I wasn't a fan of The Bachelor, versions one or two, because I just find it ludicrous that a couple could find twue wuv from appearing on a television show. In the short history of reality tv, only Pam and Judd from Real World: San Francisco seem to have made it work, and they didn't start dating until after the show and weren't married until five years later.
Now, I hadn't seen anything but the pilot episode and the last hour of last night's episode, but details like that don't usually stop me. All I knew were the spoilers -- namely, that Trista was already pregnant with Charlie's baby -- and so I was really only watching for dramatic irony potential, the schadenfreude of knowing when someone's about to get dumped.
Only, of course, it didn't happen, and Ryan won, and the boards are happy and surprised. As for me, I was entertained by the surprise, and I wish them the best, but expect, well, reality.
It strikes me that "reality show" as a genre is such a broad term that we need some clarification and delineation at this point, because to put "The Bachelorette" and "Fear Factor" in the same genre seems ludicrous. Here, then, is a provisional taxonomy:
1. Competition shows: Take some people, and a contrived, often isolated setting and a set of rules which gradually eliminates contestants, and see who wins. See "Survivor", "The Amazing Race", "American Idol", "The Mole". My favorite subgenre.
2. Dating shows: Really, a subset of #1. Dating shows are competitions where the stated goal is love, not money. Again, it's in a contrived, generally isolated location. "The Bachelor", "Bachelorettes In Alaska", "Joe Millionaire", "Love Cruise". I'll only watch them if there's something inadvertantly entertaining going on, like the editing of Joe Millionaire or the lumber-dorks of Alaska.
3. Game/stunt shows: There's a competition, but no ongoing narrative between the episodes. Rewards are instantaneous. "Fear Factor", "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire", "Are You Hot?", that thing with John McEnroe that lasted about two minutes. I don't watch 'em.
4. Observational shows: We're going to put a bunch of you somewhere, but we're not going to overly structure what happens. There is no "prize" to win at the end. "The Real World", "The Osbournes". If the cast is good, can be compulsively watchable, but lack of structure means that if the people aren't interesting (as with most Real World seasons), I'll stop watching after week two.
That's the basics. There are two additional glosses to note:
a. Genres can be combined. "Big Brother" and "Sorority Life" are both observational-plus-competition, although the competition in "Big Brother" was contrived, while in "Sorority Life" it was organic to the reality being filmed.
b. Just as every fortune cookie can have the words "in bed" appended to the end, every category of reality show can have "celebrity" as a modifer. See "Celebrity Mole", "Star Dates", "Celebrity Fear Factor", "The Surreal Life", "The Osbournes", "I'm A Celebrity: Get Me Out Of Here!" These shows tend to have a level of celebrity bottom-feeding that's disturbing to watch. I mean, okay, Maria Conchita Alonso's star may have fallen, but competing in the rainforest with Stuttering John and Melissa Rivers isn't winning anyone any cred points.
No comments:
Post a Comment