Reality TV
Most of us are probably more agreeable with the fact that “reality” writes the best stories. The novelty of it unfolding unscripted and unmitigated by intellectual considerations is always refreshing. Audiences increasingly found that, really nothing could top a bowl of buttery popcorn along with the sugary, voyeuristic high of Reality TV.
“Reality television is extremely good at creating connections of intimacy amongst participants, due to its fascination with conditions of proximity, as well as between participants’ and viewers, due to the continuity between participants; screen and real-world identities” (M. Kavka, 2011)
As screened in one of the lectures, Loft Story started in 2001 was the French version of the Big Brother sequence. The show takes a focus on romance and intimacy. In tune with the essence of the show pulling on audiences’ heartstrings, these reality shows have conveniently translated a form of proximity to a more intimate relationship between the audience and participants featured on the show.
By adopting the “Fly-on-the-wall” mode of documentary, it provides a more private insight to document what is “behind closed doors”. This method of realism is conveyed strongly with the aid of lightweight audio and video equipments. There is also the audience involvement to indirectly write off participants through their votes and other forms of influence such as online polling and forums.
These measurements ultimately validate the audiences’ acceptance of “reality” the show presents and sometimes it’s hard to forget that the show materials have indeed been narrativized and scripted to live up to the standards of producers and society standards.
Such intimacy is also translated into an affective commodity flow between sponsorships or advertisers tied with these reality shows. (M. Kavka, 2011) Because of the environment and style Reality TV is set in, it makes the unveiling of merchandises and brands considerably subtle and almost natural. Reality TV has also the versatility across other platforms such as web, which will enable sponsors to make use of them for media promotions.
There is also the profitable spot for leisure industries to influence audiences by creating and exploiting celebrity power. This function is a conspicuous by-product of Reality TV. The participants featured on Reality TV are often viewed as ordinary people seeking fame through media, this intrigues and attracts audiences, also ordinary, to form an intimate social bond and could immediately relate to these participants. This gives the audience the idea of how they might someday will be their the chance to shine too.
Reality TV is powerful because it places real people in an environment set up to generate an effect of emotional impact on audiences, with intimacy being the sole driver. This in turn ties in advertising and entertainment together, merging the different levels operation within Reality TV and the ability to sell itself.
Quality TV and Narrative complexity
The term “Quality TV” is what scholars deemed as valuable television studies. They do so by analyzing and breaking into the discursive field of television studies then subsequently picked out texts that are worthy of noting in conferences, seminars and classrooms.
When it comes to assessing the quality of television text, it is almost in line with judging the quality of it as a whole based on value judgment and personal taste. Academics draw on these individual preferences to analyze the quality of culture, aesthetic, ideas and political influences of television texts. There is also the underlying need also be recognized as an act of exclusion; deeming some texts as Quality TV implies that the rest are not-Quality TV, and thus not worthy of analysis and study.
What I noticed from the span of my research was how the most discussed series tend to qualify as Quality TV, but hardly represents TV as a whole. These texts do stand out, and the overwhelming attention paid to them has subsequently diminished the value of the lion’s share of television, so much so it almost feels like the medium itself has been devalued.
Quality TV is connected to narrative complexity, and those tend to be more predominant in serial television forms. Narratively complex television is fast becoming such a big hit and gaining a reputation as an exclusive art form because it creates the a sense of longevity to keep the plot going and the drama unfolding deliciously. However, this label also alienates many of the same genres that Quality TV has historically left out, notably sitcoms, soap operas, and nonfiction texts. The narrative complexity discourse also frequently references and draws on scholarship from exclusive art forms of literature and cinema.
There is also the factor of fandom displayed by these academic studies of media scholars. These academic analyses are not typically seen as fans raving of popular cultures and trends, more so just critically acclaiming which are the worthier television texts. But in actual fact they are just merely motivated by their own personal preferences and leaning to their emotional engagements.
Personally, I think the whole idea of “Quality TV” is bias towards certain styles of television that isn’t being examined. Maybe the biasness is based exclusively to the quality of these shows, their cultural significance, or other legitimate reasons. But it’s worth pondering if it is due to the prestige reputed to these shows, which might be something we should question.
Not all narratively complex shows are automatically labelled as “Quality TV”. Big Love with its mixture of emotional clutter and confusing themes came across as an absurd and unrealistic melodramatic romance that is painful to sit through. The same goes for Mad Men, which is essentially just a sappy soap opera glossed over with a shiny cast and higher production set. These are good examples of how narratively complex shows don’t necessarily make up “Quality TV”.
Television, like most of the other mediums is not spared of critical evaluation in the academic world. I for one observe that there is no rational basis for consensus on how a piece of work is rated, let alone evaluate its value. In such circumstances, estimations are contested across all levels of the cultural-aesthetic, and a common consensus would seem impossible to attain as it all really comes down to the individual.
TV and Film
Some may note the difference between movies and TV shows would be commercials and how audiences are made to sit through countless advertisements and in turn “devalues” the artistic value of the TV show. Whereas for a movie, it is a session of uninterrupted 2-hour artistic gratification.
To me, nothing can compare to the ease of lying on the couch in my own comfort zone and enjoying an episode of Grey’s Anatomy off the tube. This ritual is a slice of life, something in a more relaxed fashion that doesn’t require more than passing attention from time to time.
Both TV series and blockbusters are equal forms of art. We are still capable of building a sense of emotional connection to the characters on both screens. Ultimately, the underlying difference I see in these 2 mediums would be longevity.
Most movies are usually stand-alone events that audiences submerge themselves in for 2 hours for a solid plot from start to finish. Television series run for weeks and months on end, they present the opportunity to allow audiences to build a stronger emotional connection to their characters and leaves room for imagination and speculations for what will unfold in the next episode.
In a way it is considered much more of a challenge to draw a storyline and build its characters in a mere 2-hour movie. It is not given the privilege and time a TV show has to carefully carve its climax and throw in cliffhangers from time to time. It is like how moviemakers are only given 1 shot at making this a success, which is why the quality of image, setting and actors are all taken up a notch higher than the usual TV series we see.
Both film and television can be look at critically in spite of the different forms of deliverance. The content of the 2 mediums attempt to illuminate are still more or less coinciding issues. In terms of censorship freedom, moviemakers have it easier as they are not particularly kept at the reins by boards in comparison to TV shows with their countless station networks and sponsorship restrains.
To say one medium is better than the other would be doing justice to neither. To me, they are just differing forms of art. Television is less intrusive, which we can kick back and relax to, while a film is meant to stand out and alone by itself.
