Prompt
Clip(s), How it connects to technical achievement of democracy and/or self-management
Our take on Oullette and Hays- does reality TV ask us to participate in our own oppression?
In talking about our reality television viewing habits, we discovered that we all grew up to some extent watching American Idol, even though we’ve fallen out of the habit today. Because American Idol so clearly structures its viewer as “the active (or ‘interactive’) citizen” of Oullette and Hays’s description– participating in television’s continually developing “democratic” processes–we decided to take up this show as our case study this week.
As Oullette and Hays describe, the neoliberal vision of television as public sphere is about “testing” technical developments in democracy; American Idol foregrounds the technical achievement of democracy, and in particular, the development of new forms of “counting” participation (209). In its early years, a typical week schedule of American Idol consisted of two episodes, one of which was entirely devoted to foregrounding this democratic voting process, with the results of audience participation slowly doled out over the course of an hour. However, there are hints that this democracy is not entirely that, which have become even more spectacularized in contest reality shows like America’s Got Talent and The Voice, or abroad in shows such as Boys Planet– from Golden Buzzers to Judge’s Saves, there is a display of the judges authority that seems to directly contradict democratic outcomes.
This leads us to our first clip from Season 6 of American Idol, which features the judges’ comments following a performance by contestant Sanjaya Malakar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f81xxKKbyG0.
Oullette and Hays briefly mention the controversy surrounding Malakar; essentially, he was widely considered to be a bad singer and a joke contestant who nonetheless made it to the finals because of widespread audience support. In short, this was seen as this "crisis" within the American Idol model-- what if democracy goes too far and the voters use it for the "wrong" reasons? In this case, what if they elect a terrible singer as a "joke"? Ultimately, he did not win, but a lot of commentators said that if he had, it might have been the end of the American Idol experiment. In this clip, this “crisis” in democratic governance is on display. The judges, first Paula Abdul and Randy Jackson, express exasperation at their impotence in the face of democratic self-governance; “What are we doing here?” Randy asks. On the one hand, their comments shore up the show’s promise, that this is America’s Idol, not that of the judges. The idol is a populist figure who doesn’t have to represent the tastes of the trained elite. However, with Simon’s comments in particular, this is contested; he is essentially scolding the audience on their failure to live up to the ideals of self-governance. The underlying message seems to be that democracy is not total; there are certain norms and standards, disseminated by taste-makers like the judges, that must be adhered to. The ultimate loss of Malakar, seemed to shore up the judges’ authority, and the legitimacy of the show. Self-governance, the show suggests, can work, so long as the people are disciplined into certain cultural norms and standards.
With the rising accessibility to the internet in the early 2000s, another form of audience rebellion could be seen acted against a portion of American Idol over which the judges have total domain: the auditions. American Idol begins with a long series of auditions, only a small portion of which are aired on television. In 2004, the explosive, and short-lived, fame of one failed audition, a cover of Ricky Martin’s “She Bangs,” disastrously performed by Hong Kong migrant William Hung (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqmy5qrvaVQ), can be seen as an example of a form of audience rebellion against the authoritarian governmental structure of the show’s early ranks. As the decision of who proceeds past the audition phase is entirely dictated by the three judges, and not by audiences, Hung’s time on American Idol was limited to the few minutes of his audition; however arguably, by audience participation through internet use, his fame trumped that of objectively more talented contestants who rose through the competition’s ranks. Hung would proceed to perform “She Bangs” on a miriad of popular television talk shows such as Jay Leno, and even released a full length studio album. While Malakar’s success mirrors that of Hung’s in terms of a populist rebellion against elitism — in this case, challenging ideas of talent over a more morbidly entertaining spectacle of debacle — however, while Malakar’s status of a symbol of rebellion took place intrinsically within the show’s structures, Hung’s took place outside it.
On the other hand, Hung’s virality and Malakar’s success can also be seen as a form of audiences’ desires to escalate the exploitative nature of Idol’s already abusive systems. While the audition phase of the show is comedic in nature, the appeal largely being disastrous auditions such as Hung’s, later episodes shift to competition, allegiances, and genuine fandom for talent. This desire on the part of audiences to prolong the comedic spectacle of the audition phase is an effort toward exploitation. Especially in the case of Hung, where his popularity rose particularly in the context of making fun of his Chinese accent and tapping into stereotypes of Asian uncoolness, such exploitation becomes a collaborative effort between audience and network.
I know it’s become something of an internet buzzword these days, but I’d also love to discuss the type of parasociality that reality television—and specifically reality television that invites audience participation the way American Idol does—encourages of its audience. We are expected to form more intimate relationships with both participant personalities as well as judge personalities by virtue of our “participation” with the show (regardless of how real said participation actually is). The following clip I’ve suggested is funny, certainly, but details the reactions of a group of young girls watching season 7 American Idol favorite lose to another singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNEwyEAy0oU It cannot be divorced from the melodrama of the preteen experience & perspective either. However, it’s hard to envision either this type of engagement or this type of reaction to a different kind of show. Reality television with an audience participation component expects us to invest in the outcomes of the show, and makes us feel in part responsible for them. On that level, we are being asked to do more than simply participate—we are being asked to bear a share of the fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment