Hollie Steele goes for the cute and vulnerable route to success

Last night Britain’s got Talent rewrote the rules of auditions for itself by allowing Hollie and her mother to get another, undeserved, chance to perform her act. Well, her second act I suppose you could say.

That’s really no surprise as the judges this time around seem to be completely biased in favour of the “cute & vulnerable” where a child performer was involved. Hollie merely took this advantage much further than the other children on the show already have.

Whilst it wasn’t a surprise that they’d do this, it does show just how much the show can get taken in by that cute & vulnerable label. That would be fine if the child concerned was very good but Hollie just isn’t. Whether she’s got the potential to be, I don’t know, but at the moment it just looked like a pushy mother wanted her little girl to succeed regardless of anything else.

Although it’s notionally all down to a public vote in reality the judges by their comments can exert a lot of influence on which acts will go forward. They’ve made no allowances for lots of very professional acts in this and previous editions of the show but then they didn’t fall into that cute & vulnerable category.

Sadly this time around a poor performance from Hollie knocked a very good one from Greg Pritchard. That’s just not right.

Copyright © 2004-2014 by Foreign Perspectives. All rights reserved.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

6 Responses to “Hollie Steele goes for the cute and vulnerable route to success”

  • Isabelle says:

    I SO agree. Hollie fits right into the ‘little princess’ syndrome .. not good!

  • Isabelle Smith says:

    This is a perfect example of the TRUTH! Why is every one afraid to state the truth on this matter? This girl did not have one single drop of tear on her face… nothing to smear the makeup or nothing to even show there was any evidence of crying. this was a temper tantrum and I will never watch bgt again based on the unfair poor influence they have given… shes ‘officially the bravest girl’???? i’d get spanked at 10 for throwing such an embarassment on my family name…. why was she applauded. its sick! shes ten. put her in school and tell her tantrums are not good and shes obviously not ready for entertainment… dont reward her for god sakes!

  • Richard says:

    I beg to differ. She IS cute, she IS vulnerable and she IS a ‘little princess’. It is genuine parts of her personality. In fact I don´t think she would be able to sing like she does without deep and genuine feelings.

    Noone, not even her parents or herself could know how she would react with the entire world (I live in Stockholm myself) watching her live with all the great expectations that she created after her first audition. Now she was too young to cope with it completely but I am still impressed to see her to struggle so bravely to master her feelings.

    I think it was inhuman and wrong not to grant her a second chance directly and blame it on a lack of time. It is so important to get up on stage quickly after such an traumatic incident. Otherwise, taking into account her sensitivity, there would have been a risk that this negative experience could have prevented her from ever singing live on a public stage again. The fairness of the competition is not as important as her talent and future career. With her fantastic voice she is an assett to the world already now and I hope this incident doesn´t leave any deeper traces in her young soul because I want to both see and listen to her for many years ahead.

  • Arnold says:

    Yes, she’s cute, yes, she’s vulnerable and, in terms of tantrums, yes, she’s a little princess.

    However, that doesn’t mean that she should get two goes at her performance. This is a PROFESSIONAL quality show. Professionals get ONE chance. Fluff that and they’re out. Quite a lot of other acts that appeared over the series could probably have done rather well had they been given a second chance. Acts of all ages too. Hollie doesn’t have the exclusive rights to “cute & vulnerable” by any means and her talent/career should not have come ahead of others equally or more talented than she is.

    Frankly, if she is too sensitive to deal with a negative experience then she’s in the wrong business. Failure in the form of auditions where you don’t get picked is the name of the game. I personally think that giving her a second chance is extremely bad for her future career (and I actually expect that she will have one) for the simple reason that it’s more than likely accepted by her that second chances are probable when in fact they usually aren’t in show business.

  • Richard says:

    I get your point and agree that she got an unfair advantage compared to other participants when she got her second chance. However, we differ in how we value the competition element in the show. I don´t take that at all serious. In fact I think it is unimportant who wins. It is just a game to make the show more interesting for the viewers. The important part is to give unknown artists a chance to be discovered. Hence, I think the “fairness” of the competition was a small sacrifice to pay in order to circumvent that this incidence would get in her mind and risk her future career.

  • Galen says:

    Hollie got no unfair advantage. It is sad that so many conniving adults would equate her vulnerability as a child to their own capacity for being devious.

    If you recall, one competitor that made it to the finals was actually STOPPED in the middle of his audition and told to try another song by Simon Cowell. Hollie didn’t win, so the results basically were unaffected. Does anybody think Susan Boyle’s opportunities flagged because she didn’t win? You’d have to be an idiot to believe that. Many reports were saying Susan could have dropped out after her first audition, because she was already recognized as a talent and did not need the show.
    By the time they get to the semi-finals, all those participants can expect to be wooed by agents and labels. Winning or not will have no significance to their recognition. Personally, I believe Diversity will be forgotten before the year is out. Oh, they’ll be working somewhere, but the new group of “cheerleaders in ball caps” will have replaced them on the scene.

Leave a Reply