In his article The Political Economic Origins of Reali-TV, Chad Raphael discusses the shift in television towards reality tv programming, which he deemed "Reali-TV," as a result of a shifting economic climate in the production industry and new FCC rules limiting network production. "By the mid-1980s, caught between rising costs and lower network license fees, most producers could no longer make back their investments in first-run network showings. By 1986, producers were losing up to $100,000 per episode for half-hour shows and $200,000 to $300,000 for hour dramas" (Raphael 127). Thus, there was a shift in production away from such expensive "scripted narrative" shows, towards lower quality and lower budget shows. Enter reality television.
Based on the idea that you are filming "real life," reality television became the beacon of hope for networks to save money. Why cast star power actors and pay for expensive equipment, costumes, props, set dressing, etc when you can just walk into someone's home and film them exactly as they are. Or better yet, ask them to send you videos they took of themselves. [Sidebar: While I admit I have never been much of a fan of reality television, when I was a kid I absolutely loved America's Funniest Home Videos. It doesn't get more real than that, does it?]. Not only did reality tv eliminate the need for materials to build a world, but it eliminated the need for crew to help build that world, too. "In the mid-1980s, FOX cut 20 percent of its studio staff, Capital Cities/ABC cut 10 percent of its staff, and CBS cut 30 percent of its administrative staff and 10 percent of its news division" (Raphael 127). Raphael continues on to discuss that these cuts also led to the shift towards hiring non-union crew because they were cheaper. I would also add on that non-union crews have no rules protecting them. So not only were they cheaper, but nothing prevented them from being forced to work longer hours with fewer breaks; less time off set, more time on set. And as we all know in this industry, time is money.
As I said earlier, I've never been a huge fan of reality television. Every year my twitter page is flooded with tweets about the season finale of The Bachelor and every year I scroll through and read them with absolutely no clue who Brendan or Peter or Katie or Michelle are. The closest I ever got to watching the show was when I saw the "iconic" video of Hannah B moving the podium past Luke P (any other Bachelor fans know what I'm talking about?) Anyways, as I read Raphael's article, I couldn't help but think of one thing: why reality tv, why not docu-series or made for tv documentaries?
The goal as Raphael states it was to save money using low-budget tactics (lower wage cast, fewer crew members, less equipment, no props and production design), all of which are just as relevant to documentary as they are to reality tv. In fact, for documentaries to be successful, it is often crucial to be minimalistic so that you can make your participants as comfortable with the camera crew as possible. No one wants a giant crew of 60 people and all of their crazy unfamiliar equipment to invade their home so they can be interviewed about a very personal subject matter. So the production of documentaries is literally focused on "how can we have the smallest presence possible while effectively capturing the the story and vision we want to tell."
Later in his article, Raphael also talks about the issues associated with reality tv. For one thing, reality television shows were popular when they aired initially on the network, but once they were no longer relevant and up-to-date, audiences lost interest. "Reality shows have a short shelf life" (Raphael 137). Another issue was that some advertisers didn't want to be associated with reality tv, especially in the wake of mishaps that tainted the shows. Raphael notes the "notorious embarrassment" from FOX's Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire. These errors ultimately lead to decline in Reali-TV in the mid-1990s. And again I began to wonder, where were the tv documentaries? Unlike reality shows, most documentaries are "timeless." Sure they tend to pop up when their content is relevant, but documentaries are universal, too. I could watch Audible or Free Solo every day for the rest of my life and I would still find meaning and relevance in them. And unlike reality shows, most documentaries are not associated with embarrassing mishaps. If audiences wanted "real-life" story content, and networks were looking for something cheaper, documentary seems like a clear winner to me.
I was curious so I decided to look up trends in documentaries on television in the 80s when the shift to reality tv was happening. What I found (while nowhere near a complete analysis) was very interesting. The idea of the "docu-series" seemed to be popular earlier in the 1960s, especially because it was pushed by the Kennedy administration, with Royal Family being one of the most popular television documentaries. In the late 70s and through the 80s, however, documentaries on network television saw a decline in production and distribution. Instead, they were limited to public broadcast television. "Frontline" on PBS is a notable example. So while there was development in the field of documentary filmmaking during the 1980s, it was limited to documentaries as films rather than as episodic shows on network television.
While this gives me somewhat of an answer, it still doesn't answer my main question, why? Why did the idea of the docu-series come so much later? Was it the advent of streaming that pushed it? The emergence of social media? Did someone finally say, "Hey these documentary films are starting to get really long maybe we should break them into episodes?" Or maybe I'm looking at it completely wrong. Maybe in some ways reality television is another form of documentary. Perhaps the docu-series was right there in front of us all along.
No comments:
Post a Comment