We recently began another season of Survivor, the lead up to which was a series of attention-grabbing adverts promising to turn all our previous expectations of the show completely upside down. Boy-oh-boy, was I excited when I sat down with my bowl of popcorn, ready to be blown away!
Well, the kernels stayed safely in the bowl and my expectations remained right side up. All they’ve done so far is, well, kick two people off right away and have both tribes on the same beach. For one night. And then it was back to regular old Survivor, which still does pretty well in the ratings.
Reality shows have succeeded for the same reason that soap operas are still on the air: we like to watch other people’s lives and other people’s problems. It is human nature to feel that ineluctable pull to examine the scene of an accident. Reality shows have provided a vehicle for us to watch how others solve their daily tribulations. And what better way for producers to make money than to allow unpaid “actors” to improvise for the camera, choosing to put their cash into careful editing instead.
My criticism of these types of shows is that the term reality is something of a misnomer. The cast and situations are always carefully constructed, just like the ubiquitous studio game shows of the 1980s. Today’s reality shows are just updated versions of the flashy games of skill like the Price is Right or Wheel of Fortune, the few differences being programmes today tend to be filmed in exotic locations, there is more focus on the interaction of the contestants, and instead of winning a fridge, the prize is an exorbitant amount of money. You half expect host Jeff Probst to remind us to spay and neuter our pets before he zooms off on his motorboat.
Contestants on today’s reality shows are always attractive and in most cases, look good in little clothing – obviously needed for the tropical settings of Survivor, The Amazing Race, Fear Factor etc. There is always a caricatured mix of people, often including a few strong, dominating personalities, the quiet, independent types and some just plain weirdos. The shows’ producers set up situations which an average person would likely never encounter in their lifetime. I suppose it is these elevated situations that draw in millions of viewers each night.
Take, for example, The Bachelorette. Who gets to date 25 men at once without a single one of them objecting? Now, biology does dictate that the general premise should work: a bunch of men competing to possibly pass on their DNA with a genetically superior female (she’s healthy, attractive, young). However, love and that societal construct of marriage negate the biology. Really - what are the chances of finding love in a pool of (albeit attractive and successful) 25 men? I have friends who have less success in a pool of thousands on Lavalife. Because it is a game show, the contestants have to keep trying to win, even if, presumably, they are not in love with Jen Schefft.
One of my favourite moments in reality TV was a few weeks ago on The Bachelorette when Fabrice stepped forward during the Rose Ceremony and told Jen he wanted out. Never before on a reality TV show have I seen such reality. Here was a guy admitting, you know what? I don’t really like you that much and the glory just ain’t worth it, baby. Bravo, Fabrice, bravo. This is what actual real life is like.
So how about an actual reality show? Where sometimes no one wins. Where the Supernanny does not tame the unruly children in the space of a couple of days. Where the young, hot twins don’t make it to Rio before the old, but experienced couple. Where Jen Schefft says, “Actually, I’ve decided to go out with the cute camera guy instead.”
Now that kind of TV would certainly turn my expectations upside down.
No comments:
Post a Comment