After visiting the set of a certain infamous television show that involves people beating on each other, I had some thoughts on watching amateurs. There has been a proliferation of entertainment (I do not call it art or theater or even theatrical) that is 'reality based'. It involves watching amateurs doing things. Things that require revealing so-called personal information, doing embarrassing or frightening things, being in some sort of moment to draw us in.
Does good production value count enough to gloss over lack of content? Most of the televised versions of reality seem to involve lifelike sets (overproduced for verity) or visits to the real world that are 'managed' by onsite personnel. Interestingly there is a huge amount of process involved in producing these shows, but only one repeated outcome, the same show over and over with different permutations.
How does embarrassment play into the realness of reality? I find myself far too embarrassed for the reality-amateurs to watch. Is this the way I should feel. Am I meant to peek out and shudder but secretly think I can do better? Or are they looking for that 'intensity' that comes with showing something personal that is meant to be kept back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Quick Question:
Can production value and content be separated? What are production values for? What is their prupose?
Just thinking.........
longer comment gobbled up by evil webserver demons :-/
i think embarrassment/discomfort can make a good show sometimes (eg, UK's The Office), but recently that color is everywhere and so gets boring to me.
i hate reality shows for the way they reveal that the mass audience wants to see real people degraded for their (our?) entertainment, and for the way they directly attack the resource base that supports writers, in whose favor i admit i am biased.
Bravo! Why should seeing someone else humiliated feel good - it certainly doesn't have the affect on me.
Post a Comment