Reality Television

[Coco]

I don’t know if this is the right section for this topic. Admins, feel free to move it if necessary.

What is the appeal of reality tv? It’s amazing how much TV has changed in the last couple of decades, and it seems that now it's at an all-time low in terms of taste and quality. Almost all the major channels - and even the smaller ones - now feature at least one type of reality show. I can understand the producer’s motivation: a low budget show can generate high ratings and profits. In some cases, even more so than regular sitcoms.
It seems that Andy Warhol was absolutely right when he said that in the future everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. Reality TV is the easiest and surest way to elevate regular and often talentless people to celebrity status. They are self-important, self-promoting, and fame-starved; they bask in the glory of the short-lived attention/fame they receive. But why do we promote it?
Why do we, as a society, watch it? Is it a cultural thing? What does it say about the viewers? Reality TV is kind of a morbid pleasure. We are entertained by watching other people make fools of themselves on national - and sometimes international - TV.
What’s the fascination? Watching people humiliate themselves? Are we a voyeur society?

[Yelram]

Andy Warhol had it right.

[Archangel]

Reality TV was born when the celebrity media reached a critical mass. There was only so much you could write about actor X's sexual escapades, singer Y's divorce, and royal Z's weight gain: The perverse beauty of reality TV was that it instantly gave the tabloids a million more idiots to blather about without the need for Hollywood or the record industry to invest in developing new stars, since celebrity crazed morons would queue for days to look an idiot on TV for 30 seconds. It's incredibly cheap compared to an actual series with actual actors, writers and effects, and feeds a huge machinery ranging from the shows themselves, to all kinds of magazines, to music etc.

Fame is the new wealth. In a world in which everybody has a car, a big TV and can hop on a plane to a vacation on some island, being famous is, for some, far more important than being wealthy, even if it is only for a few weeks, and even if some company gets paid stupid amounts of money off their backs. What do they care about some obscure executive producer? They're on TV! And those who aren't, follow them because they think that in the next series, it could, in fact, be them eating roaches or singing like a castrated caribou, obviously forgetting that while they might not be Angelina Jolie or Hugh Jackman, those people on Survivor et al are still better looking than them. We know that we can't play Jack Bauer, dunk on Yao, or out-sing Christina Aguilera; but we are presented with the illusion that talentless though we may be, it could be US! on the next big show.


That said, I can understand the attraction these shows hold for the media, but for someone like me, who already couldn't give less of a shit about gossip on actually talented people (with one notable exception, which is stuff that could affect their work - if Mr Bale were to hurt a leg, I would be interested in whether shooting on Terminator: Salvation would be delayed one week or several months; I don't care whom some athlete fucks, but if they get charged with rape, then their performance might be affected, etc), the idea of reading gossip about some insignificant off the street, casting show jackass is pretty much my definition of hell. But apparently, many people disagree with me and eat that shit up way more than any of the stuff which has an actual bearing on their lives.

[wonderllama]

I'm guilty of watching Next Top Model, but I do so probably because it's the only time I'm going to observe that many gay men, skinny young girls and obnoxious designers together outside of my University days.

Reality TV quite simply allowed anyone to be a star.
Beyond the Jerry Springer shows or Sally Jesse Raphael, reality TV gives people the opportunity to be MORE than an Andy Warhol experience. If they are "good" enough, they can have 13 weeks worth...that's pretty good considering they may actually have little or no talent.

Coco is right, we are a voyeuristic society, and this is true of everyone.
We like to observe and study other people.
It's not simply the "ooh, boobies" or "she looks hot in those shorts" factor. People like to see other people in challenging situations to see how they react, perhaps for amusement or perhaps to imagine themselves in that situation. Survivor is successful because we start to see some base emotions after a while, people stressed and supposedly acting on their survival instincts. The same goes with the Amazing Race, we get to see how nasty or tough some people are...

The media is simply reacting the same way they would with regular TV/Movie stars...they tell people about whoever is in the spotlight at the time.

[freegood]

Old forum (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=56707&highlight=reality)....

Calling the programing reality is the best salespitch since calling the mass murder of innocent people "collateral damage". RTV is unscripted and supposedly spontaneous. I'm not sure if people are buying into authenticity but more to it's novelty. New and constant stimulation is the challenge of the digital age. Despite the novelty, content is more of the same since the show is still produced and still directed to an entertaining outcome. It's Malibu Stacy with a new hat, or it's watching sequels while complaining the sequel isn't that original.

The perverse effect of reality TV is that people begin to emulate the simulation because it's as real as lite foods are as light on diets.

[Phil Theehor]

I break the reality shows down into one of two basic categories:

1) Competitions where contestants actually do something in pursuit of something of value.

2) Collections of vapid, unemployable pretty people bitching about each other.

I cannot understand the appeal of group #2. Most healthy people try to avoid unnecessary discord in their lives. I don't see why people would watch shows that revel in it. I'm sure this is overstated, but I'm pretty sure watching this bile is bad for the soul.

Now, group #1 is a different story. The attraction of these is similar to the attraction of sport. Regardless of the platform, be it cooking, traveling or singing, you have people who are competing, pushing themselves to outperform their adversaries.

Now, what (for some people) makes this even better than sport is the narrative freedom and access enjoyed by the producers. By using confessionals and in-game interviews, they give the audience the chance to get to know the participants in a far more intimate manner than we do with sport. You get real feelings from people-- not the cliches of sport (It was a great team effort, I'm just happy to compete). You get to know these people far more than we ever get to know a Derek Jeter or a Tom Brady. It allows the audience to connect with the participant.

Now, the ability to edit gives the producers the chance to tell the story in the manner that they feel is most compelling. Choosing the footage allows them to develop heroes and villains. Showing only parts of the competition where things are really happening gives them an advantage that sports don't have. There's no rain delays, nil-nil ties or booth reviews to slow the action down (unless they are used as a narrative tool).

[freegood]

It's less sport and more sports entertainment...

[the creeps]

Reality Television has never been real. even the days of fear factor. the guys had six pack abs and the girls had massive implants. i have never seen random joes walking down the streets that look like that.

[Archangel]

Old forum (http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=56707&highlight=reality)....

That was actually one of my better original posts...

EDIT: The subsequent discussion wasn't half bad, either.

[wonderllama]

Was just reading that...there seem to be some good responses there, where are those guys now I wonder...

[Claydon]

Reality television is the most nauseating form of 'entertainment' ever pumped out into the airwaves. I do not even watch the mainstream networks anymore (Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS) because they are just drowning their lineup with this garbage. I can honestly say I only watch the fox animated stuff ie simpsons, family guy etc and everything else I watch is on cable.

[Archangel]

Was just reading that...there seem to be some good responses there, where are those guys now I wonder...

Who, Morfin, freegood, elstavon, Insomniac, and myself? We left GMF for another forum.


...what?

[wonderllama]

noooooooooooo...the other ones, estasomething, something joe...the OTHER ones....

[Archangel]

elstavon goes by kid vidrio now, and I do miss my paesano Monster Joe myself...

[Candycane]

I don't like all reality TV but even Survivorman and No Reservations type shows on TLC and Discovery are all in a way "reality" TV. I do see myself as a voyeur in so many ways. I love looking in as I drive down the street as other people's homes are like doll houses to me. So Reality TV allures me. But I don't like the brain rotting Sluts of Love and what not, it can get out of control.

[Morfin]

I'm too lazy to read the old thread, so, sorry if I repeat myself.

As Phil set out, there are two categories of reality TV: competition and voyeur. The competition ones are fine: competition is good. Yes, American Idol is emotionalized with good guys and bad guys, good judges and Simon Crowell. No big deal to me.

It is the other ones that bother me. They are not true "voyeur" shows because the people know they are on camera. Quantam physics and Schoedinger's cat theory involve how observation changes the state of the particle -- Seeing it changes it. And that is the case here: These people know they are on camera, so they "act." Therefore, in shows like Big Brother and Survivor, you get people acting a part, so it is not "real," it is a contruct.

With that in mind, there is a tremendous market for "reality." And the only true "reality shows" are sports. There are rules, people are trying their best, no one knows the outcome, and producers cannot change or affect the outcome. The players care and the emotion is raw and real.

The original question is whether we are part of a voyeuristic society. I think we are, but maybe I'm just projecting myself onto society. I don't mean voyeur in a sexual way, but merely watching people and their reactions -- their true, genuine reactions. It is interesting, fascinating. That is why the original "reality show," Candid Camera was so popular. The people's actions, reactions, and emotions were real and not faked. Yeah, the show was hokey (at least by today's standards) but it is fascinating nonetheless.

/Ramble

[Archangel]

And the only true "reality shows" are sports. There are rules, people are trying their best, no one knows the outcome, and producers cannot change or affect the outcome.

Yeah, David Stern is laughing his arse off at your naïveté.

[Phil Theehor]

You guys were smarter a year ago.

[Archangel]

Fuck you!


How's that for smarts?

[freegood]

You guys were smarter a year ago.

It's easier to copy and paste nowadays.

[Phil Theehor]

Fuck you!


How's that for smarts?




That's more what I have come to expect-- calling the other guy a dildo and quoting Aquinas to support the theory.

[Justabot]

Perhaps FIFA as well what with the allegations being thrown around regarding rampant match-fixing.

Sorry. I was trying though.

[Morfin]

Yeah, David Stern is laughing his arse off at your naïveté.

The NBA isn't a true sport. As soap operas are to real life, the NBA is to real sports. What the NBA has done to the game of basketball is criminal.

[Archangel]

That's more what I have come to expect-- calling the other guy a dildo and quoting Aquinas to support the theory.

I'm the only one on here who isn't a dildo - and thus, a GMF-historical monster.

Does Nietzsche work for you, too?

[Pax Britannia]

There are some 'celebrities' in the British media who make a living out of chronicling their private lives in celebrity gossip magazines. Kerry Katona being an example, she makes upwards of £150,000 a year just talking about her children and house. This woman hasnt released a single in 15 years.

Reality TV seems to elevate normal people to celebrity staus but then have no idea what to do with them. So in steps the gossip magazines who for the next 5-10 years will pay tens of thousands of pounds to know mundane facts about these 'celebrities' lives.

The ultimate expression of this has to be Victoria Beckham. She got a hair cut last year that was slightly different to her last one and for three weeks adverts ran on television advertising special editions of magazines dedicated to her new look.

[wonderllama]

I'm the only one on here who isn't a dildo - and thus, a GMF-historical monster.

Does Nietzsche work for you, too?


Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, my dildoesque tendencies I assure you are saved for you guys...

Sheesh...such hatred....:p

[Phil Theehor]

I'm the only one on here who isn't a dildo - and thus, a GMF-historical monster.

Does Nietzsche work for you, too?

You, sir, represent the perfect form of the dildo. Your dildo-ness is so complete that you must not actually exist.

My best stab at Plato. Bear with me. I'm awfully rusty with this stuff

[Archangel]

The essence of the dildo is inextricably linked to its representation, which, however, is separate from its lexical signifiant, which is totally arbitrary. [/de Saussure] So if I don't exist as the perfect dildo, while we do know that the ideal dildo's mimeses and their representations (as well as the word "dildo") exist in the real world, then the error must be on your side, probably on the signifying end; so what you're actually saying is:

Arch is perfectly awesome.

[Phil Theehor]

Going forward, I will only argue with you about baseball.

[vasili denisov]

This was a way longer answer then I expected to write. Apologies, and I'll spellcheck it another time.
I don’t know if this is the right section for this topic. Admins, feel free to move it if necessary.

What is the appeal of reality tv? It’s amazing how much TV has changed in the last couple of decades, and it seems that now it's at an all-time low in terms of taste and quality. Almost all the major channels - and even the smaller ones - now feature at least one type of reality show. I can understand the producer’s motivation: a low budget show can generate high ratings and profits. In some cases, even more so than regular sitcoms.
It seems that Andy Warhol was absolutely right when he said that in the future everyone would be famous for 15 minutes. Reality TV is the easiest and surest way to elevate regular and often talentless people to celebrity status. They are self-important, self-promoting, and fame-starved; they bask in the glory of the short-lived attention/fame they receive. But why do we promote it?
Why do we, as a society, watch it? Is it a cultural thing? What does it say about the viewers? Reality TV is kind of a morbid pleasure. We are entertained by watching other people make fools of themselves on national - and sometimes international - TV.
What’s the fascination? Watching people humiliate themselves? Are we a voyeur society?
I'm going to be arrogant and give a response, though I don't own a TV and have only seen a few minutes of reality TV. I'll also add that I don't think this elevates me over anyone, that reality TV does share characteristics with other media that I've indulged in. I'll also add that I have a weakness that I always tend to look at anything as a revision or a variation on something previous, never as something sui generis.

I think we're drawn to the details of various roles, with the ones with the most appeal those widely different from our own. The reason why The Godfather or Goodfellas have such a favoured place isn't because they best indulge a fantasy of being a violent criminal (there are other movies that do so more fully), but because they present a milieu with such versimilitude. I don't think the appeal lies entirely with fantasy role playing; a movie, book, or article that acutely captures what it's like to be a prison guard, a prisoner, a cop, a soldier, a black marketeer, all have such an appeal; if such roles are rendered heroic or fantastic, rendering all the details moot, they have less appeal.

I believe this appeal is undeniable; my hypothesis is there's an evolutionary aspect to this, that humanity has a gift for adaptability, that the details stokes something in us, creating a primitive excitement. This is at least an old development, and not a recent one; Plato feared actors and writers who could convey to others the possibility of playing multiple roles, which would be a very dangerous fantasy in his tightly hierarchical model society, where people would have one profession and stick to it.

This is where we come to an unexpected point, because reality TV, contains none of this. When watching "The Hillz", one doesn't get any great education about what it's like to work at a magazine. Nor does "Survivor" illuminate the details of island living, the way "Robinson Crusoe" does.

The other effective purpose for details would be grounding a character and giving us a better sense of someone whose role is very different from us. So a narrative might effectively give an idea of a cop's day, the monotony, the anonymous violence, the dark deadpan humour, all of which prevent us from seeing the character as a distant hero or villain, but somebody that we have a closer sense of. Though such a thing is necessary for a documentary to work, again, it is entirely absent in reality TV.

So, reality TV's gift does not lie in real world details to humanize an individual or provide us a vicarious sense of that person. It instead provides pleasure through the very converse of this, by giving us a character whose experiences are exclusively sensory, who acts and is acted upon by others, who thought they may have an inner life, this should have little emphasis. To sympathize or come too close to this individual would be a liability, because the pleasure lies in the distance, rather than through empathy.

This attempted insight can be made a little clearer by comparing reality TV to other similar media, all of which are equally unreal, and carry this same quality of responding only to externals. One would be simple comics, where the pleasure lies with the kineticism of the fights. Another would be old detective books, where detectives beat up people, get themselves beat up, get drunk, occasionally get laid, yet whose experiences leave them blank. One more would be pornography, where the focus is kept only on the physical aspect of sex. Finally, there are gossip columns, where people follow the exploits of a celebrity, whose character and fame keep us at a healthy distance. I don't watch reality TV, but I tend to read more gossip than I should, and I watch a fair amount of pornography.

In all cases, involved thinking into the characters of the players will only diminish the pleasure. Thinking about the possibilities of a girl's drug addiction, home life, or abusive boyfriend that may have led her to the six girl orgy should be avoided; so should any questions of motivation or purpose while reading a straightahead action comic; any telling detail that would bring us too close to Britney Spears might make us feel genuine pain over her custody problems with her kids. So, it's crucial that an exclusive focus on the external be maintained.

So, reality TV provides this, where the focus is entirely on raw dynamics, involving persons chosen, then carefully directed and edited, so we cannot have empathy. This is one aspect. The secondary aspect (and this part I'm a little shaky on), is that such programs express our most nihilistic vision of our own society. I don't mean in the sense that this is the media at its most cynical; I do mean that even if we have contempt for such programs, in our darkest moments, we might feel that they serve as a better mirror of our world now than something more idealistic.

Looking at various elements: our fellow citizens are fools and brutes; though great abundance and prosperity is available it is put to foolish ends; engaging in a competition where there is no possibility of heroism; the competition itself is our own construct as well as pointless and unnecessary; the prize is finally worthless (even an American Idol winner will have a very short and limited career) the emphasis is entirely on the physical and sensory, any possibility of humanistic reflection or introspection is gone; we are in contact and in view of millions on earth, yet they offer no emotional warmth, they only wish to gawk and toy with us briefly. So, we end up with a dystopian vision so unqualified in its bile, that no movie studio would ever fund such a satire.

[Archangel]

Well, i'm leaving.

[Coco]

Vasili, I loved your post. It raised some very interesting points.
I especially liked the part where you said that reality TV is edited in such a way that we cannot feel empathy for the person on TV. Of course it's carefully planned, and we as an audience, eat it right up. The implications it has on us - our behavior, motivations, interests, etc - is really frightening. Why does it give us so much pleasure to see someone fuck up? And why do we avoid connecting even on some superficial level with that person? Is humilliation the ultimate form of entertainment?
We are not interested in actually understanding the reasons behind someone's actions, because that's not the point. The point is to see the raw images, people having a breakdown, going crazy, etc. I think this is completely true.

[heelsguy]

I despise reality TV.

and I believe reality tv in america was started in the courtroom with 3 gavel to gavel trials: the amy fisher, then the Rodney king and finally the OJ simpson.

[Blue]

You've all left out one genre of reality TV which can, at times, be interesting.
Shows along the lines of The Deadliest Catch, RPA, (aussie show about the workings of a hospital) and the like that actually depict daily lives.
Of course thay are and can be edited to make them more sensationalist and better suited to bring in the viewers so as to increase ratings (we are the product TV is selling to the advertisers)
These shows are far and above better than the vapid Big Brother homogenous crap they think is Reality TV.

[Archangel]

What about Cops?

[heelsguy]

What about Cops?

true enough. Cops was first on the scene.

[Will-Kill]

Cops is still good to watch, a Crackhead trying to talk his way or and Drunk chicks fighting is still good to this day.

[vasili denisov]

Again, way longer post than I expected to put in.
Vasili, I loved your post. It raised some very interesting points.
I especially liked the part where you said that reality TV is edited in such a way that we cannot feel empathy for the person on TV. Of course it's carefully planned, and we as an audience, eat it right up. The implications it has on us - our behavior, motivations, interests, etc - is really frightening. Why does it give us so much pleasure to see someone fuck up? And why do we avoid connecting even on some superficial level with that person? Is humilliation the ultimate form of entertainment?
We are not interested in actually understanding the reasons behind someone's actions, because that's not the point. The point is to see the raw images, people having a breakdown, going crazy, etc. I think this is completely true.
I'm uncomfortable with identifying the watching of reality TV as necessarily something pathological. I don't have any desire to watch it; however, the existence of caricatures or exaggerations who lack a self-awareness or inner life which allows us to laugh at them is an old concept, which shows up in a lot of comedies.

A broad example of this would be The Three Stooges or the comedies of the Farelly brothers. We are able to laugh at these characters because of the way they've been conceived. This isn't something reserved for what might be considered the low arts; the side characters of Shakespeare fit into this category. Someone like Malvolio, , an old miserable man who falls in love and receives humiliations, could be placed in a different framing as a melancholy tragic figure.

In some very effective cases, you have a movement from these broad types who exist as figures of fun to something subtler. I'm a little rough in my remembering of it, but in the Decameron the stories begin with the various humiliations of men involved in sexual misadventures. When we get to the misadventures of women, there's a point when the story of a woman who ends up with her skin badly burnt in revenge of some betrayal. Though she's the villain of the piece at the beginning, for the first time in the stories we feel empathy for her; there is little laughter from the women who hear the story, or at best, it's polite. Then we move on to the subtler stories about the virtues of love (it may not be as discrete a jump as that, but more gradual). You have two very different approaches to character side by side.

In Don Quixote, you have the two approaches existing not just side by side but in the same character. Quixote is a figure of sport and humiliation throughout much of the book, we laugh at him and Panza from the outside, the more subtle stories of love given to other characters. At some point, though, there's a switch; the king and queen at the end of the second book who play tricks on Quixote and Panza are revealed to be increasingly vile. When Panza is appointed head of an island, he is a better leader than they are; either a tribute to his virtue or a putdown of a lack of theirs.

So, I can't quite find the laughing at the characters on say, "A Double Shot at Love" as something new or disturbing. There's a self-awareness on both sides of the TV; the audience accepts this as a construct, this isn't quite real, when I laugh at this, I'm not laughing at the actual individual, or this person lacks the self-awareness to know this (or at least the illusion is there). On the other side, contestants know that reality isn't what's wanted. The most exaggerated, ludicrous, dramatic persons are the ones most wanted. That people might laugh at them is anticipated, and expected, if they're to be on the show.

What is novel is that the absence of any aesthetic quality to this show that's there in a low-brow comedy like Kingpin. I don't say this entirely in a condemnatory way, but reality TV is very close to the functionality of pornography. Both do require a fair amount of technical work. Though tastes vary, those who watch it can distinguish between enjoyable and unenjoyable pornography and reality TV. On the other hand, the ingenuity involved in creating the characters in "Kingpin" or Sancho Panza is absent. There is market demand for a kinetic entertainment; the ingenuity to create an exaggerated comic character is random and unreliable.

Far more stable and in greater quantity is a person willing to exaggerate and make themselves ridiculous, which can be reconstructed into something more mundane, yet meeting much of the needs of an ingeniously constructed comic character. I can liken it to one of the ideas in Michael Lewis' "Moneyball"; what's involved in winning a baseball game is far cruder and simpler (walks and men on base, rather than flashy home runs and steals) than previously thought, as well as done on a far lower budget. What can meet the entertainment needs of the smaller niches of TV-watching audience still up for grabs can be constructed along cheaper and more reliable lines than is necessary through creative comedy writing.