Today, I feel sort of "pop culture" .....
So, I love reality TV. And the best reality TV of all? Anything about celebrities.
Now, before you think I'm some kind of a cultural philistine (which I might be), bear me out. I tend to think that all the hoopla about "reality TV killing television" is sort of dumb. The fact is that TV shows do badly b/c most TV shows are bad. This is not inherent in the medium, by the way. Serialized storytelling is fucking aces with me - from Buffy to Seinfeld to Everybody Loves Raymond, I'm a big fan of huge character arcs, the sense of "history," and the wonder of seeing quality players interact over and over that is unique to TV. So, I say "go TV!"
But, I'm digressing. The point is that reality TV does not kill scripted TV. Sure, there are compelling cost reasons to turn to reality TV - notably not paying writers. But, really, reality TV comes in two flavors. The first is the Fear Factor/Survivor/Celebrity Fit Club variety. These are essentially game shows - which are nearly as old as TV (and radio). Sure, reality TV can be a compelling new twist on the genre - by making the game longer and the camera omnipresent. But the basic *structure* isn't all that different. So, if Wheel of Fortune didn't kill scripted TV, then I'm not sure that The Amazing Race is going to do it in.
Honestly, this brand of "game show reality TV" doesn't really do it for me. I don't dig on Jeopardy!, and I don't dig on stinky people foraging for food. Game shows are just too *repetitive* to keep my interest for the long haul. That's not b/c they're bad - it's just that I have a poor attention span.
The *second* class of reality TV is the kind that I really like. This is the stuff like The Real World or Laguna Beach. I would toss shows like The Simple Life, Blow Up, The Restaurant, or any of those nanny shows all in there as well. What I like about these shows is that, despite their more soap operatic moments (and hey, I love melodrama too), essentially they are little, cheap mini-documentaries. Part of the fun part of being a social scientist is that you spend a lot of time thinking about things like *why* do people do what they do, and what *chanes* behavior. People are fun little critters - and the chance to be a voyeur on their life is irresistible, and interesting.
[To be fair, the new "reality game shows" sort of blur the line, b/c people are being followed - and we know them as both "individuals" and "contestants." This is just a general model, and I think it holds as a useful way to distinguish. It is sort of "game driven" vs. "character driven" distinction.]
Now, some might say: Those shows are edited, storylines are crafted, those are not "really" those people. Sure, I suppose. But that's true of *most* attempts at studying people systematically, or artistically portraying them on film. We try to cut through the fat, find the lean tough stuff that really tells us something interesting, and that is what we focus on. This is the debate that came up over Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, right? Sure, there are edits we can debate - but as a piece of art, does the presentation still succeed in making you think, feel, or giving you some new information? That is what really matters.
Now, are these things killkng scripted TV? Maybe. But again, I enjoy BOTH. I think most other people do. The problem is the fictional stuff just has to step it up a little..
But more to my point .... What has become interesting is that the best "documentary reality TV" is no longer about real people. The best "docu-reality" stuff is about people who are already famous. I give you Breaking Bonaduce on VH1. The premise of the show is that you follow around former-Partridge Family star and current shock jock Danny Bonaduce and get a riot of a TV show. But, as the show opens, Danny confesses he has cheated on his wife. What follows is a season of TV where Danny deals with alcoholism, steroid use, his wife's threats to leave him, rehab, and therapy. This is *compelling* fucking shit. Similarly, on VH1, we haveThe Surreal Life - all about C-list celebrities living together, Real World style. It's fun and interesting to watch them try to cope with silly tasks and get along.
But, why are famous people more interesting? First, it's not b/c they're famous. I mean, celebrities are not vacuous like it's fashionable and hip to say - they're still people, with opinions, ideas, skills, and flaws. But, it's not *celebrity* that makes these shows any good. Rather, the problem is that *we've* gotten boring. And we're boring b/c we all want to be famous. How so? If you watch The Real World *now*, the show has very pretty people trying very hard to be hip. Compared to early season, the show has a veneer of falsity, with a huge focus on partying, drinking & fucking - rather than just young people trying to figure out the world. It's like a lifestyle magazine, not an exploration of being 20something in the early 00s.
Similarly, Omarosa, the "villain" from The Apprentice, actively plays a character that is "evil Omarosa." Thus, her time on The Surreal Life was spent picking fights, as a strategy to pursue her own fame, rather than really trying to get to know fellow cast members. Essentially, "normal people" act fake when they are on TV. Danny Bonaduce, Kathy Griffin, and Bobby Brown are already famous - to a degree. Their shows, while still "false" to some degree due to editing, seem to cut much closer to the truth of who they actually are. Hence, for folks who want to watch these shows b/c they find the human animal interesting ... celebrities have become the better people to watch. It's some fucked up thing where the simulacra has replaced the real...
Now, is this all exploitation? By watching Danny have a breakdown - am I getting perverse pleasure from his pain? Is VH1 using him? Does this encourage people to be a wreck for a paycheck? I dunno about that. If you take that view, that any sort of fictional drama that plays with these ideas, or even *journalism* about this stuff (think especially of "rags" like The New Yorker) would suffer. At some point, it *could* be exploitation - but I think those cries are a little reactionary right now. No one denied Danny treatment or feeds him bad information to make him lose control ... That's crossing a line, obviously. Just observing .. can be interesting, informative, and it can be *art.*
So, I love reality TV. And the best reality TV of all? Anything about celebrities.
Now, before you think I'm some kind of a cultural philistine (which I might be), bear me out. I tend to think that all the hoopla about "reality TV killing television" is sort of dumb. The fact is that TV shows do badly b/c most TV shows are bad. This is not inherent in the medium, by the way. Serialized storytelling is fucking aces with me - from Buffy to Seinfeld to Everybody Loves Raymond, I'm a big fan of huge character arcs, the sense of "history," and the wonder of seeing quality players interact over and over that is unique to TV. So, I say "go TV!"
But, I'm digressing. The point is that reality TV does not kill scripted TV. Sure, there are compelling cost reasons to turn to reality TV - notably not paying writers. But, really, reality TV comes in two flavors. The first is the Fear Factor/Survivor/Celebrity Fit Club variety. These are essentially game shows - which are nearly as old as TV (and radio). Sure, reality TV can be a compelling new twist on the genre - by making the game longer and the camera omnipresent. But the basic *structure* isn't all that different. So, if Wheel of Fortune didn't kill scripted TV, then I'm not sure that The Amazing Race is going to do it in.
Honestly, this brand of "game show reality TV" doesn't really do it for me. I don't dig on Jeopardy!, and I don't dig on stinky people foraging for food. Game shows are just too *repetitive* to keep my interest for the long haul. That's not b/c they're bad - it's just that I have a poor attention span.
The *second* class of reality TV is the kind that I really like. This is the stuff like The Real World or Laguna Beach. I would toss shows like The Simple Life, Blow Up, The Restaurant, or any of those nanny shows all in there as well. What I like about these shows is that, despite their more soap operatic moments (and hey, I love melodrama too), essentially they are little, cheap mini-documentaries. Part of the fun part of being a social scientist is that you spend a lot of time thinking about things like *why* do people do what they do, and what *chanes* behavior. People are fun little critters - and the chance to be a voyeur on their life is irresistible, and interesting.
[To be fair, the new "reality game shows" sort of blur the line, b/c people are being followed - and we know them as both "individuals" and "contestants." This is just a general model, and I think it holds as a useful way to distinguish. It is sort of "game driven" vs. "character driven" distinction.]
Now, some might say: Those shows are edited, storylines are crafted, those are not "really" those people. Sure, I suppose. But that's true of *most* attempts at studying people systematically, or artistically portraying them on film. We try to cut through the fat, find the lean tough stuff that really tells us something interesting, and that is what we focus on. This is the debate that came up over Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, right? Sure, there are edits we can debate - but as a piece of art, does the presentation still succeed in making you think, feel, or giving you some new information? That is what really matters.
Now, are these things killkng scripted TV? Maybe. But again, I enjoy BOTH. I think most other people do. The problem is the fictional stuff just has to step it up a little..
But more to my point .... What has become interesting is that the best "documentary reality TV" is no longer about real people. The best "docu-reality" stuff is about people who are already famous. I give you Breaking Bonaduce on VH1. The premise of the show is that you follow around former-Partridge Family star and current shock jock Danny Bonaduce and get a riot of a TV show. But, as the show opens, Danny confesses he has cheated on his wife. What follows is a season of TV where Danny deals with alcoholism, steroid use, his wife's threats to leave him, rehab, and therapy. This is *compelling* fucking shit. Similarly, on VH1, we haveThe Surreal Life - all about C-list celebrities living together, Real World style. It's fun and interesting to watch them try to cope with silly tasks and get along.
But, why are famous people more interesting? First, it's not b/c they're famous. I mean, celebrities are not vacuous like it's fashionable and hip to say - they're still people, with opinions, ideas, skills, and flaws. But, it's not *celebrity* that makes these shows any good. Rather, the problem is that *we've* gotten boring. And we're boring b/c we all want to be famous. How so? If you watch The Real World *now*, the show has very pretty people trying very hard to be hip. Compared to early season, the show has a veneer of falsity, with a huge focus on partying, drinking & fucking - rather than just young people trying to figure out the world. It's like a lifestyle magazine, not an exploration of being 20something in the early 00s.
Similarly, Omarosa, the "villain" from The Apprentice, actively plays a character that is "evil Omarosa." Thus, her time on The Surreal Life was spent picking fights, as a strategy to pursue her own fame, rather than really trying to get to know fellow cast members. Essentially, "normal people" act fake when they are on TV. Danny Bonaduce, Kathy Griffin, and Bobby Brown are already famous - to a degree. Their shows, while still "false" to some degree due to editing, seem to cut much closer to the truth of who they actually are. Hence, for folks who want to watch these shows b/c they find the human animal interesting ... celebrities have become the better people to watch. It's some fucked up thing where the simulacra has replaced the real...
Now, is this all exploitation? By watching Danny have a breakdown - am I getting perverse pleasure from his pain? Is VH1 using him? Does this encourage people to be a wreck for a paycheck? I dunno about that. If you take that view, that any sort of fictional drama that plays with these ideas, or even *journalism* about this stuff (think especially of "rags" like The New Yorker) would suffer. At some point, it *could* be exploitation - but I think those cries are a little reactionary right now. No one denied Danny treatment or feeds him bad information to make him lose control ... That's crossing a line, obviously. Just observing .. can be interesting, informative, and it can be *art.*
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
Your journal is interesting. I don't happen to watch reality tv, but it is fascinating, and as a social phenomenon, even more so.
"The simulacra replacing the real..." I like this investigation, man. Future research project? Cultural studies crossover? Argh, I'm guessing that maybe it's already been done.