However, our perceptions of the characters are very one sided, as we are constricted to seeing only one side of that character—the one that fits their current storyline the best. This prevents us from seeing, per se, the kind heartedness of a character that has just cheated on their partner.
The words ‘characters’ and ‘storylines’ fit well with my next point; the conversations and the events that take place throughout the episode seem far too rehearsed and coincidental for them to be actual ‘reality’.
Location shots are used of London sights and attractions to establish the setting of the scene. They also are only of Central London attractions, and the shops and restaurants et al all seem to highlight the wealth of the individuals who shop there, eat there etc.
Reactions, for the majority of the show, are shown using over-the-shoulder shots to portray the reaction of the person who is being told something. There is also usage of eye line matching shots that show you what the character may have been looking at from their angle.
The episode seems to comprise of short segments that have then been edited in post production so that they can seek out the most entertaining of segments. This is obvious as the episode transitions from one group of people at a restaurant to a boxing arena and then back to the restaurant again.
Tzvetan Torodov’s narrative theory that conventional narratives are structured into five stages; Equilibrium—disruption—recognition—repair—reinstatement, could be present within the episode, as you can apply it to the situation between Louis, Spencer and Jamie (the love triangle storyline).
The fact that it fits so well with Torodov’s theory does support the question “How much of Made In Chelsea is actually reality?”
