Notable Articles and Screening Room

Nobody Wants to Go Home: A Unified Theory of Reality TV

By posted at 9:05 am on January 26, 2010 10

I.
In the 1990s, a scourge swept across the world of entertainment.  It threatened the livelihoods of those in the creative industry and presented a world where the average person, dwelling in obscurity, could be plucked from the masses and made a star.  It was equal parts thrilling and horrifying.  No, I’m not talking about the internet, I’m talking about its cultural predecessor, reality television.  Reality TV was supposed to devour television.  It was going to make writers and actors irrelevant, and single-handedly lower the national reading level by two full grades.  Reality television became shorthand for stupidity and quickly found a place as a scapegoat for one side or another of the culture war.  These shows, with their cameras hidden and seen, were Orwellian nightmares come to life, Jean Beaudrillard essays in pixelated form.  They were the beginning of the end of the world.  Except that they weren’t.  They didn’t really do any of the things they were feared to do.  And yet, though their overall presence on the airwaves is a fraction what it was at their peak, their influence remains enormous.

We can say this now, from our perch in the shiny new decade.  We’ve largely moved on to other fascinations, other distractions.  We’re scapegoating Twilight now, and we’re all terrified of the internet. Or we’re terrified of Twilight and scapegoating the internet.  Paris Hilton has moved on to Twitter.  We’ve all moved on to Twitter.  But it wasn’t too long ago when none of this seemed possible.  It was a time before Lost, before The Wire, before the end.  It was the glory days of reality television, and it all started on a cable network that had hours to fill, and little money with which to fill them.

II.
MTV wanted to make a soap opera.  Like all the new cable networks, they had to fill the hours.  America, it turned out, had an insatiable appetite for television, and the new cable networks were struggling to keep up.  Some of them turned to re-runs of programs that had been modest hits in their original network incarnations — the My Two Dads and Eight Is Enoughs of the world — while others made cut-rate game shows and aired Just One of the Guys four times a day.

MTV had tried a few different things to kill time — most notably, a twenty-year experiment in which they showed music videos in their entirety  — but had finally settled on a strategy of appealing to youth culture:  the eternal fountain of disposable income.  MTV’s dilemma, however, was that, while it recognized that a soap opera would likely be popular and would round out its lineup of oversexed game shows and quasi-journalistic news programs, they lacked the funds to produce such a show.  Their solution was brilliant — they’d simply make a show without actors or writers — two of the most expensive parts of any decent soap opera.

The result was The Real World, whose premise was neatly summed up in its introductory statement:  “This is the true story of seven strangers picked to live in a house and have their lives taped to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start being real.”  That I can remember this sentence, awkward though it may be, with greater ease than I can The Pledge of Allegiance is testament to the incredible success of The Real World.  Not only is it the longest running program in MTV’s history (the network recently renewed the program for a 26th season), it created an entire category of programming and influenced some of the most successful shows on television today.

cover

III.
The first two seasons of The Real World contain the seeds of all reality television, as well some elements that would find their way into today’s most successful scripted programming.  At first glance, the first season of The Real World appears to be a collection of random, diverse twenty-somethings thrown together in Manhattan.  A closer look reveals that all of the cast members, from model/actor wannabe Eric Nies to writer/journalist Kevin Powell, aspired to a career in entertainment or the arts.  The casting logic of the show was fairly simple:  find some young people willing to try this experiment in exchange for some exposure.  In this way, the cast member’s situation wasn’t unlike that of today’s bloggers and vloggers — they worked for free in exchange for an audience, presumably with the hope that the experience would translate into a career.  For some it did; for others, not so much.

The first season of The Real World relied heavily on the pressures of their various careers for dramatic tension.  We saw the characters balancing the time commitments of practice, rehearsal and performance with their newfound quasi-family unit back at the loft, a situation the young audience for the show could begin to appreciate.  This balancing act — with help from some racial tension — blew up infamously when Kevin missed a group dinner meeting and was threatened with expulsion from the loft and the show.  In the end, Kevin remained, but one could see that this episode, easily the most dramatic of the season, would not be an isolated incident in future iterations of the show.

Season two of The Real World is, arguably, the single most important season of any TV show of the last twenty years.  It is one of those watershed moments that happens once or twice a generation.  The first season of The Sopranos was such a moment.  The third season of Mad Men, one could argue, was another. The second season of The Real World is so important because it revealed the flaws in the show’s premise and, more importantly, several ways to work around those flaws.  It provided, in a way, the template for all of the major reality TV shows to follow, though one could be forgiven for not realizing it at the time.

cover

The second season took roughly the same premise as the first and moved it to Los Angeles, where it played up the aspirational angle a little bit more.  Again we saw characters who desired fame and success — singer Tami, comedian David, country singer Jon — and again there was a healthy dollop of racial and sexual tension.  This volatile mix exploded mid-season when David “assaulted” Tami, pulling a blanket off of her after she repeatedly asked him not to, revealing her in her underwear.  For this crime — something kids at camp do every summer — David was forced out of the house and off the show entirely.

Several aspects of the controversy are worth noting.  Firstly, the incident initially appeared to be a joke.  While the house was somewhat divided over how serious it was (from where I stand, it’s pretty clear that David was trying to be funny and, maybe, a little bit flirty), the general consensus, at first blush, was that it wasn’t a big deal.  It was only after the issue was rehashed several times in the confessional that each person seemed to realize it as a moment of great import.  One could almost see each cast member realizing that this made great drama as the issue built and built. In the end, the producers cited Tami’s request for safety and removed David.

Secondly, it’s no coincidence that the two characters at the heart of the major strife in seasons one and two were both black men.  The Real World aimed to be a microcosm of American society, and at least in this respect, it succeeded.  Black men would find themselves vilified and ostracized for much of the show’s run.

While the house may have been split on David’s departure, the audience ate it up.  Removing him from the show turned out to be the single most interesting thing to happen that season.  This speaks to both how dramatic the confrontation and aftermath were as well as to how boring the rest of the show was.  No character signified the stagnation of season two more than country singer Jon, who spent nearly every minute of his screentime watching television and drinking Kool-Aid.  The producers’ disgust with Jon must’ve been intense.  How does one build an aspirational story arc around someone who refuses to do much of anything?

If season two hinted at the potential that overt conflict might play on the program, season three confirmed it.  When the noxious Puck refused to play nice with his fellow cast members, particularly the saintly AIDS patient Pedro Zamora, he found himself voted out of the house by popular decree.   Here, long before the phrase “voted off the island” became a popular idiom, we see the template that reality shows would use for years to come.  If people tune in to find out if someone might get booted off the show, what if you kicked someone off every episode?

Additionally, season three marks one of the last seasons the cast members would be left to their own devices (Season four’s setting in London was interesting enough to generate drama on its own).  In subsequent seasons, Real Worlders would be asked to do a variety of tasks, including working with children (a disastrous idea, considering that alcohol was fast becoming a vital component of every RW season) to running a tanning salon (okay, spray tanning salon, but still).  The shows may not have lacked for drama, but they needed a scaffolding to hang that drama on, and it would have to come from outside the house.

IV.
It is difficult to remember how revolutionary that first season of The Real World felt.  Here were people, attractive people, yes, but regular folks (something that would become less and less the case as the seasons wore on) living their lives.  The emotion on the show seemed real.  When characters fought, the scenes became simultaneously difficult to watch and irresistible.  There was an untamed, unpredictable quality to these scenes that made them compelling.  Something might happen; this was the “real world” after all.  (The producers should be given some credit for simply getting out of the way.  One has to imagine the network wasn’t pleased when the season one cast decided to de facto endorse presidential candidate Jerry Brown by painting the number for his donation hotline on the wall of their loft, and yet they allowed it.)

In addition to its unpredictability, the show was a voyeur’s dream.  These people were fascinating!  Watching them do the most basic things — eat a bowl of cereal or prepare for bed — felt illicit, like we were privileged to something special and unique.  Nobody, it turns out, ate a bowl of cereal exactly like you did.

And when they revealed something unique about themselves — such as Heather B.’s infatuation with NBA all star Larry Johnson (“Larry Johnson is so fine!”) — it was revelatory.  Reality TV almost certainly created the now ubiquitous straw man argument “Why do I care what you ate for breakfast today?”  That this question is raised about so much that happens online is no coincidence.  It’s certainly possible that our 90s diet of reality TV validated our own solipsism, which bore fruit during the latter half of the 2000s, when web 2.0 made it possible for us to share our own lives with the world.

Whatever the case, the initial infatuation with “reality” didn’t last.  A few things broke the spell.  For one thing, The Real World started to seem less and less real.  Cast members knew the experiences of previous Real Worlders, lending the entire show a meta quality that it previously lacked.  The first episode of every Real World season now consists mostly of people waiting to discover exactly how awesome the house will be.  They also know that each season involves a trip to some fun, exotic locale, and they anticipate these trips, discussing where they might go.

This acknowledgment of the conceit is present in any long-running reality show.  It can’t be that the women of The Bachelor all came up with the phrase “here for the right reasons” on their own, can it?  Rather they learned that phrase through watching previous seasons of the show, just as the girls of America’s Next Top Model learned to scream “Tyra Mail!” every time the show’s producers drop off one of their cryptic missives.  In fact, the dialogue of the shows is often so codified as to seem scripted.  They may not have employed a writer to produce such gems as “Nobody wants to go home,” and “I’m not here to make friends,” but the result is the same.

For these programs, built around elaborate elimination rituals and repetition of formulas, this self-awareness is both inevitable and even desirable — if someone follows the show enough to know its every twist and turn, to be able to trace the patterns of the show, then the show must have truly reached a place of importance.  It’s affirming for the product to be emulated in this manner.  And when that emulation includes asserting, repeatedly “This is real, okay?”, all the better.

For other shows, the effect is less desirable.  Certainly The Hills struggled to maintain its veneer of “reality.”  It was difficult to convince the audience that Lauren Conrad was living anything resembling a normal life, even by the bizarre standards of an affluent LA party girl, when she was simultaneously the Teen Vogue covergirl and an intern at the magazine.  It’s no wonder that the show’s “characters” seem to burn out after a few seasons.  It can be difficult to keep up the illusion.

At some point, even the people on The Real World began to seem less real.  Gone were the mildly overweight, the slightly odd looking.  Each cast began more and more to resemble an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog.  The show lost its ties to the artistic world (always tenuous at best) and became primarily about clubbing and hot-tubbing.  It ceased to be a mirror into the everyday lives of its characters and became more the document of a long vacation.

The shift in focus from reality to fantasy isn’t unique to The Real World.  Reality TV is no longer about reality, not the world that any of us live in, anyway (if it ever was).  Most reality TV shows are just game shows containing reality TV elements.  Survivor, Big Brother, The Biggest Loser, America’s Next Top Model, and The Bachelor are all long game shows in which the contestants play for a prize much larger than anything they might have won on The Price is Right (Indeed, on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, they compete for a spouse). No game show has made more of The Real World’s great revelation than American Idol has:  that being real is all well and good, but what people really want is blood (metaphorically speaking).  Idol was among the first shows to take the next step of involving the audience in the fate of its cast members, upping the ante just that much in the process.  In fact, the show makes entire episodes out of the elimination ceremonies.

The only non-game show reality shows left are about people who were most decidedly unreal.  Somewhere along the line, somebody decided that we only wanted to watch people do nothing if we’d already watched them do something.  Today, the only reality shows that simply follow people around in their daily lives are celebrity-based shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians (Featuring Kim Kardashian, a celebrity famous for appearing in the 2000s version of a reality show, the internet sex tape).  The lone exceptions to this rule are what might be called “anthropological shows,” programs that aim to show us a life we will never lead.  Jersey Shore, The Real Housewives of Wherever, The Hills, and the myriad shows about bizarre families are exemplar of this.  Equal parts curiosity and incredulity attract viewers to these shows.  Reality TV has ceased to try to show us normalcy, perhaps because it no longer needs to.

Around the time The Real World drifted into the land of fantasy, the internet emerged from its awkward adolescence to become a platform for personal expression that made anyone who so desired into a kind of quasi-reality TV character.  One could write an online journal (they called them blogs) or video themselves doing… well, anything.  With that kind of capability, reality TV was free to explore the less commonplace aspects of modern existence.  Occasionally, the mundane still has the power to amuse — think about the craze created around The Situation’s summertime Jersey Shore regimen of G.T.L. (Gym, Tan, Laundry) — but it’s not like it was.  For a few years there, watching people’s lives was all we really wanted to do.

V.
Reality TV still has a massive footprint on television, but all but the biggest hits have moved back to cable, where they help fill the endless hours.  That isn’t to say that reality TV’s influence isn’t felt in a variety of programs.   The confessional, perhaps The Real World’s most important innovation, plays a key role in a new breed of sitcom.  The casts of The Office, Parks and Recreation, and several other shows often sit alone in a room and confess their thoughts to the camera in a direct address.  These shows revel in the mundane, appropriating the reality of The Real World and adding to it the perfection of scripted drama.  They bring back some of the imperfections of the early days of reality TV.

It’s difficult to say exactly why we retreated from reality television.  My own theory is that the watershed moment was the 9/11 terror attacks, a media event that was just a little too real.  After we’d seen that, reality was dead, so to speak.  We needed something other than ourselves, bigger than ourselves.  HBO had already begun the counterrevolution, airing The Sopranos in 1999, and continuing with Six Feet Under before finally reaching its apex with The Wire.  These were long-form narratives the likes of which a television audience had never seen.  Where television had seemed hopelessly shallow a few years earlier, suddenly it was entering a golden age.  Soon the networks were following suit, bringing out a series of expensive, indulgently fantastic dramas, most notably Lost, Heroes and 24.

It might seem like a stretch to call the late surge of “quality” scripted dramas a direct reaction to the glut of reality TV that permeated the networks in the late 90s, but it appears to be the case.  Television moves in a somewhat cyclical manner, with each new generation proclaiming the death of the sitcom.  Perhaps each subsequent generation will proclaim the death of reality TV.

If they do, they will be wrong, as the reality shows are proving as durable and adaptable as the sitcom, and it’s no surprise that MTV leads the pack in innovation.  Just when it looks like The Real World is running on fumes, The Hills emerges from the ashes of Laguna Beach to become a phenomenon.  As The Hills wanes and Lauren Conrad decamps the more lucrative world of young adult fiction, Jersey Shore arrives, tanned and fist pumping its way into the zeitgeist.  In the world of reality, Ecclesiastes was right:  “There is no new thing under the sun.”

[Image credits: MTV]





Share this article

More from the Millions

10 Responses to “Nobody Wants to Go Home: A Unified Theory of Reality TV”

  1. For Your Edification « 21st Century Literature
    at 9:50 am on January 26, 2010

    [...] Here it is: “A Unified Theory of Reality TV” [...]

  2. Shana
    at 12:04 pm on January 26, 2010

    I’m going to come off as a fuddy duddy old lady but isn’t this website about books? I’d really rather read a piece about Stephen King (who I’ve never read) than about TV shows. Even if it’s well-written. I don’t have TV–oh I have the 20″ ugly thing next to my couch but it’s for DVDs from Netflix. But w.a.t.c.h.i.n.g TV, no thanks. I’m aware of the phenomenon called reality TV and I know that the little boy in a runaway balloon hoax had its ultimate destination for his family–reality TV. And that insipid couple who crashed a state dinner–they wanted to be on reality TV. So it’s a big deal culturally, I suppose. But not in my cultural world. I’m out of the loop and not a bit sorry. Last month it was some pop singer Beyonce and now it’s this–my needs are going unmet here. Please, Max, can we raise the bar?

  3. Buzz
    at 12:05 pm on January 26, 2010

    Patrick – good on you for writing this. I have ranted along the same line for years about this exact same subject but never got around to penning an essay. Like you, I have long felt that The Real World is an incredible cultural indicator, which you have glossed with acute insight. I would like to offer slightly different takes on a couple of your ideas, however, to further discussion:

    I.

    “Reality TV is no longer about reality, not the world that any of us live in, anyway (if it ever was).”

    I think that reality TV actually mirrors the popular culture idea of reality, fueled by the technological amassing of “friends” and other qualitative data converted to popularity that is then translated into some sense of self-worth. No matter what you think of the casts from the early seasons, they all had their own agendas and intended to use the show as a platform to further those agendas. Writers, dancers, actors, artists, musicians – they all knew they would be on MTV in front of millions of people. As you point out, spending time together was a mandatory chore that disrupted their respective hustles. In the more recent seasons (and I admit to not having kept a super close eye on this since Real World Las Vegas) the ambition is instant fame (or infamy), an exotic field trip, a free ticket to New York for a reunion show and thousands of Facebook fans, and if you really make a spectacle of yourself maybe you can squeeze out some endorsement deals or get $10,000 to show up at clubs.

    II.

    “My own theory is that the watershed moment was the 9/11 terror attacks, a media event that was just a little too real. After we’d seen that, reality was dead, so to speak.”

    I would argue that reality is, and on some level always has been, spectacle. These days it’s accelerated and what has been killed is the idea of metaphor. There is no remove or distance anymore with the instantaneous and constant communication that drives user-generated content (and I think of reality TV as user-generated content).

    True, the beautiful people body types and ability to live life for a few months with no concerns other than getting drunk and hooking up is not how most of us live. But it does seem to have become a shared popular culture aspiration. From what I can tell there still seems to be a glut of reality TV programming, from Top Chef to The Apprentice. Don’t these shows have all the same canned drama and debacles of The Real World?

    Warhol’s “fifteen minutes of fame” quip is the goal today, but, in the words of Kim Cascone, in “a homogenized culture of consumer generated content [it is] a famous-for-fifteen-megabytes culture.” The casts of reality TV series are not so much about creating their own work as abiding by the doctrines of contemporary consumer culture.

    This probably also speaks to some of visual art, film and writing that is popular today. But that’s a whole different essay . . .

    Great piece!

  4. Cindy
    at 12:24 pm on January 26, 2010

    I was so obsessed with The Real World for the first three seasons, then I just lost interest. This has happened to me with other reality shows – first it’s fascinating, then it just becomes old hat, full of vapid characters. It’s almost as if the story-telling when the “rules” are relatively unknown is more compelling than when you have expert players.

    Shana – isn’t TV just story-telling in a different format? Saying you don’t watch TV to me isn’t some sort of moral high ground. It just means you don’t or can’t appreciate that art form. I thought Patrick’s thesis ties in nicely to The Millions when he talks about reality vs. long-form narratives. I’d be curious if readers felt that the types of stories told on television are mirrored in the current narratives of books. Certainly there are wildly popular fad-ish tropes that are exploited to make money (romantic vampires come to mind). However, there also has been an explosion in memoirs that might be connected to the rise in reality TV. I’ll have to think about that.

    At any rate, Patrick, thanks for the trip down memory lane, with a dose of self-reflection!

  5. Shana
    at 1:05 pm on January 26, 2010

    Second thoughts. I’m currently reading with great enjoyment What the Dog Saw by Malcolm Gladwell. It’s a compilation of about 10 years of writing in the New Yorker. I just read the chapter on the hair-coloring advertising in the 50s and I remember the ads, the copy, the photography by Avedon and Penn. I was a teen and very concerned with fashion in the way that teens are–Seventeen Magazine was IT.

    So a couple of points. 1) it’s very important for young or new or upcoming writers to have a place where their writing gets read. Stories or articles, doesn’t matter. The Millions does that.

    2) if the article by Patrick had been about The Wire, for example (which I have seen 3 times, every disc, via Netflix and my library), my interest level would have been 100%. So because I have zero interest in the subject at hand and have never actually seen any reality show but have strong negative feelings about it because I think it is lowest common denomintor stuff–tawdry, not intelligent, humiliating–well clearly there’s some baggage there!

    3) part of the specialness of the New Yorker is that pop culture gets dissected by brilliant social commentary. I don’t send a letter to the editor at the New Yorker to complain that an article on the stay of hip-hop (who would have thunk it?) was wasting my reading time.

    MY APOLOGIES to Patrick and Max.

  6. I Saw the Sun Briefly
    at 4:29 pm on January 26, 2010

    [...] lastly, in a bit of shameless self-promotion, I have an essay at The Millions about The Real World and the rise (and fall?) of reality television:  “Season two of The Real World is, arguably, the single most important season of any TV [...]

  7. Sarah McCoy
    at 7:26 pm on January 26, 2010

    Great cultural observation, Patrick!

    The MTV “Jersey Shore” season was my breaking point. Seriously. After 10 minutes of it, I turned to my husband and said, “Where the hell did they get these people? They are NOT normal. They have major issues. MTV chose them for their issues in the hopes of a Teresa Jersey Housewife table situation.” And then the lightning bolt struck: Had I really just benchmarked this reality show by another equally dysfunctional one? Oh my God. My brain has officially been pureed by reality television. I turned it off then. I couldn’t do it. (Well, except for the punch. I’ll blame my husband; he made me watch the punch.)

    I absolutely concur with your statement: “Reality TV is no longer about reality, not the world that any of us live in, anyway (if it ever was). Most reality TV shows are just game shows containing reality TV elements.” Nail on the head, my friend. I remember when the first “Survivor: Borneo” aired. Talk about revolutionary. I was riveted. It was REAL. But again, it wasn’t. Even that was a game show.

    As a culture, we’re obsessed with reality TV that is nothing close to real life. It’s its own brand of mucked up fiction. If somebody filmed me sitting in my office writing for 8 hours, drinking my tea, munching cereal-n-soy milk, scratching my nose and staring for extended unblinking minutes, I don’t think I’d get my own show on BRAVO. That’s reality.

    This actually speaks to my blog post regarding Iraq War fiction and our growing American numbness to our own life experiences. When we’re bombarded by “nonfiction” that is and isn’t, our psyche begins to lump it all together. We become desensitized to what’s really real. So I say again that Tim O’Brien had it spot on: Only through our fiction (make-believe stories) will we be able to feel (and therefore, sincerely understand) the truth of our current reality. It’s a tall order for fiction writers, but one I believe we are capable of meeting.

    ~Sarah

    P.S. Here’s my blog post on war fiction for those who care to read further: http://sarahmccoy.wordpress.com/

  8. Chris
    at 4:34 am on January 28, 2010

    [Two days after the last post, I hope this gets noticed]

    Don’t forget “An American Family,” filmed in 1971 and aired in 1973. The show featured the appropriately named Loud family in CA. The show was rife with tension and important topics. The parents ended up divorced. The eldest son, Lance, was gay and sought out Andie Warhol as part of Lance’s minutes of fame.

    The show transitioned as the family/cast became aware of the camaras. Each, especially Lance, developed an on-screen persona replacing their normal self. The reality/fantasy line blurred as each Loud tuned into the meta-narrative of reality T.V.

    This all occured before the P.C. but during a time of intense social upheaval. This show presaged the reality t.v. show mania.

  9. The genius of ‘Reality TV’ « axe, pen, & bell
    at 9:44 pm on January 29, 2010

    [...] idea that reality TV reveals anything deep about reality is itself an illusion. For one thing, as this article points out, most of people’s worst fears never came to pass. There’s been nothing like [...]

  10. pete
    at 2:48 pm on February 3, 2010

    Mass-produced stalker calibre voyeurism as a commercially legitimate entertainment industry staple.
    Gotta love American ingenuity.

Post a Response

Comments with unrelated links will be deleted. If you'd like to reach our readers, consider buying an advertisement instead.

Anonymous and pseudonymous comments that do not add to the conversation will be deleted at our discretion.