Viewer
Or Voyeur?
By Amrita Nandy-Joshi
24 November, 2006
Countercurrents.org
“Are
you tired of watching fake emotions, exaggerated drama, contrived storylines
and typical plots in your daily soaps?” Through this subverted
acknowledgement of the quality of its shows, the website of a television
channel (kudos to the channel for such stark self-reflection and reflexivity),
introduces its new ‘reality’ game show, Big Boss. Instead
of the ‘fake’, it now promises the ‘real’—real
jealousy, real fights, real pain and real scandals. The plan is to take
viewers skin-close to 13 ‘celebrities’ who live under one
roof and are left to fend for themselves. With no means of communication
with the outside world or any entertainment, they are made to perform
mundane chores such as cook, clean etc., as cameras record their actions
for daily broadcast. Amidst all the skirmishes and name-calling that
such close interaction provokes, viewers get to judge and vote for or
against celebrities, to choose a winner who walks out with rupees 50
lakhs. Welcome to Indian Schadenfreude telly, where, as per the channel’s
webpage, “The celebrities have to entertain themselves for 100
days whilst the public take pleasure in their pains”.
The so-called ‘celebrities’,
on the other hand, comprise an assortment of volatile have-beens and
page-3 wannabes, all with enough chutzpah to bare their coarse personalities.
Desperate to save their sagging reputations, the celebrities have latched
themselves on to the show in the hope that its shooting TRPs might boost
their respective careers. For a successful show, they yawn, brush their
teeth, bare their skins, scratch their bottoms, display their idiosyncracies
and share their crass conversations in front of the camera. The setting
and situations in the house are designed to induce clashes, jealousy,
prejudice and insecurity. The intention is to create controversy and
offer plenty of eavesdropping and jaw-dropping moments, as if it was
all a celebration of nastiness. Celebrity culture is itself a turn-off.
Now, their exhibitionism under the powerful glare of public gaze makes
it repugnant.
The camera has become privy
to a seed-bed of base human emotions – intrigue, manipulation,
embarrassment, depravity and so on – to quench the viewer’s
thirst for such action. Is it not the same appetite that drives us towards
gossip, be it the neighbour’s dying marriage or a noisy gathering
on the road? The camera’s roving gaze is tuned to stop at every
juicy morsel that could make the viewer relish it bit-by-bit, by the
mouthful (or, screenful?). Moreover, the inclusion and use of a transgender
individual to stir-up that extra titillation is certainly distasteful.
It sensationalises and dilutes the gravity of issues that sexual minorities
have –time and again – attempted to highlight. Herein lies
the hypocrisy of the middle classes—we approve cheap sexual innuendos
as progressive minds, pour scorn at those ‘puritans’ who
disagree, while view individuals with different sexual orientations
as perverts. (The debate triggered by Dr. Ramadoss, the current union
health minister, by proposing an on-screen ban on smoking too was met
by similar simplistic positions. There were essentially two camps—the
avant-garde liberals who vehemently opposed the ban or the mocked-at
primitive tribe who viewed smoking cinestars as bad role models for
youngsters). In fact, the current fight for a repeal of Section 377
is aimed at the decriminalization of homosexuality. Such frivolous programmes
can further stigmatize an already marginalised community of people who
have every right to live with dignity.
The other debatable aspect
is the ‘reality’ of such entertainment? Critics of reality
shows have often stated that the reality portrayed is the result of
a well-devised brief, many modifications and constant monitoring by
the producers. The point, therefore, to be noted is that such reality
shows are merely unscripted, not unedited! This Indian version of the
U.K. and U.S. Big Brother series is anyway stated to be a safer bet,
with lesser sex and violence. The censors would not have allowed an
Indian Temptation Island, albeit it seems that the producers too are
using as much canvas as is allowed, working right at the edge of their
boundaries. Reality – without make-up, unedited and uncensored
– is not too easy to stomach. For if that was the case, why do
we not smack our lips at the coverage of suicidal Vidharba farmers?
Why does that reality not attract advertising revenue or SMS voting?
It is clearly not reality but wanton debauchery that makes reality shows
sellable.
By allowing the viewer to
revel in their prejudices, to encourage them to make snap judgements
about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ people, while offering
them sleazy scoops reeks of an obsession for profits nurtured by private
and ‘free’ media conglomerates. That argument that revenues
drive market forces and therefore, also shape popular culture, public
taste, consumption patterns has just got more glaring evidence Contemporary
culture, with its loud demand for freedom and individuality has muffled
other voices. Its strong gaze too might be turning us into confident
voyeurs who sneer at their closet counterparts. Remember, it is considered
cool and daring to wear your attitude on your sleeve. Yet, making money
out of offering a peep into others’ privacy cannot be justified
as creative or real entertainment. However, since morality is now a
dirty word and public morality even more so, we are transfixed on to
our TV screens as our jaded taste-buds know only the gluttony that feeds
on degraded entertainment. Judging a bunch of publicity-seekers and
casting votes for them is done with quick enthusiasm by the TV-viewing
classes, but casting political votes invites only apathy and indifference.
Such is the state of us consumers of high-gloss and high-drama that
in our false consciousness we allow marketers to lead us on with their
little fingers. Let’s critically question our sources of pleasure
and maybe let the camera be just that—a camera and not a keyhole.
By Amrita Nandy-Joshi writes on women’s issues
for the ‘Oxford Women in Politics’ and is an alumna of the
University of Oxford, U.K.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights