So, The Economist analysed Eurovision, which makes it news (as if this wasn’t already).
Actually I just searched for more news and it turns out this is the best I can find… That’s Chloe’s Tumblr, by the way, please leave a message saying hi. The thing is, on Monday everyone will pretend that Eurovision doesn’t exist – except the country that wins, which has 365 days to find a room suitable for 8000 cans of hairspray, 10000 drunk dudes and some flags – so I’ve run out of things to say, so here is a handy guide for everybody who doesn’t understand Eurovision.
- Established 1956 (yep, it’s almost as old as the EU. I wonder which is more effective at uniting Europe and making UKIP uncomfortable?)
- It’s basically the Olympics meets a montage of every musical you’ve ever heard meets queer pride meets The X Factor
- “Nil points” means “no points” which is what the UK tends to get because the UK is like Loki but with worse hair (fun for a bit but nobody wants to play with us for long based on historical events and distinct lack of overall idealogical cohesion)
- For one half of the competition Europeans express feelings that are either “YEAHHH THIS COUNTRY THAT I’VE NEVER HEARD OF HAS THE BEST SENSE OF HUMOUR/COSTUMES/LEVEL OF SCHIZOPHRENIC DANCING AYYY I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!” or “Well I don’t think that’s appropriate what is society coming to?” For the other half we go “YEAHHH WE GOT POINTS FROM A COUNTRY WE ONCE WENT TO WAR WITH!!! WAIT THAT COUNTRY WE WERE ONCE ALLIED WITH GAVE US FEWER POINTS THAN WE DESERVE! WE VOTED FOR THEM, DAMNIT!”
- There is an unspoken agreement that Eurovision is the one global forum in which the USA cannot dominate; both because it is geographically forbidden and even if it wasn’t, no one would put up with its hard power shitick. Eurovision is all about the sparkles and faintly embarrassing music, not who is ‘the best’
If you have any other questions, just look on social media tomorrow evening.