In mid-1980s, when surveillance technology such as CCTV (closed-circuit television) became accessible, Britain produced its own reality programmes, which revealed real accidents, crimes and emergencies. By using CCTV footage, these reality programmes departed from traditional documentary and were quickly accepted by the curious audience because of their witness techniques. They were real shows without actors and noted for low-cost which was attractive to most programme-makers.
Among these early reality programmes, Crimewatch (BBC, 1984- ) was most influential. Jon Dovey said it ‘has been seen as central to the development of the form, particularly in respect of debates around criminology and the media’ (Creeber, 2001: 135). Deborah Jermyn, who is experienced in studying television crime appeal, commented on Crimewatch:
Promoting the growth of crime-appeal programming in Britain - with a format where serious unsolved crimes are reconstructed, police and victims’ families interviewed, images of suspects publicized and the public encouraged to phone in and volunteer information – by this time the series had comfortably established itself as Britain’s foremost crime-appeal programme.
(Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 71)
The effectiveness of Crimewatch as a detergent to crimes has been under much debate. It entertained the audience, but it was weak as a warning to the criminals. As Jermyn commented: ‘indeed some criminals have claimed that the poor-quality CCTV footage they witnessed on Crimewatch actually gave them an incentive to commit crime’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 82).
‘The use of CCTV conspicuously enhances the programme’s claims to authenticity and underlines its sense of a privileged relationship with real crime and actuality, qualities which programme-makers evidently believe to be ratings winners’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 83). In this case it is exciting for the audience to see the ‘raw’ footage without caring much about its effect of crime appeal.
These early reality programmes about crime appeal, accidents and emergencies formed a new documentary format, which was the precedent of a new genre-reality TV. Later popular factual entertainment programmes are based on these elements to innovate. Their effect is remarkable in a long term.
‘Fly-Off-the-Wall’: Video Diaries Known as Access TV
The 1990s was a golden era for the prevalence of reality TV. Jon Dovey points out: ‘it seems that “ordinary people”, non-professional broadcasters, have never been more present on our screens’ (Dowmunt, 1993: 163). Camera is no longer simply ‘fly-on-the-wall’ to observe and record, but closes to the object to become active ‘fly-off-the-wall’.
For a long time, access TV, as new reality television, has been in a great demand. According to Jon Dovey, ‘there are some fundamental principles that identify access programming; they centre around control and power over the programme-making process’, especially ‘the authors should have control over the whole process of representation’ (Dowmunt, 1993: 165).
Camcorder and video technology opened up expansive space for access TV. ‘Non-professional broadcasters’ became a leading role in making these programmes. As Patricia Holland commented on this innovative style:
The video diary style, in which programmes are made with domestic video equipment by members of the public rather than by television professionals, has introduced a new way of making programmes. Low-tech, with a less polished appearance, they seem to bring the audience even closer to the realities they show.
(Holland, 1997: 158)
Video Diaries, produced by the BBC Community Programme Unit from 1990-1999, was a representative of access TV. From these series of programmes, Jon Dovey noted:
the Unit solicits and researches ideas from potential diarists with a compelling story to tell. Once chosen, the diarist is trained in the use of an S-VHS camera and packed off to shoot their story, with support from the Unit should it be needed. In this way the diarists are given not only editorial control but also control over the means of production. They return with anything up to 200 hours of material and attend all the edit sessions, from an initial assembly which is viewed and discussed at length to the offline and online edit processes.
(Dowmunt, 1993: 167)
The format of Video Diaries is a development of documentary. Gareth Palmer has explained that it ‘imported the authorizing and legitimizing discourse of documentary into the personal, and in doing so it imported also documentary’s ordering principle into individual lives’ (Palmer, 2003:168). It was popular to the audience and also gained acclaim from the critics because of its flexibility in recording reality. Nevertheless there were debates that the producers had already controlled the programme by selecting the diarists, and there were also problems of quality and legality.
New Observational Documentary: Emergence of Docusoap
Docusoap is one form of the new observational documentary and one sub-genre of reality TV. It is a hybrid of documentary and soap-opera. It improves from serious documentary to emphasize on entertainment, especially everyday lives. ‘Developed in the UK in the mid-1990s, the docusoap enjoyed unprecedented success for roughly a four-year period (1996-2000)’ (Kilborn, 2003: 87). Docusoap combines documentary and drama. There are elements of narration, interviews and background music, and similar sequences as soap-opera. Each episode has a certain title and focuses on character, personalities, plot or situation.
Technological advances promote the development of new observational documentary. New technologies like lightweight cameras, ‘portable sound equipment’ and ‘non-linear editing system’ accelerate editing process with better quality and effect. Besides, financial benefits also attract producers to choose new technologies. ‘As Paul Hamann has commented, docusoaps already cost on average only a third of the price of the equivalent in light entertainment or sitcoms’ (Bruzzi, 2000: 77).
The entertainment factor of docusoap makes it popular with audience. Driving School ‘peaked at 12.45 million’ viewers (Bruzzi, 2000: 86). It ‘focused on the trials and tribulations of people preparing for their driving test’ (Kilborn, 2003: 96). Compared to the core character of reality TV, docusoap is blamed to be less factual with aesthetic reconstruction. According to Bruzzi:
The sequence most frequently cited is that in which Maureen Rees, on the eve of another attempt at her theory exam, wakes in the middle of the night and asks her husband Dave to test her on the Highway Code. The sequence is a reconstruction, and Jeremy Gibson (head of BBC Television Features, Bristol) and others have gone on record exonerating themselves from blame, commenting that, having gleaned that Maureen did get up at night ghrough panic, it was perfectly legitimate to recreate such a sequence without the film crew having to camp out in her bedroom for an entire night.
(Bruzzi, 2000: 87)
The producers’ intervention revealed obvious dramatic skills, which aimed at telling a complete story. In any case, under these circumstances one can never expect a totally natural performance from the character with the presence of camera. These factors make docusoap not so ‘real’, but the audience appreciate it for the entertainment value and these factors do not affect their enjoyment.
However, by the end of 1990s, this new documentary format had gradually lost its popularity. Critics and executives of TV channels began to complain the similar content with in the same format between series. It was also blamed as a challenge of ‘serious’ documentary. Then new factual programmes emerged and replaced docusoap in TV schedules. Docusoap is remembered as a creative hybrid of documentary and fiction with high ratings in the history of reality TV.
Serve the Public: Prevalence of Lifestyle
Lifestyle is another sub-genre of reality TV, of which BBC has been one of the biggest providers (Gareth Palmer; Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 173). It originated in the 1990s and is still popular today. It occupies a large part of TV schedule, shown usually in the daytime and prime time. There is ‘a series of choices in décor (House Invaders [Bazal for BBC1, 1999-2002], Changing Rooms [Bazal for BBC1, 1996- ]), clothes (What Not To Wear [BBC2, 1999- ]) and manner (Would Love To Meet [WLTM, BBC2, 2001-3])’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 174).
People now have strong sense that they are citizens and consumers. They are eager to improve their lives. Many are glad to show their private life in front of camera. For habitus, Gareth Palmer commented: ‘Britain is a nation of homeowners clutching close the belief that the home represents a sort of castle. Hence, it makes sense to produce programmes aimed at the house-proud’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 179). For fashion, according to Palmer, ‘in looking at fashion programming we come closer to seeing how the individual should ideally be styled according to the new class of experts’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 181).
There is a debate as to whether fashion shows need be bitchy. Palmer has an interesting opinion: ‘fashion without bitchery, like academia without snobbery, is inconceivable’ (Holmes and Jermyn, 2004: 184). Bitchery makes fashion programming as amusement. It does happen frequently in our life, which is a factual element of lifestyle.
Lifestyle programming is an innovation that television is not only observing people’s life, but also changing people’s way of life. It ‘serves the audience’ by giving instructions, which is the nature of European television, compared to ‘marketing the audience’ of American commercial television (Ang, 1991). Lifestyle is a good illustration how culture affects social life.
New Interactive Reality Show: World Success of Big Brother
Endemol’s ‘jewel in the crown’, Big Brother was thirty months in development and was the brainchild of co-principal, John de Mol. First broadcast on Veronica in 1999 and an immense ratings success, the programme has been adapted in over eighteen territories in Western Europe, the UK, the US and elsewhere.
(Albert Moran, the Global Television Format Trade; Hilmes, 2003: 120)
Big Brother, a new reality programme is based on established genres such as game show, quiz show, documentary and soap opera. It is a social experiment, in which we witness the reaction of the participants to their new environment and changing circumstances are often beyond their control. With the feature of game show, Big Brother sets its game rules as:
The programme involved ten housemates interned together over a ten-week period in a specially designed hermetically sealed environment. The housemates were supplied with food and drink and had access to all amenities, but were isolated from all contact with the media and the outside world; there were no television sets, radios, newspapers. Every week each housemate had to nominate for eviction two fellow-contestants; the two with the highest number of nominations would then be subject to public voting. It was the role of the public to select, by telephone vote, which of the two was to survive. By the final week there would be only two housemates remaining the winner was decided by the public, and took away a cheque for ￡70,000.
(Palmer, 2003: 182)
From the above description, it is obvious that this programme innovatively uses interactive voting. The audiences have opportunities to join the programme and play a crucial role in deciding the result. In early 1990s, Mike Wayne criticized programmes at that time: ‘broadcasters and programme makers have paid relatively little attention to the way in which people watch television. They have been concerned with how many people see a programme, rather than the way audiences interact with the images on the screen: what they absorb, what they challenge and what they discard’ (Hood, 1994: 43). It seems that Big Brother answers all these criticisms.
Compared to the audience, the participants are powerless to control the programme. They are observed at all times and their lives are exposed to the public. ‘We’ve been looking at the housemates through the eyes of thirty-one unforgiving cameras – we have seen them at their best and also at their worst’ (Ritchie, 2001: 279). What they need is just to relax and enjoy their time. ‘For all of them, without exception, it has been an amazing experience. They have learned a great deal about themselves, and the rest of us have learned not just lots about them, but also about human nature in general’ (Ritchie, 2001: 279).
However, all the participants are under much pressure exposing their lives to millions of audience. There is probably some negative effect on the psychology of most participants. Gareth Palmer calls the programme ‘a psychological experiment’. Programme experience is not always as wonderful as Ritchie’s comment in the above paragraph. In Sweden there was a suicide of a participant on a similar programme (Palmer, 2003: 185). So in Big Brother ‘a team of mental health professionals will oversee both the selection process and the psychological well being of the participants while they are in the house’ (Palmer, 2003: 185).
Big Brother creates a small society for the housemates away from the outside world. There are conflicts and also friendship. The participants are competitors and also partners. As the audience watch the trivia of their daily routine, the voiceover commentary helps them understand the situations.
Big Brother, a hybrid of different forms with popular interactive elements, is a new format of reality TV. It is leading a new trend of reality programming. Many independent television production companies are professional and experienced in making these new reality shows. Channel 4 and ITV, such non-mainstream commercial channels have shown many this kind of reality programmes. The audience are looking forward to more innovation of reality TV.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, R. C. and Hill, A. (2004) the Television Studies Reader, London: Routledge
Ang, I. (1991) Desperately Seeking the Audience, London: Roughtledge
Bruzzi, S. (2000) New Documentary: A Critical Introduction, London: Routledge
Creeber, G., Miller, T. and Tulloch, J. (2001) the Television Genre Book, London: British Film Institute
Dovey, J. (2000) Freakshow: First Person Media and Factual Television, London: Pluto Press
Dowmunt, T. (1993) Channels of Resistance: Global Television and Local Empowerment, London: British Film Institute
Gunter, B. and Svennevig, M. (1987) Behind and in Front of the Screen: Television’s Involvement with Family Life, London: John Libbey
Hilmes, M. (2003) the Television History Book, London: British Film Institute
Holland, P. (1997) the Television Handbook, London: Routledge
Holmes, S. and Jermyn, D. (2004) Understanding Reality Television, London: Routledge
Hood, S. (1994) Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Television in the Nineties, London: Lawrence & Wishart Limited
Kilborn, R. (2003) Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in the Age of Big Brother, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Ishikawa, S. (1996) Quality Assessment of Television, Luton: John Libbey Media
Livingstone, S. and Lunt, P. (1994) Talk on Television: Audience Participation and Public Debate, London: Routledge
Macdonald, K. and Cousins, M (1996) Imagining Reality: the Faber Book of Documentary, London: Faber and Faber Limited
Palmer, G. (2003) Discipline and Liberty: Television and Governance, Manchester: Manchester University Press
Ritchie, J. (2001) Big Brother 2: the Official Unseen Story, London: Channel 4 Books
Swallow, N. (1966) Factual Television, London: Focal Press Limited
Winston, B. (1995) Claiming the Real: the Documentary Film Revisited, London: British Film Institute
