Gamson argues that shows are both coached and "real," both familiar and unusual. He states that producers seek out the weird, the bizarre, set up the conflict, and then attempt both to control the unpredictability of the guests responses AND hope to catch a "real" moment. Did any of the descriptions of back-stage orchestrating suprise you? Do you think that Gamson's statement that "much of the appeal of the genre is its claim that audiences are witnessing something nonfictional" is true? And if so, do you think that most viewers recognize the various unrealities as well--the coaching, the baiting, the surpising?
And if this line between nonfiction and fiction is blurred in talk shows in this way, is it blurred everywhere? Any time there's a genre, is there a human tendency to conform to the genre? Is there any pure nonfiction--in news, in interviews, on The Actor's Studio?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I always thought that I knew enough about the "unreal talk show" tricks which are for gaining people's attention. However, after I read chapter 4 of freaks talk back, I realized that there are so many other planned directions for guests behind the show. Producers rough competition for booking a guest,and guests' acting toward the audience without feeling any guilty were very surprising me.
Basically the talk shows were running by the negotiations between guests and producers.
Gamson,on the other hand, still believes that there is a "moment of truth" in the talk shows which I agree. Guests' unpredicted emotions were expressed by talking.
However,unfortunately, talk shows give people the impression that everything can be "nonfictional" and people 's judgements between fiction and nonfiction became blurry. Even though people can find obvious tircks that used on talk shows,(ex-guests of Jerry Springer only start fighting when alarm is beeping) they cannot distinguish every part of talkshows specifically if it is real or not. This is because people are brainwashed that they can not trust any of talk shows.
Not only talk shows, but this blurry effects exist everywhere such as in news, in interviews etc.
I’m going to be honest, I feel pretty stupid after reading “Truth Told in Lies”. For some reason, I had never thought about how much strategy goes into making a show like Jerry Springer. I always thought it was a pretty straight forward process…you go out and find really “f***ed up” people to bring on the show. I’m not sure whether I am just gullible or narrow minded but this simple view of mine is definitely not the case, and Gamson really shined a new light on me in this reading. With this said, I was surprised by pretty much all of the backstage orchestrating. One technique that really surprised me is that the shows go far enough to find the right audience members that they know will react the best with the people who are going to be on the show. Gamson definitely has me convinced that there is a major coaching aspect to all of these trash shows. After learning about all the back-stage orchestrating it is hard for me to think anything is actually “real”. Gamson argues that there are more “real” aspects to the shows then I actually think there is. With so much coaching and strategy involved in each show I just cannot see anything as being completely, 100% real. I do agree that talk shows live for the “money shot”, which is a moment that is unexpected emotion. Additionally, I agree that without a “money shot” the show is doomed because that is really what grabs the viewer and makes them keep watching. But are these moments truly a “money shot”? I don’t believe they are. There is too much forced or fixed influence/settings used to bring about these “real moments”, that it just takes away from the true meaning of their emotion.
I don’t think most viewers recognize the various unrealities that were mentioned by Gamson. I think some people may realize more than I did at first, but I would find it very hard to believe that everyone knows about the competition and fights for people to come on a certain show. Or the way that they surprise the people going on the show sometimes, by telling them they were on it for a different reason then they actually are. By viewers not knowing all of these unrealities, I think it is definitely blurring the line between nonfiction and fiction. What is even crazier is that there isn’t much left that is pure non-fiction. Even our news, which is information for us, has moments of fakeness and is often opinionated
The big factor for me when it comes down to the Trash talk show is that even when they say it's real...how real is it really? I mean, the producers admit to sometimes urging on the acting, but how much do the producers fail to tell us? Are there more NYU Actors out there that are able to make up a story and get onto the show that just don't come right out and say "hey yea, I'm an actor".
It's going to take a lot of convincing to get me to believe that ANY of the show is real, yes including the "backstage drama". I don't think the acting shuts off just because they are now behind scenes; it's hard not to notice a camera following you in a narrow hallway...i could be wrong though.
After reading in Gamson I am surprised at how unreal talk shows actually are. I knew that they were altered to draw in a bigger crowd and make for a more interesting show, but never realized it was to this extent. The producers pick unusual guests and then find some way to create a conflict. Not only do they create the conflict, but they train the audience and even select certain people to sit in it. You would not think that serious actors would want to waste their time on meaningless talk shows.
The producer will find a gay or bisexual man, and then find a conservative roman catholic man to sit in the front row of the audience. And to make matters even more dramatic, another openly gay man will be sitting next to the conservative one. Talk shows try to make the discussions relatable; however, rarely can one watch one and think about they experienced the same thing. Real is dealing with the loss of a close family member or dealing with drunk drivers, not "who is his father," while a group of twenty men walk out on stage or "my mother stole my boyfriend."
Post a Comment