Three Waves of Reality Shows

First, there were the competitions. Regular people battle off to win a shiny, usually monetary, prize. Survivor. Amazing Race.

Then comes the talent competitions. These are regular people too, except with a very specific talent. The prizes are better, because they represent opportunities tailored to the talent (usually in the form of a contract). Plus money. So now anyone can be plucked from nowhere to stardom. Fame began to sublimate into sight as a very clear, very real, reward. We start hearing about “platform” or “launching pad”. American Idol. America’s Next Top Model. Project Runway. Note one element that especially distinguish these shows from others: a panel of judges.

The third wave of reality shows I’ve actually discussed in an earlier post. When rooting for talents became too political or divisive, the new era brings in..basically, everyday life. Usually of the rich and famous, but sometimes just the rich, or just the famous. Kardashians. Real Housewives. And the like.

The big mystery to me here is the apparent fluidity in defining “reality”. Even setting the completely valid argument on content integrity aside (who knows whether what’s being shot actually happened?) there’s still a debate about how media chooses to approach reality. As in, I can’t pinpoint any one element that the Amazing Race and the Kardashians have in common, let alone explain why that element is considered part of “reality”. Is it the fact that these are “real people”, i.e. non celebrities? If so, when they become famous due to the show, would the show now not be considered reality? And why is fame a factor in judging how “real” someone is, anyway?

Or it could be the acting (or lack thereof). So yes, none of the people featured are professional actors, nor are they portraying fictional characters. These are their real names, real jobs, real arguments. This seems to be the acceptable definition, although for the life of me, I don’t know why the distinction need to be made between “acting” and “non-acting”. Like, what kind of shows do you like to watch? Oh, I like mysteries. Or sitcoms. But sometimes we watch those shows where they don’t act. It’s more real, you know?

You see my point – the main goal of a show is to be entertaining. People don’t watch reality shows because they’re real, they watch those shows because they’re entertaining. And most reality shows are made and edited to be entertaining. If people want to see shows with no acting for the purpose of education, they’d be watching the National Geographic (consider that most documentaries aren’t shot and edited the same way a movie would).

By contemplating this, I’m forced to contemplate the significance of this train of thought to my own. By that I mean, why am I thinking about this? Why is this so important to me? The answer is, predictably, because it’s always been that way. I’ve always paid close attention to Hollywood life, retaining details, following updates. It’s the thrill of writing their stories for them, I think. The point isn’t to create lies, but to attempt to understand what it might be like to have it all. What a concept! By being into it, I’m able to channel my own life, passing judgments to things that I don’t have the talent or courage to initiate on my own. These people are beautiful, skinny, rich, talented, and popular, and isn’t it a hoot to watch them try?