This blog contains analytical writings that focus on the formal properties of a text. I read the texts for their use of traditions within a genre, how the texts might subvert the properties of a genre, and the texts’s contribution to the future of the form. Until this entry, I have confined my analysis to works of theatre and film. However, something is happening on television that raises fundamental questions about the form and function of TV, and it warrants examination.
I have asked readers to consider questions such as the following: “Why is this a book, or a play, or a film? How is it using the form in which it is presented?” As I discuss the political, social and formal implications of ongoing events within “Big Brother,” CBS-TV’s long-running reality television game show, it’s important that I mention the historical context of television itself.
First, I need to contrast television, an audio-visual medium, with its direct antecedent, film. (Television has much in common with radio, but the latter remains an aural form.) The basic difference is that film is projected on a large screen outside of one’s home, while television airs on a small screen located within one’s home. Until a certain deregulation of the airwaves permitted the mass availability of cable TV at cost, around the early 1980s, television depended upon sponsors who had the license to interrupt broadcasts with advertisements for products, while film depended on consumer ticket sales. At the same time as the deregulation of the airwaves, companies started manufacturing and selling video recordings of film and television programs, which blurred the definitional boundary between television and film as it brought uncensored, full-length movies into the domestic space. The original function of film, as it required leaving the house and spending money, was mostly to provide an extraordinary experience to ordinary lives. As televisions entered every home in the 1950s, film studios released texts that contained at least one of the following elements: spectacle (a disaster, a large-scale battle, a religious story), mature themes such as sexual relationships and the consequences of violence; dialog that could elude the confinements of the television censor by using profanity or explicitly sexual language. An ongoing tension between formal definitions of television and film persists to this day. The intimacy of television encouraged producers to make character-driven, domestic dramas and comedies for the small screen, and the threat of television encouraged studios to transport film audiences to other, more thrilling worlds. While character-driven movies are made today, they are often not given a wide release, and many are shown only on cable television. More and more, the typical “movie” is driven by spectacle, thrilling special effects and “action” (however defined, as violence, mayhem, explosive destruction or the like); such spectacle occurs on television, but it doesn’t make the same impact as the big-screen, theatrical movie experience.
The rise of the “reality television” program, around the turn of the century, expanded the basic definition of the form and function of television: character-driven conflict, with dialog equal or superior to spectacle, engaging home audiences for the purpose of identification, hero-worship or scorn, or any combination of the three that is possible within the human mind. Reality television remains controversial for many reasons, one of which is the virtual replacement of trained actors and prepared television plays for “average people” and a mediated reality similar to that of the documentary profile film. Reality TV is cheaper because it does not have to hire actors and writers, and it gets cheaper all the time because of their immense popularity among audiences. There are several categories of reality television, and all are descended from previous genres. The “celebrity” kind (such as “Toddlers and Tiaras,” or “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” in which established celebrities or celebs-in-the-making are filmed at home) is the natural extension of the celebrity profile pioneered by Edward R. Murrow on CBS’s “Person to Person.” The “competition” type (ranging from “The Amazing Race” to “RuPaul’s Drag Race”) comes from the game show. The “situational” program (taking average people and placing them in unusual areas, such as “Survivor”) has roots in several genres, including the “Candid Camera” man-on-the-street telecasting, the travel show, the nature series, the journalistic investigative report and the game show. The word “reality” is conditional, and potentially misleading. While the scenes and dialog remain “unscripted” and performed by non-actors, and the allure of the shows often lies in the magic of the spontaneous fight, encounter or saying, reality television is a “mediated” reality, filtered through the perspective of the makers, particularly the director, the producer and the team of editors. In fact, editing contributes a great deal, if not most, of the appeal of reality TV. Shots can be juxtaposed, shortened, rearranged and mixed up in order to make a particular point about a person or situation, which places reality television closer to narrative film than real life.
Reality television programs, almost without exception, are produced over a set period of time (anywhere from two to six months), and subjects are sequestered and sworn to silence about the plot details until the airing of the season, at a future time. Furthermore, the subjects are recorded, taped or filmed during a portion of a 24-hour day. In the case of “RuPaul’s Drag Race,” the contestants are filmed while “at work” preparing for the competition; they are not filmed when they are off duty in their hotel rooms (or haven’t been in the last 2 seasons). After filming, the series is edited and screened months later.
“Big Brother” is different. Adapted from a series made in the Netherlands, and inspiring several versions in several nations, CBS-TV’s reality television show attempts a deceptively-benign interpretation of George Orwell’s concept of an all-seeing, penetrating and totalitarian mechanism of scrutiny, exposure, conformity and slavery. In the case of this TV series, “Big Brother is watching,” but it only observes and records words and behaviors; the camera has not managed to invade and reveal the thoughts of the contestants. “Big Brother” features a collection of adults, representing a variety of ages, genders, races and classes, and places them in a large “house” for several months, sequestering the people and isolating them completely from the outside world. They are filmed every hour of the day, and every word is captured on tape. There are actually two versions of “Big Brother”: one is edited and screened three times a week in one-hour installments on network television at prime time, while the other, the “Live Feed,” is screened “in real time” on cable television, for a fee. (This year, controversy arose when the “Live Feed” appeared to be censored or trimmed.)
The original premise of “Big Brother” would fascinate as sociological experiment, but it also functions as a competition for cash prizes, which encourages a “Lord of the Flies” form of cunning, manipulation and power-games among the contestants. (This increases the drama and audience interest, but it also provides more fodder for studying social skills among rivals, and reveals human behavior at its most unseemly, even immoral, as contestants lie, betray, cheat and con their way through “the game.”) Ultimately, contestants need to negotiate their way through a competition that is completely devoid of privacy, confidentiality or secrecy. Big Brother (the camera eye), is always watching and always recording. Not one word escapes scrutiny, and everyone knew this before crossing the “Big Brother” house’s threshold.
“Big Brother” is aired on the CBS television network, which, ironically, has an icon shaped like an eye. CBS, until 30 years ago or so, was known as the “Tiffany network,” as it had a sterling reputation for groundbreaking journalistic reports, incisive and trustworthy reporters and anchorpeople, original fictional comedies and dramas and, especially, an approach to news, documentary, situation comedy and generic drama that pointed ways to the future as audiences learned a new way of seeing the world around them. In the 1950s, Edward R Murrow managed to interview Joseph McCarthy and expose him for the disturbed man that he was; the episode led to the disempowerment of the Communist witch hunt that had a chilling effect on government and media. On November 22, 1963, news anchorman Walter Kronkite wiped tears from his eyes as he reported the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and managed to bring a torn nation closer together for a while. In the 1970s, Norman Lear made “All in the Family,” which breathed historically relevant life into the situation comedy format, as it took on topics of racial prejudice, sexism, class warfare and sexuality. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, CBS drew the most attention for bringing the Vietnam War, political protesters and the impeachment of a President into the living rooms of Americans, educating them about the cruel reality of war, politics and other realities of life.
CBS’s luster has diminished, in part because of the impossibility of a basic-television network, one of the Big Three that monopolized airwaves through the 1970s, maintaining dominion. However, the history of CBS could prove to be an asset for the network as it attempts to address what has become a national scandal on “Big Brother.” Thanks to the existence of the Live Feed, however mediated through the limitations of cable television, censorship or public access, television audiences have learned of the racist, sexist, homophobic and generally derogatory words and behaviors of several of the contestants, chiefly the week 2 “Head of Household,” Aaryn. The internet, its own medium that extends the powers and functions of live television to a degree unimaginable forty years ago, has permitted a range of responses for viewers, including petitions to oust Aaryn, heated debates about racism and freedom of speech. The most dramatic result of the airing of the defamatory words and actions: at least two contestants have been fired from their jobs, with a third contestant receiving a harsh warning from his employer.
In any other context beside this one, it would make sense for CBS to confront the “Big Brother” contestants on the air, giving them a warning or removing them from the program entirely. If it were another reality television program, a special “follow up” or “reunion” episode could be filmed, featuring these gestures. “Big Brother”’s scandal follows the Paula Deen scandal, in which her history of racist words and behaviors were exposed in a workplace discrimination lawsuit, resulting in the loss of Deen’s job on the Food Network, her book deal and several sponsors. Whether or not the Deen scandal heightened sensitivity to the “Big Brother” live feeds is difficult to say. However, this is “hot news,” requiring swift action from producers and alleged accused parties, which poses a dilemma for CBS.
Unlike most reality television shows, “Big Brother” is occurring live, in real time. Moreover, the premise of “Big Brother” demands preservation of the integrity of the sequestration; in other words, the social experiment would be corrupted if “the real world” were to “intrude” upon the hermetically-sealed house. Most of the time, the outside world could wait until the winner is declared in a few months. However, several forces are bringing the topic of race, still the most sensitive subject to discuss, to the forefront of conversation: Paula Deen, the George Zimmerman trial, the right of LGBT consenting adults to marry thanks to the Supreme Court decision, and the “fresh” potential for honest dialog about race, class, gender and sexuality relations in America.
At first, CBS would not show the offending “Live Feed” tapes on the edited one-hour network episodes, and would settle for a letter distancing itself from the contestants’s actions that, of course, the house guests would not be able to read until the show ended. Later, the increasing demand for attention, thanks to online and cable TV reports on the controversy, practically required CBS to feature a few minutes of the offending footage on Sunday, July 7th’s episode. It was seamlessly woven into the “plot” of the episode, revealing the character and machinations of newly-anointed HoH Aaryn. While a few house guests groused about the racist comments, only Howard, an African American, was given a chance to be interviewed about his responses. (Many websites contain specific details about the offending slurs. I will not repeat them, here.) Unfortunately, the episode focused exclusively on Aaryn’s words and actions, and left out those of several other, equally offending, house guests. Furthermore, no editorial comment or questioning occurred. Host Julie Chen expressed her feelings, a mixture of anger, frustration, confusion, bewilderment and the vestiges of shame brought on by anti-Asian bullying in the Seventies. Chen did it, however, on “The Talk,” a separate show. She has not been given a forum for those sentiments on “Big Brother,” which she has hosted throughout its 15-year tenure.
CBS, at this time, is faced with history. The network used to make history, as it did with Murrow and Kronkite, as well as reporting history. The surfacing of racial tensions, heretofore unseen, buried or denied, on this reality game show has been a catalyst for further dialog about diverse groups “getting along” with one another in the same situation, and whether the unspoken problem is the traditionally accepted boundary between public and private speech that “Big Brother,” by design, completely ruptures. Many people would call this history in the making. Yes, "Big Brother" is just a television reality show. However, the premise (sealing off a group of people from the outside world with no media, no phones, no contact with anyone other than the "Big Brother" staff) gives us a unique perspective when history is made.
This is not the first time “Big Brother” was confronted with history. For example, "Big Brother 2" was counting down to the Final Three contestants on the day of September 11, 2001. Monica, one of the top 3 finalists, had lost a cousin in the attacks. It has been claimed that Will, Monica and Nicole were the only 3 human beings in America NOT aware of the devastating terrorist attacks. The producers had a dilemma: inform Monica about her missing cousin and risk corrupting the social experiment that was the show, or withhold the news from Monica until the show ended weeks later (and cause untold emotional pain). "Big Brother" decided to inform Monica before the show ended; Monica decided to stay in the house and play out the game.
I'm glad that Julie Chen ("Big Brother"'s host) spoke out about the harm done by "Big Brother 15"'s house guests, with their racist/sexist/homophobic comments and actions, on another program ("The Talk"). I sincerely hope that Chen, and the producers, find a way to inform the house guests about the reaction to their comments and actions, which has made national news and controversy. However, Chen and the producers walk a very fine line. The house guests, by definition, must be cut off from the outside world in order to maintain the show's premise. At the same time, the world is watching and responding, and it might be unfair to withhold the information from the house guests before the show ends. Furthermore, Chen might appear to be insensitive or even weak if she maintains a pose of benign observation during the episodes and says nothing on the actual program.
Ironically, the offenders themselves occupy social identities that are vulnerable to stereotyping, derogatory words, and prejudice. Both Aaryn and Spencer are Southern. Spencer is a working class man from the South. Jeremy is a Native American. Two others are women who are professionals in the marketplace. Aaryn is young, blonde, attractive and feminine as well as strong-willed and determined.
What all this says about the subject or the object of the prejudicial behaviors remains to be seen. At the moment, though, “Big Brother” is watching the world watching it to see what the next move will be. History, even if it’s a footnote in the history books, awaits.
