Twenty years of Strictly Come Dancing have gone pretty fast. When the show started I had relatives who are now long gone, my hair certainly looked darker, and I was still a confident woman in her twenties.
Strictly was a small reality show with a pensioner for a presenter. I imagine they used fake crystals and second-hand gowns to stay within their meagre wardrobe budget and most of us watched the show’s start while getting ready to be out drinking before it ended.
How times have changed.
Two hours of Strictly every Saturday in the winter have now become essential family viewing. In our house, the premiere of the show marks the run-up to Christmas. And although the programme has weathered many storms over the years (affairs, walkouts and injuries usually) the format has remained pretty familiar…until this year.
Recent media reports of professional dancers behaving ‘inappropriately’ towards their partnered amateur celebrities have ballooned. Originally the problem seemed to be isolated to one couple (Giovanni Pernice and Amanda Abbington). Still, over time the number of accusations has grown, even spreading to suggestions of an endemic issue within the production team. As a result, panic has rightly set in at the Beeb.
We don’t know the validity of all these claims, but some have been confirmed to be true. One of last years participants – Zara McDermott – was kicked by her pro parner – Grazio di Prima – during rehersals. This one incident caused the BBC to terminate di Primas contract with immediate effect, and McDermott claims it wasn’t isolated.
In the last 24 hours, the results of the original complaint from Amanda Abbington have been revealed, with the BBC apologising for her experiences and upholding several of the accusations made.
The fallout of such actions, whatever the reason and whoever they’re aimed at, cannot be underestimated. As I’ve said many times before, mental illness does not discriminate. Your status, sex, age, race, profession…whatever…won’t stop it hurting you if a storm arrives.
Strictly now knows there are individuals who’ve been treated inappropriately (to put it mildly) and if the show is to survive, it had to take action.
How useful is a public wellbeing check-in?
So, to react and amend the show’s past mistakes, BBC bosses announced they’d be taking some immediate actions, including chaperones who are there to observe celebrities and professionals throughout rehearsals for future shows.
If this works the way I hope – someone unbiased who watches interactions and acts as an advocate for a participant or pro who needs support – then I believe it could help. It has to be less intimidating than spending 12 hours a day alone with an unfamiliar stranger in an unfamiliar studio.
Good start.
But when I started watching the new series (mainly to see how the show fared after the last year of reported allegations) I grew frustrated.
I hoped that wellbeing checks were being undertaken routinely. In fact, I’d have hoped a show like this was checking on its participant’s mental health for years now, not just as a reaction to all this negative press.
Anyone familiar with the show will know how 120 minutes of a Saturday night pans out. Sixteen-ish ‘celebs’ are paraded and judged by professionals for their ability to learn a variety of difficult dances in the space of a week. Before each dance, audiences are shown a recap of their week in training, with a video of their progress and any ‘fun’ celebs had with their partner.
This format has changed, and it’s not subtle.
Rather than giving us a behind-the-scenes look at the show, the interesting peep behind the curtain has been reduced and the airtime gained is taken up by an awkward pre-recorded exchange between pro and partner. This includes questions about how they’re feeling, whether they’re enjoying the process, and what they could do to make it more enjoyable.
I maintain that wellfare check-ins should be a mandatory element of taking part in a show like this, from both a celebrity and pro-dancer perspective. But I have to question the validity and helpfulness of such important, personal questioning in front of a camera. How honest and open can someone be about their stress levels and emotional load when they’re facing a lens, the person they’re training with, and numerous members of the production team?
Yes, I realise these moments are probably put on for the camera and the REAL welfare checks are taking place behind closed doors, but can someone who truly needs help feel safe asking for it when the optics show that people around them aren’t taking such conversations seriously? When it’s deemed more important to show how they feel on camera rather than only discussing it with care, privately?
Moreover, what purpose does this moment serve for the audience? No one actually mentions the welfare of contestants, Tess and Claudia remain mute about the allegations over the last year AND how production processes have changed. But mental wellbeing is now of glaring importance, and their silence makes it the elephant in the room. Workplace conversations about mental health can be difficult to say and hear, but they are necessary to keep people safe, healthy, and to maintain a positive working atmosphere. Businesses are relying on the well-being of their workers to keep running, and SCD is no exception to this rule.
If you were having difficulties at work and your direct report asked you to discuss how you felt as every other staff member watched and listened, would you gain anything from that talk? Or would you more likely feel intimidated and anxious? How likely is it that you’d speak truthfully not only in that moment, but also privately in the future?
Have any lessons been learned, or is the BBC only interested in changing public perceptions following their recent press disasters? I feel they are trying to show us, the viewers, their turned leaf, rather than focussing on getting it right for their participants and staff.
How to handle workplace mental health concerns
Workplace stress, and mental illness as a result, is nothing new and nothing to be ashamed of either. Many employers recognise this and have mental health support in place. Advice lines, office-based advocates and even quiet rooms are being routinely introduced. Sadly, this isn’t the case everywhere.
If you’re experiencing stress, anxiety, or burnout at work and don’t know how to get help, there is advice available online that’s a good place to start.
The mental health charity Mind have a page dedicated to mental health at work on their website which offers ideas and support for both employees and employers.
The Mental Health Foundation also advise on how to support mental health at work on their website. They have a worksheet to help you think about ways of coping and managing your workplace feelings as well as a list of ideas you can try.
Finally, your workplace itself should have mental health support in place. By law, they have a duty of care to make reasonable adjustments to support your mental and physical well-being while you are there. If you need to talk to someone within your workplace, the HR department should be able to help.
Alternatively, if you or someone you care about is struggling with their mental health in any way you can also visit my dedicated mental health and suicide prevention support lines page which has a list of places you can contact in a variety of ways and is regularly updated.
In conclusion, a person’s mental health doesn’t need to be discussed openly on television to show that production teams care or to appease audiences. It’s a serious subject, and treating it carefully is the only way to ensure participants feel assured by the process.
I’ve been a Strictly fan for many years, but if the ‘love-in’ continues I’ll struggle to engage with this year’s show much longer, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Most of us watch for the silliness, the progress, the joy and…most of all…the dancing 💃🏼🕺🏼. Look after your team, look after your participants, and ensure everyone’s safety, but do it the right way.
Thanks for reading and look after yourselves 💜
Creative Steph 