Strictly's Scoring Disparity Exposes Reality TV's Systemic Inequalities
The recent Strictly Come Dancing Christmas special has inadvertently highlighted the systemic inequalities embedded within reality television's competitive structures, as former contestant Amber Davies' playful complaint reveals deeper issues about fairness and accessibility in mainstream entertainment.
Davies, a 29-year-old performer who competed in the show's regular series, shared their frustration on TikTok after witnessing judges award high scores with apparent ease during the festive edition. "Watching the Strictly Xmas special seeing the judges give out 9s & 10s when it took me ten weeks of breaking my body to get those marks," they wrote, accompanying a video of themselves dramatically reaching toward their television screen.
Deconstructing Entertainment's Double Standards
While Davies framed their critique as humorous, the underlying message exposes how reality television perpetuates inconsistent standards that disproportionately affect contestants during regular competition periods. The stark contrast between Christmas special scoring and series-long evaluation reveals institutional biases within entertainment formats that privilege spectacle over sustained effort.
The performer's experience illuminates the physical and emotional labour extracted from contestants, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds who must navigate additional pressures within predominantly white, heteronormative entertainment spaces. Davies' admission about abandoning potentially dangerous choreography highlights how the industry's demands often compromise performer safety for audience engagement.
Intersectional Analysis of Competition Structures
Davies' journey through Strictly exemplifies the complex negotiations required when individuals with diverse backgrounds enter mainstream entertainment. Despite their musical theatre experience, they faced criticism from audiences who questioned their participation, reflecting broader societal tendencies to police who deserves opportunities within cultural institutions.
The emotional toll described by Davies, including their tearful reflection on leaving the "Strictly bubble," demonstrates how reality television creates temporary communities while ultimately serving capitalist entertainment structures that extract labour and emotion for profit.
Challenging Institutional Narratives
The performer's positive reception among fellow contestants, including their support for semi-finalist Balvinder and finalists George Clarke and Karen Carney, suggests possibilities for solidarity within competitive frameworks. However, this individual kindness cannot obscure the systemic issues inherent in formats that pit performers against each other for public consumption.
Davies' experience of receiving unprecedented support from viewers, described as unlike anything in their decade-long public career, points to audiences' capacity for meaningful engagement when entertainment moves beyond superficial competition toward authentic human connection.
Reimagining Entertainment Justice
The scoring disparities highlighted by Davies' observation demand critical examination of how entertainment institutions perpetuate inequality through seemingly neutral evaluation processes. True accessibility requires dismantling systems that privilege certain performances while extracting unsustainable physical and emotional labour from participants.
As audiences, we must interrogate our consumption of content that relies on competitive elimination formats, questioning how these structures reproduce broader societal hierarchies and considering alternative models that centre community care over individual triumph.