Advanced Broadcast Media
5th Semester
Disclaimer: The note/s given below is/ are a compilation of information taken from various sources. The references to the sources are provided at the end. The views expressed in the note/s are those of the concerned student/s/ intern/s. The blogger or the compiler will not be responsible in any manner whatsoever regarding the authenticity of the information provided in the note/s.
Content
- Global History
- History of Reality Shows
- Reproduction of shows and their journey
- Real workings of Reality TV
- Global Case studies
- Reality TV in India
- India borrows from the West
- Formats of Reality Television
- Guidelines in India
- Popularity and Criticism of Reality Shows
- Contemporary Examples- Indian Matchmaking
- Conclusion
Global History
Television, which seems like an amenity we could have never been without, didn’t begin in the US until 1939. By 1970, TVs were the primary information and entertainment medium in the US. At this time, the US owned 93 million of the 271 million television sets in the world. And as we progress through time, the more creative we get with the types and genres of shows we watch. Just recently a new fad has come into American pop culture known as reality-based television.
Reality TV is typically defined as, non-fictional programming in which portrayal is presumed to present current, historical events or circumstances. The production itself must be a realistic account. It often starrs unknown individuals rather than professional actors which aims to show how ordinary people behave in everyday life, or in situations, often created by the programme makers, which are intended to represent everyday life. Generally included in this category is news and public affairs programming, interviews, talk shows, entertainment, or news programming, documentaries, real world events, police or emergency worker drama, and live quiz shows. Typically docu-dramas, invented or composite characters, and dialogue are excluded from the reality TV category. The emphasis of reality television is on intense emotionality, exaggeration and sensationalism.
It has been said to be historically rooted in the "penny press" of the 1830’s the "dime novels" of the 1870’s and the "yellow journalism" of the early 20th century. Such programming is typically driven by four common elements: profits, politics, education and entertainment. Although reality based programming is more popular than ever, the concept itself is not new.
History of Reality TV Shows
America's Candid Camera was the first reality television show. The show involved concealed cameras filming ordinary people being confronted with unusual situations, sometimes involving trick props, such as a desk with drawers that pop open when one is closed or a car with a hidden extra gas tank. When the joke was revealed, victims were told the show's catchphrase, "Smile, you're on Candid Camera." This show ran from 1948- 2004. Originally created by Allen Funt, it showcased hidden video of people in all manner of unusual and strange situations and was popular for many years.
In 1973 PBS aired a documentary titled, "An American Family" in which filmmakers followed the Loud family in Santa Barbara for seven months. Since then, American audiences have been exposed to shows like, “America’s funniest home videos,” “Cops,” “When good pets go bad,” “Deadly car crashes”.
MTV has produced the “Real World” for more than 25 years 1992 to 2017, a show about "Seven strangers who are picked to live in a house, to find out what happens when people stop being polite and start being real." These types of shows seem to be a combination of documentary film, soap opera, serial drama and cinema. MTV did not radically change the form of this genre but adapted it to a particular audience that came to expect a certain style of programming, with quick edits and rock soundtracks.
This is not the only reality endeavor MTV has concocted. They have also produced a spin off called “Road Rules” that debuted in 1995 where five strangers have adventures and try to win prizes while traveling around in a mobile home.
It is believed that modern reality television began back in 1992 when MTV first broadcast ‘The Real World.’ It was an experimental show that took seven people from different backgrounds and placed them in a house to live together for several months and have their interactions filmed. It wasn’t even known as reality television back then, more so as a documentary.
On August 16, 1999, America was introduced to the game show- Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? This show made its debut on the ABC network. The show was already a hit in Great Britain. With a new American host, Regis Philbin, it became a blockbuster on the American side of the Atlantic as well. Millionaire's creator was Michael P. Davies, a veteran British television producer. The basis of the show was simple: contestants, who were selected by a telephone screening process, had to answer a series of increasingly difficult multiple-choice trivia questions, with an ever-increasing cash prize attached. To help contestants along, a variety of "lifelines" were provided, including the ability to phone a friend or to poll the live audience for answer suggestions. Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?'s popularity grew by strong word of mouth and was soon attracting huge audiences. At one point during the summer of 1999, it was airing six nights a week. Even after the initial appeal died down, the show remained a solid ratings winner for ABC over the next several years.
Perhaps the most popular reality television show yet has been CBS’s “Survivor,” that debuted in 2000 which marooned participants on a desert island and promised the last person left $1 million. Over 15 million people watched the first “Survivor” that figure rose to 18 million the second week.
Reproduction of Shows and Their Journey
A number of popular American reality shows can be traced back to similar shows from Europe. “Who wants to be a millionaire” was taken from Great Britain, “Survivor” was taken from the Swedes, “Big Brother” was taken from Holland and “The Mole” from Belgium.
Who wants to be a Millionaire’s success inspired a revival of prime-time game shows. (Encyclopedia of Television, United Kingdom, 2001).
Even educational channels like Discovery are producing reality TV hits like The Deadliest Catch and Monster Garage. A
nother way reality TV has changed is that it ismuch more graphic now. In the first season of The Real World, it was real people living together. Now it has become seven people who are acting as they think they should base on the past sixteen seasons.
Sex has become rampant since the Las Vegas season and Roommate hookups, something only thought of the first few seasons, is now common place.
Turn on reality TV show Fear Factor, eating maggots, worms, grasshoppers and other things they probably wouldn’t think of eating if a TV camera weren’t aimed at them.
It was in 2002 when CBS’s blockbuster hit called Survivor finally gave reality television a name. A cast of regular people was exiled to a desert island to survive and undermine each other to win the grand prize of one million dollars.
Pop Idol was firstly show on British television ITV1. Interestingly, this format was not created by television producer but by a music impresario Simon Fuller. It was a contest to find best young singers in the country. Pop Idol got popularity not only in UK but this series spun off many successful programs in other countries i.e. American Idol, Canadian Idol, Indian Idol, AustralianIdol, Indonesian Idol, Malaysian Idol, New Zealand Idol, Latin American Idol, Philippine Idol, France’s Nouvelle Star and Germany’s Deutschland sucht den Superstar.
In west, the concept of reality show has gone further to an extreme of perversion. Now channels are showing whatever sensational they get from any source. More and more sex, violence and hazards have become the part of content of reality shows.
The Real Workings of Reality TV
From MTV to PBS everywhere you look you are watching real people put into situations that you or I wouldn't normally put ourselves into. Most Americans are addicted to the goings on of these normal people in extraordinary situations.
Instead of sitting down and watching carefully constructed plots where every detail has been mapped out we are now tuning into the unpredictability that is reality TV.
Producers go through a lot of work to pick out those normal everyday people that you and I enjoy watching so much. All producers go through a casting call where they pick people that they think an audience will respond to. They are looking for people that we can identify with that have the same gender and background as you or I. People that we will want to identify with. They try very hard to pick people that will mirror today's society. Most shows have an even number of men and women, at least one minority and at least one person who is homosexual. At the same time producers are looking for people that will cause a sensation. They want stereotypes that their target audience can identify with. From the bad boy to the rebel to the sweetheart. Producers also are also looking for conflict. Conflict brings in ratings so they want to create tension between everyone, this is another reason for picking such a wide variety of people. Once the cast is picked they are set up in a location where they all must spend an unusually large amount of time together. As in the TV series "Survivor" the cast members they must live, work, and play together twenty-four hours a day. All cast members must where a microphone at all times and must have a camera with them as well. The cast members every word and movement is taped.
Once the show is finished taping the producers then must go in and condense all the tape into a half-hour to an hour time slot. They want to create story lines and characters with their footage that we as an audience will want to see. What has proven to work in almost all shows is that people want to see conflict and they want to see sex so the producers use the footage they have to create these story lines that we will want to watch.
On the other hand, it is also argued that Reality TV has taken a step forward in the way that television media works. Instead of having a show with a script and set characters and set plots and set time slots reality TV works differently. Reality TV takes real people and puts them into situations and watches how the people handle their surroundings and different situations brought to them. Instead of being told what to say and do like on regular TV shows, there is very little that is controlled with reality TV. We watch reality TV to see how people will react to the situations posed to them.
Global Case Studies
Simone Lee Brennan married a man she’d met only moments earlier, before a television audience of nearly 1 million viewers. But the happiest day of her life came later – when she moved out of his apartment. Brennan, a Sydney makeup artist, appeared in the second season of Australia’s Married at First Sight. Last week she published a tell-all blog post about the experience that, she warned, threatened to “ruin reality TV for you forever”. To get the right shots, she had walked down the aisle four times, said her vows three times, and kissed at the altar twice. Forced conversations concluded as soon as the cameras turned off. Dinners presented as planned by her “TV husband” had been set up by producers. Brennan was not even legally married: unlike other versions of Married at First Sight broadcast around the world, the Australian couples’ “weddings” are commitment ceremonies, owing to legal restrictions. After a honeymoon and a month’s cohabitation, Brennan chose not to continue with the relationship, and moved out of his apartment. “One of the happiest days of my life to date,” she said. The lesson, she said, was to leave any relationship that made you question your self-worth. But, as many reports of her “reveal” remarked, another might be not to start a relationship on a reality television show. Even – perhaps especially – the most ardent fans of reality television know it’s not, you know, real. Part of the discrepancy is structural. No one can be completely themselves in front of a TV crew, and hours of footage can never be done justice to in 22- or 46-minute episodes. But another part is strategic: real life doesn’t necessarily make for good TV without a little help. A reality show begins with the casting, landing on the right mix of heroes and villains for on-screen chemistry. A reality television producer who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity said she looked for a range of strong characters – larger-than-life personalities, salt-of-the-earth types, show ponies, good blokes the audience would get behind – who were “really open emotionally” and invested in the show’s premise. While shows such as Married at First Sight had inherent drama, casting was of particular importance on cooking or renovation shows “because the premise is so boring”. But even the biggest characters need a little help: “You are playing with people’s emotions quite a lot – that’s sort of the name of the game.” People who apply to appear on reality television do so for a reason, she said; once it’s clear what that reason is, it’s easy to manipulate them.
Sarah (not her real name) auditioned twice before she was accepted as a contestant on a reality show some years ago. “It wasn’t until I was broken down and a shell of myself that they went: ‘Excellent, you’re ready’,” she told Guardian Australia. “My agenda was desperation.” Other agendas included vanity, fame, financial gain, the motivation of a physical challenge, a break from the monotony or mediocrity of life, she said. “For a lot of people, being in a reality television show is the most interesting thing they will ever do, and they will cling to that for the rest of their life.” An absence of self-preservation instincts – an element of vulnerability – is par for the course. “[You’re] a little bit daft to apply, and a little bit daft to go through with it,” said Sarah. “You don’t agree to be half naked on television and low-level humiliated without there being a level of desperation. There is a certain level of dignity that is surrendered to be part of that process. “I know there was with me, anyway.” In all sorts of shows, said the anonymous producer, contestants have to be kept from quitting as they realise they’re in over their heads. Married at First Sight UK was repeatedly pushed back as participants got cold feet and withdrew. That’s part of the production process, as is setting the stage for compelling television. Sarah said the most successful producers have to be “master manipulators”, prepared to set aside any concern for the participants for the sake of the show. “Your commitment to the story has to be greater than your commitment to the characters.”
Sarah Gertrude Shapiro, the creator of the acclaimed Lifetime series UnREAL, drew from her experiences as a producer of The Bachelor for he show-about-a-reality-show. She told the New Yorker last year that her job was to get the contestants to “open up, and to give them terrible advice, and to deprive them of sleep”. She lied to the women about their chances, groomed them to think of particular songs as “their song” with the bachelor, and carried jalapeños or lemons to make herself cry and hopefully start a chain reaction.
Nick Baylart, now of Melbourne, said food and sleep were routinely withheld to ensure “interesting performances” for the sixth season of The Mole, broadcast in late 2013 after a seven-year absence from Australian screens. He was selected as one of 12 contestants after a three-month application process. Production took a further three months. Outside the sometimes demanding challenges posed within the show, the real tests were boredom, the repetitiveness of shooting, sleep deprivation and poor eating habits – par for the course for film and television production, but especially gruelling for those new to the industry. “The number of times the producer shouted at us, ‘This is what you signed up for,’ whenever we were whinging – and we did whinge.” Plus, Baylart said, the producers weren’t at pains to put the contestants at ease when frayed nerves made for better television. “If they can twist a necessary element of production into something that will make the contestants a little bit more ready to fight, they’ll do it,” he said. For one challenge, shot at an amusement park in the Melbourne beachside suburb of St Kilda, contestants were made to wait in the car park for over five hours. “We had food, and we had a port-a-john, but we had nothing to do but wait.” Another task, on the Gold Coast, took place three blocks from the group’s hotel. The drive there took nearly an hour, going round and round in circles, so that the contestants were fed up with each other on arrival. GoPros were filming within the car but none of that footage was ever used. “You know what they’re doing, but you can’t help it,” said Baylart. “It’s human nature.” There have to be elements of reality for the show to work, said the anonymous producer (who had no connection to The Mole). “You don’t script everything, because they’re not actors. If you were getting people to lie all the time, you’d be getting a really shitty melodrama. “You can tell when people are having a moment or when they’re falling in love. People aren’t that good at acting.” Baylart described it as “massaging” reality. The Mole’s producers were never so blatant as to antagonise individual contestants, but those who were known to particularly dislike each other would find themselves repeatedly paired up. Those tensions had been established at the casting stage. Baylart said there were a lot of fights on and off camera. “On TV it seemed like we were being spiteful for the hell of it … but we really didn’t like being in each other’s company,” he said. “We had to come back to film the finale and we were all lovey-dovey then – but after that, there were a lot of Facebook blockings.” He made it to the final six before he was eliminated. He was surprised and sad – but “it was exciting to go home, because it meant it was over”. He was also 8kg heavier, after having availed himself of the food truck while waiting around in between challenges. Another contestant put on 10kg. Baylart was struck by how much of what they’d shot had gone unused (“whole plot lines”) – and how little he’d known about what was going on with the other contestants as it was unfolding. Every contestant had recorded a “confessional” piece to camera of between 90 to 120 minutes with the producers in “the diary room” each night. You got a sense of them hunting out for commentary about particular interpersonal relationships but you might not necessarily know anything about them,” said Baylart. “There’s this weird sense of isolation.”
Tom (not his real name) called it the “fishbowl effect”, where, cut off from the outside world, “everything starts to circulate”. He appeared in the Australian production of a popular international franchise in 2012. He and the other contestants spent a week in a hotel in Sydney in “lockdown” before production started, in the care of “handlers”. The men had been asked to grow beards beforehand; some were told to shave, others weren’t. Tom was styled with a “creepy moustache”. It didn’t end there. The show’s producers had specific roles or looks in mind for each of the contestants. Tom was designated an outfit which, he said, he would never choose to wear. One contestant was asked to wear glasses that were not fitted with his prescription. Another, with whom Tom remains friends, played the guitar: “They gave him a ukulele and said, ‘You play the ukulele now.’ He’d never played a ukulele in his life.” One episode of this series was watched by more than 1 million Australians. If contestants’ on-screen personas were at all informed by their real personalities, it was only loosely, or by coincidence. One producer had worked on Big Brother and told Tom that an audience favourite of one season had been “the biggest asshole in real life”. “On our show, there was one guy who was a massive prick, but he came across really endearing.” A “week” in the show was three days. Gaffes were put forward as representative of particularly the female contestants’ intelligence, or lack thereof. “Others just play it up for the cameras because they want a role on Home and Away.” Tom said he “generally didn’t play ball” with the producers, who’d shoulder-tap contestants for particular scenarios or tasks. (Possibly relatedly, he was eliminated in the fourth episode.) They’d call it “actuality”, as in, “We’re going to go and shoot an actuality scene.” Why not reality? Tom laughed. “Because it’s not reality.”
Reality TV in India
Dallas and Baywatch ushered a new era in Indian television. The audiences were exposed to never-seen-before images on television. With more deregulation and foreign investment opening up, the media landscape kept expanding. From one TV channel to hundreds of them jostling with each other to catch the viewers’ attention, there were umpteen opportunities to experiment with content and serve versatility. One of the offshoots of this experimentation is reality television, which has carved a niche for itself in the Indian viewer’s mindscape.
Reality television broke the monotony to create interesting scripts and out of the box ideas that made them stand out from the run-of-the-mill shows. Although drama-lovers are still glued to their idiot boxes at prime time, reality shows are hogging the limelight big time. Some of these reality shows are talent hunts, gameshows, celebrity shows, documentary-style shows, makeover shows, or some of them are just plain voyeurism personified. However different their concepts might be, all the reality shows, intrinsically run on the same path. They put ordinary people or celebrities in real-life situations and allow peeping toms to enjoy the thrill of watching them! Besides giving the audience the thrill and excitement of live un-edited action, reality television allows the audience to be a part of the show. Reality shows have made a progression into the Indian television space mostly during the last 10 years. Among the first few reality shows to become a roaring success were Zee TV’s ‘Antakshari’ and ‘Sa Re Ga Ma’ and Channel V’s ‘Viva’ experiment. Channel V’s concept of auditioning for a pop band of five singers was a huge success with young dreamers queuing up in huge numbers to try their luck. Since then the reality television picture has got bigger and better with participant and audience interest growing with each passing day. The television channels have pulled all stops to adapt popular reality shows from western televisual space and have in return received an overreaching response from the viewers. People have turned up in hundreds to audition for shows such as ‘Indian Idol’,‘Fame Gurukul’, ‘India’s Best’ and ‘Roadies’ to name afew. Reality shows have raked high TRPs for the television channels. TRPs (Television rating Points) measure the percentage of viewers watching a particular TV programme at a certain time.
India Borrows from the West
1. Indian Idol vis-à-vis America Idol
Though a couple of musical shows like ‘Sa Re Ga Ma’ and ‘Antakshari’ had been there on television on Indian television for some time, yet Indian Idol deserves the credit for being the first actual musical reality show. Launched in 2004, the show raked very high viewership ratings throughout. It was for the first time that the audience got an opportunity to participate by casting votes in for their favourite participants. The show was produced by one of India’s leading production house Miditech Pvt. Ltd. The show was inspired by the American programme ‘American idol’ which in turn has been adapted from the British show ‘Pop Idol. The aim of the show is to find a ‘solo singer’ who’s crowned the idol. Though ‘Pop Idol’ was the pioneer, but it stopped after the second season. ‘The show searches for the hottest young singing talent in the country. Much like the American version, the series has produced many in the top 14 position who have gone on to fame despite not winning.
The first season of ‘Indian Idol’ had three celebrity judges while the last two have featured four of them. Out of all, ‘Anu Malik’ (music director) remains the most acerbic judge justlike ‘Simon Cowell’(TV producer) in ‘American Idol’. The Indian counterpart gels with its American counterpart in the choice of winners as well. None of the two shows have ever had just singing talent as their ultimate winners. In fact, they vouch for a complete package in terms of singing, personality and performance. The Indian version has done a lot of alterations with the format however including interspersing the show with region-specific episodes as well as folk-based content. Besides the ‘regional’ factor has also been exploited as the trump card. For instance the ‘North-East factor’ figured in much enormity in the ‘Indian Idol Season -3’ grand finale, when both the finalists, Prashant Tamang from Darjeeling and Amit Paul from Shillong were pitched against each other. There were also many episodes of taking the contestants to temples and shrines. Besides that their personal struggles and family circumstances were made public to create an emotional atmosphere on the show. Another instance was when the show did not get a female winner till the first three seasons. Indian society’s prejudice against females was involvement spurred a lot of interest in the show. Infect, star plus the channel telecasting recorded the highest TRPs for a very long time. Localization of the format grabbed not only eyeballs but also fetched undying attention to the programme to the extent that there was a spate of appeals to not end it when the first season was coming to end.
2. Kaun banega Crorepati vis-à-vis Who Wants to be a Millionaire
Hosted by Chris Tarrant, ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’ originated in Britain in 1998.
With a format of answering 12-15 multiple choice questions consecutively with increasing difficulty, the show gives out a winning amount of one million pounds.
Produced by ace quizmaster Siddharth Basu’s company Synergy Communications, the Indian version ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’ was launched in 2000. The show brought Hindi cinema’s biggest star Amitabh Bachchan on television for the first time. Bachchan’s rendition of the Hindi language and the warmth he displayed to the not-so-glamorous participants was a hit with the Indian viewers. Though the Western counterpart has been very successful and the prize money aspect has always wooed audiences, the Indian version had more to it than the money part. The vulnerability of the Indian middle class, their need for money to tie the loose ends of their lives and Bachchan’s empathizing involvement spurred a lot of interest in the show. In fact, star plus the channel telecasting KBC recorded the highest TRPs for a very long time. Localization of the format grabbed not only eyeballs but also fetched undying attention to the programme to the extent that there was a spate of appeals to not end it when the first season was coming to end. Kaun Banega Crorepati revolutionized Indian television. Few seasons of the show were hosted by one of the biggest stars of the Hindi film industry – Shahrukh Khan. The Oscar-winning film ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ has a connotation to the success of such a format in a country like India. This reality show planned a huge comeback on Sony Entertainment television in October, 2010 with Amitabh Bachchan as its host once again and has had a run of 15 seasons till 2023.
3. Sach Ka Saamna vis-à-vis The Moment of Truth
Hosted by Mark Walberg, ‘The Moment of Truth’ is an American game show that asks contestants very personal and embarrassing questions and gives away cash prices for it.The same has been adapted by Synergy Communications on Indian television as ‘Sach ka Samna’ that is hosted by actor Rajiv Khandelwal. The show’s format is gripping and controversial. The participants’ answers are tested with a polygraph machine. Personal questions on one’s life ranging from their past experiences of having lied, betrayed, adultery and other such controversial episodes are asked. The success of such a show in a pan Indian sociological and ideological framework is a case in point to explain localization. Though there have been protests from different quarters regarding the show’s content, yet high viewership ratings and support from several quarters tells a different story altogether. The show that had been planned for fifty episodes successfully completed its stint on September 18, 2009. The success of the show also gave an insight into an emerging mature audience among Indians. There have always been a talk about audiences lapping up original formats of international shows, but develop an aversion to the same programmes with Indian participants. On ‘Sach ka Samna’ our own version of ‘The moment of truth’, free will was a key factor— the contestant was free to walk away without answering any question at any given time, provided they were willing to forfeit the prize. The questions probed the weakest links, usually those related to sexual, marital relationships, friendships and betrayals. There was no compulsion. This was a very different approach in the Indian social setup. The Indian audience did take such an on-screen controversial content with greater ease and understanding. Such a behaviour might have opened novel content ideas for television for the consumption of more mature audiences.
4. Bigg Boss vis-à-vis Big Brother
India’s rendezvous with Big Brother happened in two different ways. The first meeting was when the Western programme was redone in the localized format and called ‘Bigg Boss’. The show featured few celebrities who were locked in a house and were supposed to carry out some tasks as assigned by the ‘big boss’. The format was similar to the Western counterpart, the difference being Indian faces and celebrities graced the house of ‘Bigg Boss’. Here a group of contestants, called housemates, live in isolation from the outside world in a "house" that is custom built but includes everyday objects, such as a fully equipped kitchen and a garden. The House is also a television studio, and includes cameras and microphones in most of the rooms to record the activity of the housemates. The only place where housemates can escape the company of the other contestants is the ‘Confession Room,’ where they are encouraged to voice their true feelings. Each week all housemates nominate two of their fellows for potential eviction. The voyeuristic tendency of the viewers was exploited by dramatizing the interactions between the inmates. These interactions ranged from subtle exchange of warmth, rage and in some cases even romantic link–ups. The keyword here is ‘subtle’. The Western version is much more blatant and that is where the context of cultural connotations manifests itself. The infamous racially abusive remarks against Shilpa Shetty by Jade Goody in the British ‘Big Brother’ brought forth the blatant nature of expression in that version. The Western version is also more explicit in terms of sexual connotations.
5. Pati, Patni Aur Woh vis-à-vis Baby Borrowers
A spin-off of the American reality show ‘Baby Borrowers’,‘Pati, Patni Aur Woh’ is a recent entry on the Indian television landscape that run from 2009-2010.. The America version, produced by Love Productions and telecast on BBC 3, features five young teenage couples who start off by looking after a baby for three days, before moving onto toddlers, pre-teens, teenagers and finally an elderly person. It’s a concept where these youngsters experiment living together as well as parenthood. The concept in the Indian version ‘Pati, Patni Aur Woh’ is exactly the same with the only difference being that no teenagers but celebrated TV actors (couples) have been roped in for the same. Most of the celebrity couples in the Indian version are either married or are preparing to marry. This is a digression from the original concept as India’s cultural ethos would not accept teenagers in live-in and parental roles.
Formats of Reality Television
1. Documentary
These simply feature rolling cameras and minimal editing. They basically follow interesting people around with a camera chronicling their daily events.
2. Singing Based Reality Shows
The following famous reality show on Indian Television was "Sansui Antakshari", which started in 1993 on ZEE TV.; This Annu Kapoor hosted the show became a household name within a few years of going On- Air and viewership of this show increased drastically. It became India's first singing reality show that ran till 2006.
Then came one of the blockbusters shows on Indian Television named "SA RE GA MA PA", which aired in 1995, and the show was hosted by Bollywood's famous singer, Sonu Nigam. The show was also aired on ZEE TV. Thus ZEE TV became a popular channel for launching Family reality TV shows. The concept of the "SA RE GA MA PA" show was competition-based, in which many singing participants contested for the title of Best Singer.
In 2004 Sony Entertainment Television came up with the "Indian Idol" show, inspired by a famous show in the United States of America, "American Idol". All still love this show due to its regular updates, innovation and kids' participation.
3. Dance Based Reality Shows
Boogie Woogie, India's first dance-based reality TV show, was launched by Sony Entertainment Television ( SET India) in 1996; this show was a blessing for the channel as it became an instant hit. Naved Jaffey created this show, and Javed Jaffrey hosted it. This show was also competition-based, in which the Best Dancer was awarded Prize Money.
Dance India Dance, nicknamed DID, is also one of India's famous dance-based reality shows which gained popularity that airs on ZEETV, it premiered in 2009.
4. Quiz Based Reality Shows
As we entered the 21st century, Star Plus launched one of India's most favourite and most-watched reality TV shows named Kaun Banega Crorepati (inspired by "Who wants to be a millionaire"). The show is currently hosted by Bollywood's legendary actor "Shri Amitabh Bachchan". Still, this show is watched by millions of people with the same enthusiasm as it was in the year 2000 when the show was launched.
5. Stunt Based Reality Shows
Khatron ki Khiladi- based on the American series Fear Factor. First launched as Fear Factor India on Sony TV it was sold to Colors TV and was relaunched as Fear Factor: Khatron Ke Khiladi on 21 July 2008. In this show celebrity contestants face their worst fears and perform a series of death-defying stunts under the supervision of a host to win the coveted title. It is currently being hosted by Rohit Shetty.
6. Cooking Based Reality Shows
Master Chef India which premiered on Star Plus in 2010 and now streams on SonyLIV where aspiring chefs and food lovers from various parts of India showcase their culinary skills in front of esteemed judges to win the title and grand prize money. The current line-up of judges consists of Vikas Khanna, Pooja Dhingra, and Ranveer Brar.
7. Other Shows
Another show was, NDTV Imagine’s Swayamvar (literally means choosing the bride/groom himself/herself) attracting huge audiences. This show is based on India’s age old traditions of marriage wherein a choice is given to the boy or girl to choose his bride or groom. It was run in 3 seasons from 2009-11.
Guidelines in India
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued an advisory to private satellite television channels in 2019 asking them to avoid indecent, suggestive and inappropriate representation of children in dance reality shows or other such programmes. The advisory follows the ministry’s observation that in several dance-based reality TV shows, young children can be seen copying dance moves of adults in movies and other popular modes of entertainment. The channels have been further advised to exercise maximum restraint, sensitivity and caution while showing such reality shows and programmes.
Private satellite TV channels are expected to abide by the provisions contained in the Programme & Advertising Codes prescribed under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and rules framed, the statement added. As per the same, no programme which denigrates children should be aired on TV. Further, programmes meant for children should not contain any bad language or explicit scenes of violence. Besides, BCCC has advised all IBF member channels to strictly adhere to and comply with the ‘Guidelines to Regulate Child Participation in TV Serials, Reality Shows and Advertisements 2010-2011’
Popularity and Criticism of Reality Shows
Reality shows are almost a decade old but thus far, soaps have reigned large in terms of television ratings.
With rising competition, however, in recent months, non-fiction-based programmes have made a stunning comeback, albeit in a new avatar—titillating reality programming.
After an overdose of saas-bahu (daughter-in-law-mother-in-law) soaps, the producers and also the audience seem to be happy lapping up more realistic soaps (fiction) and reality (non-fiction) programmes. In the list of the top 10 programmes on television currently are two reality shows and some socially relevant soap operas.
There are two things about reality shows that attract viewers and generate controversy: the concept of reality or realism; and the shock effect.
The concept of reality TV draws from realism in cinema. So, it’s a format that presents ordinary people in live, supposedly unscripted (though often deliberately manufactured) situations, and monitors or judges their emotions, behaviour or talent. Such formats usually invoke competition and provide big money as rewards.
Also Read PN Vasanti’s earlier columns
Still, the very dissonance between the fact that these programmes are real and relevant (for the audience) and that contestants usually compete in them for fame and money—thereby being willing to do things they wouldn’t do otherwise do—raises issues related to the honesty of reality shows.
Example- It was rumoured that Sara Khan and Ali Merchant were paid Rs 50 lakh to get married on Bigg Boss 4. Many contestants believed that the Sara-Ali marriage was a complete farce and it was a mere publicity stunt to get the TRPs rolling.
The situation is exacerbated when producers use the concept of reality to shock and awe audiences—one way to break through the clutter.
The result: reality shows are becoming more and more provocative and outrageous. As eminent film-maker Mahesh Bhatt says, “Today, washing one’s dirty linen on prime time is big business. We live in shameless times. People do not mind becoming guinea pigs in the name of reality to amuse the nation and make a quick buck. And the audience gets high on its daily dose of ‘reality’ about the private lives of people like themselves.’’
It shouldn’t surprise anyone, then that at least one such programme has run afoul of some politicians.
Last fortnight, some of these politicians raised this in Parliament, bringing to the fore issues such as content regulation and morality. Unfortunately, most politicians seem to get tangled in moral issues when it comes to content and the Delhi high court perceived the issue as “moral policing" before dismissing the two petitions against the show.
Meanwhile, producers and liberals say there is nothing wrong with such reality programmes and that realism on TV screens is merely holding up a mirror to happenings in society. Extremes coexist in India and it’s difficult to answer if television does indeed mirror reality. Still, it is clear that the mirror is selective in its distortions because of economic pressures. Whether its reality or any other genre of programming, the tendency to sensationalize and even misuse is a commercial exigency in television.
Irrespective of this ongoing debate, television is an all-pervasive popular medium that does play a critical role in our society. Television is a reality in our country and we have to learn to live with it.
Contemporary Examples – Indian Matchmaking (Case Study)
Binge-watching and hate-watching go hand in hand, and so it's been with Netflix's "Indian Matchmaking."
The part-documentary, part-reality TV show follows the efforts of Sima Taparia of Mumbai as she sets up clients around the world, often with families in tow, into arranged marriages. There's Aparna, who needs her future husband to know Bolivia has salt flats; Vyasar, who carries a secret about his father trying to kill his third wife; and Pradhyuman, who concocts elaborate recipes such as peri-peri foxnuts with liquid nitrogen.
These Indian singles, they're not just like us. But Sima Auntie, as she is known, is in the business of marrying them off anyway, guided by a "biodata" page of likes, dislikes, educational background and a photo.
That's hardly the most offensive part. Despite trending on every social platform and the streaming service all week, the series has been criticized for perpetuating harmful stereotypes, colorism, sexism, elitism, heteronormativity, the caste system and the shallow, transactional nature of Indians looking for a life partner.
I'm ready to wade into the debate. (Hang on, muting my mentions on Twitter...) As someone who has spent her whole life as an Indian, much of her career chronicling the country and its diaspora, and written two books on global Indians, I think the criticism is misplaced.
Sima Auntie is not the problem. We are the problem.
Radhika and Akshay get engaged in episode 8 of "Indian Matchmaking." Akshay had said he was looking for a life partner similar to his mother.
I fear that the art of nuance and subtlety has been lost on critics. They want a deeper discussion of the rampant colorism on display here (the word "fair" to refer to skin tone is used over and over, without second thought.).
They want acknowledgment of entrenched and intentional endogamy that maintains Indian power structures, rooted in caste and wealth. They want mothers and mothers-in-law to stop meddling and enforcing impossible-to-meet standards.
But this is us. The critics are not wrong but their target is. That the show was filmed before George Floyd died but released after makes this reality even more poignant.
Unilever announced last month that it is removing the word "fair" from its Fair & Lovely line of skin-whitening products. The company now says it chooses to emphasize "glow, even tone, skin clarity and radiance."
Fair & Lovely skin cream is now known as Glow & Lovely. Long controversial, skin-lightening products have come under renewed fire after global protests over racism.
As Americans know all too well, corporate policy is one matter; changing the hearts and minds of family and society is much harder. Herein lies the genius of "Indian Matchmaking." Maybe Oscar-nominated director Smriti Mundhra and veteran showrunner J.C. Begley know exactly what they are doing; just look at the series' narrative pacing, music selection and cutaway moments with adorable, elderly couples.
Their decisions are deliberate and calculated and intended to effect change. That's the role and power of media. They're not redeeming the cavalier manner in which families perpetuate inequality and outdated thinking. They're exposing it.
The mirror is being held up and it's impossible to look away.
Those who are offended by it often prove "Indian Matchmaking's" point. We mock Aparna for her snobbish, exacting ways as she says not hating someone makes for a successful date. Yet even this criticism is loaded with the unattainable expectations we put on Indian women. Her reference to Bolivian salt flats, also chastised as elitist, is among the scant examples in the eight-part docuseries of a world view beyond, say, a Texas axe-throwing club or a Mumbai nightclub. What she seeks in a partner is intellectual compatibility. Don't we have that right?
Aparna in Season 1, Episode 2 of "Indian Matchmaking." Everyone's got an opinion on this 34-year-old lawyer who wanted to settle down but not settle.
The spotlight on the derivative manner and ancient customs of matchmaking in India -- that far-off country where arranged marriage rivals snake charmers in Western cliched depictions -- should force us to reconsider allegedly more modern practices. Like swiping right.
Among the revolutionary bits of advice from Sima Auntie: Focus on one match at a time. Don't move on till you've ruled him or her out. I think of what a friend in New York City once called the "-er" problem in online dating. "There's always someone hotter, better, taller, richer out there," she told me, exasperated and single into her mid-30s. She left New York City and quickly found love in a smaller pond.
Pradhyuman (center), who runs a jewelry business, meets with Sima Auntie to spell out his demands. And he's demanding, having rejected more than 150 potential suitors.
It is too easy to look at Indian society as oppressive through the lens of arranged marriage and demand disruption -- versus challenging the whole institution, East or West, love or arranged, IRL or online.
Indeed, there are quieter revolutions within "Indian Matchmaking," such as the number of subjects who are divorced or the products of divorce. Once taboo among Indian families, divorce is explained away by Sima Auntie with the proclamation: "Marriages are breaking like biscuits." She matter-of-factly assures the clients she will find them matches.
Why? Because Sima Auntie is the ultimate businesswoman and her ability to change is a revolution itself, representing the chameleon-like adaptation of Indians in a connected world. Confronted with nontraditional, challenging candidates to place, she does not give up, instead turning to life coaches, astrologers and fellow matchmakers who might have more modern networks.
Sima Auntie greets Rupam, a divorced mother, to help her try again. But why, critics rightfully ask, were all the matches heterosexual? India struck down sodomy laws and decriminalized homosexuality two years ago.
Here, I have faith in the undercurrent of capitalism and globalization that runs through "Indian Matchmaking." After all this hype, there surely will be a second season. And surely Sima Auntie will find someone to help her arrange same-sex couples -- as long as she gets her cut.
Indian Matchmaking unpacks only selectively what an upper-class, upper-caste Indian marriage entails. It’s no coincidence that both the desi matches Sima Taparia makes are for “boys” (grooms are invariably termed “boys” and brides are “girls”, even if they are well into their 30s). If the show had included desi girls, the sticky territory of “Kitne ki party hai, lena dena, saas ke liye zevar, nanad ke liye sari (how wealthy the families are, the demands for dowry and gifts)” would have been harder to shove under the carpet. But the show steers clear of un-classy on-camera bargaining, because that would be too “real” for a show which wants to go down easy, even if everything in it is staged.
Here’s the deal. It’s not called the Big Fat Indian Wedding for nothing: the bigger it is, the fatter the bottomline, the longer the shopping list, which could include all ceremonies on private islands to which guests are ferried via Learjets, to a “small” four-bedroom builder flat so that the “children” could start well, to hefty fixed deposits for the new business the groom wants to start, to the much more modest car-bike-fridge-cash-in-envelope. All of it costs, moneh, honeh. Oodles of it. And who pays for it? The “girl’s side”, of course. There could be a “reception” that the “boy’s” side throws, but the bulk of it, of course, “ladki waaley karenge, ladki ki khushi nahin chahiye (will be borne by the woman’s family, don’t they want her happiness)?”
We see none of it on the Netflix show because it needs to be palatable to a global audience. Anyone in India would be asking the one question: how much? That would be the real, true, authentic voice of a Big Fat Indian Wedding. Why do we never hear what Sima aunty charges for her services? She, who is a service provider par excellence, flitting from one destination to another, her basket of goodies overflowing with the right biodatas.
Here’s what an arranged marriage (having matched caste, colour, pedigree, gotra, nakshatra), whether it is between extremely affluent families, or much lower on the socio-economic pecking order means: the bahu needs to keep her head down, mind her business, and do as she’s told. The ghoonghat or the veil may have gone, but the downcast eyes are still desirable. Patriarchy, handed down generations, coloured every single aspect of a new bride’s life, as she took her first alta-coloured steps in her new home, her face not to seen by the father-in-law or the elder brothers-in-law, because that would be “shameless”.
The kitchen was the bride-bahu’s ordained habitat, except that what got cooked, even the degree of masala in each dish, was decreed by the mother-in-law. Even today, in many homes, the bahu serves the men and the children. Then she eats. If the baby cries, she needs to soothe it; if she is doing something else, she needs to drop it when anyone in the house requires her services. What time she gets up, what time she sleeps, what she eats, how much intimacy is allowed between her and her husband is all decided for her.
If anyone thinks that this is no longer what happens in contemporary India, I invite you to speak to today’s daughters-in-law. The new brides. The experienced bahus, who have learnt to navigate this terrain. The ones who have packed away their “modern western dresses” and wear sanctioned clothing, who get the car when no one else needs it, who need to ask for permission when they step out of the house. When it comes to Indian women who are in arranged marriages, the rules are always made by the mother-in-law, the sisters-in-law, and any and all in-laws who feel they have the right to set out prescriptive behaviour.
You also get a lot of cutesy “oh, ours was an arranged love marriage”. Code for, the marriage was arranged, but we managed to fall in love with each other, and look how happy we are. Which is moot, isn’t it? Because happiness is not a function of a marriage being arranged, or not. It is how to live with each other, learning to work with each other’s foibles, quirks and weaknesses. That is the adjustment and flexibility which is needed, and we didn’t need a Sima Taparia to tell us that.
Conclusion
The authenticity of reality television is often called into question by its detractors. The genre's title of "reality" is often criticized as being inaccurate because of claims that the genre frequently includes elements such as premeditated scripting (including a practice called "soft-scripting"), acting, urgings from behind-the-scenes crew to create specified situations of adversity and drama, and misleading editing. It has often been described as "scripting without paper". However at the same time reality television has widened the scope of media, offering a space to diversify the content. Shows like Kaun Banega Crorepati are not just shows meant for entertainment but for a wider social and economic purpose. Shows like Master Chef, Indian Idol provide a platform for ordinary people to be heard and known. What is required is a more cautious use of the format.
References
https://www.academia.edu/8164589/Jaggi_Ruchi_2011_Glocalization_of_Reality_Shows_on_Indian_television_Mass_Communicator_International_Journal_of_Communication_Studies_Vol_5_Issue_3_July_September_
https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/soc499/cordray/media/Realitytv.html
https://www.academia.edu/9019703/Reality_Television_in_India_New_format_and_new_implications
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2017/jan/12/behind-the-scenes-of-reality-tv-youre-a-little-bit-daft-to-apply
https://www.livemint.com/Opinion/yicFWZtMZDkCLQYk6hecnN/The-reality-of-reality-TV-in-India.html
https://indianexpress.com/article/express-sunday-eye/indian-matchmaking-indian-marriages-caste-bias-6534374/
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/24/entertainment/indian-matchmaking-holding-up-mirror-trnd/index.html
Compiled and Edited by-
Ashmi Jain
Batch of 2024
No comments:
Post a Comment