I was much less impressed than I'd hoped to be. A few weeks ago, we had an opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympics that was overall rather good. Yes, there were some obvious fuck-ups and oddities because the inclusion of some people and acts was preposterous. I refer of course to the Pet Shop Boys, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Paul McCartney, George Michael for two songs (?) and some others who I'll not mention now, because we've moved on. The point is that where the Olympics commanded some interest and involvement from the entertainment world, it seems there was no such feeling with regard to the Paralympics.
We did have Beverley Knight. Now, no offence to her at all (I think she's good) but if that constitutes the input from the world of music (and I'm not counting some bird/Birdie on the piano, moaning) then there can never have been such discrimination shown, surely? The Olympics opening ceremony turned into a gig with big names, dead as well as alive, thanks to modern technology, and all the athletes and support staff were able to enjoy the music. Has someone decided that disabled people cannot enjoy popular music? It seems only depressing songs, laments and opera have any appeal if you're short of a limb. How crass.
Instead of real entertainment, this ceremony seemed to me to lose its way from the outset. The tosh that was supposedly highbrow was in fact shite, and whilst Ian McKellen was his usual enthusiastic self (albeit plodding) I was at a loss to understand why the woman with the splodge of blue in her hair was given so much attention.
The whole feel of the ceremony was of gloom and seemed to underline the difficulties of living with a disability. The slowness, the melancholy, the artiness of the performances - they all suggested the adoption of an overall toning down of a proper opening ceremony. Stephen Hawking was overly included. Where was the fun and celebration? It was gloomy. When we eventually looked like we'd get some music (Beverley Knight) I said to Mrs MWSC that this sounded too much like a finale - and so it turned out to be! "I am what I am" was the one song - a very extended version - and whilst that could be considered by many to be fitting for the Paralympics, I am actually of the opinion that this choice is patronising as fuck to humans who are competing for medals, and underlines far too much the disabilities that govern things. In fact, I'd suggest that the
whole opening ceremony was patronising.
I have heard comparisons being made between the medal count and chances of winning medals at this event versus the achievements at the 2012 Olympics. Unfortunately there cannot be comparisons made whereby success in one competition can be deemed greater or lesser than success in the other. The chances of winning medals, the number of different/extra competitions per sport in the Paralympics and the differing number of overall competitors (and thus the numbers of heats per event) all mean that it's futile and illogical to compare the Olympics results with the Paralympics results.
The parade of competitors was interesting, as was the supposed alphabetical order of the teams' entries to the stadium. I struggled to understand the rules in this regard, and first gave it consideration after China came into the stadium but the team was announced as the 'People's Republic of China'. I reckoned this to warrant entry as 'P' in the running order, rather than 'C'. Behind China came Cote d'Ivoire, which I rather thought should come later under 'I' for Ivory Coast. On that basis, Spain should shoot forward to entry as an 'E' what with it being called Espagna. Obviously they didn't do this, because country names are supposed to be in English.
Further puzzles were thrown in my direction by the arrival of the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea' under 'D' rather than 'P' or 'N' for North Korea. It seems that any country choosing to label itself as belonging to the
People is in fact a country that denies the
People any rights at all. 'Democratic' seems to count as the overriding letter for alphabetic determination, even if democracy might be thin on the ground! Before I could get carried away with countries wanting to jump forward, I realised that the 'Democratic Republic of the Congo' was happy with 'D' rather than moving up to a 'C'.
Macedonia gained a few places with its ludicrous 'FYR' clarification. After Ghana (a very straightforward 'G') went by, Channel 4 decided it was time for a break, and we all needed to assess our possible needs for
Sheba cat food,
Strongbow,
Walkers crisps and possibly insuring things via
Hiscox. Meanwhile, I wondered if we'd miss Great Britain before Mrs MWSC said we'd be last, as hosts.
Then we had 'Hong Kong China'. Hang on a minute, we gave Hong Kong back to China, so why is it still listed separately? I think China has little need of an extra chance of swamping the world of sport, and so to count Hong Kong as a separate country now is not reasonable.
The 'Republic of Ireland' was introduced under 'I' as one might expect, because the long-winded name is in the main pointless. The 'Republic of Korea' (the one that apparently does not belong to the
People, but is in fact rather freer than its more northerly
People's version) came in under K (because it isn't democratic and worthy of a 'D') and avoided 'S' as South Korea, the name by which it is actually known worldwide.
China had another rip-off entry, under 'Macao China'.
After Moldova (republic etc) came Myanmar, which obstinately refused an earlier spot as 'Burma'. The team from Peru entered the stadium wearing ponchos. The commentary included the line that it was "getting a little chilly" and the irony was lost/ignored. With another advert break, I suspected a move for Al Quaeda to sneak into the stadium (under 'Q' of course, and not 'A').
Russia announced itself as the 'Russian Federation' for no place gain or loss whatsoever. In a similar way, Syria arrived as the 'Syrian Arab Republic'.
The nerve of the Chinese reached even greater heights, with the announcement of 'Chinese Taipei' under 'T'. What the fuck? Why isn't it Taipei China? Why is this even allowed, China, plus three psuedo-China entries?
After Tonga, we switched over to Claire Balding talking to the GB athletes, waiting their turn. When we came back to the stadium, we were watching Vietnam, and again I suspected a conspiracy by migrants from the Thrombosis Islands seeking asylum! After Vietnam, there was a jump to Zambia, which highlighted the lack of countries at the tail end of the alphabet - I blame all the coups, renaming and obsession with 'Democratic', 'People's' and 'Republic'.
At the end came Great Britain. Whilst its position (last) was obligatory for the host nation, rendering the alphabetical position irrelevant, I was disappointed to hear 'Team GB' announced. Surely it should have been the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. If London doesn't give a shit about Northern Ireland, perhaps it ought to sanction its return to Ireland - sorry, the Republic of Ireland, then?
The comparison of wheelchair quality by nation was evidence, in part, as to why some nations have done well at past venues. The more developed nations have a distinct advantage over those without two grains of corn to rub together. Sadly, human endeavour is therefore not equally judged; someone working like hell in an event will, if he or she is from the wrong country, probably do less well than someone with better equipment and training facilities, even if their personal actual ability is marginally lower.
All in all, a poor relation to the efforts, money and involvement of the entertainment world that was deemed appropriate for the able-bodied event. What we are now in the middle of is a sporting event over 11 days that will be watched and supported by millions, and the efforts of the athletes will be celebrated along with their medals. We will laud the athletes, ahead of returning to the normal state of affairs in a week or two, when we will as a nation moan about blue badge holders, benefits paid to those claiming disability, and whinging about wheelchairs cluttering the aisles in Tesco. The media will not maintain its approach to patronising disabled people - it will simply reduce the times it pays attention to the needs of such a significant proportion of the population. A gold medal won by someone referred to as S36 will bear no relation to the plight of that same someone in a wheelchair looking for some trousers, unless it coincidentally means 'Short 36' for the size. Either way, "if it's not on the rack, we haven't got it" will be mumbled by a gum-chewing minimum wage assistant, even if there's a medal round the shopper's neck.
Call me cynical, but time will tell.
...
