This blog has presented me (and I hope you too) with many questions about reality TV. Firstly, what I started to unpack in my last post- why do we have such a fascination with watching other people do what is essentially a replication of what we do every day?
Perhaps the reality TV you watch isn’t Geordie Shore or Big Brother style, in that it is not simply people’s experiences of new (and old) relationships and encountering what is usually some kind of drama or conflict. All of which occur in our own daily lives. Reality TV that travels in a slightly different direction to these shows can includes, for example, My Big Fat Gypsy Weddings, an inspiring outlook into a completely new way of life. It is entertaining, but it is also informative. Perhaps these are the kinds of shows that can be labelled the most ‘rich’ as reality TV content because they serve more than the basic criteria of providing entertainment value. However, who can pack the most into a reality TV show should not determine the quality of the show. Whilst the “reality quality” (more about this in a bit) is definitely a major factor, the narrative and actors (or characters) play a large part as well.
But coming back to the core of my initial question- why do we find all of it so interesting? I think it is a combination of being able to relate to people like ourselves and equally, being able to laugh or cry at the fact that these people are not us at all. We watch teenagers giving birth at 16 years old and we (at least I) cry in front of the TV, an emotional wreck of both feelings of sympathy and relief that such a lifestyle is unlike my own.
Another reason could be that we are simply absorbed by the fact that reality TV, although only construction of a person’s (or a group of persons) perception of reality (I am referring to the directors and producers choices throughout the production process), looks and feels so real. Many hidden tricks of the trade so to speak, are employed by directors to simulate reality. Thus, we are convinced by not what is real, but what looks the most real. For example, “Crime Stoppers” advertisements funded by the government to find crime do-ers in society are re-enactments of real crimes. Most people would understand that what they are watching, the people interacting on the screen, are actors, but that an almost identical narrative occurred in real life and has serious implications.
Although on-lookers may not fully grasp why reality TV, usually stigmatised by its minimal intellectual stimulation and information, could have so much criticism, the answer is because its simplicity is what makes it so hard to evaluate. Reality TV generally comes across as something easy to watch, perhaps even dumb, but when we look at these shows more closely, we realise the defining element to a good quality reality TV show- its believability- is actually hard to create.
My blog has sought to reveal some interesting questions about reality TV, but more importantly to gauge this level of real-ness that has been discussed here and throughout my blog’s entirety; what I termed “reality quality”. Through my investigation and commentary, I have learnt that we can be highly critical of this. Whilst key narrative elements contribute to our initial feelings and reactions to reality TV, particularly whether we enjoy a particular program or not, one final determinant reflects whether we remain engaged and are convinced by its believability. That is, making reality TV appear real in the face of many unreal or unnatural elements.
(Sur)reality TV 