evening of fine cuisine and followed by some karaoke I'd rather forget!
For me personally, Eurovision 2012 was exciting and interesting. I was fortunate to be interviewed by a variety of media outlets including the BBC's World Service as well as The Telegraph, Daily Express and even The Sun! I owe a debt of gratitude to the BBC3 team as well who produced the UK coverage of the two semi finals and provided me with a platform as 'Dr Eurovision'. I came home feeling very exhausted but overall, incredibly happy. Many of my friends talked about experiencing PED or Post-Eurovision Depression. I too have had a few pangs and certainly missed the friends I have made over the years and the new ones I met in Baku. I am already looking forward to being reunited again as our thoughts turn to Sweden in 2013. Ulimately though, it's back to reality which for now, is outside of the Eurovision bubble.
The politics of Eurovision is heating up after Armenia’s withdrawal from the 2012 contest. After initially confirming their participation in the event, the country has decided not to send a delegation to Baku after all. Not a huge surprise. Armenia and Azerbaijan have had a difficult relationship in Eurovision not to mention on the world stage. Azeri law forbids citizens of Armenia to enter the country so an Armenian delegation was never going to be a particularly welcome one in some circles. Even if they had been given extra security there would have still been an element of risk involved. Was this decision entirely pragmatic though? Why did they initially apply to take part in the first place? Could it be a case of Armenia trying to "get one over" on Azerbaijan?
As the Soviet Union crumbled an explosion of national questions emerged from Vilnius to Vladivostok. Campaigns for independence emerged in the Baltic States whilst internal divisions came to the fore within the Russian Federation itself. Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous oblast within the Azeri Soviet Socialist Republic with a majority Armenian population. By the end of the 1980s there were movements from within the territory to secede from Azerbaijan and unite with Armenia. A referendum in favour of this was returned, of which the Azeri population boycotted the vote. By 1991 the conflict had escalated into a full-scale war which saw thousands killed, wounded and displaced. An uneasy ceasefire was declared in 1994 leaving the territory in the hands of Armenian forces although with neither side officially backing down, Nagorno-Karabakh remains de jure part of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
This conflict has been reflected in the Eurovision Song Contest since Armenia first entered in 2006 and Azerbaijan in 2008. In 2006 the Armenian singer, Andre, had his place of birth listed as “Nagorno-Karabakh” on his profile. After complaints from the Azeri media this section of the singer’s biography was removed. In 2009 a series of disputes between Armenia and Azerbaijan unfolded throughout the live broadcasts of the semi-finals and final. During the semi-finals, an introductory “postcard” leading into the Armenian performance depicted, amongst other monuments, a statue located in Stepanakert, capital city of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The delegation from Azerbaijan complained to the EBU that the video clip was unacceptable based on the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is officially a part of Azerbaijan, and it was subsequently edited out for the broadcast of the final. In retaliation, the presenter of the Armenian votes held up a clipboard with the monument’s picture on it multiple times as she read off the votes. In the background a screen in the capital’s main square could also be seen to display the disputed monument.
In August 2009 the BBC reported that several people had been questioned in Azerbaijan after their votes for Armenia were traced by mobile phone service providers. According to the BBC “one man was accused of being unpatriotic and a “potential security threat” after he sent a text backing Armenia’s song […] the Azerbaijani authorities said people had merely been invited to explain why they voted for Armenia” (BBC News, 18 August 2009). The issue was investigated by the EBU and whilst they found no evidence to pursue the affair, a clause preventing telecom communication providers from disclosing personal information was added to the rules of the contest.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not the only countries to have had political disputes via the Eurovision Song Contest. Georgia initially refused to take part in Eurovision in Moscow in 2009 as a result of the war with Russia in South Ossetia in August 2008. Other countries including the Baltic States tentatively considered boycotting the event as a protest at what they saw as Russian aggression. However by early 2009 Georgia confirmed their participation in the event. However the song, “We Don’t Wanna Put In”, was largely seen as a swipe at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and deemed to the “too political” by the EBU. The Georgian broadcasting authorities were asked to change the lyrics of the song or submit a different entry. The Georgian Public Broadcaster declined to do this and Georgia therefore did not take part that year.
Groups such as Amnesty International allege that there are widespread human rights abuses occurring in Azerbaijan. Yesterday The Observer reported that Iceland is considering pulling out of the competition and that there have been similar calls in other countries too. However not everyone is so dogmatic, others such as Emin Milli, an Azeri blogger see Eurovision as an opportunity for Azerbaijan’s civil society. The spotlight is going to be on Azerbaijan as it prepares to host one of the biggest live events in the world. According to the EBU, the national broadcaster of Azerbaijan, İctimai Television has stated that freedom of the press and freedom of expression will be upheld in the country. With this come opportunities for dialogue which is surely a good thing?
All things considered, I didn’t really expect Armenia to sing in Baku. I did however think that they might “do a Georgia” and enter a song which could perhaps be read as a political jibe. They haven’t done that, instead they have quietly walked away. The EBU have expressed their regret over this decision and it’s an unfortunate one for many reasons. Eurovision was created to unite fractured European nations through song. It seems that in this case, Joy Fleming’s 1975 mantra is not true; a song can’t always build a bridge.
.JPG)
