Week 11: How does Hill define reality TV?

According to Hill (2005) there is not one concrete definition of what reality TV is. It can be loosely described as surveillance footage filmed with hand held cameras and staring non-professional actors. But Hill further explains, and I agree, as modern reality TV has developed these defining factors do not necessarily apply to reality shows today. For example shows such as 16 and pregnant or survivor don’t use hand-held cameras and the camera work is as advanced as that of film.

  

References:

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.

Week 12: Reality TV

According to Hill (2005) “there is no one definition of reality programming, but many competing definitions of what has come to be called the reality genre.  The reality genre is made of a number of distinctive and historically based television genres, such as lifestyle, or documentary.  These television genres have merged with each other to create a number of hybrid genres that we now call reality TV, or popular factual television.”

Hill (2005) defines reality TV as:

• “programming that blurred boundaries between fact and fiction.”
• “a slice of life observational modes of documentary film making, fictional drama rooted in real-life situations”
• “an entertainment idea that can be instantly accessed by audiences/users across different types of media – TV, radio, telephone and the internet.”
• formats “that included a gameshow element”, and “that seek to entertain by showing dramatic incidents in real life”.

After viewing Cathy Come Home (Loach, 1966)  the trend of bringing real-life situations into society’s livings room was very much alive as much as 50 years ago, just packaged differently to today and depending on the producer/ director/ writer’s point of view.

Cathy and Reg in Cathy Come Home had a strange ring for me. In 1960s working class London, my brother and I could have so easily have been Cathy’s kids at that railway station.  But that is the point, I think.  Loach succeeds in grabbing my attention, because I can relate to what he is showing me.   Through angles in the camera, close-ups, side on shots, drawing the camera lens away and towards the characters, use of background noise instead of music eg: traffic, all of which were new techniques at the time, he is able to deliver a docudrama that is very very real to the viewer.  The viewer feels like he/she could actually be on the street beside Cathy and Reg.  The storyline itself depicts a situation that could happen to any of us, and therefore the audience is drawn into Cathy and Reg’s life and surroundings, and feels included, can empathise, and sympathise.  Loach cleverly hit the note with the masses with his docudrama / free cinema technique, and reached out to people pulled out of the rubble of World War II, still trying to shake off the legacy of the generation before.  He brought the reality of present day social issues, ie: homelessness, poverty, love, hope, despair, family solidarity into the living rooms of the masses, with real arguments, real sadness and happiness that anybody could feel at any time. Programmes such as the BBC’s Panorama (1956) and World in Action’s Seven-up (1964) also helped to bring the reality of other people’s lives into our living rooms and were at the forefront of reality TV, as opposed to fictional fantasy TV.

Hill (2005) cites “British popular factual programming is primarily from 6pm-11pm, the most competitive and most coveted slot in the schedule”.  It could be assumed, therefore, that reality TV today is a convenient and cheap method of providing watchable TV to the masses in order to maximize viewership and financial return through advertising, endorsement or sponsorship.

I recently attended an audition for the reality game show, Masterchef NZ.  My reason for applying for a place on the show was a passion for food and cooking. After I had queued for many hours with many other applicants, signed a multipaged contract vow-of-silence, and then was interviewed for only a few minutes, I wondered why I was there.  After all, my motives for being on the show were to cook, but I very quickly understood that there was far more to this reality machine than simply showing people how well I could cook in front of an audience.   This was all about the show and not the food.  Above all, I could see the financial opportunities open to the Masterchef industry by using me as free of charge tool to convey an everyday story about cooking in front of the camera.   Its many applicants seemed driven by a dream that one of them could really win the prizes (and someone would, its just many wouldn’t), but above all become something that they weren’t already, and somehow remove themselves from their everyday existence to touch stardome.   Viewers, I think, buy into this dream, but in a sense the reality is that it is not really going to happen to most.

Reality game shows like Masterchef are a long way away from the reality of Cathy and Reg. I am sure Cathy (nor any of her socio demographic generation) could never have contemplated the thought of a passion for food, just putting any kind of food on a plate was a necessity not a luxury.  Cathy Come Home was filmed in an era where tv was free-to-air, funded by the government and through tv licences.   Today, much of the TV we watch has to be funded through advertising or sponsorship and ratings are important.  Reality TV in all its sub-genres has come along way since the Sixties. I think reality TV today can be used in a good way to convey an important message or point of view to the masses and can also be viewed simply for entertainment, but also in a bad sense it can prey on everyday people’s innocence and trust to simply make money for the industry itself.

References:

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.

Panorama: 1956 Behind the scenes view of BBC Television. (1956). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G36AaMDFdM&feature=relmfu

World in action: Seven-up series documentary 1964 Part 1. (1964). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngSGIjwwc4U

Masterchef NZ: (2012). Retrieved October 12, 2012, from http://tvnz.co.nz/masterchef-new-zealand/ta-ent-masterchefnz-index-group-3125704

Defining 'Reality Television'

How does Hill define reality TV? 

Hill summarizes that there isn’t “one definition” of reality TV, but the shows contributing to the genre share things in common, and thus all fall into the umbrella term of “Reality TV.” The genre has it’s roots in documentary programming, talk shows, leisure and instructional shows, game shows, and soap opera, and is kind of a hybrid love-child of the lot of them, as well as a few others.

It is not uncommon for Reality TV to make use of handycam, and “diary cam” confessionals, such as those seen in shows like Big Brother, as well as hidden/candid camera, as if to give the effect that you are able to look in on the lives of others who are not aware they are being filmed and thus must be going about their lives in an unstaged, unscripted fashion. Hill also makes the point that Reality TV doesn’t use professional actors, (unless it’s like a celebrity edition of something like Survivor or whatever. Assuming they have those), or scripts. In fact, you’re not supposed to think of them as actors, to give the illusion they’re just normal people, in a slightly abnormal (depending on the show) setting, just going about their day, who happen to be being filmed for entertainment.

I know that in the show, Jersey Shore, which tries so hard to make you believe it isn’t staged/scripted, the housemates were placed under strict rules, such as that they were never allowed to look at the cameras, or interact with the crew. The cameras were not hidden, but the cast had to act as if they were on candid camera. No cellphones, television, or computers were allowed, their only connection to their family and friends outside of the setting was a tapped phone, and they were not allowed to leave the house or company of the crew unless given permission (It’s really no wonder at all that the show is just a house full of drunks, they weren’t allowed to do much else). While the show may not have been scripted exactly, it was certainly staged.

Reality TV works on the audience’s suspension of belief, and the assumption that the television would never lie to them. Hill states that ‘reality’ programming has “blurred the boundaries between fact and fiction,” and I honestly agree with that. Reality TV depicts false realities, and could be say is just as fictional as any soap opera, from ring-side, spectator seats, whether it be with handycam, video confessional, ignored film crews, or hidden cameras, giving the viewer the sense they are genuinely observing an uncensored, unscripted, honest life unfold before them.

References:

Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. 

Oxon: Routledge.

Week 10: How does Buffy deconstruct traditional literary notions of good and evil?

Buffy deconstructs the traditional literary notions of good and evil by the complexity of its characters. Each of its characters has a multifaceted personality, meaning one person is neither completely good nor evil. Braun (2000) refers to Klein’s theory which states that this mentality that we have is developed from infancy and that we are conditioned to expect and deal with both “good” and “bad” from our close and loved ones throughout our lives. Furthermore, Braun relates this theory to Buffy and Angel’s relationship. In the series the shift of Angel’s character from good to the evil Angelus (and back again) and the change in Buffy’s feeling towards him are firstly caused by sex and then the solution is mirrored and remedied by more  “thrusting” in the form of a sword (Buffy ends up stabbing Angel). The intricacy of the characters in Buffy and their relationships demonstrate that each of them is capable of both good deeds and bad which aptly reflects the complexity of human nature.

References:

Braum, B. (2000) The X-files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The ambiguity of evil in supernatural representations. Retrieved 11 October 2012 from: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0412/is_2_28/ai_64688900

Week 10: How do you think Buffy has influenced the contemporary vampire drama True Blood and the Twilight series of novels and films?

I had never watched an episode of Buffy before the screening that was shown to us. I had heard of the show before though and I remember it being popular when I was younger. However I have seen all of the Twilight films and some of the True Blood series and after watching Buffy in class I could already pick up on similarities and influences that Buffy had on both of these vampire films and series. Although watching Buffy now, it seems a bit dated due to the advance that we now have in technology the monsters look slightly fake. I think i definitely would have watched Buffy if I had the chance to when I was younger and if I get the chance over the break I will probably watch more episodes as I do really enjoy vampire shows.  I didn't realise how much of an influence Buffy had until reading the secondary texts and some articles. Porter (2004) believes that Buffy reinvented vampire myths for this millennium and O'leary (2010) believes that Buffy became one of the most influential television shows of the past two decades and basically invented the TV genre of urban fantasy.

There has been a marked increase in recent years in the number of television shows with a supernatural theme. This trend combines inhuman characters such as witches and vampires with teen angst (Braum 2000). This is shown throughout Twilight and True Blood but is not a new theme as Buffy uses this theme that in turn was influenced by shows such as horror films and teen dramas. However the more recent representations of the supernatural especially in Twilight, vampires are portrayed as being magical and desirable rather than evil. I think that was heavily influenced by Buffy, although there are enemies in Buffy such as the monsters she kills and in Twilight such as the Volturi there is also desire and love interests between both Buffy and Angel and Edward and Bella. Angel and Edward are both vampires but instead of being considered evil and bad both Buffy and Bella and drawn to them and cant help but fall in love with the vampires. Although there is an influence of horror throughout Buffy, i think that the way Buffy has influenced True Blood and Twilight has slightly removed the connotation that all vampires are evil. Twilight and True Blood also have strong female characters that become braver and less naive as the narrative progresses. I think that this was influenced by Buffy as she is shown to be smart, courageous and someone that vampires cannot resist even if they know it is wrong. All three couples from Buffy (Buffy and Angel), True Blood (Eric and Sookie) and Twilight ( Edward and Bella) have sexual tension between each other as all of the vampires do not want to loose control. I believe there are many similarities and influences that Buffy has had on True Blood and Twilight which i find really interesting as they all were similar yet all incredibly successful. Maybe its the forbidden love story that has fans hooked. For me its the brave female characters in all of the series and films which draws me to vampire and supernatural stories and i will be watching more of Buffy when i get the chance.

-->

Braum, B. (2000). The X-files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: The ambiguity of evil in supernatural representations. Retrieved from:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0412/is_2_28/ai_64688900

Porter, P. (2004). Retrospection and anticipation and the cult following of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Retrieved from: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/06/30/1088488020260.html

O'Leary, T. (2010). Buffy, The Vampire Innovator: How so Many Stories Owe Everything to Joss Whedon. Retrieved from:

http://thetorchonline.com/latest/buffy-the-vampire-innovator-how-so-many-stories-owe-everything-to-joss-whedon/

 

Quick question:

Did anyone find the film 'Cathy Come Home' really depressing? I walked out of the screening and felt that most of us pretty lucky. Sad that this still happens today though.

Week 10: Cult TV

Cult TV, as cited by Hills (2004), “is not ordinary, run of the mill TV, it is not bland and low-risk TV, since it challenges gender representations, say; it is excessive in its aesthetic mode of representation, being again differentiated from ‘mainstream or realist TV drama”.  Despite seeming outdated and old fashioned, probably because it is after all about 15 years old, the storyline of Buffy itself was and probably still is innovative as it challenged the archetypal female character role.     At the time Buffy must have provided a refreshing change from the typical alpha male lead role, (as portrayed in programmes such as The A Team, The Incredible Hulk, The Six Million Dollar Man.  A chirpy blond schoolgirl who stands on her own two feet, is the saviour, or slayer of all things bad and evil, in this case. The series seemed to spark a new trend for tough battle-hardy central female roles in TV, Xena the Warrior Princess, True Blood, Vampire Diaries.

Hills (2004) cites that Cult TV “typically runs in seasons of 24 episodes and often features end-of-season cliff hangers.  This type of seriality seems to support fan practices such as intense speculation over plot (especially across the summer break)”.  Is that how the cult, or following, begins, people get hooked because they can’t wait to see the next episode, can’t stop talking about the last episode all week in anticipation of the next?  As Hill (2004) cites “fans also produce commentaries, fan fiction, episode guides and production histories that all work to sustain the distinctiveness of fandome as a community that read the intertextual network of cult TV shows in a characteristic way”   This perpetuates the following or cult, and then as Hill (2004) cites “fans of cult TV gather for conventions where they can share their interests.  Again, this creates a sense of communal fan distinctiveness.” They have in effect been living the life of the tv series through fandom, which I am sure the TV stations love, as this can perpetuate the series.

However in a literary sense can Cult TV be quantified as quality TV?  Wilcox and Lavery (2002) cite that “bad television – predictable, commercial, exploitative – simply yields to the forces.  Good television, like the character the Vampire Slayer, Buffy, fights those forces.   For TV to be good, it needs to be unexpected, original, and pushing the boundaries of what is perceived as within the realms of normal tv.” Joss Whedon seems to push the boundaries between good and evil, and shapeshifts his characters (eg: Adam or Spike) in order to hook his audience into an unpredictable viewing at each episode. 

Hills (2004) cites “Cult TV is best thought of as a group of texts, often hailing from the genres of science fiction, fantasy and horror.”  The storyline of the episodes “Goodbye Iowa” and “The I in Team” seemed to be a mix of several genres: romance, fantasy, teen, science-fiction (of its time); perhaps Whedon was punting for a wider viewership by incorporating several genres rather than one.

There is a sense of normality wrapped in the fantasy and sci-fi of Buffy: the group of good friends, living in a normal house in a normal town, doing normal every day things like watching tv, chatting and drinking soda, except for the fact that the place they live in is exceptionally removed from our reality in that it deals with demons, vampires and monsters every week.  Something extraordinarily unusual, in a normal setting with a central heroine who saves the day, because everyone loves the day to be saved.  Maybe that is the key to cult tv.

References:

Hills, M. (2004). Defining Cult TV; Texts, Inter-texts and Fan Audiences, The Television Studies Reader, in R. C. Allen & A. Hill. London and New York: Routledge

Wilcox, R. & Lavery, D. (2002). Introduction, in R. Wilcox & D. Lavery (eds) Fighting the forces: what’s at stake in Buffy the vampire slayer: Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.