Surreality
Posted by weinberg on October 14, 2007
So, I watched a bunch of episodes of lonelygirl15 last night, in an effort to better understand the conversation Cisco and I have been having about reality television.
If you, like me, are one of the two people on the planet who didn’t already know about this, the series was a Youtube video blog which pretended to be “real” but was actually a cast of actors following a script. It used no improvisation. The discovery of the scripted nature of the series did nothing to dampen its popularity - although a bunch of people were offended, or pretended to be.
Part of the popularity, and the appeal, must have come from the idea of the hoax - like with War Of The Worlds. I think there’s an interesting article in this somewhere about the spectrum of (sus)pension of (dis)belief:
1) entertainment which pretends to be completely unscripted, even though it is completely scripted, and which actually wants to convince people that it isn’t (lonelygirl15, War of the Worlds, Blair Witch)
2) entertainment which pretends to be scripted, even though it’s not. (Improv comedy.)
3) entertainment which is proudly scripted (Shakespeare, Shaw, things explicitly stylized)
4) entertainment which is proudly UNscripted (does anything really fall into this category? The nature of recording something for other people’s consumption implies some kind of forethought - even just turning on the camera means you’re going to think about it…I suppose hidden camera series do. Punk’d. Or wildlife shows where the animals really don’t know they’re being filmed. )
5) And then, here’s the issue: (that Cisco and I were debating) things like Survivor, Kid Nation, etc., entertainment which straddles these categories, which finds itself somewhere between 1 and 4.
I have a lot more thinking to do about this. But the thinking isn’t ethical, although I find myself resorting to ethics sometimes to explain why I don’t like Category 5. I think that in order to be in accordance with the train of thought I can actually defend, I have to explain the problem with Category 5 on purely formal grounds.
Of course, my argument about form is, and always has been, that all forms are valid and that the only way to argue against anything is formally.
Meredith just walked in and we are brainstorming on “reality theater.” More to come.
October 15, 2007 at 1:14 am
Prepare to have your mind blown.
October 15, 2007 at 2:41 am
Wow, ask and the Internet shall answer!
From their website: “An unprecedented reality theater experience featuring an actual family having a meal together live on stage while discussing their daily drama; The Feldman Dynamic is the reality show that will never be on TV.”
I’m so glad that someone is doing this. I wish I could see it.
I have some questions, if answering them doesn’t disturb the coolness of your project.
0) How did you get this idea? Do you like, or watch reality television - or does it bother you - or somewhere in between?
1) Do you think that you invented the concept of “reality theater” or are you aware of any other practitioners?
2) Does your show have any kind of a script - are there certain plot points you have to go through, or is it completely different every time?
3) Do you, or did you, “rehearse” in any way? If so, how?
4) Do you plan any future works in this same vein?
Very interested to learn more about this. I’m in the process of launching a larger theatrical site, and we’ll want to interview you then, if we can.
October 15, 2007 at 2:45 am
Dear Feldman Dynamic,
Another question. My friend Meredith, who’s a film scholar, also wants to know if you see yourself as exhbitionists.
I answered on your behalf that I thought not - that since theater is a marginal art form, going to see “reality theater” is a subtle mockery of reality TV. Also, that you see yourselves more in the tradition of Warhol and performance art, like his films from the 60s, the Portraits, and Sleep..and you’ve performed at museums..
But I should let you answer for yourselves.
So, are you exhibitionists?
Thanks,
Dara
October 16, 2007 at 3:32 am
you’re killing me with your intellect, i feel inferior, and shrinking, oh god..here it comes….boom, my brain just imploded. thanks, now all i’m good for is watching reality tv.
October 18, 2007 at 5:42 pm
you area gem . i like the way you speak lady!
October 25, 2007 at 12:49 am
There are probably more categories of works than you mentioned.
1. Like things that claim to be scripted but then go totally differently from the way they were scripted but the end result is still kept (Like this one episode set in Beirut of that show “No Reservations” with Anthony Bourdain, in which some stuff went down in the city as they were filming and the episode turned out totally different).
2. A work that claims to be unscripted, but is infact scripted, but some of the actors involved don’t know what the script is (i.e. hidden camera shows, or other filmed, prank type shows)
Anyway, I’ve seen Chanukah with the Feldman Dynamic show on three separate years.
First off, their show takes place all 8 nights of Chanukah and thus they do 8 shows every year. One year it was in their apartment, one year it was in a borrowed house, one year on a stage in community theater. But the thing that’s always the same is that while nothing is scripted (except a recorded-audio disclaimer played at the start of the show), all four of the Feldman’s have varying levels of background in theater (if only dabbling in it in high school).
While the show is spontaneous and unscripted, I think its strength is almost that they have an existing family “dynamic” and they play off each other on stage very well. They also learn from previous night’s shows and they tend to almost get better as the nights of chanukah pass.
Anyway, so I guess what I’m saying is that it’s like an unscripted, totally real family just out there improvising for the most part, but they also perform a bit when they’re on stage. Perhaps Brian the least (or at least he goes out of his way to act naturally, because the naturalism means the most to him) but his dad (Ed) definately the most in terms of performing. In a way that’s slightly different than how they are on a day-to-day basis.
Which leads me to my point: disclosure is the key, but sometimes when things happen that are different than what’s planned or disclosed, a work can still be entertaining.
(Disclosure: I’m friends with the Feldmans. I’m biased because I think they’re nice people and their show is great.)
December 1, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Dara,
Some of the answers to your questions are in this article:
http://www.miamiherald.com/367/story/326520.html
Hope this helps in some way.