This morning I was able to resist embedded previews of the interview quite handily. I was even able to sneer at TLC's appeal to my baser instincts. But as the day has progressed, I have felt myself begin to falter - tempted.
I won't watch it - I do, after all, have a soul - but I'll be dammed if TLC hasn't successfully parlayed a child sex abuse scandal into must-see-TV.
#JillAndJessa
#TCA16
Friday, December 18, 2015
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
Only in Reality... Cast Wranglers
Welcome to Only in Reality... a series in which I explore the events, philosophies and positions that only exist or occur in Reality TV.
In today's edition we look at the crew position known as the Cast Wrangler.
Now, Cast Wranglers do pretty much what their title implies: they wrangle the cast. So, in any scenario, a Cast Wrangler is the point of contact between Production and the so-called Talent. However, exactly what a Cast Wrangler does differs depending on the genre of Reality they're working in.
On a show like The Bachelor (AKA Everlasting on UnREAL), that is, a Competition Show, the Cast Wrangler is pretty much a human herder. The first of these I met was a louche German we'll call Tristan whose every move seemed an expression of petulance. Tristan's responsibilities included: keeping eyes on cast at all time (even living with them); herding them to and from set; ensuring that none of them had somehow gotten access to a phone or computer or any other item with which they could contact the outside world; and spying on the cast and reporting their personal and interpersonal problems back to the Story Department. Tristan was one of those for-sure psychopaths I've worked with who took strange pleasure in denying cast members the right to speak or even pee.
However, on a show like Housewives or Love and Hip Hop (DocuSoaps), the Cast Wrangler is less of a prison guard and more along the lines of a Personal Assistant. They build a relationship with the cast members and massage their egos (no one gives a shit about cast egos in Competition). They ensure that cast arrives on set on time and in the right wardrobe (a big deal in Docusoaps where we often shoot story out of order). They also, like their Competition compatriots, spy and report back to Production on where the cast is at emotionally (we then take that info and develop story lines accordingly). On shows like Love and Hip Hop there is actually one Cast Wrangler per cast member (which is quite unusual) whereas on Housewives there is generally only one for the whole cast. The job is not only stressful but can actually be dangerous. One cast Wrangler I knew actually had a gun held to his head. He's still in Reality. Go figure.
Cast Wrangling is a thankless and soul-destroying job. Wranglers have to manage extremely difficult (and sometimes violent) personalities and deal with 2 am calls and texts. In fact, the Cast Wrangler on my current show may not be long for this production. She's burnt out from a relentless stream of self-important D-list celebrity cast and their non-stop shenanigans. Update: she quit.
In case you're wondering why you've never seen the credit Cast Wrangler on a show, that's because they are titled as anything from Production Assistant to Co-Executive Producer. I was once promised a Co-Executive Producer credit on a Housewives show (rhymes with - Have Mercy) if I did--basically--a Cast Wrangler's job. I thanked them for the kind offer, but replied that I'd rather stab myself repeatedly in the chest with scissors.
In today's edition we look at the crew position known as the Cast Wrangler.
Now, Cast Wranglers do pretty much what their title implies: they wrangle the cast. So, in any scenario, a Cast Wrangler is the point of contact between Production and the so-called Talent. However, exactly what a Cast Wrangler does differs depending on the genre of Reality they're working in.
On a show like The Bachelor (AKA Everlasting on UnREAL), that is, a Competition Show, the Cast Wrangler is pretty much a human herder. The first of these I met was a louche German we'll call Tristan whose every move seemed an expression of petulance. Tristan's responsibilities included: keeping eyes on cast at all time (even living with them); herding them to and from set; ensuring that none of them had somehow gotten access to a phone or computer or any other item with which they could contact the outside world; and spying on the cast and reporting their personal and interpersonal problems back to the Story Department. Tristan was one of those for-sure psychopaths I've worked with who took strange pleasure in denying cast members the right to speak or even pee.
However, on a show like Housewives or Love and Hip Hop (DocuSoaps), the Cast Wrangler is less of a prison guard and more along the lines of a Personal Assistant. They build a relationship with the cast members and massage their egos (no one gives a shit about cast egos in Competition). They ensure that cast arrives on set on time and in the right wardrobe (a big deal in Docusoaps where we often shoot story out of order). They also, like their Competition compatriots, spy and report back to Production on where the cast is at emotionally (we then take that info and develop story lines accordingly). On shows like Love and Hip Hop there is actually one Cast Wrangler per cast member (which is quite unusual) whereas on Housewives there is generally only one for the whole cast. The job is not only stressful but can actually be dangerous. One cast Wrangler I knew actually had a gun held to his head. He's still in Reality. Go figure.
Cast Wrangling is a thankless and soul-destroying job. Wranglers have to manage extremely difficult (and sometimes violent) personalities and deal with 2 am calls and texts. In fact, the Cast Wrangler on my current show may not be long for this production. She's burnt out from a relentless stream of self-important D-list celebrity cast and their non-stop shenanigans. Update: she quit.
In case you're wondering why you've never seen the credit Cast Wrangler on a show, that's because they are titled as anything from Production Assistant to Co-Executive Producer. I was once promised a Co-Executive Producer credit on a Housewives show (rhymes with - Have Mercy) if I did--basically--a Cast Wrangler's job. I thanked them for the kind offer, but replied that I'd rather stab myself repeatedly in the chest with scissors.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Reality Bits (Network Sluttery Edition)
Apologies to anyone who's noticed my absence. I am currently on set and it's slightly harder to ponder the malignant entity called Reality TV when you have a cast member threatening to bust open your head. Onwards and downwards...
1) The Donald Trump Show Finds a Cast (Finally!)
Donald Trump has been branded the Reality candidate for the GOP nomination. What makes Trump good Reality Talent is that he knows how to create a soundbite. When we're editing shows with people like Trump they make it easy for us in edit because we get to pick and choose between provocative sound bites and then play them against a stunned or angry or upset reaction shot from someone else in the cast.
However, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, the GOP nomination race has yet to "rise" to a level of a Reality show because the other robots running aren't giving him any reactions to work with. Besides, let's face it, Trump is simply the pimple on top of the festering Republican sore. However, it seems that the TV news media has proven willing to step in.
Reporters (television, but also online and so-called print for that matter) are filling in the role of the horrified or thrilled recipients of his blather. And much like Reality cast members they spend an undue amount of time having discussions about the meaning of his latest offense/genius. In Reality we call those "fallout scenes" and they tend to happen in fancy bars/restaurants. The only difference here is the fallout scenes happen on news sets.
So I stand corrected, the GOP nomination is a Reality show attempting to pass itself off as news. The amplification of his fuckery doesn't strike me as news.
2) Emotional Anchors
The fact is, there isn't much different between Reality TV and the television news these days. In fact, I was struck during the coverage of the Paris attacks at the number of CNN reporters who were obviously faking sadness/tears about the events. Clearly they have been given direction from on high that emotion sells. Who knows, it may, I'm not a good sample audience.
I find this stuff infuriating because while genuine emotional moments (Cronkite crying upon learning of Kennedy's death and Jon Stewart being overcome after 9/11, come to mind) make for powerful television, fake emotion is just shite and offensive to my intelligence as a viewer, not to mention a Reality producer - fake tears are the absolute worst when you're in edit.
3) Digging the Duggars and the (broadcaster) Benefits of a Police Shooting
TLC, as has been discussed before, has never encountered a molestation scandal that they don't view ripe fodder for ratings. The first part of TLC's special on Josh Duggar's sisters Jill and Jessa, who were also his molestation victims, airs December 13. I would provide a link, but fuck TLC I'm not promoting them. Instead I give you this.
The leadup to Jill & Jessa: Counting On has been an interview on Good Morning America with Josh's long-suffering wife Anna, as well as appearances of the two sisters. Blech. Naturally, TLC's numbers for this dreck will be through the roof.
The ends to which networks will go to mine controversy in the name of numbers is ever expanding. I recently heard tell of a show where the network seized upon the controversy over the police shooting of Laquan McDonald in Chicago as a great "opportunity" (and I quote) for one of their shows.
Pardon me, but after this post I need to take several showers.
#TCA16
1) The Donald Trump Show Finds a Cast (Finally!)
Donald Trump has been branded the Reality candidate for the GOP nomination. What makes Trump good Reality Talent is that he knows how to create a soundbite. When we're editing shows with people like Trump they make it easy for us in edit because we get to pick and choose between provocative sound bites and then play them against a stunned or angry or upset reaction shot from someone else in the cast.
However, as I mentioned in an earlier blog, the GOP nomination race has yet to "rise" to a level of a Reality show because the other robots running aren't giving him any reactions to work with. Besides, let's face it, Trump is simply the pimple on top of the festering Republican sore. However, it seems that the TV news media has proven willing to step in.
Reporters (television, but also online and so-called print for that matter) are filling in the role of the horrified or thrilled recipients of his blather. And much like Reality cast members they spend an undue amount of time having discussions about the meaning of his latest offense/genius. In Reality we call those "fallout scenes" and they tend to happen in fancy bars/restaurants. The only difference here is the fallout scenes happen on news sets.
CNN is The Scandalized Innocent!
FOX is The Enabler!
Lindsay Graham is Once a Bestie, Now a Backstabber!
So I stand corrected, the GOP nomination is a Reality show attempting to pass itself off as news. The amplification of his fuckery doesn't strike me as news.
2) Emotional Anchors
The fact is, there isn't much different between Reality TV and the television news these days. In fact, I was struck during the coverage of the Paris attacks at the number of CNN reporters who were obviously faking sadness/tears about the events. Clearly they have been given direction from on high that emotion sells. Who knows, it may, I'm not a good sample audience.
I find this stuff infuriating because while genuine emotional moments (Cronkite crying upon learning of Kennedy's death and Jon Stewart being overcome after 9/11, come to mind) make for powerful television, fake emotion is just shite and offensive to my intelligence as a viewer, not to mention a Reality producer - fake tears are the absolute worst when you're in edit.
3) Digging the Duggars and the (broadcaster) Benefits of a Police Shooting
TLC, as has been discussed before, has never encountered a molestation scandal that they don't view ripe fodder for ratings. The first part of TLC's special on Josh Duggar's sisters Jill and Jessa, who were also his molestation victims, airs December 13. I would provide a link, but fuck TLC I'm not promoting them. Instead I give you this.
The leadup to Jill & Jessa: Counting On has been an interview on Good Morning America with Josh's long-suffering wife Anna, as well as appearances of the two sisters. Blech. Naturally, TLC's numbers for this dreck will be through the roof.
The ends to which networks will go to mine controversy in the name of numbers is ever expanding. I recently heard tell of a show where the network seized upon the controversy over the police shooting of Laquan McDonald in Chicago as a great "opportunity" (and I quote) for one of their shows.
Pardon me, but after this post I need to take several showers.
#TCA16
Friday, November 27, 2015
Fear and Loathing in Reality TV: Development Edition
"Fear is the mind-killer.” George Herbert, Dune.
"Our fears are like dragons guarding our most precious treasure." Rainer Maria Rilke.
After the attacks in Paris, Beirut, Bamaco, Tunis (and counting), there’s a fair amount of fear around these days. Fear can be handy if you’re a politician. George Bush used it to motivate a war against Iraq, a secular country that didn’t attack America, while choosing to ignore Wahhabist Saudi Arabia from whence Bin Laden and most of the hijackers hailed. Now cohorts in his party are using it to reject the refugees they produced by fucking up that war. It seems that fear can be wielded to justify just about anything.
But fear also informs the decisions we think we’re making freely. Specifically the stupid/destructive ones. It is certainly rampant in every aspect of Reality television production; its prevalence is so all-encompassing that to do it justice I will serialize this discussion. Let’s call it: Fear and Loathing in Reality TV. For the purposes of this exercise I’ll walk you through the development, production and edit of a hypothetical Reality show called, The Rarin’ Oliveris.
But fear also informs the decisions we think we’re making freely. Specifically the stupid/destructive ones. It is certainly rampant in every aspect of Reality television production; its prevalence is so all-encompassing that to do it justice I will serialize this discussion. Let’s call it: Fear and Loathing in Reality TV. For the purposes of this exercise I’ll walk you through the development, production and edit of a hypothetical Reality show called, The Rarin’ Oliveris.
PART ONE: DEVELOPMENT
The story starts, as must any story of this ilk, with the owner of a Production Company—we'll call him Bob—and, because Bob is that kind of guy, his company’s named Bob’s Your Uncle Productions. Bob's actually a pretty insecure guy. He doesn't have a whole lot of experience in the industry, and started the company with money from his in-laws, who refinanced their home. Bob sold a series last year which kept things afloat, but until (when!) that gets renewed he needs to keep selling. He needs to make his overhead.
Now, while most people not in the industry assume networks and cable channels produce their own shows, this is not the case. Companies like Bob’s Your Uncle pitch show ideas to networks. When a network buys a show, they basically provide the pitching production company with the budget to produce it.
Bob recently found out that let's say TLC is looking for family-oriented shows: stuff with a heart but also a twist. Like, say, the Duggars, without the molestation. As luck would have it, Bob knows just such a family: the Oliveris of Staten Island. The Oliveris have a family rock 'n roll band that plays gigs around New Jersey. Mom plays keyboard, daughter plays drums, son shakes a mean tambourine, and dad takes lead vocals. Outside of being a band, though, they're a regular, very tight-knit family.
Bob's nervous. Any money he uses to shoot what we call a sizzle reel is wasted if it doesn't sell. Still, TLC's looking for this kind of thing, the Oliveris are real over-the-top type Reality characters, and also ... Staten Island. If he doesn't pitch this, someone else will. So he musters resources to shoot a sizzle. He tries to keep the cost of production down (read: unpaid interns and possibly an underpaid Associate Producer) but still has to drop a couple of thousand dollars in editing. He just hopes he's made the right decision producing this pitch.
Bob shoots at least ten of these a year and sometimes he doesn't sell any of them. So, he spends about $20K on Development a year (and, frankly, this is vastly understating the number of pitches production companies probably make each year). This is a scary amount of money to throw against the wall in the hopes of something sticking.
Bob shoots at least ten of these a year and sometimes he doesn't sell any of them. So, he spends about $20K on Development a year (and, frankly, this is vastly understating the number of pitches production companies probably make each year). This is a scary amount of money to throw against the wall in the hopes of something sticking.
The day of the Network meeting an anxious Bob arrives with three sizzle reels (he’s modified two other pitches so that they meet the family-with-a-twist spec) and a desperate smile. The network exec's late; there’s a new Head of Programming at the network and there have been nonstop meetings since his arrival. (Unbeknownst to fearful Bob, the exec herself is terrified that the new boss will toss her like the other execs who’ve recently been let go). She's sorry but she only has ten minutes.
Bob bobs his head, of course, of course while calculating internally which pitch to discard - he won't have time for three. So, what have you got to show me? Bob hits plays on his first sizzle, a pitch about an Alaskan survivalist family. Bob's on the edge of his seat. This is a strong concept (and is secretly Bob's favorite) but as he unspools the sample the network exec is constantly checking her email. Shit, he's really not getting traction with this one.
Bob bobs his head, of course, of course while calculating internally which pitch to discard - he won't have time for three. So, what have you got to show me? Bob hits plays on his first sizzle, a pitch about an Alaskan survivalist family. Bob's on the edge of his seat. This is a strong concept (and is secretly Bob's favorite) but as he unspools the sample the network exec is constantly checking her email. Shit, he's really not getting traction with this one.
Survive! Alaska is a bust. Bob moves onto the The Rarin' Oliveris. The network exec's still checking her phone but she seems faintly amused by footage of mom and dad getting into a fight about wardrobe. Bob perks up. The executive looks down at her phone. Fuck. He raises the audio to get her attention. The sizzle cuts to the Oliveris doing a show at a Staten Island church venue. The executive glances up. “Ooh, a church!” she says. As it happens, the new Head of Programming specifically wants more Christian family programming. What would be really good, she says, is if the Oliveris were actually Christians seeking to spread the Word by singing Bible-inspired songs at Christian venues. Would this be possible?
Well, no, not really. The Oliveris are many things, but church-going ain’t one of them. Also, their songs are generally rockabilly with a dash of jazz. But this is the first positive response he's had all meeting. So Bob, motivated by the fear of what will happen if he doesn't make a sale, says sure. He has no idea exactly how such a thing may be executed, or even if it can be, but he starts making all kinds of promises he really can't deliver on.
Bob makes the sale: an eight episode, half-hour series. Only, instead of the show being about a zany Staten Island family called The Rarin' Oliveris, now it's Alleluyah Oliveri. And instead of a docusoap about a hard-drinking, cursing, rock 'n roll family (the reality) it's a docusoap about a family of big characters committed to spreading the word of God (the Reality). Also the budget is pretty small and they want to premiere the show in about, you know, 4 months. Can you do it Bob? Yes! (This is where, in interview bite, we would have Bob confess that he has no idea how to pull this off!!)
CLIFFHANG INTO COMMERCIAL as we say.
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Gwen and Blake May Be Dating (but they aren't Reality TV stars)
According to the gossip press (Lainey, dlisted, Celebitchy) Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton from The Voice are dating. This would be more exciting if the selfsame people hadn't predicted in advance of Stefani joining The Voice, that NBC's PR department would hint at a potential love match between the two to boost ratings. So maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but the idea is appealing (if somewhat reminiscent of the last season of Nashville - I know, I surprise myself too.)
All that being said, the are-they-or-aren't-they dating bit is the only way in which The Voice is Reality. And the truth is that, while I have a passing interest in Blake and Gwen (I was once a twenty-something at a No Doubt show with 13-year olds, but I digress...), I have shamelessly seized upon this gossip factoid to raise a pet peeve of mine, which is, despite the mainstream media's claims to the contrary, The Voice, American Idol, and Dancing With the Stars are not Reality TV shows.
But, real people! But, prize! Like, like, Survivor!
Wrong.
Survivor and The Voice are as different as honey badgers and honey bees. Survivor is Competition Reality. The Voice is a talent show. Shows like The Voice (and Dancing with the Stars and Idol) are, as Sam Brenton and Reuben Cohen put it, "no more than an old television formula - the audition/variety show - repackaged with turn-of-the-century glitz." (And as addictive as popcorn.)
Competition Shows are social experiments, and have their roots in programming like Candid Camera. They take a "regular Joe/Joan," place them in a foreign situation, and see what happens. In the case of Competition shows this means contestants are isolated from their loved ones, housed (or put on an island) with strangers (usually cast to rub them the wrong way), and have their cell phones and computers taken away. To all intents and purposes they are prisoners of production. (On Dancing, by contrast, contestants come and go at will and on The Voice are even united with their families.) The isolation and imprisonment on Competition Shows places an additional burden on the contestants (beyond the burden of simply attempting to win).
The shows also have tight shooting schedules, so contestants work crazy hours (sometimes up to 22 hours a day), with the winner sometimes being not necessarily the best Survivor or House Guest or Chef but, rather, the person up to the rigors of production. The grind of the process basically reveals who these characters become when they have their backs against the wall (and they can't boo-hoo to their mommies).
So while the person (whether they be from Team Blake or Team Gwen) who wins The Voice may be the best singer/performer, the winner of Top Chef is not only the best chef, but the best chef able to perform 24 hours a day, while living with assholes, and having no recourse to familial support. See the difference?
So come on, Blakani, throw down or you ain't real.
All that being said, the are-they-or-aren't-they dating bit is the only way in which The Voice is Reality. And the truth is that, while I have a passing interest in Blake and Gwen (I was once a twenty-something at a No Doubt show with 13-year olds, but I digress...), I have shamelessly seized upon this gossip factoid to raise a pet peeve of mine, which is, despite the mainstream media's claims to the contrary, The Voice, American Idol, and Dancing With the Stars are not Reality TV shows.
But, real people! But, prize! Like, like, Survivor!
Wrong.
Survivor and The Voice are as different as honey badgers and honey bees. Survivor is Competition Reality. The Voice is a talent show. Shows like The Voice (and Dancing with the Stars and Idol) are, as Sam Brenton and Reuben Cohen put it, "no more than an old television formula - the audition/variety show - repackaged with turn-of-the-century glitz." (And as addictive as popcorn.)
Competition Shows are social experiments, and have their roots in programming like Candid Camera. They take a "regular Joe/Joan," place them in a foreign situation, and see what happens. In the case of Competition shows this means contestants are isolated from their loved ones, housed (or put on an island) with strangers (usually cast to rub them the wrong way), and have their cell phones and computers taken away. To all intents and purposes they are prisoners of production. (On Dancing, by contrast, contestants come and go at will and on The Voice are even united with their families.) The isolation and imprisonment on Competition Shows places an additional burden on the contestants (beyond the burden of simply attempting to win).
The shows also have tight shooting schedules, so contestants work crazy hours (sometimes up to 22 hours a day), with the winner sometimes being not necessarily the best Survivor or House Guest or Chef but, rather, the person up to the rigors of production. The grind of the process basically reveals who these characters become when they have their backs against the wall (and they can't boo-hoo to their mommies).
So come on, Blakani, throw down or you ain't real.
Monday, November 2, 2015
Reality Bits (Housewives Edition)
1. Celebrity Thievery
Kim Richards who has the dubious distinction of being too messy for Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and is therefore an ex-Housewife, pled no contest to shoplifting from the Target in Van Nuys. She was sentenced to attend 52 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, 300 hours of community labor and can no longer shop (if that's the word) at the Target in Van Nuys. Tribulations trail in Richards' wake: in addition to being kicked off Housewives (for real, how much of a fuck up do you have to be to get fired by Bravo!?), she also walked out of a Dr. Phil interview, got wasted at daughter Brooke's Mexico wedding, and at one point reportedly was living in her car.
But I come here not to cast stones at Richards (who clearly has issues) but to discuss a tendency I've noticed among celebrities to, how do you say, liberate shit from random places. I have been in the company of more than one celebrity who'll just pick up something in a store/showroom we're in and just walk on out with it. Most of the time they get away with it, although I was once extremely gratified when a particularly pernicious thief was stopped in her tracks and was forced to yammer her way out of it. And I still think I was more embarrassed than she was.
But the fascinating thing is that often the stuff being stolen isn't that desirable (or certainly not worth going to the clink over). Richards, for instance, zeroed in on multiple make up cases, markers, stickers and something that looks intriguingly like a dildo (but isn't because Target). I, in turn, have seen celebs steal equally random stuff from production including: a bag of garbage bags; a couple of coolers (the Production Manager who requested them back was fired); a set of multi-colored velour track suits and quantities of craft that would fill several storage units.
I don't know why getting famous increases your predisposition to steal. Is it that you just get so much for free that you come to expect it? Cuz based on my experience thievery's a celebrity pandemic.
2. The Ginger Prince
Nothing warms my soul as much as when I can combine my first love, gossip, with discussions of reality. Thus I am delighted to send you to this article from the Daily Mail that postulates that Camilla, (AKA Charles' former sidepiece, AKA the current Duchess of Cornwall) is currently on the hunt for a bride for everyone's favorite royal Hot Prince Harry (AKA the Ginger Prince).
But how, you might say, is this about Reality? (You might also say I just want an excuse to go looking for images like this, this and even this.) Well, one obstacle to Camilla's matchmaking is that Harry, according to the DM, "has developed a penchant for the company of older, more worldly women on whose discretion he can rely." Funny that they used the word discretion, because the (former) spare to the throne was not being quite as discreet when he had a quickie with Real Housewives of DC cast member Cat Ommanney, during production on that show.
Older ladies may be discreet, but production staff, not so much!
3. Contextless Yes
Finally, Vicky Gunvalson "confessed" on the Real Housewives of Orange County Reunion that her ex, Brooks Ayers abused her (among other things). Much is being made of the fact that when Andy Cohen asked her if she was afraid of Brooks she "timidly nodded her head 'yes'." Now quite possibly he is abusive and she is frightened of him, but I will tell you this: we can find a "yes" or nod from pretty much anywhere in a sequence of footage and place it where we want it (for instance after a question like, "Are you afraid of him?").
So I wouldn't be taking anything that appears on a reality show as gospel, especially when it comes to something as loaded as this. Not everyone out there is sue happy, and I am aware of at least one other instance on Bravo where someone told an extremely damaging and bald-faced lie about another character, and got away with it. Legal be lax.
#princeharry #kimrichards #rhoc #rhbh #rhdc
Kim Richards who has the dubious distinction of being too messy for Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and is therefore an ex-Housewife, pled no contest to shoplifting from the Target in Van Nuys. She was sentenced to attend 52 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, 300 hours of community labor and can no longer shop (if that's the word) at the Target in Van Nuys. Tribulations trail in Richards' wake: in addition to being kicked off Housewives (for real, how much of a fuck up do you have to be to get fired by Bravo!?), she also walked out of a Dr. Phil interview, got wasted at daughter Brooke's Mexico wedding, and at one point reportedly was living in her car.
But I come here not to cast stones at Richards (who clearly has issues) but to discuss a tendency I've noticed among celebrities to, how do you say, liberate shit from random places. I have been in the company of more than one celebrity who'll just pick up something in a store/showroom we're in and just walk on out with it. Most of the time they get away with it, although I was once extremely gratified when a particularly pernicious thief was stopped in her tracks and was forced to yammer her way out of it. And I still think I was more embarrassed than she was.
But the fascinating thing is that often the stuff being stolen isn't that desirable (or certainly not worth going to the clink over). Richards, for instance, zeroed in on multiple make up cases, markers, stickers and something that looks intriguingly like a dildo (but isn't because Target). I, in turn, have seen celebs steal equally random stuff from production including: a bag of garbage bags; a couple of coolers (the Production Manager who requested them back was fired); a set of multi-colored velour track suits and quantities of craft that would fill several storage units.
I don't know why getting famous increases your predisposition to steal. Is it that you just get so much for free that you come to expect it? Cuz based on my experience thievery's a celebrity pandemic.
2. The Ginger Prince
Nothing warms my soul as much as when I can combine my first love, gossip, with discussions of reality. Thus I am delighted to send you to this article from the Daily Mail that postulates that Camilla, (AKA Charles' former sidepiece, AKA the current Duchess of Cornwall) is currently on the hunt for a bride for everyone's favorite royal Hot Prince Harry (AKA the Ginger Prince).
But how, you might say, is this about Reality? (You might also say I just want an excuse to go looking for images like this, this and even this.) Well, one obstacle to Camilla's matchmaking is that Harry, according to the DM, "has developed a penchant for the company of older, more worldly women on whose discretion he can rely." Funny that they used the word discretion, because the (former) spare to the throne was not being quite as discreet when he had a quickie with Real Housewives of DC cast member Cat Ommanney, during production on that show.
Older ladies may be discreet, but production staff, not so much!
3. Contextless Yes
Finally, Vicky Gunvalson "confessed" on the Real Housewives of Orange County Reunion that her ex, Brooks Ayers abused her (among other things). Much is being made of the fact that when Andy Cohen asked her if she was afraid of Brooks she "timidly nodded her head 'yes'." Now quite possibly he is abusive and she is frightened of him, but I will tell you this: we can find a "yes" or nod from pretty much anywhere in a sequence of footage and place it where we want it (for instance after a question like, "Are you afraid of him?").
So I wouldn't be taking anything that appears on a reality show as gospel, especially when it comes to something as loaded as this. Not everyone out there is sue happy, and I am aware of at least one other instance on Bravo where someone told an extremely damaging and bald-faced lie about another character, and got away with it. Legal be lax.
#princeharry #kimrichards #rhoc #rhbh #rhdc
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Some Thoughts on the Latest WGA-Related E-Mail
UPDATE:: Yesterday Original Media and the Writer's Guild of America East signed a settlement! WHOOT!!
-----
The below landed in my e-mail today, and I must admit, I have not been this delighted to receive a communication since my boy cat took a dump in the middle of the study floor. (And that asshole's litter box is clean, Goddamnit!)
Nonetheless, the text was somewhat less traumatizing to read than e-mails of this ilk have historically been. See for yourself:
Hi all -
********
Credit where credit is due, this missive lacks the usual hysterical tone that tends to infuse messages of this sort, possessing instead a more friendly (albeit a trifle cloying) tone. Line breaks would have been nice between paragraphs, and I could have done with a smidge less underlining, but I appreciate the overall chatty quality.
I was also quite touched to discover that OM is concerned about those pesky dues that Unions WILL INSIST on receiving in exchange for the multitudinous benefits they deliver including decent working hours, overtime pay, and, yes, health care.
-----
The below landed in my e-mail today, and I must admit, I have not been this delighted to receive a communication since my boy cat took a dump in the middle of the study floor. (And that asshole's litter box is clean, Goddamnit!)
Nonetheless, the text was somewhat less traumatizing to read than e-mails of this ilk have historically been. See for yourself:
Hi all -
It’s been a few months since I joined Original Media, and I’ve really enjoyed working with everyone here. I love the creativity, professionalism and dedication I’ve seen and can’t wait for the months and years ahead. Thank you for all you do to make OM the highly-respected production company it is!
I wanted to address some things going on with the WGAE (Writers Guild of America East) that may have come to your attention. This isn’t my favorite part of the job, but I feel it’s important to give you truthful information so you all know what’s going on, especially in light of the Guild’s recent e-mail that is so false and deliberately misleading.
You may be wondering why the Guild is trying to change your opinion on how we operate. The answer is that the Guild apparently doesn’t want you or anyone else to know – even though it represents you – that the primary reason we don’t have a contract with the Guild is because OM has not agreed to the Guild’s demand that all Producers and APs be forced to pay costly union dues and initiation fees. This is called a “union security” provision, and if OM agreed to it, the Guild would have the right to require OM to terminate any Producer or Assistant Producer who failed to pay union dues after 30 days employment. OM’s position is that the employees should decide for themselves whether they want to pay dues.
The Guild would like everyone to believe that other issues like health insurance are driving the negotiations, but they really aren’t. I’m now regularly attending the negotiations and OM and the Guild have all but agreed on all issues except for union security. The Guild is willing to hurt the Company and put our shows and employees in jeopardy in order to force you to pay union dues. It's obvious why the Guild doesn’t want you to know this. If you read back through all of your e-mails from the Guild and all the press releases issued by the Guild, you will not find a single mention of union security or union dues in any of them.
I apologize for the long email, but I thought it was important for you to have the facts. I will be in touch with further emails in the months ahead to discuss healthcare and how the Guild has rewritten the history behind OM implementing a healthcare plan in 2015.
Looking forward to continuing to work together and updating everyone on exciting new things happening at OM! And as always, please feel free to ask any questions you have regarding this process.
Thank you so much!
********
Credit where credit is due, this missive lacks the usual hysterical tone that tends to infuse messages of this sort, possessing instead a more friendly (albeit a trifle cloying) tone. Line breaks would have been nice between paragraphs, and I could have done with a smidge less underlining, but I appreciate the overall chatty quality.
I was also quite touched to discover that OM is concerned about those pesky dues that Unions WILL INSIST on receiving in exchange for the multitudinous benefits they deliver including decent working hours, overtime pay, and, yes, health care.
I feel obliged to go on the record, though, and say that I, for one, don't want negotiations to be held up on my behalf when it comes to dues. I would be happy to pay them. Should others be in agreement with me in this regard, perhaps we can let OM know so that the negotiations can proceed.
UPDATE:: Marissa Schlesinger provides a summary of my feelings in verse -
About unions there are certain truths:
Protection, a voice and-yes-dues
Good benefits, yay!
Also overtime pay!
Don't fall for your management's ruse
UPDATE:: Marissa Schlesinger provides a summary of my feelings in verse -
About unions there are certain truths:
Protection, a voice and-yes-dues
Good benefits, yay!
Also overtime pay!
Don't fall for your management's ruse
Monday, October 26, 2015
Speaking Up for the Kardashian (crazy, I know)
It is a testament to the ubiquity of Kardashian Klan that my seventy-something father-in-law, who doesn't watch television "because it's shit," has recently (and somewhat horrifyingly) emerged as an expert on Kim. And while I would rather stab myself repeatedly in the head with a dull fork than watch their show, there's a shitton of Klan facts clotting up my brain. For one thing I know that they are called the Klan.
For another I know that matriarch Kris Jenner whores out her family relentlessly (literally, in the case of Kim's exquisitely produced sex tape whose release spurned the Keeping Up With the Kardashians juggernaut); that Michael K at Dlisted has tagged her Pimp Mama K (PMK) and Satan's Homegirl, labels that have caught fire across the inter webs; that her other nickname is "a source" in multitudinous TMZ and E! articles about the family.
I know that Kim married some dude named Kris Humphries (dumping him immediately thereafter) seemingly solely to provoke the ratings bonanza that was their televised wedding.
I know that she has since married Kanye West.
Finally, I know that Khloe Kardashian was married to Lamar Odom (I don't follow basketball, so this is the only way I know of him) and that he was struggling with an addiction that many seem to attribute to his involvement with the Klan.
This is a family born for the side eye.
And yet, I find myself surprisingly inclined to defend them amidst the vitriol that Odom's recent OD has unleashed. The moment commentators became aware that Khloe and Kris had gone to his Vegas hospital, folks seized their pitchforks. Apparently, it was impossible to believe that Lamar's almost ex-wife and her mother might legitimately want to be by his bedside. Or that her older sister might later join them to show support.
Accusations that they had taken cameras from KUWTK along with them to the hospital were soon disproven. And commentators even begrudgingly conceded that maybe the K Klan's concern about Odom might be valid. However, they warned, only time will tell how genuine that concern might be: if the OD storyline is covered on the show, that will prove that PMK, Kim and Khloe really are just in it for the bucks!
Well, why wouldn't/shouldn't it be covered in the show? ::Ducks for cover::
There are those (many in this industry) who will say, look, Odom signed a release, he's fair game. I won't even go there. (I strongly question whether people truly understand what signing a release means when you are dealing with the likes of us, but that's a conversation for another post). Rather, I need to point out that KUWTK is a Docu-Soap, and on a Docu-Soap the participants' lives are the show. If this were about Jeff Probst and Survivor, we would not be having this conversation. His off-camera life would be irrelevant.
KUWTK, however, is about the K family, a family that is extremely present in both the tabloid and mainstream press. Odom isn't some random guy who Khloe happens to have sunk her claws into; this is the woman's almost ex-husband, and she happens to have the legal responsibility to determine his medical care. So, not covering the overdose would be glaring.
How are they (the producers or the cast) supposed to continue shooting a show about this family without addressing the fact that the ex of one of them almost died? And, as much as you might hate the K Klan, surely you acknowledge that Khloe has the right to represent/discuss her own life. And if Odom doesn't want to appear, or his family dislikes how he's portrayed, a mere threat of a lawsuit generally convinces producers to remove offending material (just ask the cast and producers of Love and Hip Hop).
Which doesn't mean I think this is all kittens and rainbows. Do I think that producers will want this material covered because of the potential ratings boost? Of course. As individuals, they may or may not care for Odom (likely they do: it happens when you're shooting with someone), but they will also want to include this kind of material because it benefits a show with declining numbers. PMK, in turn, is equally invested in seeing the material on the air, and for the same reason. But none of this proves or disproves that Khloe has genuine feeling for her ex.
I can't speak to the state of Khloe Kardashian's soul. Or to whether Pimp Mama Kris has one. Either way, the scales won't be tipped for me if his OD is included in the show. And I do think that covering a character forced to confront the potential death of a loved one, is something that, as a producer, I would want to do. And I believe (in this one instance!) that doing so is completely ethical.
#kimkardashian #kuwtk #kardashians #khloekardashian #prayforlamarodom #lamarodom
For another I know that matriarch Kris Jenner whores out her family relentlessly (literally, in the case of Kim's exquisitely produced sex tape whose release spurned the Keeping Up With the Kardashians juggernaut); that Michael K at Dlisted has tagged her Pimp Mama K (PMK) and Satan's Homegirl, labels that have caught fire across the inter webs; that her other nickname is "a source" in multitudinous TMZ and E! articles about the family.
I know that Kim married some dude named Kris Humphries (dumping him immediately thereafter) seemingly solely to provoke the ratings bonanza that was their televised wedding.
I know that she has since married Kanye West.
Finally, I know that Khloe Kardashian was married to Lamar Odom (I don't follow basketball, so this is the only way I know of him) and that he was struggling with an addiction that many seem to attribute to his involvement with the Klan.
This is a family born for the side eye.
And yet, I find myself surprisingly inclined to defend them amidst the vitriol that Odom's recent OD has unleashed. The moment commentators became aware that Khloe and Kris had gone to his Vegas hospital, folks seized their pitchforks. Apparently, it was impossible to believe that Lamar's almost ex-wife and her mother might legitimately want to be by his bedside. Or that her older sister might later join them to show support.
Accusations that they had taken cameras from KUWTK along with them to the hospital were soon disproven. And commentators even begrudgingly conceded that maybe the K Klan's concern about Odom might be valid. However, they warned, only time will tell how genuine that concern might be: if the OD storyline is covered on the show, that will prove that PMK, Kim and Khloe really are just in it for the bucks!
Well, why wouldn't/shouldn't it be covered in the show? ::Ducks for cover::
There are those (many in this industry) who will say, look, Odom signed a release, he's fair game. I won't even go there. (I strongly question whether people truly understand what signing a release means when you are dealing with the likes of us, but that's a conversation for another post). Rather, I need to point out that KUWTK is a Docu-Soap, and on a Docu-Soap the participants' lives are the show. If this were about Jeff Probst and Survivor, we would not be having this conversation. His off-camera life would be irrelevant.
KUWTK, however, is about the K family, a family that is extremely present in both the tabloid and mainstream press. Odom isn't some random guy who Khloe happens to have sunk her claws into; this is the woman's almost ex-husband, and she happens to have the legal responsibility to determine his medical care. So, not covering the overdose would be glaring.
How are they (the producers or the cast) supposed to continue shooting a show about this family without addressing the fact that the ex of one of them almost died? And, as much as you might hate the K Klan, surely you acknowledge that Khloe has the right to represent/discuss her own life. And if Odom doesn't want to appear, or his family dislikes how he's portrayed, a mere threat of a lawsuit generally convinces producers to remove offending material (just ask the cast and producers of Love and Hip Hop).
Which doesn't mean I think this is all kittens and rainbows. Do I think that producers will want this material covered because of the potential ratings boost? Of course. As individuals, they may or may not care for Odom (likely they do: it happens when you're shooting with someone), but they will also want to include this kind of material because it benefits a show with declining numbers. PMK, in turn, is equally invested in seeing the material on the air, and for the same reason. But none of this proves or disproves that Khloe has genuine feeling for her ex.
I can't speak to the state of Khloe Kardashian's soul. Or to whether Pimp Mama Kris has one. Either way, the scales won't be tipped for me if his OD is included in the show. And I do think that covering a character forced to confront the potential death of a loved one, is something that, as a producer, I would want to do. And I believe (in this one instance!) that doing so is completely ethical.
#kimkardashian #kuwtk #kardashians #khloekardashian #prayforlamarodom #lamarodom
Saturday, October 24, 2015
WGA (and all things good)
This one's for the industry folks out there. (Are you out there?)
As you are aware, the Writer's Guild East has been doing an excellent job of organizing Reality producers in New York. At this point they have landed, among others, Sharp Entertainment, Original Media, and most recently Leftfield Entertainment. Unionization is long overdue in this extremely abusive industry that has been taking advantage of the lack of any recourse for workers. (Producers, e.g., are routinely expected to put in up to 18 hour days, while accruing no corresponding overtime.)
However, what is often lost in the discussion about unionization (read: screaming matches and
hysterical e-mails), is that collective bargaining would probably not even be necessary (or a painful adjustment for management) if Reality companies
approached the production of their shows in a thoughtful and efficient manner.
If, for example, we went into the field with a clear idea of what we wish to
return with, and actually actively directed in the field, all the while remaining flexible to, you know, reality as it develops, it might
not be necessary for field crews to shoot for hours upon endless hours, hoping to catch a throw-down.
Similarly, post producers wouldn't have to be up until 2 a.m. wading
through largely unusable footage in an attempt to make sense of its vast meaninglessness.
Instead, no one company seems to learn from mistakes made (or
even successes achieved) in their own productions, let alone those of
neighboring companies, choosing instead to approach each new show as if it were OMG.FIRST.TIME EVAH!! We don't even have fixed job descriptions so, say, a Supervising Story Producer will have completely different job duties from one company to another. (Not that we're ever given job descriptions which, I dunno, might help everyone understand what is expected of themselves and others - something pretty useful in the insane whirligig of fun that is Production.)
There is also no active effort to engage in thoughtful discussion about this almost 30-year-old industry amongst the people who actually produce it. As a result, there is a lot of fuck-uppery that could be
easily avoided if we just sought to educate ourselves about what has worked
before on similar programming, and what boondoggles might be avoided.
It is in response to this severe lack of self-reflection and developmental education within our industry (or even dialog outside of it, including in the mainstream media) that I <shameless self-promotion>started
this blog, have a Reality production program in the works with a local college, and wrote a textbook about Reality production and its various genres</end> this past summer. #needaliteraryagent
An industry-wide commitment to education would improve the way we function in our jobs now (which could only help to improve working conditions) and also train the next generation of producers. What a great thing, then, that the WGA seems to be committing to a program of education.
This Thursday, October 29, the Guild is hosting an event billed "Genre in Non-Fiction TV: Building a Career from Food to Murder," with a view to educating producers about the ways they might advance their careers. (You've already read me carrying on about Reality genre in this blog, including here, here and here.) The panel is impressive and includes my homegirl: Emmy Award winning Executive Producer, Sandy Zweig. I strongly recommend that we support this event, not only for the information we can derive from it, but also because we need to encourage as much discussion within the industry as possible.
An industry-wide commitment to education would improve the way we function in our jobs now (which could only help to improve working conditions) and also train the next generation of producers. What a great thing, then, that the WGA seems to be committing to a program of education.
This Thursday, October 29, the Guild is hosting an event billed "Genre in Non-Fiction TV: Building a Career from Food to Murder," with a view to educating producers about the ways they might advance their careers. (You've already read me carrying on about Reality genre in this blog, including here, here and here.) The panel is impressive and includes my homegirl: Emmy Award winning Executive Producer, Sandy Zweig. I strongly recommend that we support this event, not only for the information we can derive from it, but also because we need to encourage as much discussion within the industry as possible.
Genre in Non-Fiction TV: Building a Career from Food to Murder
Thursday, October 29, 7:30pm
Writers Guild of America, East
250 Hudson Street, Suite 700, NYC
250 Hudson Street, Suite 700, NYC
Monday, October 19, 2015
Reality Bits
Dance Moms’ teacher Abby Lee Miller has been indicted for fraud. Following an investigation by the FBI, IRS and postal inspectors it has been revealed that Miller hid $755,000 in income.
I was forced to watch episodes of the Lifetime series a while back when I was showrunning another show featuring kids. As I was told more than once that our show should in no way be like Dance Moms I felt obliged to watch it. Who knew how much that shit would trigger me?
As a formerly serious ballet dancer I am sadly well acquainted with the sadists who find a calling as dance teachers, but Miller takes things to a whole new level.
Suffice it to say, I'm not exactly saddened to hear about her legal issues. Fingers crossed they will also result in her child abusing show getting cancelled!
#DanceMoms
***************
In seemingly unrelated (but likely not so unrelated) news Michelle Duggar gave the following advice to a pregnant fan asking about how to be the best wifey despite her condition:
"You've got to remember this. Anyone can iron Jim Bob's shirt, anybody can make lunch for him. He can get his lunch somewhere else. But you are the only one who can meet that special need that he has in his life for intimacy. So when you are exhausted at the end of the day, maybe from dealing with little ones, and you fall into bed so exhausted at night, don't forget about him because you and he are the only ones who can have that time together. No one else in the world can meet that need."
Some publications believe this is shade aimed at Anna, whose husband strayed with porn stars while she was pregnant.
#19kidsandcounting #freeanna
***************
Finally, Effie Brown can't win for losing on Project Greenlight. As discussed earlier on this blog, on the first episode of Project Greenlight she was presented as the Archetypal Black Woman raising issues of diversity in choosing a director. As the the show has unfolded, however, she has been (surprisingly) recast as The Man as in "The Man is keeping me down."
In Project Greenlight terms, The Man is whoever stands in the way of the Visionary Director. In the real world as well as on the show, that would be the Producer (AKA the person who controls the budget). As Producer, a role she has successfully inhabited IRL, Brown made the perfectly reasonable suggestion that the Visionary Director Jason Mann shoot his film on a digital format rather than 35 mm. Well, it's reasonable unless you are wrapped up in the mythology of the whole Visionary Director schtick. Because Visionary Directors only shoot on film. So Jason was obliged to go over Brown's head to get the format he wanted.
In this fascinating interview with Indiewire, Brown discusses her experience on the show, and why doing it was a bad idea.
As I always say, kids, when it comes to appearing on a Reality show: JUST SAY NO!!!!
#damonsplaining #projectgreenlight
Monday, October 12, 2015
Barry Diller is Wrong
“I just think it’s a phenomenon of reality television as politics. [...] Nobody wants to watch reality television of two housewives sitting in a room taking about where they’re going to go get their hair done. It’s all about conflict. Donald Trump, all he is is about conflict, and all that he is is negative conflict."
Media Mogul Barry Diller speaking at Bloomberg Markets Most Influential Summit
Last Tuesday Media Mogul Barry Diller weighed in on Donald Trump's candidacy, saying it is little more than a Reality spectacle. (This is a boring observation that has been made by many others, but has gotten more press because Diller said it).
Diller knows a thing or two about Reality programming, having co-founded Fox with his pal Rupert Murdock. As a result he is, in fact, responsible for producing the first Reality show COPS (in an effective effort at undermining the pesky unions that control narrative programming).
However, I beg to differ with his analysis of the primary as Reality and particularly his comparing the current situation to, for instance, a Housewives show. That's offensive both to the Housewives casts, and Reality as a whole.
Frankly, these candidates are producing piss poor Reality footage. Yeah, sure, we have some nice archetypes developing what with Fiorina really owning her Wicked Witch persona, Ben Carson providing plenty of yucks with his Village Idiot routine, and Trump lording over it all like the Ring Master of the Dingaling Circus.
But while we've got a whole bunch of incendiary statements out there, we've no actual conflict. As Diller should know a comment is not conflict. Conflict arises when one character reacts to another character's incendiary statement, and we've got none of that here. All we've got is a bunch of assholes muttering about rapist immigrants; the similarity between 9/11 and Obamacare; and the boss job they did running a company into the ground; to be met with silence from the rest of the field.
Why does Trump even bother taking a shit on John McCain's war record, if McCain's ally Jeb Bush is gonna just sulk in a corner in response?
What's the point of the Wicked Witch Fiorina lying through her teeth about imaginary Planned Parenthood videos, if there isn't someone who's gonna pull a bitch's weave over it??! You know you're really amateur hour when Kenya Moore of Housewives of Atlanta has a more apt response than any of the candidates flailing out there.
Finally, how come Carson gets to blather on about bullet ridden bodies being better than gun control if no one is gonna choke him Mob Wives style on a trip to Vegas?
The closest we got to a Reality moment occurred when Fiorina confronted Trump about his implication that she was too ugly to govern, but it really lacked some kind of physical follow through.
In short, as Reality goes, the whole thing sucks. This is a bunch of fuck ups spouting soundbites into a vacuum. There are no counter-points. There is no Story. If only the primary were at least as interesting as your average Reality show.
And as for Diller's proclamation that if Trump wins he plans to leave the country, here's my counter: thanks for sharting out the Reality genre in the first place, and then taking off when it starts to smell. Asshole.
#primaries #diller #trump #fiorina
Media Mogul Barry Diller speaking at Bloomberg Markets Most Influential Summit
Last Tuesday Media Mogul Barry Diller weighed in on Donald Trump's candidacy, saying it is little more than a Reality spectacle. (This is a boring observation that has been made by many others, but has gotten more press because Diller said it).
Diller knows a thing or two about Reality programming, having co-founded Fox with his pal Rupert Murdock. As a result he is, in fact, responsible for producing the first Reality show COPS (in an effective effort at undermining the pesky unions that control narrative programming).
However, I beg to differ with his analysis of the primary as Reality and particularly his comparing the current situation to, for instance, a Housewives show. That's offensive both to the Housewives casts, and Reality as a whole.
Frankly, these candidates are producing piss poor Reality footage. Yeah, sure, we have some nice archetypes developing what with Fiorina really owning her Wicked Witch persona, Ben Carson providing plenty of yucks with his Village Idiot routine, and Trump lording over it all like the Ring Master of the Dingaling Circus.
But while we've got a whole bunch of incendiary statements out there, we've no actual conflict. As Diller should know a comment is not conflict. Conflict arises when one character reacts to another character's incendiary statement, and we've got none of that here. All we've got is a bunch of assholes muttering about rapist immigrants; the similarity between 9/11 and Obamacare; and the boss job they did running a company into the ground; to be met with silence from the rest of the field.
Why does Trump even bother taking a shit on John McCain's war record, if McCain's ally Jeb Bush is gonna just sulk in a corner in response?
What's the point of the Wicked Witch Fiorina lying through her teeth about imaginary Planned Parenthood videos, if there isn't someone who's gonna pull a bitch's weave over it??! You know you're really amateur hour when Kenya Moore of Housewives of Atlanta has a more apt response than any of the candidates flailing out there.
Finally, how come Carson gets to blather on about bullet ridden bodies being better than gun control if no one is gonna choke him Mob Wives style on a trip to Vegas?
The closest we got to a Reality moment occurred when Fiorina confronted Trump about his implication that she was too ugly to govern, but it really lacked some kind of physical follow through.
In short, as Reality goes, the whole thing sucks. This is a bunch of fuck ups spouting soundbites into a vacuum. There are no counter-points. There is no Story. If only the primary were at least as interesting as your average Reality show.
And as for Diller's proclamation that if Trump wins he plans to leave the country, here's my counter: thanks for sharting out the Reality genre in the first place, and then taking off when it starts to smell. Asshole.
#primaries #diller #trump #fiorina
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
The Return of the Dread Duggars (AKA TLC Wants the Mon-ay)
Few of my closest acquaintances would accuse me of being an optimist. They'd laugh at the idea. And yet, there I was hoping that TLC would have stuck to the decision they so reluctantly came to to remove the Duggar clan from the air.
Instead, the broadcaster has announced it will air "specials" in the coming months focused on Jill and Jessa Duggar (not coincidentally two of the sisters Josh Duggar is on record as having abused). This is clearly part of the long game in which TLC has been engaged - first waiting a full 3 months to make sure we wouldn't just forget about the whole Josh issue, then rolling out the least desirable special of all time (to prove, you know, that they care), and finally, now welcoming a family that facilitates molestation back to the air.
And have no doubt, these new specials will also feature the horror show known as the Duggar parents (who failed to report their son's behavior after it had been pointed out to them more than once). No doubt the family as a whole will benefit financially (on the upside - less begging for money from their followers). No doubt those specials will evolve into a series.
Any right-thinking person would have to concede that these two women should not be victimized (again) for the sins of their paedophile brother; they are the least tarnished by this scandal, which is why the Duggar comeback is being packaged around them. Additionally, time heals all social media wounds. A cursory examination of articles announcing the return of the family (sans Josh) as well as the 15,000 Kids and Counting FB page, indicates that most of those outraged by the original story have since moved on to other inflammatory subjects.
Left behind is the original audience for the show: middle class white folks based in the middle of the country who tend towards evangelical Christianity i.e. not us crazy Queers on the coasts some of whom happen to produce the programming said Christians watch (unless Mamma Michelle gets us fired, that is). Those folks are thrilled to invite the Duggars back into their homes (They never understood why the liberal media elite were so hung up on the small matter of molestation - and the covering up thereof - in the first place.)
This is the audience responsible for the 19 million dollars in ad sale revenue TLC was raking in. Anyone who has ever worked for TLC knows that white middle-class folks in the middle of the country is their target demographic, and that they program accordingly. (Fun game: watch a night of TLC programming and count the number of Black and Latino people featured versus the Whites.) And let's not kid ourselves - all networks make these kinds of choices to a greater or lesser degree depending upon their audience.
That being said, programming the Duggars is pretty fucking cynical, given how damaging their way of life has proven to be.
For instance, I can't help but feel that Josh Duggar's issues (and he evidently has more than one) arise out of the environment he grew up in. How can a child come to terms with his sexuality when, on the one hand, his parents are fucking like bunnies but on the other he's getting his wrists tied together when he's caught masturbating?
Then there's whole repopulating the world with white Christians that the Quiverfull folks are largely endorsing; and let's not fool ourselves that this isn't about race - take a good look at this search on Quiverfull adherents. Notice anything?
Finally, there's that asshole Bill Gothard, the spiritual leader of the Duggars, who's a committed paedophile himself.
And this isn't just about TLC (or Discovery). Why is there such a commitment across broadcasters to, say, celebrate the wives of criminals, encourage women to get into physical fights, and implicitly provoke cops to "perform for camera" with deadly consequences?
Is it really too much to ask that broadcasters (and production companies) behave as responsible citizens in their programming choices? Are there really so few topics for programming, that we can't have programming free of right wing nutjobs and thugs? Can we really not create shows more like Little People, Big World, and cast aside the shit likes Mob Wives?
Based on what I'm seeing on the inside, this problematic shit is developed more out of laziness than a lack of viable alternatives. Both production companies and especially broadcasters would far rather copy another successful show, than develop one themselves.
Look, like most (all?) cynics I am actually plagued by idealism. I'm disgruntled with the world not because I believe it is depraved per se, but because I have a vision of how much better it could be. And reality programming, for one, could be a whole lot better if we just tried.
Instead, the broadcaster has announced it will air "specials" in the coming months focused on Jill and Jessa Duggar (not coincidentally two of the sisters Josh Duggar is on record as having abused). This is clearly part of the long game in which TLC has been engaged - first waiting a full 3 months to make sure we wouldn't just forget about the whole Josh issue, then rolling out the least desirable special of all time (to prove, you know, that they care), and finally, now welcoming a family that facilitates molestation back to the air.
And have no doubt, these new specials will also feature the horror show known as the Duggar parents (who failed to report their son's behavior after it had been pointed out to them more than once). No doubt the family as a whole will benefit financially (on the upside - less begging for money from their followers). No doubt those specials will evolve into a series.
Any right-thinking person would have to concede that these two women should not be victimized (again) for the sins of their paedophile brother; they are the least tarnished by this scandal, which is why the Duggar comeback is being packaged around them. Additionally, time heals all social media wounds. A cursory examination of articles announcing the return of the family (sans Josh) as well as the 15,000 Kids and Counting FB page, indicates that most of those outraged by the original story have since moved on to other inflammatory subjects.
Left behind is the original audience for the show: middle class white folks based in the middle of the country who tend towards evangelical Christianity i.e. not us crazy Queers on the coasts some of whom happen to produce the programming said Christians watch (unless Mamma Michelle gets us fired, that is). Those folks are thrilled to invite the Duggars back into their homes (They never understood why the liberal media elite were so hung up on the small matter of molestation - and the covering up thereof - in the first place.)
This is the audience responsible for the 19 million dollars in ad sale revenue TLC was raking in. Anyone who has ever worked for TLC knows that white middle-class folks in the middle of the country is their target demographic, and that they program accordingly. (Fun game: watch a night of TLC programming and count the number of Black and Latino people featured versus the Whites.) And let's not kid ourselves - all networks make these kinds of choices to a greater or lesser degree depending upon their audience.
That being said, programming the Duggars is pretty fucking cynical, given how damaging their way of life has proven to be.
For instance, I can't help but feel that Josh Duggar's issues (and he evidently has more than one) arise out of the environment he grew up in. How can a child come to terms with his sexuality when, on the one hand, his parents are fucking like bunnies but on the other he's getting his wrists tied together when he's caught masturbating?
Then there's whole repopulating the world with white Christians that the Quiverfull folks are largely endorsing; and let's not fool ourselves that this isn't about race - take a good look at this search on Quiverfull adherents. Notice anything?
Finally, there's that asshole Bill Gothard, the spiritual leader of the Duggars, who's a committed paedophile himself.
And this isn't just about TLC (or Discovery). Why is there such a commitment across broadcasters to, say, celebrate the wives of criminals, encourage women to get into physical fights, and implicitly provoke cops to "perform for camera" with deadly consequences?
Is it really too much to ask that broadcasters (and production companies) behave as responsible citizens in their programming choices? Are there really so few topics for programming, that we can't have programming free of right wing nutjobs and thugs? Can we really not create shows more like Little People, Big World, and cast aside the shit likes Mob Wives?
Based on what I'm seeing on the inside, this problematic shit is developed more out of laziness than a lack of viable alternatives. Both production companies and especially broadcasters would far rather copy another successful show, than develop one themselves.
Look, like most (all?) cynics I am actually plagued by idealism. I'm disgruntled with the world not because I believe it is depraved per se, but because I have a vision of how much better it could be. And reality programming, for one, could be a whole lot better if we just tried.
Thursday, September 24, 2015
How the Project Greenlight Diversity Debacle (Probably) Made It To Air
I have come here to confess: when I first heard about Matt Damon schooling Effie Brown on the finer points of diversity on Project Greenlight, the first thing that popped into my head was, "Well, kudos to Damon, he probably could have had them edit out that moment if he wanted."
See, of the Affleck/Damon entity, I've always preferred Matt Damon. Damon, for one, did not, upon being asked to extinguish a cigarette by a person in whose home they were shooting for Good Will Hunting, look the homeowner in the eye as he stubbed the cigarette out in her potted plant. (Guess who did?) Additionally, while Damon did participate in creating that execrable piece of Oscar-baity bullshit, he has since stepped back and allowed his pal Ben to take the lead in creating more unduly lauded movies, choosing instead to build an impressive acting career.
You might even say that I have a teensy, weensy lesbian crush on Matt Damon. So I weally, weally wanted to believe that Damon let the offending incident air because he believed it might generate a conversation about the racism that resides in even the most well-meaning of white people. I know. Pathetic. Sigh.
Here's how I think it more likely went down:
Firstly, while PG is a reality show and therefore somewhat untrustworthy, I am inclined to believe that the incident unfolded in real life much as it did in the episode. Trust me: you don't script (or soft script) Matt Damon to condescend to the producer of Dear White People on the issue of race. So the moment had.to.be. somewhat documentary.
That being said, I'm sure that most people in the room were unaware that anything explosive had happened. People performing "conversation" for camera often get caught up in what the next thing is they should say, and don't really listen to each other most of the time. Damon, in particular, seems oblivious to having caused offense. He has the relaxed demeanor of a person confident in the correctness of his beliefs. It's possible that even the producers shooting the scene didn't know what they'd got. Following story in the field can sometimes be like tracking hummingbird mating rituals while juggling knives on a solowheel. Effie Brown, we can assume, was less oblivious.
Whatever the case, no one is oblivious in post. Editors and post producers have two goals: find the drama and bring it. And on a show as vanilla as Project Greenlight, any conflict is going to be milked. So, if I'm working on that show, that Effie moment would go straight in. Sure, the guy's a star, but the moment happened and it is great conflict. Post producers don't tend to censor themselves around celebrities; those are the decisions we leave to executives. And those executives likely aren't going to eliminate good content unless they have to.
So, in the end, the decision probably lay with Damon and his team. I suspect they could have insisted the content be removed, if they wanted. And just to play devil's advocate, maybe it never even occurred to them to remove it. But I find it hard to believe anyone would be cool with being portrayed (even slightly) as a racist, if they had the option of removing the content. And yet they didn't. Why?
Re-enter Ben Affleck, stage right, smoking a cigarette. You have to figure that Affleck's recent Finding Your Roots saga informed Damon's team's discussions. If you recall, that scandal pre-dated Nannygate but was equally, if not more, damaging to Affleck's image. It was the kind of shit the right wing lives for: an espouser of liberal politics pressuring PBS to edit (censor) his slave owning ancestor out of a documentary program. (And let's not forget, they do kind of pretend that Greenlight is documentary).
Damon and his team had to know that if it came out that he'd had material of this nature suppressed it would be devastating. It would only take one person in the vast chain of people involved in producing the show to leak it, and Damon would wind up looking as devious as his ol' buddy Ben.
The best that Damon (and/or his people) could do, and did, is request that he be allowed to express his viewpoint in interview (which he did - unfortunately compounding the initial insult). Team Damon might also have applied pressure to get the moment watered down (although it seems to play pretty straight to this producer's eyes). Whatever the case, they clearly realized there was no stuffing that particular genie back in the bottle.
And that, I suspect, is how the moment made it to television. And, look, I'm grateful it did. We need to be reminded that while racism looks like this, sometimes it looks like this.
White people (like me) benefit from a system that is weighted in our favor. We should not be surprised, then, when we reveal ourselves to be, well, ill-schooled in just how weighted that system is. But it would probably behoove us to get an education. If this incident gets even a few people (including Damon) to start examining their privilege, I would be willing to say Project Greenlight has at least one redeeming quality.
OT (maybe?) Does it make me a bad person that I'm still totally salivating for the upcoming installment of The Bourne Identity?
#Damonsplaining
See, of the Affleck/Damon entity, I've always preferred Matt Damon. Damon, for one, did not, upon being asked to extinguish a cigarette by a person in whose home they were shooting for Good Will Hunting, look the homeowner in the eye as he stubbed the cigarette out in her potted plant. (Guess who did?) Additionally, while Damon did participate in creating that execrable piece of Oscar-baity bullshit, he has since stepped back and allowed his pal Ben to take the lead in creating more unduly lauded movies, choosing instead to build an impressive acting career.
You might even say that I have a teensy, weensy lesbian crush on Matt Damon. So I weally, weally wanted to believe that Damon let the offending incident air because he believed it might generate a conversation about the racism that resides in even the most well-meaning of white people. I know. Pathetic. Sigh.
Here's how I think it more likely went down:
Firstly, while PG is a reality show and therefore somewhat untrustworthy, I am inclined to believe that the incident unfolded in real life much as it did in the episode. Trust me: you don't script (or soft script) Matt Damon to condescend to the producer of Dear White People on the issue of race. So the moment had.to.be. somewhat documentary.
That being said, I'm sure that most people in the room were unaware that anything explosive had happened. People performing "conversation" for camera often get caught up in what the next thing is they should say, and don't really listen to each other most of the time. Damon, in particular, seems oblivious to having caused offense. He has the relaxed demeanor of a person confident in the correctness of his beliefs. It's possible that even the producers shooting the scene didn't know what they'd got. Following story in the field can sometimes be like tracking hummingbird mating rituals while juggling knives on a solowheel. Effie Brown, we can assume, was less oblivious.
Whatever the case, no one is oblivious in post. Editors and post producers have two goals: find the drama and bring it. And on a show as vanilla as Project Greenlight, any conflict is going to be milked. So, if I'm working on that show, that Effie moment would go straight in. Sure, the guy's a star, but the moment happened and it is great conflict. Post producers don't tend to censor themselves around celebrities; those are the decisions we leave to executives. And those executives likely aren't going to eliminate good content unless they have to.
So, in the end, the decision probably lay with Damon and his team. I suspect they could have insisted the content be removed, if they wanted. And just to play devil's advocate, maybe it never even occurred to them to remove it. But I find it hard to believe anyone would be cool with being portrayed (even slightly) as a racist, if they had the option of removing the content. And yet they didn't. Why?
Re-enter Ben Affleck, stage right, smoking a cigarette. You have to figure that Affleck's recent Finding Your Roots saga informed Damon's team's discussions. If you recall, that scandal pre-dated Nannygate but was equally, if not more, damaging to Affleck's image. It was the kind of shit the right wing lives for: an espouser of liberal politics pressuring PBS to edit (censor) his slave owning ancestor out of a documentary program. (And let's not forget, they do kind of pretend that Greenlight is documentary).
Damon and his team had to know that if it came out that he'd had material of this nature suppressed it would be devastating. It would only take one person in the vast chain of people involved in producing the show to leak it, and Damon would wind up looking as devious as his ol' buddy Ben.
The best that Damon (and/or his people) could do, and did, is request that he be allowed to express his viewpoint in interview (which he did - unfortunately compounding the initial insult). Team Damon might also have applied pressure to get the moment watered down (although it seems to play pretty straight to this producer's eyes). Whatever the case, they clearly realized there was no stuffing that particular genie back in the bottle.
And that, I suspect, is how the moment made it to television. And, look, I'm grateful it did. We need to be reminded that while racism looks like this, sometimes it looks like this.
White people (like me) benefit from a system that is weighted in our favor. We should not be surprised, then, when we reveal ourselves to be, well, ill-schooled in just how weighted that system is. But it would probably behoove us to get an education. If this incident gets even a few people (including Damon) to start examining their privilege, I would be willing to say Project Greenlight has at least one redeeming quality.
OT (maybe?) Does it make me a bad person that I'm still totally salivating for the upcoming installment of The Bourne Identity?
#Damonsplaining
Monday, September 21, 2015
Project Greenlight, Matt Damon and the Myth of the Visionary Director
Fuck Matt Damon. No, seriously, fuck this dude. Because of his mansplaining (or #Damonsplaining) of diversity to a Black woman, I felt obligated to watch Project Greenlight. And I hate Project Greenlight.
Particularly because it relies on that most problematic of Archetypes, the Visionary Director (AKA Auteur).
Take the following incident from season one, episode six of the show. Writer/director Pete Jones wants to cover a scene beneath an elevated train track in an uninterrupted tracking shot. This tracking shot is his Vision for the scene. Yet, when Jones arrives on location he discovers that the train comes every ten minutes or so. Somehow the crack team of professionals hired to guide Jones through his first feature failed to check the schedule (because, Reality). Uninterrupted tracking shot plus young actors (struggling to remember/deliver dialogue) plus train every ten minutes equals disaster (i.e. conflict). You might say those seasoned professionals allowed Jones to be hoisted by his own Vision.
Indeed, the greater the hubris of the Visionary Director (hereafter referred to as the VD), the greater the possibility for conflict. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Jason Mann has been elected season four's VD. Mann exhibits all the "Fuck-you-all, I'm the director!" the VD position requires. While other competitors tried to remain polite about the Farrelly brothers script they would be shooting, our friend Jason had no such qualms, stating that the script would need to be extensively re-written to suit his purposes. Fuck the writers, Jason's got a Vision. (He also, apparently, gets that he's supposed to be an asshole to be on the show, and has an appropriately VD-ish way of filling a director's chair).
The team that Effie Brown was supporting, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio, by contrast were polite (AKA not VDs and not, therefore, viable for the show). It is worth actually parsing the words that have landed Damon in the pile of shit on which he currently sits, because they reveal more than internalized/institutionalized racism that is standard operating procedure in Hollywood. In the episode he says, "when you’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not the casting of the show.” The use of the word "casting" has been somewhat lost in the understandable maelstrom that has ensued. However, what Damon is saying, in so many words, is that the Angelos and Brancaccio team don't work as a cast for Project Greenlight. Not that they don't work as viable potential directors for a film.
Which isn't surprising because, as anyone who has actually spent any time in the industry can tell you, film is a collaborative fucking medium. While there may be some VDs out there, most directors fall into a spectrum somewhere between good and mediocre, and most are supported by a team of people (cinematographers, set designers, wardrobe people, editors) who are integral to delivering a strong product (and who prevent them from doing stupid shit like Jones' tracking shot). A good team not only compensates for weaknesses in the directing, but also provides a sounding board for the director. Smart directors (one might even say Visionary Directors) know this and, as a result, keep the same group of people around them from project to project.
And yet, young filmmakers coming up, whether in film school or simply by studying the industry, are force-fed the VD Myth that they are supposed to rule their productions with a singular vision. I bought into it myself when I started out, and it brought me nothing but unnecessary pressure and misery. Over time I figured out that I didn't have to have all the answers, that the work might actually be better if I empowered everyone on my crew to have and express their opinions.
Nevertheless, the Myth of the VD persists. **UPDATE: A loyal reader has also pointed out that the DGA effectively promotes the VD Myth by making co-directing credits almost impossible to obtain!** Even on Reality (that most non-VD-worthy of forms) young directors are convinced that their role is that of dictating, not trying to elicit the best from their team (resulting in predictably awful work). A prime example of what happens when a would-be VD gets their hands on a big feature is evident in Josh Trank's epic meltdown on the set of The Fantastic Four.
However, some instances of VD-ness are not as entertaining; some are lethal. Such was the case when mediocre (to poor) director Randall Miller insisted (in a moment of excessive VD) on shooting on a live train track despite having been denied permission by the railway to do so. No other rail option (and there were other, safe options) suited his Vision. One dead Camera Assistant and several injured crew members later, Miller sits in Georgia prison having plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
So, quite honestly, fuck this whole VD Myth. For real.
Frankly, by already teaming up in their endeavors, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio (the eliminated Project Greenlight directing team) are already winners. Between them they bring the kind of diverse viewpoints that inherently makes for stronger work. And in bypassing the whole debased VD Myth in agreeing to share the directing role, they indicate an acceptance of collaboration that will bring the best out of their production team. In that regard, they are (combined) a Director who is much more likely to succeed than your average, know-nothing VD.
Particularly because it relies on that most problematic of Archetypes, the Visionary Director (AKA Auteur).
Take the following incident from season one, episode six of the show. Writer/director Pete Jones wants to cover a scene beneath an elevated train track in an uninterrupted tracking shot. This tracking shot is his Vision for the scene. Yet, when Jones arrives on location he discovers that the train comes every ten minutes or so. Somehow the crack team of professionals hired to guide Jones through his first feature failed to check the schedule (because, Reality). Uninterrupted tracking shot plus young actors (struggling to remember/deliver dialogue) plus train every ten minutes equals disaster (i.e. conflict). You might say those seasoned professionals allowed Jones to be hoisted by his own Vision.
Indeed, the greater the hubris of the Visionary Director (hereafter referred to as the VD), the greater the possibility for conflict. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that Jason Mann has been elected season four's VD. Mann exhibits all the "Fuck-you-all, I'm the director!" the VD position requires. While other competitors tried to remain polite about the Farrelly brothers script they would be shooting, our friend Jason had no such qualms, stating that the script would need to be extensively re-written to suit his purposes. Fuck the writers, Jason's got a Vision. (He also, apparently, gets that he's supposed to be an asshole to be on the show, and has an appropriately VD-ish way of filling a director's chair).
The team that Effie Brown was supporting, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio, by contrast were polite (AKA not VDs and not, therefore, viable for the show). It is worth actually parsing the words that have landed Damon in the pile of shit on which he currently sits, because they reveal more than internalized/institutionalized racism that is standard operating procedure in Hollywood. In the episode he says, "when you’re talking about diversity, you do it in the casting of the film, not the casting of the show.” The use of the word "casting" has been somewhat lost in the understandable maelstrom that has ensued. However, what Damon is saying, in so many words, is that the Angelos and Brancaccio team don't work as a cast for Project Greenlight. Not that they don't work as viable potential directors for a film.
Which isn't surprising because, as anyone who has actually spent any time in the industry can tell you, film is a collaborative fucking medium. While there may be some VDs out there, most directors fall into a spectrum somewhere between good and mediocre, and most are supported by a team of people (cinematographers, set designers, wardrobe people, editors) who are integral to delivering a strong product (and who prevent them from doing stupid shit like Jones' tracking shot). A good team not only compensates for weaknesses in the directing, but also provides a sounding board for the director. Smart directors (one might even say Visionary Directors) know this and, as a result, keep the same group of people around them from project to project.
And yet, young filmmakers coming up, whether in film school or simply by studying the industry, are force-fed the VD Myth that they are supposed to rule their productions with a singular vision. I bought into it myself when I started out, and it brought me nothing but unnecessary pressure and misery. Over time I figured out that I didn't have to have all the answers, that the work might actually be better if I empowered everyone on my crew to have and express their opinions.
Nevertheless, the Myth of the VD persists. **UPDATE: A loyal reader has also pointed out that the DGA effectively promotes the VD Myth by making co-directing credits almost impossible to obtain!** Even on Reality (that most non-VD-worthy of forms) young directors are convinced that their role is that of dictating, not trying to elicit the best from their team (resulting in predictably awful work). A prime example of what happens when a would-be VD gets their hands on a big feature is evident in Josh Trank's epic meltdown on the set of The Fantastic Four.
However, some instances of VD-ness are not as entertaining; some are lethal. Such was the case when mediocre (to poor) director Randall Miller insisted (in a moment of excessive VD) on shooting on a live train track despite having been denied permission by the railway to do so. No other rail option (and there were other, safe options) suited his Vision. One dead Camera Assistant and several injured crew members later, Miller sits in Georgia prison having plead guilty to involuntary manslaughter.
So, quite honestly, fuck this whole VD Myth. For real.
Frankly, by already teaming up in their endeavors, Leo Kei Angelos and Kristen Brancaccio (the eliminated Project Greenlight directing team) are already winners. Between them they bring the kind of diverse viewpoints that inherently makes for stronger work. And in bypassing the whole debased VD Myth in agreeing to share the directing role, they indicate an acceptance of collaboration that will bring the best out of their production team. In that regard, they are (combined) a Director who is much more likely to succeed than your average, know-nothing VD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)