Week 12-Reality TV

How has the documentary genre influenced reality TV and how it presents the 'real'?

So many shows that we see on television today are dominated by reality television. Reality television is a genre that tries to portray something that is 'real' to the viewer by following a subject through whatever situation whether it be passing time, following day to day life, or following subjects that are in extreme situations . For example if we look at extreme situations in 'Survivor' we follow subjects who have been put on an island. They must compete in intense challenges and vote team mates off the island. However, 'Survivor Tocantins' member Erinn Lobdell said that while she was on the exile island sound crew handed her a lighter to start a fire. She was then filmed by the crew holding wooden sticks as if she 'made the fire herself'. After the release of Lobdells statement CBS, predictably, responded to all of this with a non-answer: “Survivor producers follow a very strict protocol to never interfere with reality, that includes helping or hindering with life on the island". I believe that many reality television shows that we see today are not 'real' at all. I believe they are highly scripted, staged and played out for the camera and we are manipulated to believe something is 'real'. 

John Grierson who invented the term documentary described the document process as a "creative treatment of actuality"(p.36). In the 1930s Grierson was one of the first to depict normal everyday people on television. Documentary influenced reality television in the way that we enjoy watching ordinary people on television. It is interesting watching people that we can relate to on television rather than constantly seeing famous people. By watching these people we some how get a little break from our own lives by watching others. For example when Big Brother was on I remember thinking to myself who can I relate to? Which person am I most like? How would I be in that situation? Big Brother was a huge hit internationally and it had such a simple concept. Why not chuck a few people in a house and film them doing everyday things. However, it is not as simple as this. Before going in to the Big Brother house there is a huge process which you have to go through. Matt Hoffman former Big Brother house mate gives a tip:
"You're getting cast on t.v be a character"
This means everything. The producers of the show would not put nice/calm/polite people in a house and film them as this would be pretty boring. Producers cast contestants who have big personalities and are going to create drama as this will give ratings and hook in viewers.

When we watch a documentary we explore the mysteries of actual people in actual situations. Within documentaries there are different modes that are used which reality T.V have adapted into their own genre. Firstly a documentary can be expository where they provide a 'voice of god' or 'evidence'. Reality TV often shows 'evidence' in their shows. For example when Dr.Phill proves guests wrong that come on the show with photographic evidence that they have been 'cheating' etc. The observational mode is another element from the documentary genre which reality television has adapted. There are long takes, no narration and it is present tense. For example in Jersey Shore there is no narration at all the guests are the only ones who talk. Their lives are filmed each day while they are in the house, night cameras are even used. I enjoy observational documentaries but completely disagree with the observational element being used in some reality tv shows. I dont want to see what goes on at night between some guests within the house, but producers must think it is necessary to show to guests getting it on. When I saw this I changed channel and thought how sad that this is what is on T.V today. 

Documentary has had a huge influence on some of the very contemporary shows today that are on t.v for example the 'Kardashians'. Firstly I do not even know why they have a show. But thats just my personal opinion, I guess some people love watching a bunch of wana-be famous people doing there groceries and buying nice things.  This show is about an American family living their lives, if there is ever a problem within the family it flicks to an interview of them to narrate how the problem will be solved. A very noticeable change referring to this is how reality TV seems to become more fake and scripted. More and more reality TV shows are being made portraying rich people, which moves further away from Grierson's idea of depicting everyday ordinary people. 

Biressi,A.& Nunn, N.(2005). Real Lives, documentary approaches. In Reality TV: realism and revelation (pp.35-58) London: Wallflower. 


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

Week 12: How does Hill define reality TV?

According to Hill (2005) there are different techniques that are used in association with reality TV such as non-professional actors, unscripted dialogue, surveillance footage, hand-held cameras and seeing events unfold as they are happening on film. Even though these techniques are used to some extent such as hand-held camera techniques, surveillance footage and non-professional actors in some reality shows. For example the Jerry Springer show uses a hand-held camera technique, Big Brother uses surveillance on the people living in the big brother house and non-professional actors are used in recent reality shows such as Jersey Shore, Master Chef and The Kardashians. However the technique of unscripted dialogue and seeing events unfold as they happen on film are becoming less realistic. For example many reality TV shows such as Jeremy Kyle, Survivor and The Hills are scripted. This creates more drama within the shows which in turn increases the rating of the show. Events are also now preplanned to occur. This happens frequently in The Kardashians when the mother in the show (Kris Jenner) is shown "secretively" sending a text message to her previous "lover" while she is doing this she is being filmed. This then goes on to cause drama within the family, however a week later the family are back to normal and there are no consequences from sending the text message. Usually is this sort of behavior were to occur it would not be filmed so that viewers and Kris's family would find out as if this was really happening it would not run as smoothly as it did on the TV show.

Hills (2005) also states that there is no one definition of reality TV. This is because the reality genre is made up of a number of different television genres such as drama, documentary and lifestyle. These genres have merged together to to create a number of different genres that fall under reality TV. Cathy Come Home also had a major influence on reality TV. Ken Loache directed Cathy Come Home in 1966 and fused together drama and documentary style, this was a huge break through in reality television and many people could relate to the reality that Cathy Come Home portrays, even 50 years later i can relate to Cathy Come Home and found it still seemed extremely real and saddening to me. I feel as though Laoche captured the reality of homelessness, poverty and a family falling apart extremely well. He also portrays hope throughout the film through the relationships that the actors make, when something is looking up for the family reality takes over and the deal falls through. Loache used techniques such a non-proffesional actors, a hand held camera, black and white film and long still shots which constructs the passing of time. He takes the everyday lives of Cathy and Reg who are ordinary people and shows the reality of homelessness in England. This moved the consciousness of the nation and had a major influence on future reality TV such as Big Brother. Big Brother takes every day lives of ordinary people but places them into a home and watches how they interact with one another, the influence this had form Cathy Come Home was the use of surviellence and interviews that is shown as a voice over in Cathy Come Home.

Finally Hill (3005) believes that if there is one defining characteristic that makes up reality TV is to let the viewers see for themselves. Even though many reality shows are now set up and scripted they still let viewers into their life and show there personalities on screen. This allows the viewers to see for themselves the lifestyle that these actors have such as the Kardashians. The way certain actors react the the situations that they are put in fear factor and survivor do this. I find it really fascinating the amount of demand reality TV gets and how some shows such as True Life have been on TV since 1998 and new seasons are still being created. I also enjoy watching some reality television such as Survivor as i really enjoy the competition of the show and find myself wanting to watch more due to the cliff hanger that the show creates, it leaves me wanting to watch more.

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

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/