every Monday Operation Triumph poses an inevitable drama: the judgment of the jury. Almost at midnight the judges analyze the contestants’ performances to tell them “cross the catwalk” or “we propose that you leave the academy”. Since the format was born 24 years ago, this moment, feared by competitors and desired by the public, has become the most controversial of galas. The most memorable editions have always featured the figure of the outspoken judge who surprised with his frank ways and made it worth staying up late. At least until now, because OT25 It’s breaking the mold.
The yeses and nos continue to be distributed, but there is no longer any trace of the harshness of before. Criticism is done with good words and always with respect. Is this an oasis in television or are those harsh judges a thing of the past? Tinet Rubira, director of the program which is now broadcast on Prime Video, claims that this new jury is explained by a major change in television paradigm. “It is the sign of the times. The brutality of before is no longer understood and now we always speak with respect. Fortunately we have all improved as a society and as people. If we have done something good to maintain ourselves in these 24 years, it is to constantly evolve to reflect the society of each moment. Now we look more for a jury with their own experience to help and advise the contestants. We no longer see them so much as those relentless judges who were looking for a title or did them for free,” he says.
This edition has already left several moments that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. In the week in which Amaia Montero announced her return to La Oreja de Van Gogh, Leire Martínez, former singer of the group and new jury of OTshe was encouraged to sing surrounded by the triumphs. And first it was Guille Milkyway or Abraham Mateo, artists and now also judges, who were moved to tears when the contestants sang their songs. Far from the old authoritarian figures, they appear vulnerable and close. In fact, in promoting the season they reiterated to the various media their intention to put an end to the divisions between good and bad that many juries had brought forward in the past.
The question is, therefore, whether at some point the program management tried to have this figure of bad judge. Rubira responds halfway with an anecdote from her beginnings in programs like Martian Chronicles. “I remember when I met Boris Izaguirre, who came from Venezuela and asked a very soap opera-like question: ‘Who is the stepmother here?’. In fact, at a certain point we needed the figure of a stepmother to say certain things. But we placed a requirement on all the judges, even the good ones. When they justified their vote, they had to convince the public to always follow their reasoning, even if they didn’t agree,” he explains.
Inevitably we end up mentioning Risto Mejide, the name that best embodied this concept in Spain. “That was one of the great things about Risto, he was able to throw out completely erasable things and people, even if they didn’t agree with his ways, could understand it. And that was his style and it marked an era.” Eva Güimil, critic and television expert from EL PAÍS, also separates the juries of Spanish television between before and after Risto. In reality he is not the only one to have played this lacerating role; there have been many similar cases, such as that of Alberto Chicote in best chefin the style of the British Gordon Ramsay, or Anna Tarrés, who entered in the Spray! famous in the water after being fired by the swimming federation for her alleged poor training.
But Güimil defends this scheme bad cop was introduced most prominently with Risto in 2006. “The bad judge in the style of Simon Cowell American Idol came to OT via Telecinco, where the program had a very successful second life thanks to the increase in the component reality at the expense of the mere talent. Risto Mejide created a character who crossed all the limits more than once,” he explains. Among these episodes, he mentions the time when he called Pablo Lopez a “bar pianist”, when he compared a contestant to a vibrator or when he criticized another who had left the program due to the death of a family member. “It was Telecinco, the public responded and everything was gone.”
Since then, Risto has followed many other programs such as I’m talented OR You’re worth itmaintaining its severe character but adapting it to more familiar formats. He recently announced that he will retire from the jury after 20 years, so it was inevitable to ask Risto himself if he believes this jury pattern has evolved in this time. bad cop. “I don’t identify with this classification, it seems simplistic and silly to me. There are no good or bad juries, in any case there are those that generate content or not,” he says via email with his usual harshness. The publicist and television presenter remembers how, thanks to OT He discovered that his talent for the “word dart” had the power to elevate competitors or prevent them from winning. “Then I realized I had to do something useful with it. So I started directing it where it made the most sense: the bosses. And no one had done that, not even Simon Cowell in his best days. Thanks to that decision, I continue to do the same thing today. In the end, the only bad publicity is the one that isn’t given and the only bad jury is the one that no one remembers,” he explains.
Risto is referring to his controversial expulsion from the program in 2009, after the argument with the presenter Jesús Vázquez, who has since consecrated him as the scourge in capital letters of any competitor, but also of the rest of the judges or even of the program itself. Years later, he invited to his program Chester to one of the contestants he treated most rudely, Esther Aranda, to reconcile with her. However, he now refuses to follow through with his move OT like a rude television stage. “I hate hypocrites. I will not participate in a partial, partisan review to try to create a cathartic media cabal and erase everything that got us here. Not that we now live in an oasis of peace and good vibes. Conflict has always advanced novels, films and even history. TV would have been no exception. The need and the drive are the same: we only learn from comparison,” he explains.
One step away from retirement, do you think so? talent shows Will they be able to survive without harsher judges like him? “A talent show “It can survive anything except lack of talent and lack of showmanship,” he says. Rubira, also director of OT In Risto’s time he agreed to embrace the past, albeit with many more buts: “Everything is the fruit of its time. At that time entertainment was wilder. There would be no point in replicating it now. I am in favor of assuming that the past will be better later.” Furthermore, he argues that the evolution of juries is closely related to the social change that has been experienced in general with authority figures such as teachers or bosses at work.
Rubira explains, for example, that Mónica Naranjo removed weight from her role as a judge because she was aware that in a short time those competitors would become her companions. “The same thing has happened to all of us in our professional lives. It is not necessary to be unpleasant. For entertainment, everything is no longer valid. The mentality of young people has changed a lot. Look at the rest of the juries of other competitions, that most unpleasant figure no longer exists,” he shares. Just one look at the weekly program is enough to verify this. But many times this is due to more selfish reasons than it seems: Güimil points out that the fierce control of social networks has also ensured that no one wants to become “the bad guy” in the programs.
Even so, he considers the change in television dynamics an accomplishment. “The networks have done things differently and the data proves them right; entertainment can be done without degradation. That another type of jury is possible proves it Bake Off: baking celebrities where the trio of judges represents a bright reverse of the dark trio of gods Masterchef (still often called into question for his harsh attitude towards competitors, whether anonymous or famous). The three demonstrated that one can be rigorous without falling into contempt or humiliation, something that abounds in life in general, but especially in something as light-hearted as a television competition.”
