To be scripted or to not be scripted!
That is the question I pose to anyone willing to answer.
The influx of "reality" T.V. shows the past years is expanding at an alarming rate. At least an alarm goes off in my mind, a person who doesn't need to turn on the television to see reality.
Let's not get specific at what bothers whom or what "shows" are liked and disliked.
I'm not an accomplished television producer nor a historian of this subject.
But using common sense I would like to think it's design was to entertain.
Of course this definition has changed over the years with satellite feeds connecting the entire world.
However, the roots of success or purpose still relates to entertaining the masses.
This is obvious I know, for a show, series, program won't last long if no one is watching.
I suppose the lack of ideas or perhaps a new outlook on the idea invoked reality T.V. as we now view it.
BUT what constitutes reality? What truly is REAL and UNSCRIPTED?
I thought reality is what I do every day and television along with my dreams were fantasy.
It looks like television executives don't agree me. Anything and everything that they can put a camera on and get people to watch, they will air.
I'll be the first to admit to be sucked into watching "reality T.V." when my time actually in reality was more relevant and entertaining.
I'm obviously no current or former celebrity and haven't had a televised camera exposure.
But personally I don't see how I can be myself when you stick a camera on me.
Do I want the world to see me pick my nose or masturbate? Would you?
Who could honestly be the same as they are now when anyone who wanted to watch could do so?
I don't even do things around my own family let alone the world at large.
Sure anything for T.V. right? But I'm not buying lies.
Sorry FOX but I don't need to turn to your channel to see reality, I live it with every breath.
I could continue writing this until my reality ended, but instead I'll use that time to ensure my reality is really what I am.
Posts
1 comment:
As a real historian of cinema and art in general I can safely say that both 'reality shows' and all documentaries are indeed of a 'real' quality.
Don't misjudge that last statement though. From the tortured colon of a constipated scholar, it is the reality that the author is placing before you that barks of 'a' reality. When the real 'world' can simply imply bullshit.
I go for the bullshit.
By true definition of 'documentary' or 'reality' the subjects of study are completely unaware and/or are void of ANY INTERACTION.
Meaning that all the reality shows you have been seeing are indeed, bullshit.
If you have to audition for the 'reality' show... bullshit.
If you have to go or live somewhere other than your own home... bullshit.
If it was handed to you before the cameras were to roll, I again, heartily offer you... bullshit.
THE single most aberrant scam on the cinema audience first produced was the 'documentary' Nanook of the North.
EVERYTHING in the film was staged. Now, before the uneducated nay-sayers start their revolt, I offer that they look this internationally recognized historical fact in any historical reference of their choice, printed after 1970.
THE ONLY reality tv (or its brethren) in existence is that of nature photography. And even that is under great scrutiny if it is edited out of context.
FOX network, might I suggest that you stick to pressing the censorship board with how many bared breasts you can sneak into a broadcast and whether we can slip in an extra 'naughty' word into the dialogue of another meaningless scene in a starving series you're still contracted with.
But then, that's just my point of view...
Post a Comment