Drama. We all love it. Feed on it. Nurture it. Make it our own.
And what better place to find real human drama than on reality shows. None of this made up stuff, no matter how expertly crafted. But the real McCoy. People wringing out their hearts and opening themselves to millions of people who are drawn into their personal tragedy.
Or is it really that simple? How much of it is real, and how much orchestrated? My wife watched a couple of early audition episodes of “The X-Factor” with me and gave up on it because “there was too much drama”. It seemed that every contestant had a dramatic tale to tell which sought to outdo the previous one.
Now, don’t get me wrong - I am as much a sucker for a dramatic tale as next guy. Well, maybe minus the cynicism and the disbelief. I like the drama, but there are times when you feel it is just getting milked a tad too much.
Take this week’s Thanksgiving episode of The X-Factor. Each of the remaining ten contestants were asked to state who they were thankful for in their personal lives. And we had everything from parents, siblings, the whole US Military and even God. From tales of dire family tragedy to bubbly gushing accounts as to how God was so good to one and all.
I don’t question the tragedy of the tales told here, but rather the manipulation of it in order to create entertainment. One might even ask - “Is there room for an artist on the reality shows who has no great trauma to share?”.
This manipulation already begins with the audition stages. By not televising these auditions live, but only a few months later, reality directors can have a field day. Aspiring contestants line up among thousands of other hopefuls to audition. And in many cases, just before the contestant is about to enter for his/her audition - we get a voice over telling their tale of tragedy; we see them filmed at home, interviewed with family - and we once again reach into the kleenex box to wipe away the tears. Magnificent how they manage to fit all this into their waiting in line. Can we still call this a “reality show?” I guess you have to read the fine print.
Now, I know I am going to get flamed for this - in a crescendo of boos (which is sometimes a welcome change to the screaming teeny-boppers) - but while most contestants appear to be uncontrollably caught up in their tale of personal tragedy, others seem to consciously milk it to their own advantage. Take Cece, for example, in the X-Factor. She came into the competition enthusing smug and somewhat aggressive confidence - which caused most people not to like her at all. But she managed to squeeze through, to a certain extent, by her talent. But when it looked like the talent just wasn’t enough, and she barely survived elimination one week, she resorted to making herself into one of the show’s most dramatic figures. This is perhaps her greatest talent - manipulating the audience. She jumped from last to sixth place in one week. Encouraged by this result, she may have gone overboard this week in exploiting a truly tragic family tale to its fullest. Was it just me or did the rest of you notice her looking out of the corner of her eye, while wiping away her tears, to see how she was doing? And once again she found herself this week fighting for survival in a sing-off. Yet Simon knows what side of the bread she is buttered on, and chose to keep her on, if just to see what she will do next. For isn’t that entertainment?
Carly should win this year’s X-Factor competition. She has the best voice. But maybe she is just a little too well adjusted for the show and the audience.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
When Kelsey Grammer meets his nemesis
What makes a character real?
It appears that one of the reasons why reality tv has become so popular is that people want to relate to - and in many cases identify with - “real characters”. Fiction is designed to entertain us, and at times even inspire us. But still, no matter how well we are drawn into the plot, identifying with the characters, struggling together with them through their tribulation and celebrating with them through their success - in the end it is just fiction. The curtain goes down and the credits roll across the screen.
But what does this mean - “just fiction”? Can something be fiction and also be real? This depends, I suppose, on how we define reality. In the virtual age, where whole complex communities exist only in cyberspace, we may have to redefine this whole issue. Perhaps we should separate reality and meaning. Reality competitions bring us face to face with “real people” - some who we can identify with more and some less. But does this make them any more “meaningful” to our own existence than, say - a literary character? Might we not define reality as to what a character brings out in us - what we discover to be real about ourselves?
One of the reasons why some actors playing popular roles in a tv sitcom decide to leave these roles, even though the sitcom may still be at the height of it popularity, is because they don’t want to become stereotyped by these characters, preventing them from playing any other types of roles in the future. For we, the public, know them only by the roles that they play. And when they do try to break away and play something distinctly different, we then think that they are acting “out of character”.
And then along comes Kelsey Grammer.
For those of us old enough to remember, Kelsey Grammer made his first big start in the tv role of Dr. Frasier Crane on the sitcom “Cheers”. Grammer was meant to appear in only six episodes, but the producers were so impressed with his performance that he became a regular of the show, appearing in 203 episodes. In this role of Frasier Crane, he plays a licensed psychiatrist who appears flawed, silly, pompous and full of himself, yet also kind and vulnerable. Over the years we come to realize that he is very intelligent, but also very insecure. While on Cheers, his character plays a minor role of comic relief. But when Cheers ends after eleven seasons, a new spinoff sitcom - “Frasier” - is created, with Kelsey playing the same character in the starring role. The extremely successful Frasier sitcom lasted for 264 episodes. All in all, Kelsey Grammer played the role of Frasier for twenty years.
If actors fear being stereotyped by a role after playing it for three to four years - one would be led to believe that that Kelsey could never break out of the mould of Frasier. And yet, last year he set out in a completely different direction in the sitcom “Boss”, playing Chicago Mayor Tom Kane, who is suffering with DLB, a degenerative neurological disorder. The show takes us into twisted and dark places in a backstabbing and corrupt political culture where Kane will do whatever is necessary in order to defeat any sort of opposition to his plans and policies. How is it possible that someone who has played such a popular comedic role for twenty years could ever expect the public to relate to his new dark, dramatic role as something “real”, and “meaningful”. Watching him as Kane in Boss, how could they really see anything but him as Frasier?
Yet now, into the second season of Boss, I can’t see Grammer as anything but Kane. I might even go on to say that while Frasier was entertaining, Boss is both entertaining and meaningful. And real, at least real for me. For it touches upon dark sides of myself which I’d prefer to believe do not exist, a darkness which exists in each of us. Could it be that only now, after twenty years playing a comedic role, that Grammer is finally playing in character in this dark exploration of self? Or perhaps Grammer’s acting genius has captured the reality of the complexity of self.
It appears that one of the reasons why reality tv has become so popular is that people want to relate to - and in many cases identify with - “real characters”. Fiction is designed to entertain us, and at times even inspire us. But still, no matter how well we are drawn into the plot, identifying with the characters, struggling together with them through their tribulation and celebrating with them through their success - in the end it is just fiction. The curtain goes down and the credits roll across the screen.
But what does this mean - “just fiction”? Can something be fiction and also be real? This depends, I suppose, on how we define reality. In the virtual age, where whole complex communities exist only in cyberspace, we may have to redefine this whole issue. Perhaps we should separate reality and meaning. Reality competitions bring us face to face with “real people” - some who we can identify with more and some less. But does this make them any more “meaningful” to our own existence than, say - a literary character? Might we not define reality as to what a character brings out in us - what we discover to be real about ourselves?
One of the reasons why some actors playing popular roles in a tv sitcom decide to leave these roles, even though the sitcom may still be at the height of it popularity, is because they don’t want to become stereotyped by these characters, preventing them from playing any other types of roles in the future. For we, the public, know them only by the roles that they play. And when they do try to break away and play something distinctly different, we then think that they are acting “out of character”.
And then along comes Kelsey Grammer.
For those of us old enough to remember, Kelsey Grammer made his first big start in the tv role of Dr. Frasier Crane on the sitcom “Cheers”. Grammer was meant to appear in only six episodes, but the producers were so impressed with his performance that he became a regular of the show, appearing in 203 episodes. In this role of Frasier Crane, he plays a licensed psychiatrist who appears flawed, silly, pompous and full of himself, yet also kind and vulnerable. Over the years we come to realize that he is very intelligent, but also very insecure. While on Cheers, his character plays a minor role of comic relief. But when Cheers ends after eleven seasons, a new spinoff sitcom - “Frasier” - is created, with Kelsey playing the same character in the starring role. The extremely successful Frasier sitcom lasted for 264 episodes. All in all, Kelsey Grammer played the role of Frasier for twenty years.
If actors fear being stereotyped by a role after playing it for three to four years - one would be led to believe that that Kelsey could never break out of the mould of Frasier. And yet, last year he set out in a completely different direction in the sitcom “Boss”, playing Chicago Mayor Tom Kane, who is suffering with DLB, a degenerative neurological disorder. The show takes us into twisted and dark places in a backstabbing and corrupt political culture where Kane will do whatever is necessary in order to defeat any sort of opposition to his plans and policies. How is it possible that someone who has played such a popular comedic role for twenty years could ever expect the public to relate to his new dark, dramatic role as something “real”, and “meaningful”. Watching him as Kane in Boss, how could they really see anything but him as Frasier?
Yet now, into the second season of Boss, I can’t see Grammer as anything but Kane. I might even go on to say that while Frasier was entertaining, Boss is both entertaining and meaningful. And real, at least real for me. For it touches upon dark sides of myself which I’d prefer to believe do not exist, a darkness which exists in each of us. Could it be that only now, after twenty years playing a comedic role, that Grammer is finally playing in character in this dark exploration of self? Or perhaps Grammer’s acting genius has captured the reality of the complexity of self.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Why the X-Factor became a train wreck
American Idol reminds me of MySpace. MySpace was once the leading social network, paving the way into uncharted territories. But slowly it lost its lustre and became mundane, mainly because of its refusal to reinvent itself. And along came Facebook, and the rest - as they say - is history.
What will the next “facebook” of singing reality shows be? There are two clear aspiring candidates: “The X-Factor” and “The Voice”. I followed the first two seasons of “The Voice” and I must say I was hooked. This didn’t mean that I stopped watching “Idol”. After watching Idol for ten seasons, I had become a junkie, and one needs to go through the pains of withdrawal slowly. And this year, having missed the first season of X-Factor, I was talked into watching the second season by two fellow “Idol junkies”.
What speaks to me most about “The Voice” is its unique approach to a singing reality show. In the first audition stage, contestants are judged by “voice only”. From the very beginning, the judges are intricately involved in the process and don’t simply pay lip service in later stages of the show. And even though the judges represent four very big egos, their egos appear to complement each other, rather than cripple the program.
I did try to watch X-Factor in its virgin season. But it seemed so much “over the top”. First of all the huge stadium audience. Everything about X-Factor screamed “more is better”. It left me cold, whereas with The Voice, I felt pulled in and a part of the intimacy involved.
But my two best friends, with whom I have shared reflections over many Idol seasons, even setting up an “Idol poll” where we would compete against each other in predicting the outcomes - for some reason bonded with “X-Factor” and not with “The Voice”. So, I continue to watch “The Voice” in my desert solitude, while the three of us watch “X-Factor” together. I use the term “together” loosely, for they watch the shows in real time over a Toronto t.v. station - which is broadcast in the middle of my night - and I watch a playback of the show down here in the Israeli desert through the Internet at least a day later.
I must say that I was entertained by the audition stages of the “X-Factor”, although not as completely drawn in as I was with “The Voice”. The Voice was quickly becoming the “guilty pleasure” of my “guilty pleasures”. And then came the first live shows of X-Factor this week. And that was when we could hear the sound of it all coming crashing down.
What went wrong, in my humble opinion? It started with the judges and ended with the judges,with many things in-between. I know that a reality singing competition isn’t simply about the best voice. It is also, perhaps foremost, an entertainment show. But there must be a balance here. In “The Voice” during the battle rounds, the judges serve as mentors to their group of contestants, giving them valuable tips as to how to improve their vocal performance and presentation. When it comes to the actual performance, the competitors must excite both the audience and judge with their impersonation of the song: their vocal prowess and stage personality shining through. In many cases, the competitor even surprises their own judging mentor with their unique presentation. But with “X-Factor” this week, the opposite occurred. The singer’s vocal prowess and stage personality were lost in a stage full of flashing lights, inane female and male dancers writhing and leaping back and forth - and drowned out at times by an audience full of screaming teeny boppers. At least half of the song choices by the judges were disastrous picks - not at all taking into consideration how to best highlight the singer’s strengths. Instead of enabling their group members to grow and mature as performers - the judges appeared to have a clear idea as to how exactly their competitors should perform and appear onstgage - leaving very little room, if any, for the competitors to provide their own interpretation of the song. And, as a result, even the most promising singers faltered.
The most ludicrous part of all this was that when a singer wasn’t surrounded by writhing dancers, both Britney and Demi said they were bored. I wonder if either of them has ever been tested for ADHD. And then, if this weren't enough to question their presence as judges, we came to the following night's elimination show where the two bottom placed performers in each group had a sing off. Gone were the flashing lights and writhing dancers. The presentations were mature, the performers' voices highlighted. And what did Britney and Demi say? That they were surprised the contestants sounded so much better this second night.
As for the co-hosts of the live show? Again, it appeared that "more" was supposed to be better. Their plastic personalities only made a bad show even worse - to the power of two.
This week the train came crashing into the station and left the tracks. Will they be able to get it back on track by next week? Or is this all that can be expected out of “X-Factor”? Maybe my expectations are just too high. In the end, it's just a reality show, isn't it?
What will the next “facebook” of singing reality shows be? There are two clear aspiring candidates: “The X-Factor” and “The Voice”. I followed the first two seasons of “The Voice” and I must say I was hooked. This didn’t mean that I stopped watching “Idol”. After watching Idol for ten seasons, I had become a junkie, and one needs to go through the pains of withdrawal slowly. And this year, having missed the first season of X-Factor, I was talked into watching the second season by two fellow “Idol junkies”.
What speaks to me most about “The Voice” is its unique approach to a singing reality show. In the first audition stage, contestants are judged by “voice only”. From the very beginning, the judges are intricately involved in the process and don’t simply pay lip service in later stages of the show. And even though the judges represent four very big egos, their egos appear to complement each other, rather than cripple the program.
I did try to watch X-Factor in its virgin season. But it seemed so much “over the top”. First of all the huge stadium audience. Everything about X-Factor screamed “more is better”. It left me cold, whereas with The Voice, I felt pulled in and a part of the intimacy involved.
But my two best friends, with whom I have shared reflections over many Idol seasons, even setting up an “Idol poll” where we would compete against each other in predicting the outcomes - for some reason bonded with “X-Factor” and not with “The Voice”. So, I continue to watch “The Voice” in my desert solitude, while the three of us watch “X-Factor” together. I use the term “together” loosely, for they watch the shows in real time over a Toronto t.v. station - which is broadcast in the middle of my night - and I watch a playback of the show down here in the Israeli desert through the Internet at least a day later.
I must say that I was entertained by the audition stages of the “X-Factor”, although not as completely drawn in as I was with “The Voice”. The Voice was quickly becoming the “guilty pleasure” of my “guilty pleasures”. And then came the first live shows of X-Factor this week. And that was when we could hear the sound of it all coming crashing down.
What went wrong, in my humble opinion? It started with the judges and ended with the judges,with many things in-between. I know that a reality singing competition isn’t simply about the best voice. It is also, perhaps foremost, an entertainment show. But there must be a balance here. In “The Voice” during the battle rounds, the judges serve as mentors to their group of contestants, giving them valuable tips as to how to improve their vocal performance and presentation. When it comes to the actual performance, the competitors must excite both the audience and judge with their impersonation of the song: their vocal prowess and stage personality shining through. In many cases, the competitor even surprises their own judging mentor with their unique presentation. But with “X-Factor” this week, the opposite occurred. The singer’s vocal prowess and stage personality were lost in a stage full of flashing lights, inane female and male dancers writhing and leaping back and forth - and drowned out at times by an audience full of screaming teeny boppers. At least half of the song choices by the judges were disastrous picks - not at all taking into consideration how to best highlight the singer’s strengths. Instead of enabling their group members to grow and mature as performers - the judges appeared to have a clear idea as to how exactly their competitors should perform and appear onstgage - leaving very little room, if any, for the competitors to provide their own interpretation of the song. And, as a result, even the most promising singers faltered.
The most ludicrous part of all this was that when a singer wasn’t surrounded by writhing dancers, both Britney and Demi said they were bored. I wonder if either of them has ever been tested for ADHD. And then, if this weren't enough to question their presence as judges, we came to the following night's elimination show where the two bottom placed performers in each group had a sing off. Gone were the flashing lights and writhing dancers. The presentations were mature, the performers' voices highlighted. And what did Britney and Demi say? That they were surprised the contestants sounded so much better this second night.
As for the co-hosts of the live show? Again, it appeared that "more" was supposed to be better. Their plastic personalities only made a bad show even worse - to the power of two.
This week the train came crashing into the station and left the tracks. Will they be able to get it back on track by next week? Or is this all that can be expected out of “X-Factor”? Maybe my expectations are just too high. In the end, it's just a reality show, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)