When ‘Familiar’ turns peculiar
WE WROTE about the first season of the TV impersonation tilt, “Your Face Sounds Familiar,” quite regularly, but some readers have noted that we’re less supportive this time around. What gives?
Frankly, the first edition’s outcome disappointed us, because in our view, it didn’t reward the best singing impersonator in the competition.
We also had a problem with the resident jurors’ almost completely happy and even giddy reactions to the sometimes deficient performances, so we needed to get a break from that, as well.
We still watch the new season as it’s unfolding, but the thrill is going, going . . . We do note, however, that contenders like Kean Cipriano, Eric Nicolas, Sam Concepcion and Denise Laurel are revealing new facets to their skills and versatility, so that should be celebrated.
On the “down” side, however, we fret that some poor choices of “singing” stars to impersonate are being made, like last Sunday’s Michael V assignment for Michael Pangilinan. Michael V isn’t all that exceptional as a singer, so Pangilinan couldn’t do much with him.
Another debit point is the sometimes clumsy use of heavy make-up to “force” an impersonator to look more like the star he’s trying to pass for.
Technique
This “drawing on the face” technique should be avoided because it’s so obvious, and full prosthetics are also too heavy to pass muster. Rather than “forcing through” this way, extra pains could be taken to better suit the chosen star to the impersonator assigned to him or her, on point of height, heft, age, etc., to achieve a more harmonious and believable effect.
Another problem that should be addressed and solved is the “plus three points” that each contestant is given to add to a chosen rival’s total each week.
Actual practice on the show reveals that this can be subjectively used in “political” and pragmatic ways: If a rival contestant is weak, he or she is given the extra points by the others, because there’s no danger that it will have a negative effect on the donor’s score—and yet it makes the donor look good and generous.
On the other hand, in close contests, it has a real effect that could affect the total score and outcome. —That should be discouraged, because it could lead to players forming unspoken but self-serving “alliances” (you help me, I’ll help you). Seeing the situation in that complicated light, the “plus three points” option for contestants should be eliminated.
Finally, the judges: While they’re trying to be more “critique-oriented” now, they still tend to be too “supportively upbeat” as a rule, so their negative notes’ points are obfuscated by the extremely soft and kind language in which they’re phrased.
Once again, we should remind the judges that they’re there not to make the players feel great, but to help them become better impersonators, period. If their “negative” notes are too vague and kind, little learning happens.
So, they should take their cue from Simon Cowell, who produces and is a mentor on another singing tilt, “The X-Factor.” As he tells his fellow-judges, in no uncertain terms, “Oh, shut up and judge!” —Our thoughts, exactly.
