Today's Reality

Snooki and Pseudo-Events

When reality programming started it was heralded as a cheap alternative to scripted television that would save the networks from costly and diva-esque actors.  In the past decade since the dawning of the Golden Age of Reality TV has been upon us, audiences have seen what seems like unending iterations of the genre.  Between the competitions (The Bachelor, Survivor), Hidden Camera (Undercover Boss), Self-Help (The Biggest Loser, Millionaire Matchmaker), “cinema verite” (The Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, Teen Mom), and Family Drama (Wife-Swap), Surgical (The Swan, Dr. 90210), and Do-Gooder (Extreme Home Makeover), there seems to be something to fulfill any type of voyeuristic need that a viewer might have.  But to what cultural expense?

In 1961 Daniel Boorstin published his book, The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America in which he outlines how America was living in the “Age of Contrivance.”  As explained by Transparency.com, “He claimed that America was living in an "age of contrivance," in which illusions and fabrications had become a dominant force in society. Public life, he said, was filled with "pseudo-events" -- staged and scripted events that were a kind of counterfeit version of actual happenings. Just as there were now counterfeit events, so, he said, there were also counterfeit people - celebrities - whose identities were being staged and scripted, to create illusions that often had no relationship to any underlying reality.”  Boorstin’s claim came right as television was gaining popularity and importance in American society and as America was beginning to replace images of actual importance with these so-called contrived pseudo-events.  For instance, Nixon had just lost the debate against JFK on television primarily due to his televisual presence.  Those who had heard the debate on the radio thought that Kennedy had lost because they weren’t swayed by visual images influencing their opinions. 

In our era of so much of the television landscape being dominated by reality TV, Boorstin’s words never rang truer.  The so-called reality stars are constantly trying to one up each other and themselves be it in inciting conflict or general grotesque behavior to get attention.  The media doesn’t make it any better by bringing their indiscretions to light either on the covers of their magazines or through their lip flap on their own television programs.  Most recently, Rutgers University took it to the next level when they decided chose to pay Snooki, a low class drunken party girl, $32,000 to hold two question and answer sessions while they are paying Nobel Prize winning author Toni Morrison $30,000 to give their Commencement Address.  What a statement Rutgers is making:  Snooki is famous as a walking pseudo-event and while yes, she has technically authored a book of her own, really has not contributed anything positive to our society. 

On Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper offers his take on the situation (no pun intended…)

I’m personally in complete agreement with Cooper.  He tells it like it is and points out the utter ridiculousness that is the state of reality TV.  He starts his argument by mentioning Snooki’s newly upped salary.  She will now be making $100,000 per episode to behave badly.  Charlie Sheen was recently fired in part for similar behavior on his scripted show, but now we’re saying it’s lauded when a reality star does it?  What does that say about our priorities?  Further, reality was initially meant to be a cheap alternative to scripted, this seems to be almost encouraging the next generation to take Snooki’s behavior to the next level and if they offer it up for a cheaper rate they’d be happy to take her spot in the limelight.  How can we be honoring this behavior?  It makes me cringe to think she, and others similar to her, are being celebrated for this behavior.  Calling it reality (when in fact it’s often largely scripted and produced) encourages others to behave similarly, offering the message that the more you fall down drunk and act like a moron and as long as you’re willing to do it in public, it could earn you a big paycheck.   

It’s time for us as a society to take a closer look into how we choose to show ourselves to the world.  In an era where we are competing with other world powers to produce the smartest minds, do we really want our biggest export to be someone who’s most famous acts are passing out drunk on the beach?  Boorstin predicted it 50 years ago.  At this rate, I’m not sure I’m looking forward to it’s evolution in another 50 years.

Royal Wedding 2011

Image from StudioBriefing.net

Do We Care? Why or Why Not?

The Daily Beast published an article today by John Avalon entitled, “William and Kate's Royal Wedding: Enough Already!” in which the author goes details his, and many Americans’, frustration with the media hype and coverage over Price William and Kate Middleton’s upcoming nuptials.  Namely, he poses the question, “Who Cares?”  He asks, why should we as Americans, who fought a war to break from the aristocracy of England care about or pay any attention to such pomp and circumstance?  And if people do care about such frivolity, he posits, that they should perhaps move to England, as he says “And for those who fetishize the remaining whiff of aristocracy—well, there’s a continent for that. It’s called Europe.”

While I do agree with Avalon to a certain extent that the media coverage has been at time excessive, I find his reasoning to be simplistic and based on his own biases.  I should also fully disclose that I too have my own biases, being totally and utterly fascinated and charmed by the Royal family.  There was even a moment (ok, definitely longer than a moment, ask any of my high school friends) that I was beyond convinced that Prince William was the love of my life and one day I’d become his princess.   Those days have surely passed, but the vestiges of that allure remain deeply ingrained in me. 

I will say, however, that Avalon’s assertion that we as Americans made a decision to be non-UKers and therefore should not be intrigued or interested in the Royal Wedding is rather simplistic.  If that were indeed the case, Hollywood would not exist as it does today.  We would not have turned the Kennedys into our own version of royalty. I think it’s in fact just the opposite.  Americans crave pomp and circumstance from our own version of royalty.  Take Hollywood for example, as they are the closest we have to royalty.  We gape at the jewels and gowns the starlets adorn themselves with.  We are fascinated by their trysts and romantic drama.  If we as Americans really rejected the notion of royalty then Hollywood wouldn’t be the staple in our society that it is.

He quotes a CBS/Vanity Fair poll which found that 65% of Americans have “no interest” in the wedding.  That might be true, but his assumed reasoning is just that: assumed.  Maybe it’s the almost constant onslaught of information being fed to us that can be quite fatiguing.  There could be a whole host of reasons why that poll number is so high.  I’d also argue that if that was indeed the case and people were not interested in the coverage then there would not be as much.  Ratings rule the airwaves decisions and if people weren’t drawn to it news directors and network executives would pull the coverage pretty quickly.   Avalon further argues that the coverage is taking up valuable time and space that could otherwise be used to cover real news stories like murders on the Ivory Coast or in The Sudan.  He’d be right, if the American media covered that at all.  Those atrocities were occurring well before there was ever an engagement and the coverage was lacking and sparse. 

Ultimately whether people care for the wedding and its accompanying coverage is up for debate, but I do think to say that we don’t care because in 1776 we fought a war to be free of the King’s rule is probably a bit over simplistic and perhaps an overstatement of our nature as a society.

Jell-O's ChocoBeast

True Temptation or Advertising Faux Pas?


I don’t know if you’ve seen the new commercial for Jell-O Temptations, but I cringe every time it comes on TV and I definitely have  what to say about it.  Here’s the spot for your reference:

In the commercial, a mother is sitting in a tent with her kids telling her kids a ghost story about the “ChocoBeast,” a half-man, half-monster “who will stop at nothing to sink his fangs into people who steal other people’s chocolate temptation.”   Then the “monster” appears screaming outside the tent and the kids are sent into a panic and throw the Chocolate Temptations back towards their mom.   In the next scene the parents are sitting on the porch together, dad is eating a Chocolate Temptations Jell-O and the mom says, “Good job, ChocoBeast.” 

Advertising has a long and storied history of not only reflecting our culture but also shaping it.  The idea of cognitive discontent and advertising has taught us as consumers that there are things we’re lacking or things we should be self conscious of and the only way to remedy those short comings is to consume the products needed.  For instance, not until whitening toothpastes came on the market did we know our teeth weren’t white enough.  But now that there’s a product for it, we are sure to feel bad about ourselves until we fix it!

This commercial poses a different issue, the message it’s sending is very different from others in this genre.  First of all, think back to the Jell-O marketing of about a decade or 2 ago when the friendly, child-loving Bill Cosby was the face and voice of the brand.  This once kid-friendly product used to cater towards children’s needs (or, let’s be honest, interest in sugary, wiggly snacks) and now they’re shifting their strategy to focus on the parents and their interest in indulgence.  Furthermore, and probably the more problematic one, is that this shift also reflects (or perhaps is helping to shape) and change in parenting models.  These parents are not only putting their needs before the kids’ needs, but are actually frightening them to do so.  What parent would choose to legitimately scare their child to get what they want?  

At the risk of sounding like I’m finger-wagging (ok, maybe I am) but in an age where child on child bullying is such a hot topic in the public forum, how can this message be tolerated?  Parents are supposed to be the protectors of their children, not the perpetrators of their pain.  The parents in this ad are clearly emotionally abusing their kids, and for what? A 4 oz tub of what is probably a pretty crappy snack?  

Thoughts?

The Kennedys

Image from IMDB.com

Did the Kennedy Curse strike again? 

So last night ReelzChannel premiered the much hyped, much talked about miniseries, The Kennedys.  Originally created for The History Channel, it was picked up by Reelz after History decided it wasn’t right for their airwaves.  After watching the first episode, I came to realize just why History decided it was “off brand.”  My guess is because it’s not very good and it was boring as hell.  I am generally fascinated by the Kennedy clan.  I've spent hours at the JFK Library in Boston, watched narrative films, documentaries, read books, studied JFK’s presidency from an academic standpoint in a number of courses in college.  I am generally a huge sucker for Camelot and the mystique that surrounds it.  That’s why I was so excited to watch The Kennedys and then so disappointed when I found it beyond boring. 

The pacing was so slow, after an hour of watching I thought I must be near the end of the first night, only to look at the clock and see it was only halfway through.  Furthermore, the nonlinear narrative structure seemed uneven and forced.  This type of editing should be used to educate the audience and divulge information in a specific way, but given that this is a historical account of a story many people already know, there was no need for this kind of narrative structure, and it greatly detracted from the storytelling. 

I will say, however, that the casting was near perfect (although I’d contest the Tom Wilkinson casting as Joe Kennedy Sr.).  I was very much impressed by how much Greg Kinnear fell into his role and fully embodied JFK.  Even Katie Holmes, who I am generally not enamored with, held her own with only a few uneven missteps – but she had a very small role in this premiere episode, so we have yet to see how she will handle the more meaty parts.  Finally, most films have a really difficult time recreating the Kennedy accent, but I will admit that overall the actors stayed true to the authentic Kennedy accent.

I will continue watching because, as I said, I devour most things Kennedy, and I hope it gets better, but I’m not very optimistic about it.