Of course this is a rhetorical question. The members of the Royal Academy of Language who should stay vigilant about how our tongue is treated will be on holiday, like most others. Yet this is my way of voicing disappointment about what I witnessed during the Paris Games closing ceremony broadcast on TVE.
The narrator announced that the show, devised by Thomas Jolly, would unfold in three acts, beginning with the epilogue. Equally delirious, in the closing notes she explained how a man who soars would rise from the sky. It is widely understood that ascent from the highest point is common, in contrast to how one enters water. When we step into water we dive; when we emerge, like elite synchronized swimmers, we surface. That is something the specialist in charge of commenting on this discipline should know inside out.
It is no secret that cultural times are tough right now. We only need to recall how the opening ceremony dragged on with overwhelming artistic weight. The commentators greeted the parade of nine thousand athletes with conspicuous enthusiasm.
The sports press enjoys a license to speak freely. Diminutives are in vogue: a little bit here, a tiny moment there, a short hop of commentary. The influence wielded by those pundits in Spanish society seems endless. Let’s remember the country we live in. The sports press, especially football-focused, is the only one capable of producing respectable circulation figures.
I wrote about this two weeks ago in this space and it bears repeating. Self-criticism appears absent, and the commentator who claimed the Olympic ceremony would start with the epilogue will be recognized with every journalism prize imaginable. The old tale of the naked king remains a familiar refrain, yet every year its relevance grows even stronger.
In a recent assessment, critics noted the precarious balance between ceremony design and audience expectation. The decision to foreground a narrative that leans toward theatricality sometimes clashes with the public’s appetite for clarity and connection. This tension is not unique to this event; it surfaces in many cultural showcases where ambition collides with reception. The closing sequence, though ambitious, invited mixed responses about pacing, coherence, and the perceived depth of the message being conveyed. Attribution: analysis by cultural critics and media observers familiar with televised ceremonies, Paris 2024 study, reported in multiple cultural press outlets (Citation: Cultural Critics Association, Paris 2024).
In the end, what remains with viewers is the impression of intent—whether the artistic statement aimed to elevate the spectacle or merely to fill time with visually striking motifs. The dialogue around such performances matters. It invites audiences to consider what a national moment on screen should communicate, and how the language of performance could better align with the public’s expectations for meaning and resonance. The broader criticism centers on whether tradition and innovation can coexist without compromising accessibility for diverse audiences. This conversation is ongoing, and it continues to shape how future ceremonies are conceived and discussed in media circles. Attribution: ongoing discourse among scholars of performance and media studies (Citation: Journal of Performance and Media Studies, 2023-2024).
Ultimately, the debate highlights a recurring question: when a ceremony aims to honor a culture, how should it balance poetic invention with practical clarity? The Paris ceremony, like many large-scale cultural broadcasts, offers rich material for reflection on how art forms travel through television, how narratives are constructed, and how viewers interpret the signals sent by those responsible for staging such events. The discussion remains vital as audiences seek experiences that are both emotionally engaging and intelligible. Attribution: post-event reflections by cultural commentators and broadcast analysts (Citation: Broadcast Analysis Review, 2024).