Structured Reality and Faked Reality: Why is Reality so important?

TOWIE  (The Only Way Is Essex) and Made in Chelsea are fine examples of a new breed of Reality TV - Structured Reality. TOWIE first aired in October 2010 and I'm sure many people hoped it would fade away and disappear. However, the show has now enjoyed 2 series, with a 3rd on the way next month, a Christmas special and the audience award BAFTA earlier on this year. Viewing figures have been growing steadily and have gone from around 1 million to 1.8 million - significant figures for an ITV2 show.
After TOWIE came Made in Chelsea. First shown in May this year on E4, the series follows a group of young people at the other end of the social spectrum. Though not as successful as TOWIE, audience figures climbed steadily throughout Series 1. Filming has already begun on Series 2.

So what is it making these programmes so strangely compelling? A review in the Telegraph suggests it is the 'instant TV guilty pleasure' they give to people. The ability to immerse yourself in someone else's (real) life, to be a voyeur and see the (structured and manipulated) events unfold before us. Isn't that what Big Brother (real...ish) and Soap Operas (fiction) have been doing for years? These programmes could possibly fill a gap and fulfill an audience need. The reality (...) of Big Brother could be, even with the best selection and mediation in the world, sometimes downright boring, sometimes uncomfortable to watch, sometimes unnerving (how much were we, as viewers, and the contestants being manipulated?). Not only that, sometimes we had a little too much power - always getting rid of the most fun people to watch just because they had too much 'personality'. Soap Operas at the other end of the spectrum can be, even with the best writers and actors in the world, sometimes downright boring, sometimes uncomfortable to watch and so on. Perhaps the problem with the Soap Opera is that we are knowlingly manipulated and have no power or control. We can't change storylines, we can't evict characters we dislike and we can't make them sit up and listen however much we shout at the TV!
So, that leaves Structured Reality. What is interesting is that the producers often protest at great length the 'reality' of these programmes. But maybe it is the mix of the 'unreal posing as real' that makes them so appealing. So wonderfully and painfully staged all at the same time. As unknown, 'wannabe' actors the 'stars' are vulnerable and audiences get some of their power  back especially through the Social Media sites which gives these shows the status they have.

This phenomenon is also becoming increasingly popular in Film with, what are commonly believed to be the 'Faked Documentaries'  Catfish, Exit Through the Gift Shop and I'm Still Here. These films, released last year have all been surrounded by speculation as to their authenticity. However, whereas the TV shows seem to enjoy utilising the codes and conventions of fictional drama (non-diegetic soundtrack, dramatic pauses, close-ups etc.) their film counterparts work hard to use the language of 'reality' (shaky hand-cam, narrative voiceovers and to-camera interview footage).


What can we conclude? Baudrillard would argue that any discussion of 'reality' is futile as the process to create and present the 'reality' for the audience makes the concept immediately void. It is still worth trying to answer the question: Why is it so important that these types of films and television programmes are 'perceived' as real? Why do the makers of TOWIE and Made in Chelsea spend time defending the authenticity of the cast and situations and why do layers of 'truths', half-truths and rumours surround the documentary films? Would our engagement with the texts alter if believed we were watching pure fiction?  

The Telegraph review Made in Chelsea 
 Radio 4 Today Programme 'The only way is...Structured Reality' 

Child Models....?

10 year old Thylane Blondeau, model daughter of a French Football player and TV presenter, recently appeared in the French edition of Vogue. This has caused outrage amongst parents and politicians. In February this year, David Cameron recenty called for tighter restrictions on the representation of children, calling it the 'inappropriate commercialisation of children'.
From a media point of view there are a few things to consider. Vogue is a mature and highly established publication. They would be fully aware of the potential implications of publishing this fashion shoot. What would they hope to gain from it? Do you agree with the concept that 'no publicity is bad publicity'? What are the potential implications of these and similar images of young children, in terms of their representation? Is this merely a moral panic? What responsibilities do advertisers and publications have to their audiences?

Read more on these stories here:
The Independent
 The Sun

Olly Moss Illustrations

Those of you who know Empire magazine will already know Olly Moss' work as an illustrator and poster designer. Take a look at the added slideshow of his work. It may give you inspiration for your own practical productions or make you consider it as an area for investigation.

'Reality TV Reaching New Depths of Irresponsibility'......?

BBC's reputation is questioned again over claims that scenes from a documentary over a tribal group in the Amazon were faked to show the tribe - the Machigenga as 'savages'. the documentary was shown by BBC Knowledge and the Travel Channel. BBC state they had no knowledge of the production values of the TV company, Cicada, but that the programme has been linked to the BBC through broadcast is still damaging by association.
Aside from the BBC, the bigger worry is the representation of tribal communities through Western Media. Survival International, a human rigths organisation said it was a 'depressing example of the way tribal people are routinely portrayed'.

Read the full story here