Here's a piece I wrote for an on-line zine that seems to have disappered. I think this is a really good piece, I hope you like it!
The Reality of Reality TV
by Jim Cherry
First off, lets dispense that reality TV is real. They have segment producers, editors, they manipulate situations, they reshoot scenes, they hire writers, what does reality need writers for? So, if you want something REAL try Andy Warhol's "Sleep," eight hours of a man sleeping, no montages, no fast edits/cuts, no dream sequences, no interior monologue, no chase scene. Let's face it, raw footage doesn't go over well with audiences or else C-Span would be the most highly rated station on TV.
When I was a kid everybody wanted to know how to get on, and wanted to be on TV. That sentiment still exists today, and is probably the biggest reason for the success of 'reality' shows, in which people with no discernible talent, in other words the average every day person gets to be on TV as star, villain, dupe, sidekick, comic, the roles are as many as exist in traditional shows, and probably show the roles we choose in life as well. Maybe a reason we've entered an age of celebrity worship is, we've become a society where you can be famous, not for doing anything but just for being, Paris Hilton being the apex of this. And maybe Andy Warhol will be right; we'll ALL will be famous for 15 minutes, with competing camera crews jostling down the streets trying to document the actions of our daily lives, this week it's you, next week your neighbor, the week after the guy two cubicles down from you at work.
Why all of a sudden are the TV networks beating themselves silly to program reality shows? The easiest of all answers, money. A producer doesn't need a lot of overhead, at least compared to a traditional TV show. You don't need a big star, or even actors at all. All you need to do is think of a concept, hire a producer, hold auditions, select some contestants, pay for airline tickets, hire a camera crew, and all you have to pay the contestants is union scale.
So what does reality TV say about us? To start off, we need to define the types of reality shows there are. As far as I've been able to discern there are three varieties of 'reality' TV show the "what will you do for money" type of show, such as Survivor, Big Brother and Fear Factor. There's the follow your dreams type such as American Idol, America's Next Top Model, Rock Star, Hell's Kitchen. And finally the genre that follows a celebrity through their daily lives such as Breaking Bonaduce, Being Bobby Brown, Kathy Griffins Life on the D List, or The Osbournes.
What will we do for money? This is a pretty basic concept that we've played a lot in our lives, at least on the hypothetical level sitting around with a bunch of friends, having a joint and/or a glass of wine, sharing what you will or won't do for a million dollars. It's also a pretty basic appeal to people's "I'll do anything to be on TV" desire, usually occurring in a studio or on the studio lot or backlot. In these scenarios everyday rules and taboo's are in some way pushed aside or arrested either by contestants themselves or the situation of the show. The best example of each is the already mentioned Fear Factor and Survivor. The contestants on Fear Factor willingly push away societal norms such as partaking in the eating of worms/cockroaches/bugs or other slithery creatures in the hopes of winning a tidy monetary sum. Survivor, the concept is, as we all know dumps a group of people who don't really know each other into a Lord of the Flies-esque situation, such as on an island or in the middle of a jungle in a primitive setting, set up into teams and given tasks to achieve. What is amazing is how fast we will shed the rules of society (much as Richard Hatch shed his clothes) and resort to duplicity and guile in the effort to achieve these scavenger hunt like chores, ultimately resulting in a final act of cunning diplomacy and/or betrayal to win the million dollars. These shows pretty much appeal to our voyeuristic tendencies, while we safely watch people risk their lives or humiliated themselves while still enjoying the sensation of the experience. The interesting thing about these shows is their success, because we already know what we will do for money when we go to work everyday.
The next genre is the follow your dreams show, and I think out of the bunch of the reality show concepts this one may have it's heart in the right place, at the very least it doesn't exploit contestants greed and gag reflexes, while the producers rake in exorbitant amounts. The concept is a simple one, find a glamorous occupation that people will give an arm and leg to get into singing, either pop or rock, modeling/dancing, etc. Get a group of people who want to or have been working to break into the big time aspects of these occupations and give them their shot at fame, a chance they may not ordinarily have. While these shows some times have a cast member who is willing to use cunning or worse, psychological tactics to undermine others, that person usually soon abandons those tactics, or undermines themselves in the process by highlighting their own shortcomings of character. Besides fulfilling peoples dreams and fantasies I think part of the appeal of this type of show is that it fulfills a need in us for the initiation ritual that until very recently was a cornerstone of societies, that allowed young men and women to ceremonially pass from childhood to adulthood that we now seem to have left behind, maybe somewhere in us we need that validation, that ritual.
And finally if we can't be celebrities we can watch the dysfunctional lives of celebrities and how they handle their everyday problems, which seem to revolve around their family and how they deal with their children. Except it's only the reality they want to show us. In his bid to be the neo-Ozzie Nelson, the crude, yet caring father, who throws ham out the windows at his neighbors, but through all his gruff exterior and persona he loves his wife and kids, it's basically Married With Children, The Simpsons, and even The Honeymooners except without the talent. The one thing Ozzie has neglected to tell you that his older daughter with Sharon opted not to have her life exposed for the entertainment of others. And the biggest omission in all of "The Osbournes" is Ozzie's oldest son whom Ozzy abandoned in Manchester with his mother when he was a child so Ozzy could go off and be in a rock & roll band, and failed to support either mother or son, and to this day Ozzie has very little to do with that son. Surely that would impeach the image they're trying to project. Kathy Griffin's Life on the D List fails to mention or touch on her divorce, again you are allowed only to see the reality the celebrity wants you to see, the funny drunk parents, the humorous foibles of the now ex-husband to sell Kathy's DVD. So it would seem reality TV is no more real, tries to impart values and false expectations of the family as much as Leave It To Beaver, The Brady Bunch, The Donna Reed Show or any other conceptualized show of the past. The appeal of this type of show lies in, you get to feel better about your life through watching the foibles and shortcomings of others.
The shows I've mentioned aren't meant to be examples of the whole genre, but I think are representative of the genre as a whole.
Jim Cherry is the author of The Last Stage available from your local bookstore. More information is available at
www.jymsbooks.com
Forum
