Recently, in seemingly an active effort to lower my IQ and remind myself Why I Don't Date, I've been indulging in Love Island. It started innocently enough about a month ago when I was snuggled up with Couscous and my best friend, and as we do when in a mutual state of depression, said, "Let's watch some crap."
And in light of having to present on reality, I conveniently called this practice "research."
I had the irksome realization upon reaching the finale of Season 1 (USA) that, with four couples subject to a nationwide vote to win $100,000, only two couples were realistically beloved and likely to win (Justine/Caleb and Celi/Johnny) with Moira/Calvin having bounced around various couplings, perpetually friend-zoning each other only to conveniently profess their apparently enduring love in the penultimate episode, and Laurel/Carrington having only recently reconciled after the latter's wondering eye almost got the former kicked off the island. Yet, all couples insistently profess their admiration for their partners until the show's very end (not surprisingly, even the more ideal of these couples didn't last long outside the villa). Never do we see a hint in these final episodes that Laurel (who often looks colossally miserable) just can't wait to go home and get away from Carrington, who has treated her terribly, or that Moira and Calvin are looking forward to respectfully parting ways.
With this, I briefly apply the theory of the panopticon and self-governance discussed in our reality week. Cameras are everywhere in the villa and microphones are perpetually strapped to the participants, forcing them to constantly play this game of feigning desire for one or more members of the opposite sex there on the island. Either this or such moments are simply edited out — I'd love to talk to someone who has worked on a dating competition to know how this works. It sounds like a nightmare.
But more importantly, Couscous:
It's interesting to think of the panoptic gaze of reality TV (specifically reality dating shows) as having the opposite effect one would expect: rather than paralyzing subjects from acting in any way out of order, the exhibitory quality encourages subjects to perform provocatively. The obligation to remain constrained and obedient is replaced by a manipulative obligation to be salacious, chaotic, and emotionally reckless. It calls to mind the trends in social media to be increasingly and excessively publicly vulnerable, to monetize "trauma," to uplift and delight by performing "authenticity" by way of extremity.
ReplyDelete