Posted 31 May 2008 - 01:35 PM
Having just hit this board in curiosity prior to tonight's final, I feel someone needs to defend both the public and ALW regarding Rachel. Given the presumed demographic of this board I guess it's understandable that the highest value should be put on 'professionalism'. And yes, Rachel is professional as all hell, will always turn up, do 8 shows a week or 20, and never dip below a certain level of competence. What she completely lacks is any charisma or star quality. Apart from the flailing desperation of 'Cabaret', her performances have always been completely mechanical and unmoving. The public -- in terms of the votes -- have recognised this consistently (even with a gun to their heads in terms of the panel's comments in the semi-final.) She is simply not someone the public would be interested in going to see. So what's wrong with that as the basis for a decision? The other three may be raw, inconsistent and a commercial risk, but they have all, at points in the series, given performances that have shown emotional investment and understanding of the material far beyond anything Rachel ever managed. They have all got that elusive something that makes one want to see them perform (and pay money to do so). I was frankly amazed that ALW saved Samantha last week -- I thought he'd want to keep Rachel in as the safe pair of hands -- but, in terms of any ambition to make Oliver something special, it was resoundingly the correct decision.