Published: July 02, 2008 03:34 pm      

TELEVISION: Reality TV round table

BY PHIL DZIKIY, PAUL LANE AND MICHELE DELUCA



If you thought reality television was ready to die, you may be waiting for a long time.

Reality television is arguably more popular now than ever. New shows keep popping up. Some people rail against it, but there’s obviously an audience. What’s the appeal of reality television?

I asked my colleagues, Features Editor Paul Lane and Niagara Living Editor Michele DeLuca, to join in the conversation.

MICHELE: I confess. Reality television has made me cry. The other day, I watched an insurance salesman singing opera on “America’s Got Talent.” His 10 minutes of fame was a mini-epic story on how one heavy-set, homely man can break your heart by singing something so beautiful you can hardly believe your own ears. The audience rose in unison, screaming in approval. His misty-eyed performance, dedicated to his single mom, was captivating, and he became more compelling with each note. If that’s not a contemporary fairy tale come to life, I don’t know what is. I’ve watched that scene several times, and each time my eyes water in empathy for the way this big guy opened his heart on the giant, lonely stage.

I guess we like reality television for the same reason we like all other kinds of television. Stories of other humans captivate us, particularly if its involves undiscovered talent or a rags to riches theme. When we can watch ordinary looking people in real situations that reveal how extraordinary they are, I think it makes our own dreams feel a little more possible.

PAUL: Sure, if your dreams involve getting knocked off a small platform into water by a swinging muscle-bound freak or staying out of the sun while incessantly complaining about the lack of water in the environment you agreed to be in.

I guess reality television does make dreams seem impossible, in that it gives these people another place to be “discovered.” What was once a pure pursuit is now largely dominated by wanna-be actresses who get to flaunt their bikini-clad bodies for producers to see and guys who have no ambition in life and are content to make paid appearances at night clubs across the country. There are exceptions, but by and large these shows are stepping stones rather than anything more idealistic. Do you think David Archuleta gave two hoots he lost “American Idol” to David Cook? Why would he when he and the eight people who placed behind him will all get recording contracts or Broadway gigs? And let’s not even get started with those losers from Tila Tequila’s MTV show ...

PHIL: Wow. I didn’t realize just how perfectly this would work out. We’ve got optimism and cynicism, side by side. Personally, I take the middle ground in this argument. There are certainly more than a few desperate fame-grubbers out there, but there have to be some true hearts still floating around in reality world, as well. Not that I really care either way, as long as the program isn’t overflowing with people who are impossible to support.

When it comes to reality television as a whole, I stand on the same middle ground. There are definitely despicable reality shows (most of the dating shows) and most of the shows are pretty boring or contrived. But I have a few favorites, namely “The Amazing Race” on CBS and Bravo’s “Top Chef.” Both of those shows put pure competition at the forefront. And the competitions are always more interesting than what you’ll find on “Survivor.”

Michele, what are your favorite shows? And, seeing how you have such a positive view on reality television, are there any shows you don’t like? And Paul, are there are any shining beacons of reality television in the darkness of your eyes? The darkness of your ... soul?

MICHELE: I fell for “American Idol” first. I found myself smiling as I watched. The husband and I also enjoy watching Donald Trump fire people and that crazy nutjob chef (Gordon Ramsay) on “Hell’s Kitchen” throwing food. This year, “Hell’s Kitchen” was even more fun to watch because we knew one contestant, Shayna, from her days as a waitress at our friend Fillipo’s Italian restaurant on Hertel, so we felt like we had a personal stake in the show as we cheered her on.

I also really like “Dancing with the Stars,” which shows famous people doing what often doesn’t come naturally. Still, they all look like they’re having so much fun that I’ve convinced my husband we need to take dance lessons. So, I guess you could say that show will have changed my life, just a teensy bit.

PAUL: I’ve gotten into “Hell’s Kitchen” this year because of what I’ve written about the local contestants (and because those people mostly seem to have pure intentions), and I watch “American Idol” when I can, although even for that three-quarters of it is commercial trash I can’t stand. The BBC’s show that features Gordon Ramsay, “Kitchen Nightmares,” is enjoyable because there is nothing “Americanized” about it; it’s just a guy who tries to help people out who need help, and they go about their business. Those people don’t want to be famous, they just want their business to survive. I have not seen the U.S. version of this show so I don’t know how it stacks up.

For the most part, reality television is a platform for the talentless to get famous. Why work hard and apply yourself when you can show some skin and double-cross your friends to become the “bad boy?”

PHIL: My least favorite reality shows are usually celebrity-based. Why would I want to watch fifth-tier celebrities learn how to be in a circus? Or learn magic tricks? It’s only getting worse. These quasi-celebrity shows keep popping up. “The Surreal Life” seemed like such a funny idea in 2003. Now it just seems obnoxious.

And what’s “real” about a bunch of former TV stars learning how to complete tasks? Perhaps we should talk about what it means to be a reality TV show. It’s accepted that a show like “Survivor” is a reality show, although, like many reality shows, there’s nothing realistic about spending weeks on a desert island for the chance to win $1 million.

The most “real” reality shows are probably things like “Little People, Big World” and MTV’s “True Life.” Paul, “Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares” would also fit into this realm. These are shows that just follow people around.

But the definition of “reality television” seems to be a kind of catch-all. Is “American Idol” a reality show? I guess so. Does that mean “Star Search” was a “reality show?” If that’s the case, reality shows have been around a lot longer than we’ve probably considered. It’s clear they’re not a trend.

But because most people place all these shows in one category, reality television, can the “genre” be stopped? Can anything make reality television less popular? And if the popularity of reality television plummeted, would that really make television programming any better?

MICHELE: Reality television is far more interesting to me than traditional programming. I always prefer the stories of real people to fiction. But, the worst part of reality television is that some shows are encouraging us to watch while people take increasingly crazy chances.

Remember when the guy fell in the fire on “Survivor” and the cameraman did not try to help? I can promise the same will happen when a contestant gets killed doing some knuckleheaded stunt. The camera people are instructed to keep rolling.

Will we watch? Of course we will. It’s like watching a house burn down. But once we get a taste of that horror, are we not far from “Dueling to the Death” and public executions. If so, we’ve officially evolved backward thousands of years, no different than Roman citizens with lousy personal hygiene and bad teeth screaming for blood.

PAUL: Reality may wane in popularity, but it won’t disappear because it’s so cost-effective for the networks to make. Why pay the cast of “The Simpsons” mid-six figures per episode when Joe Schmo will take $100 to do belly shots off a stranger and run around the apartment in a thong?

As for the celebrity shows, they just plain have to go. I don’t care about Scott Baio’s baby, Peter Brady needs to let go of the child star thing and I thought the two Coreys were dead (and I don’t care that they’re alive). Go work at Wal-Mart, people.

In fact, I just saw this past week that VH1 is reviving its “I Love” series with “I Love the Millennium,” having F-listers wax poetic about the days of long ago — like 2003 and 2005. I don’t need Wil Wheaton to crack lame jokes in order to remember that 50 Cent was big after “In Da Club” broke. I WAS THERE.

PHIL: Ah, Michele, always concerned about the well-being of others. Interesting thought about always preferring “the stories of real people to fiction.” Can’t say I share your viewpoint. It reminds me of the time a character in the movie “Sideways” said the same thing. The reaction of Paul Giamatti’s character was, “That’s an interesting perspective.”

And Paul, thanks for stealing my column idea with your comments on “I Love the New Millennium.” But I’ve already started the column, so I’m going to finish it. A double dose of criticism. Take that, VH1.

Now I’m looking for some closing thoughts on reality television as a whole.

MICHELE: Every second spent watching reality television means less life happening in the real world. We all need to turn off the hypnotic, vapid, mostly irrelevant television more often and go outside and create reality lives.

Phil, you could sing karaoke and stun people with those pipes of yours. Paul, you should definitely consider doing some stand-up comedy as you are surprisingly funny. And me, well, since all the good trapeze schools are out of town, I’m renting a kayak Sunday. Somebody get a camera.

PAUL: Television has its place. For me, nothing beats plain old funny ("Seinfeld,” “Cheers") or gripping drama ("Law & Order,” “24"). Most reality shows offer neither. At least sitcoms don’t pretend to be real, unlike these “reality” shows that feature fewer unresolved outcomes than an NBA playoff game and more hot air than a backwoods Georgia church in mid-afternoon. I don’t watch most of it, I won’t watch most of it, end of story.

PHIL: I see reality TV shows like any other TV shows. There are good and bad. And before you go writing off every reality show under the sun, keep this in mind. Would you rather go back to a world overrun with traditional, formulaic, laughtrack-laden sitcoms?