Eurovision Song Contest - Belgrade 2008

Not sure I'd characterise any of the winning songs of recent years as that... In fact historically techno and really cheesy pop have faired really badly.

I'm thinking Malta (this year and last), Belgium (Kate Ryan and Xandee) etc.

Ballads seem to be back in vogue...

Don't they just - quite a few this year.

I laughed when you said the LED mesh looked like a star curtain on close-up, noggin. I though precisely the same, and indeed for some reason thought of you and the argument you'd put forward in its defence when I first saw it

I won't repeat my earlier post, other than to say I though this year's set was an incredible disappointment, as with last year's and pretty much all those of the 2000s. All remarkably forgettable and bland. It was no surprise to learn that this year's set is apparently the fourth nearly in a row for a said set designer. Is it any wonder it's all become so samey and predictable. Everyone mourns the loss of individual graphical themes from year to year, but nobody mentions the loss of same regarding staging. The titbits and snippets of the chosen 'theme' for Eurovision in the papers, television listings and press releases was always one of the highlights of the contest, and the sense of anticipation generated. Now we can just expect the same old lazy homogenous, glassy, brassy concoctions of plastic and blazing screens with token 'forms' to add a modicum of interest and conceal props and steadicams. What a yawnfest. And incidentally I thought there was an extreme lack of depth to the set wall, and the empty expanse of black flooring to the rear crude and ill-executed. Indeed it looked so poorly finished that it looked like they might make use of it and do a Latvia: lifting the set to reveal a green room behind. Alas it served no function whatever other than the practical concerns of act changing.

Without being overly predictable in my argument, there is little question (1994 aside) that RTÉ's Eurovisions won hands down on the staging front relative to their times. Nothing has touched them other than Latvia in 2003, and even then that only achieved such standards as the result of a national tourism investment drive, where millions were pumped into the contest.

Direction and technology has of course advanced substantially in Eurovision, but very much at the expense of creativity. This really needs to change. This year's contest also saw the ditching of an opening sequence, the abolition of anything approaching a watchable interval act, incredibly lazy green room sequences, the elimination of broadcaster logos, and a presenter entrance of such mediocrity as to frankly beggar belief. The performances were without question better this year, but presentation generally I thought marked a new low for Eurovision.

Yep - and whilst I wasn't a fan of this year's winner - I think the right song and singer won last year.

I don't think you can ever complain, political voting or not, when a good song, sung well, wins. I think this year's song was a decent, well produced song, but didn't think the performance deserved a win - but that may be just me not "getting" Dima. He's won MTV Awards 3 times in Russia though - it isn't like he's an X-Factor also ran...



Yep - LED mesh works better for me than panels in this set-up as the close-ups with solid LED screens usually end up looking a bit pants. The mesh, with enough distance and a reduced depth of field, looks much nicer IMHO - as you say!



Thought the implementation was good - and in TV terms it worked better than last year's - particularly the two Steadicam hides (aka LED verticals) and the lack of break-up in the LED screens.

For me the lack of any foreground interest other than the audience/flags, and the sheer scale (reminding me of the complaints after RTE's 1988 show - which was a triumph of illusion) diminished the show. Also - the jib+steadicam treatment worked brilliantly for some songs - particularly the steadi whips on the rockier numbers - but on other songs the treatment was less sympathetic. Sweden's song looked much better on MF than at ESC.


Yep - nothing notable really. Scoreboard and coverage not a major breakthrough. I think last year's scoreboard was better - and 2005 is probably the best show in recent years in coverage terms. That said - this year was better than 2006/2007 IMHO - fewer ultra-wides and more close-ups certainly helped. Last year seemed to be covering the set more than the songs.



I think they've got better each year - though I did quite like Kiev - particularly the physical elements which this year's was sadly missing. The LED design was good this year though - some nice imagery well chosen, and sympathetic to the songs in the main. Thought the UK got a much better set treatment than the song deserved.



Yep - though as LED tech has improved the treatments are more about the LED graphics than the physical set I guess.


Possibly for the die hard fans - not sure the general public really engaged in that way.

Even the semi final shows got a combined audience of less than 1 million in total...



I didn't feel as strongly about that - the staging was very efficient - and the hiding of steadicams very effective - so I can forgive that. There were a couple of "where the heck is the steadi" moments. Also - I think at least one country hid a backing singer very close to the verticals - almost out of shot...



Having watched most of the 90s shows back relatively recently - I'm afraid 1998 Birmingham has the edge for me. The set was very simple - but the coverage, considering the era, was amazing. Sympathetic to each song, but consistently excellent. A couple of RTE shows were characterised by cameras not moving until they were on-shot, rather than starting just before. I liked the 1997 RTE set though - thought it worked really well, as did the whole "look" of that show.



Suspect we'll agree to differ. I thought Birmingham was brilliant. I also think the postcards worked really neatly.

Wasn't a huge fan of the Birmingham interval act - but this year's set a new low standard. I can't understand what made them select that - or was the rest of Europe on a long ad-break?



Yep - the green room was tedious and felt stretched (though presumably was mainly seen only in the countries which didn't have ad breaks).

The fireworks were dreadful - apparently they were covered using a clapped out RTS OB unit... Not in HD obviously...

The output from that yoke didn't even look SD! A dodgy feed, SD, and quite possibly cropped from 4:3. Not only were the production values not up to scratch for that, but the entire sequence was pointless and in any event ill-executed. Another dud point for Serbia 2008.

We all know your penchant for 1998 noggin , but I'm principally referring to staging, and suspected you'd mix it up with direction. I fully agree Birmingham was a sublime production direction-wise but on the staging front it was dire. I still remember watching that all those years ago with mouth a-gape at the Royal Variety-standard of the set. It was such a climb-down from 1997. And from the BBC, where most people were expecting a high watermark of production values, the astonishment was all the more potent. I'll never forget seeing that lightbulb-studded set unit as principal backdrop! Truly awful. Whoever designed that staging...
For such a rare opportunity to host Eurovision (in hindsight at least), it was most peculiar such a happy clappy humdrum ensemble was concocted. It was like a blown up late night chatshow set from the early 90s.

But yes direction was effortless, and the lighting effects on the flooring were spectacular as I recall. The flowing of the jib across the floor for slower songs with the flooring exquistely articulated with light was one of the highlights of 1998 (I'm recalling largely from a decade ago here, so excuse any other omissions!).

1988, 1993, 1995 and 1997, whatever quibbles one may have over direction (and I'd agree with them), on staging grounds these were almost exclusively the only truly artistic Eurovision sets. Abstract, thematic and throughly memorable. Norway came close in 1996, but appears to have been constrained by budget and generally shoddy execution.

Incidentally on direction, I would agree that 1998 was the first year that went for an entirely flowing asthetic, but I would argue that that format was developing then internationally in tandem with snappier styles; this was one of the first opportunities to exploit it. It's not so much that RTÉ didn't go for it as it just wasn't fashionable at the time - as with all directorial styles (though 1997 made a great stab at it). RTÉ even in conservative mode compares more favourably to contemporaneous distinctly flaky 1990s contests - RTÉ tended to focus more on excellent composition and solid mixing rather that movement, whereas early 1990s contests elsewhere did neither!

Anyway, one suspects the Russians won't allow a Swede near 2009 with a ten foot vodka bottle, and with their resources here's hoping they'll go all out for a truly individual theme (though it could go the other way in an attempt to appear more western...). Heck why the need to build a glitzy vulgar stage at all - just host it in a typical 18th century interior of a Russian palace!

Dima Bilan was on The Late Late Show in Ireland tonight singing live - an excellent performance. Fully agreed however that it wasn't a winning song - I was most surprised when it came out on top. I thought Israel was going to make it. Sweden was very predictable and average, if solid, and remarkably similar to Carola. As predictable as Malta that lot

Oh and fully agreed on Sven's 'steadi whips'! Aren't they absolutely spectacular - he truly refined the art this year.

I don't know why people refer to 1993 with such high praise.

The set was ghastly - whatever was on, you had the distinct impression you were stood inside a bizarre spaceship or some sort of mid-80s disco. The stage was also extremely cramped, both floorspace and vertically, and the orchestra looked like they'd been shoved away with all of the horse manure in the corner. Millstreet never again please.

And you do seem to be avoiding 1994 - I thought the staging was very impressive (if sometimes somewhat unnecessary). 1995 just seemed a bit too dark for my liking, but was still effective.

For me, I always tend to feel as though the individual countries' efforts sometimes out-fab the big event. Sweden in particular - and noggin will probably back me up - had a wonderful year this year, with a set with lots of depth and very little reliance on LED curtains or massive videowalls. We also, I think, share an affection for Sven's direction.

Do the EBU, or rather its members produce the Champions League coverage for example?

Some do - some are dire...


Ah - that was the illusion. The entire set seemed to be saturated in LED strips that could be fed video - the line is now totally blurred between LED lighting and LED video screens these days. The clever thing about this year's MF set was that in close-up it looked like chroma sticks, but in wides it looked a bit like a screen. They're using the same technique on the stairs in TC1 for "I'd Do Anything". The stairs look like they just have chroma sticks / single LED strips - but when you see a wide you see each LED is being driven as if it is part of a screen - so you see the Nancy logo rotating etc.



Sometimes - when he's good he's very good, when he's average, well he's still quite good. Didn't really "feel" the contest this year - but MF was great. The coverage of Hero and Empty Room were both lovely in the MF heats - and Hero certainly worked better on the MF set than the ESC set.

Don't think so - I think, like most large sporting events, that it is organised by a 3rd party host broadcast organisation.

Looked like a clapped out SD OB truck being not very well operated. Didn't see the point either - though it did cover the large gap between green room and stage...

Suspect it was the only thing RTS actually did during the evening...



With a TV event they are one and the same IMHO. ESC isn't a case of covering a staged event, it is a case of creating an event for TV. The staging and direction are integral to this. Of course in the early days of ESC they were treated separately - and this showed.



You see I really liked the simplicity. It was obviously designed as a set to take lighting - with the LD providing the different "staging" for each number using lighting effects.

The simple and "un busy" set gave the show a much lighter and brighter and clean feel compared to previous very busy "throw everything but the kitchen sink at it" staging.



I was surprised by it - but when I saw it lit and shot it seemed more like a blank canvas for the LD, and the performer. It appeared to be much more sympathetic to the variety of songs than some sets. 1997 was a great set for some songs, but the grungy techno feel wasn't at all sympathetic for ballads - whereas I think Birmingham allowed a much more varied approach.

I rather liked the retro feel of the light bulbs - and when watching the actual song coverage I don't think I felt the staging was at all detrimental. Anyone watching Chiara's "The One That I Love" with the candles on stage can't have been anything other than mesmerised - and compare that with Dana International's "Diva" from the same set - and the contrast that the staging and lighting provide is pretty big.

I think that the 1998 set was a real reaction to the overly designed, overly complicated, busy and fussy sets of previous years. Norway's metal monstrosity in particular springs to mind.



Think we'll have to agree to differ on this. I liked the simplicity and blank canvas aspect of it - and thought it was a brilliant change compared to the previous years.



I think each song was beautifully scripted - and the quality of the camera work was really pretty high - with all the shots moving at the right pace to allow the shot to complete in the time available.



You see I'm not sure that an ESC set should stamp such a memorable mark on the contest - and that is one breakthrough that LEDs and Projectors have allowed - the abiility to bespoke the set for each song rather than the contest. 1998 started this using lighting techniques, and 1999 was the first year that really managed it with LED.

I thought that some of the RTE sets were distinctive and very much of their time - though the RTE contests were often let down by average camera work and scripting.



It had been developing in the UK for many years before - it is very difficult to do creatively and execute well though - even now.



I don't agree - a lot of the RTE contests seemed to have real problems delivering decent on-shot moves - with many moves starting on-shot and finishing early, or not reaching their end points in time. I suspect that is the reason they contained more static shots. Not sure if this was a mounting/lens issue or just a skills issue.

I know that they had an excellent camera team in Birmingham - with a team very experienced in live music.



Probably - though the Exec Prod of the contest is still a Swede...

When you think about it, we've only really had these male/female pairings doing a comedy routine whilst presenting since Terry & Ulrika. The 98 contest worked well, so it became a benchmark.

So, I think it's all our fault!

1997 was boy/girl presented as well - Ronan Keating and Carrie Crowley?