Discuss

Walls

Right, have a look at the following (seven minutes long, but hang in there), and tell me what you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lp0IWv8QZY&feature=PlayList&p=2A3DF804F26A33D4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=30

Now, Tanya Gold in the Guardian has something to say about all this. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/britains-got-talent-susan-boyle) She points out that the crowd prejudges this person much more harshly than even Paul Potts. Susan Boyle is laughed at, sneered at by both judges and by the crowd, and gets wolf-whistled at. I think she has a point. Why is it okay to demean this woman?

Clearly, Susan's not attractive. The arguement is that you have to be attractive to get anywhere. But surely we have moved on from that? Surely we have to say that women don't have to be beautiful to get anywhere? It is not a standard that is applied to men. Why do women have to decorate, to please, to titillate, to be accepted, unlike men?

Trollers, ready your engines.

shellyboo

Walls wrote: »

Clearly, Susan's not attractive. The arguement is that you have to be attractive to get anywhere. But surely we have moved on from that?

Sadly, we haven't. Not in the entertainment industry.

CeilingCat

Wow. I actually got shivers when she started to sing. Amazing.
I wish I had a fraction of her confidence.

IMO, she just made them all look like a$$holes for judging her.

Malari

Someone emailed this around the office in work yesterday and I have to say that was the first thing that struck me. I was taken aback how rude they were to her after her performance.

On The X Factor I would understand - you are supposed to be a talented performer, all wrapped up in a singing, dancing package of "wow". But this is just Britain's Got Talent. Talent, that's the only requirement. She clearly has talent, yet more was expected before she opened her mouth.

Oryx

I think its just a wonderful, feelgood seven minutes. It was a bit of a 'yes' moment for all the ordinary plain people out there who get sick of being judged by how they look. I think that quite apart from this lady's fabulous singing, shes a bit of a firecracker personality. I hope that apart from the singing, that this episode makes even a few people think about how looks make them catagorise people. I know it has for me.

Walls

The point that angers me is the suggestion that she is not pretty, therefore she's nothing. If she isn't good looking enough, she isn't good enough. I take humbridge at that one and will argue with folks who suggest otherwise (which is a lot of people).

Walls

shellyboo wrote: »

Sadly, we haven't. Not in the entertainment industry.

I think, though, that if we reward films/musicians/artists that are outside the norm then we'll see a change. Have a look at this;

http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/

And this;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zizyphus/34585797/

I watched this on Saturday, and it gave me the shivers, I was also close to tears this morning when they played it on Today FM.

Maybe I am completely wrong here, and I will probably get roasted for this but I don't think they were judging her because she wasn't pretty. Plenty of people have come on the show who were unattractive and they were taken seriously. I think it was her slight nuttiness that had them thinking she was going to be, well, nuts. I also think that the reason they think like this is because, generally, people who do come on the show with that kind of personality, aren't as talented as this lady.

Now, all of the above said. It is wrong to judge a book by it's cover, simple as, but, unfortunately, it's human nature. Human beings are not the nicest of creatures sometimes and can be so very cruel. I personally don't understand why any person would want to hurt another person or be mean to them. It doesn't make sense in my world but then my ideal world is certainly nothing like reality!

I am so glad this lady got a break, the song is very fitting also. She'll be getting my vote!

shellyboo

Walls wrote: »

The point that angers me is the suggestion that she is not pretty, therefore she's nothing. If she isn't good looking enough, she isn't good enough. I take humbridge at that one and will argue with folks who suggest otherwise (which is a lot of people).

I'll disagree with you there. I don't think you'll find one person on boards, never mind a lot of people, who is willing to argue that "if you're not pretty, you're not good enough".

It's not an ideology or an opinion, it's an ingrained thing. People don't consciously think it or say it, but it's there subconsciously.

Walls wrote: »

I think, though, that if we reward films/musicians/artists that are outside the norm then we'll see a change. Have a look at this;

http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/

And this;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zizyphus/34585797/

I'm not sure that it would make a change though. Simply because the number of people out there who care that the media perpetrates negative stereotypes about women are lesser than the number of people who simply don't care plus the number of people whose minds it would never cross.

Galvasean

Walls wrote: »

I think, though, that if we reward films/musicians/artists that are outside the norm then we'll see a change. Have a look at this;

http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/

An interesting read. I wonder what year Jennifer Kesler graduated from film school as I have recently done so myself recently and I have not encountered such teachings. Perhaps it's a sign of changing times or perhaps my writing for screen lecturers just didn't believe in said ideology.

While looking pretty certainly seem paramount to making it big in the pop industry these days, the same probably can't be said for the rock/metal industry (some seriously ugly mo-fos in there). Although they generally have a certtain 'look' or 'style' which sets them apart visually.
It's a sad fact of the entertainment industry. (In most case) You need to be exceptionally beautiful or have a good 'gimmick' to last. There are some cases where raw talent can speak for itself. Although I have to wonder if a band like The Red Hot Chili Peppers (my favourite band for the record, so no disrespect to them) would be anywhere near as famous as they are today were it not for the various mad-kap looks they used during the 80s and early 90s to differenciate themselves from the crowd.

Nevyn

I don't think she is ugly I am not replused by her appearance I do think she is plain.
Have we moved so far along in what is standard appearnace for a woman that being plain is now ugly ?

The gods know Colm Wilkinson is no oil painting but the man can sing, and she is the same.

I don't think it is that she is plain, I do think it is that she does not fit the mode that people on that show are used to looking at, those who want to be the next glamed up pop star and spend more time on thier hair and nails then vocal excerises.

Tbh bring back Nora Batty.

Walls did you hear what was said to Amanda Plamer in the last year by her record label ?
Road runner records wanted to edit out shots of her belly as they said it was too fat from her video.


http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/62721071/the-rebellyon-the-deal-with-roadrunner-records

Seriously given their labels line up of large metal guys with huge beer guts they said the belly above is unsightly.

Amanda is currently hoping the label will drop her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMi7wRfmoMs

Galvasean

Thaedydal wrote: »

Road runner records wanted to edit out shots of her belly as they said it was too fat from her video.

Wow, not only would I not be put off by seeing such an image on TV, I would be actively engaged by it.

SeekUp

Walls wrote: »

The point that angers me is the suggestion that she is not pretty, therefore she's nothing. If she isn't good looking enough, she isn't good enough.

Saw this clip the other night -- couldn't wipe the smile off my face. But I don't think the suggestion was that she "is not pretty, therefore she's nothing" . . . I think it was, "she looks a bit homely, she can't possibly be talented and a good performer." To me, there's a big difference. And while they were wrong - admittedly! - I think there's a certain level of expectation that comes when you put a person on a stage or in front of a camera. Even if they're not traditionally beautiful, they often have a particular "look", or in the case of performers, as Galvesan said, a gimmick of some sort. I think they just initially dismissed her because she didn't live up to their expectations of what a good singer looked like. At least they gave her due credit at the end!

metaoblivia

I think it was a combination of her looks and the eccentric way she was acting. She fit right into the stereotype of disheveled, eccentric, old cat lady/spinster who's value left the room years ago and took a bit of her sanity with it.
And I think there is more than a bit of bias in the entertainment industry when it comes to looks, especially for women. Television and movies have changed what we've come to expect from musicians and performers. In a way, video really did kill the radio star. A lot of the music out there currently and being consumed by the masses is just as visual as it is auditory, especially when it's a female musician. Some of it (think Britney Spears) even puts more emphasis on the visual aspect, imo. And I think we've become so used to seeing pretty, talented people that we sometimes forget there are disheveled, plain looking people who are just as talented out there too.
That said, I see Tanya Gold's point. I was really put off by the judges' and audience reaction to Ms. Boyle and the subsequent media reaction because it had a bit of a "omg, she's so ugly but she can sing! Isn't it amazing?" feel to it, which I found somewhat patronizing. Maybe it's because I'm a musician myself and I have the great priviledge of working with other local, talented musicians several times a month, some of whom are just as old and plain as Ms. Boyle. Musical talent isn't reserved for the young and beautiful, and it's kind of sad that we've become so inundated with airbrushed images that someone like Ms. Boyle ends up being so much of a surprise.

WindSock

Galvasean wrote: »

While looking pretty certainly seem paramount to making it big in the pop industry these days, the same probably can't be said for the rock/metal industry (some seriously ugly mo-fos in there).

I can't think of very many unnattractive female rock stars.

CeilingCat

Has anyone clicked on the link to the right, of the track she recorded in 1999?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI2DxkrgpgQ

(Sorry if it's slightly beside the point, but I could listen to this womans' voice all day )

I've just watched the clip from start to finish again as I couldn't watch it in work earlier. I may have missed something but I don't think that the judges were rude to her at all after she sang? I think they were actually very honest and particularly Amanda Holden when she said "that was the biggest wakeup call" I think she was agreeing with the "we shouldn't have judged her" theory. Maybe I just see things differently.

Nevyn

metaoblivia wrote: »

I think it was a combination of her looks and the eccentric way she was acting.

TBH I saw the way she behaved as being very Mae West, vaudville / variety act sense of humour and style even down to her mannerisms.

metaoblivia wrote: »

She fit right into the stereotype of disheveled, eccentric, old cat lady/spinster who's value left the room years ago and took a bit of her sanity with it.

Oh please that was her playing for the cameras, it's called having an act,
that type of act is well know or at least it was in variety theatre.

Think June Rodgers and you are on the right track


But heaven forbid a woman is funny.

metaoblivia

Thaedydal wrote: »

TBH I saw the way she behaved as being very Mae West, vaudville / variety act sense of humour and style even down to her mannerisms.



Oh please that was her playing for the cameras, it's called having an act,
that type of act is well know or at least it was in variety theatre.

Think June Rodgers and you are on the right track


But heaven forbid a woman is funny.

Oh I agree. I'm just explaining how I think a lot of people interpreted her behavior. They didn't think "Mae West" they just saw a plain old lady acting eccentrically and they didn't realize it was an act.
I didn't interpret her that way, so please don't get defensive or talk down to me. I've been involved in music and stages productions for over 15 years. I know what an "act" is.

Galvasean

WindSock wrote: »

I can't think of very many unnattractive female rock stars.

Well Kid Rock's drummr is one. Girlschool arent too much to look at either, well one's pretty nice IMO.
Now that you mention it I can't think of too many female rock stars off the top of my head.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Think June Rodgers and you are on the right track


But heaven forbid a woman is funny.

Never found her antics funny. Now Paula Belle or Wanda Sykes, they are funny ladies!

Walls

shellyboo wrote: »

I'll disagree with you there. I don't think you'll find one person on boards, never mind a lot of people, who is willing to argue that "if you're not pretty, you're not good enough".

So you say that I will find lots of people who argue that if you're not pretty, you're not good enough. Do I have you right?

Walls

I find it interesting that we've asked ourselves which industry accepts attractive women, rather than asking which one should. Why do we put up with this? We accept as a system that says that if you are ugly you aren't good enough, that looks are everything or you are nothing. Do you all agree that that is true? That women can't be anything worthwhile unless they are attractive to men?

Dudess

Walls wrote: »

So you say that I will find lots of people who argue that if you're not pretty, you're not good enough. Do I have you right?

Probably wouldn't say it but would think it.

Walls wrote: »

Why do we put up with this? We accept as a system that says that if you are ugly you aren't good enough, that looks are everything or you are nothing.

Agreeing it's a reality isn't the same as accepting it. There are factors to consider too, such as: is it nurture or nature? In the case of the latter, can it thus be helped? Although, seeing as men who aren't that blessed looks-wise aren't subject to such scrutiny, I'm inclined to think it's a good deal to do with nurture... but also nature. Hasn't it been established that men are more visual creatures than women?
And are our notions of beauty constructed or simply objective? Would e.g. Cheryl Cole have been considered such a ravishing beauty 200 years ago?
Plus, plain people can be utterly transformed by make-up - I can't see what Susan looks like as my screen has gone arseways so I can only see text, but is she still "plain" with make-up?

Do you all agree that that is true? That women can't be anything worthwhile unless they are attractive to men?

I doubt all here will agree with that - consciously anyway.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Walls did you hear what was said to Amanda Plamer in the last year by her record label ?
Road runner records wanted to edit out shots of her belly as they said it was too fat from her video.


http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/62721071/the-rebellyon-the-deal-with-roadrunner-records

Seriously given their labels line up of large metal guys with huge beer guts they said the belly above is unsightly.

Aw jeez, that's grim. I wonder do those at Roadrunner (I'm inclined to believe more likely male) actually consider her stomach "unsightly" or are they just afraid potential buyers will? In the case of the latter, who gets to decide such sh1t?

panda100

Walls wrote: »

I find it interesting that we've asked ourselves which industry accepts attractive women, rather than asking which one should. Why do we put up with this? We accept as a system that says that if you are ugly you aren't good enough, that looks are everything or you are nothing. Do you all agree that that is true? That women can't be anything worthwhile unless they are attractive to men?

Unfortunatly it seems to be a damaging reality in the music industry. The vast vast majority of mainstream female singers and bands all fit a very defined narrow definition of what is beautiful. Beyonce, Girls aloud, The Saturdays, pussycat dolls, You'd be hard pushed to think of an all girl band that doesnt use their sexuality/looks to sell their music.

Their are really genuinely talentd female artists out there who will never get anywhere beacuse they dont look the right way.

Dudess

And if they're not conventionally beautiful, journalists won't shut the **** up about it - it defines them. E.g. Beth Ditto, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse.

Nevyn

Come back L7 all is forgiven.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX1BEily6HY

Nevyn

Dudess wrote: »

And if they're not conventionally beautiful, journalists won't shut the **** up about it - it defines them. E.g. Beth Ditto, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse.

Yup, like it is some sort of handicap which they rose above :rolleyes:

994

Dudess wrote: »

And if they're not conventionally beautiful, journalists won't shut the **** up about it - it defines them. E.g. Beth Ditto, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse.

Amy Winehouse also said in an interview that she gets drunk and beats her husband; there was no media frenzy over that. So maybe that's where the real double standards are.

emollett

Accepting reactions were wrong because she turned out to be talented is barely any better than having the reactions in the first place. The first assumption makes it seem you have to be attractive to be worth anything to society. The change in reactions when she turns out to be talented only adds talent to the values that give you worth, it does nothing to challenge the idea that "ugly" or even "plain" people have no worth.
I'm not sure i got that across well, but essentialy the "new" reactions across the internet do nothing to dispell the idea that the only way you can be unconventially attractive and have some worth is to be very good at something to overide it.

Dudess

I agree. It's a case of "wow, I'm amazed at how talented she is... for an uggo". Quite patronising really - the way her talent is causing such borderline hysteria, because it's so gosh darn sweet that a plain gal has defied the odds by actually singing well. The tears etc from the audience probably wouldn't be happening if she was pretty. And there are all these headlines like "unlikely singing star", "fairytale", "Cinderella" etc. She has a nice voice but it's not astounding.

994 wrote: »

Amy Winehouse also said in an interview that she gets drunk and beats her husband; there was no media frenzy over that. So maybe that's where the real double standards are.

Irrelevant - do you have an axe to grind? I don't see how it's where the "real" double standards lie (as in, all the other double standards are "fake"...?) It's simply another example of the numerous double standards that exist when it comes to gender.

JC 2K3

I thought the whole thing seemed very scripted/cleverly edited to me.

I don't think you can bring double standards into this. The music industry is about what sells, not about promoting equality. And if this bothers you, then stop buying music from major labels.

Galvasean

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I thought the whole thing seemed very scripted/cleverly edited to me.

As with 99% of those TV talent shows.
Am I the only one who initially taught her voice had been altered/enchanced by editing? Or am I just completely blinded by preconception?
I dunno, call me cynical but I can't help but feel reminded of the Michelle McManus PR stunt of a few years ago.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

I dunno, call me cynical but I can't help but feel reminded of the Michelle McManus PR stunt of a few years ago.

more please?

Catari Jaguar

OMG! That Cry me a River song is incredible. Is that her??

I don't think she's unattractive as such, it's just that she seems a bit special maybe... And she looks a bit naive and innocent. A bit of a tweeze, some make up, a nice dye and cut, a stylish outfit and she'd be a star ready for any stage.

Acacia

Galvasean wrote: »

Now that you mention it I can't think of too many female rock stars off the top of my head.

Metal and rock is still a bit of a boys' club, imo. And most female rock stars still have to fit into another convention of beauty (the hot goth/rock chick) to get recognition, e.g. Cristina Scabbia of Lacuna Coil and Brody Dalle of the Distillers. The emphasis is still more about what they look like , than their music. Or the very fact that they are a 'woman in rock'. Granted, it's not quite as bad as other music industries, but still, the double standards are there.

Dudess wrote: »

And if they're not conventionally beautiful, journalists won't shut the **** up about it - it defines them. E.g. Beth Ditto, Janis Joplin, Amy Winehouse.

Yep, patronising bullsh1t on the part of the tabloids , constantly bleating on about ugly girls achieving their dreams 'against the odds'. :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Deleted User wrote: »

more please?

Won pop-idol a few years ago. Wiki.

She basically won as 'the big girl with the big voice' even though TBH her voice wasn't all that great. Clearly won only as a gimmick because shows like Pop Idol were getting a lot of flak for only going for certain 'types'. The fact that they only bothered letting her record one album ever shows that they were just doing it to avoid more criticism. Basically "Hey look, we let the big girl win once now sod off".

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Won pop-idol a few years ago. Wiki.

I remember her winning but didn't realise it was a PR stunt! I wasn't obviously paying much attention!

Sure didn't that other guy Rick Waller get a "sore throat" during pop idol and never was seen again? I heard at the time that he was paid to leave the show - no links or proof btw.

Jules

Even "beautiful women" are subjected to things like this by record companies, anyone remember the whole Anastasia thing. She has Crohns Disease and has a scare on her tummy which was airbrushed out of pics and single/album covers and was also made to lie about her age, as people at her company thought she was too old and would be marketable!

Wibbs

Dudess wrote: »

Agreeing it's a reality isn't the same as accepting it. There are factors to consider too, such as: is it nurture or nature? In the case of the latter, can it thus be helped? Although, seeing as men who aren't that blessed looks-wise aren't subject to such scrutiny, I'm inclined to think it's a good deal to do with nurture... but also nature. Hasn't it been established that men are more visual creatures than women?
And are our notions of beauty constructed or simply objective? Would e.g. Cheryl Cole have been considered such a ravishing beauty 200 years ago?

I'd say nature is the majority of it. Beauty is an external indicator of reproductive health and that external visual indicator is more important for women it seems. Now there are societal factors, but even those IMHO are still based on the nature part. Loads of studies, including cross cultural ones show similar results for female attractiveness. I read a good one where they got an amazonian tribe and took pictures of the women and asked western types to pick out those they thought would be considerd the most beautiful and they matched with the tribes men's results.

Fashion especially as far as something like women's weight does vary over time and the society(abundance of food resources etc. Scarce food, bigger women, plentiful food, skinnier women as a general rule). It seems more so than for men anyway.

What fashion goes for is only part of it. I would pretty much ignore high fashion anyway, as it's mostly decided by gay men and other women, so the reproductive attractiveness bit is largely missing. Very very few straight men are attracted to hipless women that look starved, ehnce not too many of that type in porn. Indeed fatter women would have a much bigger pron market. Anorexia is not a good indicator of health in general or reproductive health in particular.

I would look at what the average looks for in both genders and that is pretty consistent. Cheryl cole? Over time and societies fashions, she is too skinny in general, but if she had an average healthy weight? I would be very surprised if she wouldn't be considered a beauty as far as her facial features are concerned. Big eyes, lips, small jaw, regular features all good signs of oestrogen levels.

It did feel like a bit of a fix to me too I must say.

Piste

I don't think it's a fix, but maybe I'm just being a bit naive. I don't think she was putting on an "act" either, I think she's genuinely a bit strange.

It is a bit sickening alright how people are treating the fact that she's fat and unattractive as if it's some sort of disability. There's a good article about what the reaction of the media would be if she couldn't sing, would people be so forgiving or would they feel justified in ridiculing her?

http://ow.ly/3c2m

The Huffington Post wrote:

Like millions of viewers, I was thrilled and moved when 47-year-old Susan Boyle wowed the judges and audience on Britain's Got Talent with her superb singing. As everyone knows by now, the unmarried, "never been kissed" woman from a small village was greeted by both the audience and the talent show's judges with derision when she first took the stage. Looking matronly in her somewhat frumpy dress and unkempt hair, her appearance initially elicited smug, condescending and even cruel smirks, smiles and chuckles. What could this "un-cool," plain-spoken woman have to offer? What right did she have to share the stage with all those young, pretty, talented people?

Then Susan opened her mouth and sang. And her voice was so powerful, so achingly beautiful, so full of yearning, that even the usually heartless Simon Cowell was blown away. As were the other judges, and the audience, all of whom gave Susan a standing ovation. And now, online and elsewhere, Susan's voice, and the story of her triumph on that stage, are known throughout the world.

There's even news of a record contract, and the odds-makers who track these things believe she's the current favorite to win the competition. More tellingly, everyone is talking and blogging about her "inner beauty," and how Susan reminds us that we shouldn't judge a book by its cover, etc.

I'm happy for her. She appears to be a solid, decent person for whom, God knows, some good luck is long overdue.

But I can't help wondering, what would have been the reaction if Susan Boyle couldn't sing?

What would the judges and the audience have thought, and said, had her voice been a creaky rasp, or an out-of-tune shriek? Would she still possess that "inner beauty?" Would we still acknowledge that the derisive treatment she received before performing was callous, insensitive and cruel?

The unspoken message of this whole episode is that, since Susan Boyle has a wonderful talent, we were wrong to judge her based on her looks and demeanor. Meaning what? That if she couldn't sing so well, we were correct to judge her on that basis? That demeaning someone whose looks don't match our impossible, media-reinforced standards of beauty is perfectly okay, unless some mitigating circumstance makes us re-think our opinion?

Personally, I'm gratified that her voice inspires so many, and reminds us of our tendency to judge and criticize based on shallow externals of beauty. What I mean is, I'm glad for her.

But I have no doubt that, had she performed poorly, Simon Cowell would be rolling his eyes still. And the audience would have hooted and booed with the relish of Roman spectators at the Colosseum. And that Susan Boyle's appearance on the show would still be on YouTube, but as an object of derision and ridicule.

So let's not be too quick to congratulate ourselves for taking her so fully to our hearts. We should've done that anyway, as we should all those we encounter who fall outside the standards of youth and beauty as promulgated by fashion magazines, gossip sites, and hit TV shows.

We should've done that anyway, before Susan Boyle sang a single note.

Lobelia Overhill

Lil Kitten wrote: »

OMG! That Cry me a River song is incredible. Is that her??

Yes that's her!

The Daily Record has been doing bits about Susan all week, apparently she was oxygen deprived at birth and has a "learning difficulty", she lived with her elderly mother, until she passed away two years ago, and has been practically a hermit ever since. Seems she's mortified at the way she was wiggling her hips on the stage and won't be doing that again!

Fair do's to her, she looked like a drunken aunt at a wedding who was going to start singing something very badly before falling off the stage, until she actually started to sing!

Galvasean

Was reading in the paper (think it was Friday or Satuday's Indo) that apparently that was not the judges' first time seeing Susan Boyle perform, so all the mega-shocked reactions were faked for the cameras.
Kinda takes away from the magic if it's true.

Walls

I'd doubt that one. I think that the show's producers would have been well clued in as to her talent, and Ant and Dec (daft names) would have known as well. But no, the judges on the night didn't know.

JC 2K3

How do you know?

I suspected from the start that it was all faked. You can't trust anything you see on TV as being genuine.

Walls

JC 2K3 wrote: »

How do you know?

I suspected from the start that it was all faked. You can't trust anything you see on TV as being genuine.

Me? Em...well, I'm psychic, but I usually use my powers for good.

It's just my impression from watching it, they ran the short montage of her beforehand to set up the view that she was frumpy, and then the reaction of the two men on the side of the stage was too triumphant rather than surprised. They were in on it.

JC 2K3

I meant that the judges didn't know. I suspect they did.