How does Hill define reality TV?
Hill (2005, p.107), states that reality TV is commonly used to describe a range of popular factual programming”. According to Hill (2005), reality TV can be related to a variety of styles and techniques for example, non-professionalism like events or scenes which seem like as if they are happening in front of the camera at that moment or in other words live scenes. Unscripted dialogue, surveillance footage and non-professionalism with camera techniques such as hand-held cameras, but ‘reality’ programming has changed overtime by developing a new genre over the past decade.
Hill (2005), states that the early genre of reality TV was related to law and order footage or programmes associated to emergency services. Now with the new genre, reality TV can be associates with everything, from pets to people and from birth to death. Hill (2005), asserts that reality TV can be categorised under multiple genres which gives it a good market value. Hill (2005p. 106), states that the “most-traditional industry term for reality TV is factual entertainment”. Hill (2005), further says that this term merges factual programmes with entertainment based TV programmes and produces a product which highlights the most reality based programmes.
In addition to that Hill (2005), states that the digital channels and satellite TV category mark reality TV under a vast variety e.g. ITV marks reality game shows as entertainment, lifestyle under lifestyle etc. but factual programmes do not come under its genre structure. Hill (2005), further explains, what non-terrestrial channels term reality TV. According to Hill (2005), SKY one produces in-house reality programmes. Channels like SKY travel and B SKY features reality TV programmes in their own rights. Some reality TV channels focus on crime and emergency services, experiences of near death or danger, documentaries, game shows and talent shows and all these programmes are also categorized under the reality TV genre.
According to Corner (2003, as cited in Hill, 2005, p. 109), “the term originally appeared in the US television industry in the 1980s and was useful in defining ‘the appeal of the ‘raw’ admist so many inventive as well as traditional varieties of cooking”. As reality TV became more famous it was taken from ‘raw’ into producing and presenting more ‘cooked’ programmes or more professional programmes with a mix of different genres (Hill, 2005). Hill (2005), also suggests that there is no one definition of reality TV but many definitions have come together to be called the reality genre. This is due to the fact that reality TV can now be associated with many different genres such as lifestyle or documentary or docu-soaps and talent shows.
Many of TV genres have merged together which we now call reality TV. Hill (2005), also believes that due to reality TV having so much variety in its genres, starting from fact to fictions, docu-soaps and game shows etc. soon the TV industry, scholars and audience will begin to include other types of TV genres in the reality TV category.
Reference:
Hill, A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.
I think, in a reality TV program, there must be something is real such as the actors are real person, their reaction are real; but those real things has been set in a contrived story. Maybe this is the reality TV’s attraction which it’s not only so true to life, but entertaining.
ReplyDeleteI agree Elle, that the contrived storylines with real reactions make reality shows entertaining. Or vice versa: made up characters put in real situations (such as The Simple Life - i do not believe Paris Hilton is really ditzy like that!).
ReplyDeleteOften the situations have to be staged as im not sure if anyone's life is that exciting, all the time! Unless you are very rich - maybe this is why so many reality shows these days are focused on the rich and famous? Or maybe this is because we are all so poor from the recession we all view reality tv as escapism? OR to make us long for the things we arent buying, so that we go out and spend on credit???
A good summary of Hill (2005) - also interesting comments from Elle and Helen.
ReplyDelete