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
Showing posts with label Love and Hip Hop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Love and Hip Hop. Show all posts
Monday, October 26, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
The Ladies at Court
I have never been much of a Reality television fan, and less so since I became a Reality producer. For me, watching Reality is like being at work, all I see are the holes in the story, the poor coverage, and the glaring (or blaring) frankenbites (pieces of interviews that are combined to make the interviewee say something they most emphatically did not say).
The closest I have come to watching Reality is by watching tennis. During the late nineties/early aughts I was a passionate fan of the Williams sisters partly because their play was just so mind-bogglingly awesome, and partly because, having been the odd person out in the country club tennis set, I had a (very small) inkling of the (evidently racist and classist) bullshit they were enduring.
So, in honor of Serena and Venus' quarter-final meet up at the Open, here is the character breakdown for the Docusoap that was the women's tennis circuit in the aughts.
I call it: The Ladies at Court.
Characters (note: I'm not gonna give too much back story on the sisters, because I assume we all know the Compton Courts and dad coaching bit by heart now):
Venus Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Older Sister
Character Arc: Started strong at 16, struggled with the idea of beating her sister, and later with injuries.
The oldest of the Williams sisters and (in my humble opinion) the one with the most finesse in the early aughts. She won her first Grand Slam in 2000 at Wimbledon and gave one of the cutest winning dances on record. After multiple Grand Slam wins, injuries began to plague her in the later aughts - causing her to lose more, frequently to her sister. In my opinion Venus struggles/d against Serena because she still sees S as her little sis, and her face makes like this when she beats her. Also has a fashion line (always a plus for any Reality character).
Serena Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Champion
Character Arc: From zero to world domination.
The best women's tennis player of all time (her sister comes a close second, stats be damned). Has had to put up with a lot of (barely concealed racist) shit including being booed at Charleston's Indian Wells tournament after beating her sister, who withdrew from a match citing injuries (they have long been dogged by claims their matches are fixed by their father). Is obsessed with winning, even against her soft-hearted sis (her face makes like this, in contrast). The only criticism I have of Serena is... Brett Ratner, REALLY?? Now this is much better.
Justine Henin:
ARCHETYPE: The Asshole
Character Arc: Struggled with her serve early on. Later on struggled to just - you know - tell the truth.
A plucky Belgian player with an stunning single-handed backhand that was the envy of McEnroe (no slouch when it came to backhands himself). Henin's backstory includes her mother (and biggest supporter) dying when Justine was just 12. She came up playing Kim Clijsters (another Belgian) who was slated to be her nemesis. However, due to her own dumbass behavior (which included asking Serena to pause during a serve at the 2003 French Open and then denying that she'd made such a request when the Umpire called the service out) Serena became her true nemesis; which was really unfortunate for her, because you never, ever, want Serena to want to beat you more than she already does. Addressing the press after the match in question, Henin defended herself by saying that given Serena's power, it was fair play. She has since come around on that.
Kim Clijsters:
ARCHETYPE: The Sweetheart
Character Arc: Chose to become a mother in the middle of her career, but came back to win Grand Slams.
The Belgian daughter of a soccer player and a gymnast (Belgium must have had a rocking tennis scene when she and Justine came up), Clijsters first came to notice when she almost beat Jennifer Capriati at the 2001 French Open. The epic match went to three sets with Capriati finally prevailing 12 games to 10. Clijsters is best known for being athletic and roundly beloved by other players (in an often bitchy locker room). She also gave great gossip after dating noted asshat Lleyton Hewitt, and dumping him a week before their marriage. Clijsters was also the beneficiary of a 2009 US Open semi final win against Serena, after Serena was disqualified for threatening to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat. (She pretty much lost it after a bullshit foot fault call. While such behavior is not to be rewarded, it should be noted that Serena and Venus seldom, if ever, challenge calls; something inculcated in them by Richard Williams, who correctly perceived that it would not go down well if they behaved like the rest of the brats out there). To her credit Clijsters failed to pile on Serena afterwards.
Amelie Mauresmo:
ARCHETYPE: The Choker
Character Arc: It's all in the name.
An easy going and out lesbian player with a glorious backhand, Mauresmo was called "half a man" by Martina Hingis, (one of the most mathematically adroit players of all time, yet sadly, unapologetically bigoted). Lindsay Davenport, in turn, compared playing Mauresmo to "playing a guy." Davenport later apologized (Hingis, true to form, did not). Mauresmo struggled to make traction during the aughts due to the dominance of the Williams sisters, and, when they failed to prevail, Henin. In 2006, when she finally had Henin on the ropes at the Australian Open, Mauresmo won by default after Henin claimed a stomach ailment (whether the ailment was real or merely one conjured up by the idea of losing, Henin was roundly criticized for her behavior. When Mauresmo later won Wimbledon fair and square against Henin later that same year, apparently the press box broke out in applause. Since retiring she has been coaching Andy Murray, which makes me like him (I previously had not, for no real reason).
Maria Sharapova:
ARCHETYPE: The Princess
Character arc: Started strong but has never been as good as she wanted to be (and as I would have like her to be).
Is often viewed as overrated because of her looks, but is a powerful and passionate player (if not the sharpest tool in the shed). Would probably have done a lot better in a less competitive environment, but was doomed to play and largely lose to Venus, Serena, Henin and Clijsters. Still, she did bring us this and this. And she did date Novak Djokovic, which resulted in this.
It remains to be seen whether or not a new crop of Ladies can compete in terms of pure drama, the way The Ladies at Court did in the aughts. It also remains to be seen whether or not I will ever be as captivated by another set of tennis characters.
In the meantime, can't wait for the sisters' matchup today. This time, for once, I think I'll be pulling for Serena. She deserves her Slam already.
The closest I have come to watching Reality is by watching tennis. During the late nineties/early aughts I was a passionate fan of the Williams sisters partly because their play was just so mind-bogglingly awesome, and partly because, having been the odd person out in the country club tennis set, I had a (very small) inkling of the (evidently racist and classist) bullshit they were enduring.
So, in honor of Serena and Venus' quarter-final meet up at the Open, here is the character breakdown for the Docusoap that was the women's tennis circuit in the aughts.
I call it: The Ladies at Court.
Characters (note: I'm not gonna give too much back story on the sisters, because I assume we all know the Compton Courts and dad coaching bit by heart now):
Venus Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Older Sister
Character Arc: Started strong at 16, struggled with the idea of beating her sister, and later with injuries.
The oldest of the Williams sisters and (in my humble opinion) the one with the most finesse in the early aughts. She won her first Grand Slam in 2000 at Wimbledon and gave one of the cutest winning dances on record. After multiple Grand Slam wins, injuries began to plague her in the later aughts - causing her to lose more, frequently to her sister. In my opinion Venus struggles/d against Serena because she still sees S as her little sis, and her face makes like this when she beats her. Also has a fashion line (always a plus for any Reality character).
Serena Williams:
ARCHETYPE: The Champion
Character Arc: From zero to world domination.
The best women's tennis player of all time (her sister comes a close second, stats be damned). Has had to put up with a lot of (barely concealed racist) shit including being booed at Charleston's Indian Wells tournament after beating her sister, who withdrew from a match citing injuries (they have long been dogged by claims their matches are fixed by their father). Is obsessed with winning, even against her soft-hearted sis (her face makes like this, in contrast). The only criticism I have of Serena is... Brett Ratner, REALLY?? Now this is much better.
Justine Henin:
ARCHETYPE: The Asshole
Character Arc: Struggled with her serve early on. Later on struggled to just - you know - tell the truth.
A plucky Belgian player with an stunning single-handed backhand that was the envy of McEnroe (no slouch when it came to backhands himself). Henin's backstory includes her mother (and biggest supporter) dying when Justine was just 12. She came up playing Kim Clijsters (another Belgian) who was slated to be her nemesis. However, due to her own dumbass behavior (which included asking Serena to pause during a serve at the 2003 French Open and then denying that she'd made such a request when the Umpire called the service out) Serena became her true nemesis; which was really unfortunate for her, because you never, ever, want Serena to want to beat you more than she already does. Addressing the press after the match in question, Henin defended herself by saying that given Serena's power, it was fair play. She has since come around on that.
Kim Clijsters:
ARCHETYPE: The Sweetheart
Character Arc: Chose to become a mother in the middle of her career, but came back to win Grand Slams.
The Belgian daughter of a soccer player and a gymnast (Belgium must have had a rocking tennis scene when she and Justine came up), Clijsters first came to notice when she almost beat Jennifer Capriati at the 2001 French Open. The epic match went to three sets with Capriati finally prevailing 12 games to 10. Clijsters is best known for being athletic and roundly beloved by other players (in an often bitchy locker room). She also gave great gossip after dating noted asshat Lleyton Hewitt, and dumping him a week before their marriage. Clijsters was also the beneficiary of a 2009 US Open semi final win against Serena, after Serena was disqualified for threatening to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat. (She pretty much lost it after a bullshit foot fault call. While such behavior is not to be rewarded, it should be noted that Serena and Venus seldom, if ever, challenge calls; something inculcated in them by Richard Williams, who correctly perceived that it would not go down well if they behaved like the rest of the brats out there). To her credit Clijsters failed to pile on Serena afterwards.
Amelie Mauresmo:
ARCHETYPE: The Choker
Character Arc: It's all in the name.
An easy going and out lesbian player with a glorious backhand, Mauresmo was called "half a man" by Martina Hingis, (one of the most mathematically adroit players of all time, yet sadly, unapologetically bigoted). Lindsay Davenport, in turn, compared playing Mauresmo to "playing a guy." Davenport later apologized (Hingis, true to form, did not). Mauresmo struggled to make traction during the aughts due to the dominance of the Williams sisters, and, when they failed to prevail, Henin. In 2006, when she finally had Henin on the ropes at the Australian Open, Mauresmo won by default after Henin claimed a stomach ailment (whether the ailment was real or merely one conjured up by the idea of losing, Henin was roundly criticized for her behavior. When Mauresmo later won Wimbledon fair and square against Henin later that same year, apparently the press box broke out in applause. Since retiring she has been coaching Andy Murray, which makes me like him (I previously had not, for no real reason).
Maria Sharapova:
ARCHETYPE: The Princess
Character arc: Started strong but has never been as good as she wanted to be (and as I would have like her to be).
Is often viewed as overrated because of her looks, but is a powerful and passionate player (if not the sharpest tool in the shed). Would probably have done a lot better in a less competitive environment, but was doomed to play and largely lose to Venus, Serena, Henin and Clijsters. Still, she did bring us this and this. And she did date Novak Djokovic, which resulted in this.
It remains to be seen whether or not a new crop of Ladies can compete in terms of pure drama, the way The Ladies at Court did in the aughts. It also remains to be seen whether or not I will ever be as captivated by another set of tennis characters.
In the meantime, can't wait for the sisters' matchup today. This time, for once, I think I'll be pulling for Serena. She deserves her Slam already.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Human Resouces
Pivot's Human Resources has just debuted it's second season. To date the show has received largely (deserved) glowing reviews. However, the degree to which HR is scripted seems to be the major, and frankly unimportant, issue for the reviewers. USA Today writes:
Though rooted in reality, it's obvious that parts of Human Resources are scripted and planned, but the show doesn't attempt to hide that.
Meanwhile, Really Late Review is less certain that the show is scripted, saying:
The fact that I couldn’t tell whether the show was real or not was clever in my opinion. Many shows are too obvious in what style they are (sitcoms feature same, staple humor and situations, while reality shows put people in extreme situations for attention seeking purposes), so I appreciated how the show had me guessing from the beginning.
And the Grey Lady herself concludes its positive review with yet another reflection on how "real" the show is:
Human Resources shows what happens when you put people on screen who have grown up with video cameras. Everyone’s comfortable, no one seems to be performing for the camera.
Set in a start-up recycling business, TerraCycle, and following owner Tom Szaky and his band of quirky scientists, designers and sales agents, HR has its antecedents in shows like Small Town Security (AMC - and also produced by many of the same people at Left/Right), Duck Dynasty (A&E), even The Osbournes (MTV): half hour shows that promote humor over drama. Called Reality Sitcoms within the industry, these shows can be extremely scripted, like Duck Dynasty in which "real" people are thrown into absurd situations, or borderline Follow Docs like Small Town Security or The Osbournes.
Now, I don't work on the show and while (full disclosure) I know and respect many of the main players behind the scenes I have no idea how scripted the show actually is. Given my experience in Reality, however, I would say: somewhat. We have limited shooting schedules so chances are some scenes need to be scheduled and don't just fortuitously happen. But whether the show is knowingly scripted (as USA suggests) or benefits from a great cast (as The Times asserts) is not of great interest to me.
What makes Human Resources sui generis (and a pleasure to watch) is that it steers clear of either produced or happenstance conflict (sometimes we do actually luck into screaming fights between cast members). Instead, it illustrates the small adjustments that are far more common in everyday life. Like, for example, the difficulty a quirky new Canadian employee Tony, encounters while adjusting to the zany environment of TerraCycle (the B Story for this episode); or how Dan and Randi manage to land (with the assistance of the team) a mid-level contract (an A Story that steers clear of the usual over-the-top Reality stakes e.g. "If we don't land this contract, the whole business is gonna go down the shitter," or what you will). Along the way the viewer also gets some take-away about the recycling business, from TerraCycle's sometimes hilarious science team, that feels fun rather than forced.
These are the smaller conflicts those of us who live in the everyday world can relate to, and the kind of conflict that is under-explored in Reality for exactly that reason. Those of us in the industry have long complained about the usually broadcaster-mandated fake drama/stakes that we are forced to implement in most of our shows. This commitment to over-the-top "stakes" ultimately becomes a parody of itself in shows like the now-canceled Kimora: Life in the Fab Lane, where every single task undertaken by Ms. Simmons' long-suffering team is a matter of life or death.
In addition to having a pretty unique show in HR, Pivot has a pretty clever and unusual ad campaign. Basically, it wants to appeal to viewers who either don't watch Reality or, more likely, watch Reality and feel humiliated for doing so. Hence, the tagline for Human Resources is "Takes the trash out of TV one day at a time" (which, I assume, references trashy TV like Housewives and Love and Hip Hop in addition to the recycling business TerraCycle engages in. And if you missed that obvious diss of all Reality, Belisa Balaban EVP of Original Programming for Pivot makes it even clearer, "Human Resources is an unexpected blend of classic workplace comedy within the structure of a process-driven Science show. It is distinctive and delightful, and it's a reality show you can feel good about watching*."
*And also, I strongly suspect, about producing.
You just can't say that for most shows. We really could use a lot more Human Resources out there.
Human Resources screens on Pivot on Fridays at 10 pm ET/PT
Though rooted in reality, it's obvious that parts of Human Resources are scripted and planned, but the show doesn't attempt to hide that.
Meanwhile, Really Late Review is less certain that the show is scripted, saying:
The fact that I couldn’t tell whether the show was real or not was clever in my opinion. Many shows are too obvious in what style they are (sitcoms feature same, staple humor and situations, while reality shows put people in extreme situations for attention seeking purposes), so I appreciated how the show had me guessing from the beginning.
And the Grey Lady herself concludes its positive review with yet another reflection on how "real" the show is:
Human Resources shows what happens when you put people on screen who have grown up with video cameras. Everyone’s comfortable, no one seems to be performing for the camera.
Basically these reviewers would have it that a show rises or falls either on how real it is, or how craftily it addresses the fact that it isn't. While this simplistic obsession may have been excusable back in, I don't know, 1995/6 when The Real World first broke, after over twenty-five years the time has come for a modicum more insight into the Reality genre. And we may as well start by discussing the primary (and most flawed) assumption: that Reality is some kind of homogenous category. It is not. Rather it is a variety of genres (Docu-Soap, Competition, Follow Doc) that share only the fact that the participants in the show are real people playing themselves.
Thus a review will contain comparisons between shows as diverse as Survivor (which is a Competition Reality) and Real Housewives of Atlanta (a Docu Soap) as though such comparisons were viable or even fruitful. In fact, there are as many different genres of Reality as there are of narrative, and no self-respecting reviewer of the latter would compare Film Noire to a Romantic Comedy (or even compare a Romantic Comedy, like 13 Going on 30, to a Western spoof like Blazing Saddles). I'm trying to bring a more nuanced--read: NUANCED--insider's approach to Reality; starting with this review.
Set in a start-up recycling business, TerraCycle, and following owner Tom Szaky and his band of quirky scientists, designers and sales agents, HR has its antecedents in shows like Small Town Security (AMC - and also produced by many of the same people at Left/Right), Duck Dynasty (A&E), even The Osbournes (MTV): half hour shows that promote humor over drama. Called Reality Sitcoms within the industry, these shows can be extremely scripted, like Duck Dynasty in which "real" people are thrown into absurd situations, or borderline Follow Docs like Small Town Security or The Osbournes.
Now, I don't work on the show and while (full disclosure) I know and respect many of the main players behind the scenes I have no idea how scripted the show actually is. Given my experience in Reality, however, I would say: somewhat. We have limited shooting schedules so chances are some scenes need to be scheduled and don't just fortuitously happen. But whether the show is knowingly scripted (as USA suggests) or benefits from a great cast (as The Times asserts) is not of great interest to me.
What makes Human Resources sui generis (and a pleasure to watch) is that it steers clear of either produced or happenstance conflict (sometimes we do actually luck into screaming fights between cast members). Instead, it illustrates the small adjustments that are far more common in everyday life. Like, for example, the difficulty a quirky new Canadian employee Tony, encounters while adjusting to the zany environment of TerraCycle (the B Story for this episode); or how Dan and Randi manage to land (with the assistance of the team) a mid-level contract (an A Story that steers clear of the usual over-the-top Reality stakes e.g. "If we don't land this contract, the whole business is gonna go down the shitter," or what you will). Along the way the viewer also gets some take-away about the recycling business, from TerraCycle's sometimes hilarious science team, that feels fun rather than forced.
These are the smaller conflicts those of us who live in the everyday world can relate to, and the kind of conflict that is under-explored in Reality for exactly that reason. Those of us in the industry have long complained about the usually broadcaster-mandated fake drama/stakes that we are forced to implement in most of our shows. This commitment to over-the-top "stakes" ultimately becomes a parody of itself in shows like the now-canceled Kimora: Life in the Fab Lane, where every single task undertaken by Ms. Simmons' long-suffering team is a matter of life or death.
In addition to having a pretty unique show in HR, Pivot has a pretty clever and unusual ad campaign. Basically, it wants to appeal to viewers who either don't watch Reality or, more likely, watch Reality and feel humiliated for doing so. Hence, the tagline for Human Resources is "Takes the trash out of TV one day at a time" (which, I assume, references trashy TV like Housewives and Love and Hip Hop in addition to the recycling business TerraCycle engages in. And if you missed that obvious diss of all Reality, Belisa Balaban EVP of Original Programming for Pivot makes it even clearer, "Human Resources is an unexpected blend of classic workplace comedy within the structure of a process-driven Science show. It is distinctive and delightful, and it's a reality show you can feel good about watching*."
*And also, I strongly suspect, about producing.
You just can't say that for most shows. We really could use a lot more Human Resources out there.
Human Resources screens on Pivot on Fridays at 10 pm ET/PT
Monday, July 27, 2015
UnREAL: Episode 8
SPOILER ALERT!!
Uh-oh, Rachel done crossed the line!
In Episode 8 of UnREAL Rachel finally fucks bachelor Adam. The show's been hinting at this happening for a while, and using her on-again flirtation with/fucking of DP Jeremy to distract us. But now it's happened and, for those not in the know, this is something we in the industry call "crossing the line."
In general, fraternizing with the Talent is discouraged. That includes everything from hanging out with cast members outside of work to having sex/a relationship with them. Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen. I can think of numerous cases off the top of my head. There was the producer on The Real World who crossed the line with a cast member and was fired. Then there's Todd Tucker, the Line Producer on Real Housewives of Atlanta who started dating cast member Kandi Burruss and ended up a regular on the show (which, I suppose, is punishment enough). On yet another series, the 40ish Showrunner quit after starting a relationship with a 23 year-old cast member. (Sorry, an NDA keeps me from sharing that one.) She later moved into his RV and started working at a nearby titty bar. No word on how that relationship is holding up.
It's easy to understand why line crossing happens. For one thing, we spend a lot of time with cast when we're shooting. We see them more than anyone else in our lives and, just as office romances happen on regular jobs, so too they often happen on set. We are also tasked specifically with befriending them (or seeming to, anyhow) with a view to exploiting that relationship for story. So lines do get blurry.
However, there are plenty of good reasons why crossing the line is frowned upon. For one thing, as is by this point (I hope) abundantly clear, we are manipulating these people. And it is hard (if not impossible) to manipulate someone you're having a bona fide emotional relationship with for work purposes. (Everyone knows that manipulating your partner is strictly a recreational activity.) Additionally, crew members possess information that cannot be shared with cast. For instance, we may be planning a series of scenes with a particular goal in mind, that will not work if some idiot shares that information with a cast member they're in lurv with.
Finally, and maybe this is just me, we shouldn't cross the line because we're in a position of power over these people; especially on a Competition show (like Everlasting) where cast are essentially our prisoners and we have access to (deeply personal) profiles compiled by show psychologists. So, to me, crossing the line feels like a teacher taking advantage of a student or a doctor taking advantage of a patient Don't get me wrong, power is a powerful aphrodisiac. But only losers abuse it.
All that being said, I expect our girl Rachel will find a way to make this dalliance work to her advantage in acquiring the Showrunning position Chet is dangling before her.
So you go, you bad girl, but Jeremy's gonna be pissed.
Uh-oh, Rachel done crossed the line!
In Episode 8 of UnREAL Rachel finally fucks bachelor Adam. The show's been hinting at this happening for a while, and using her on-again flirtation with/fucking of DP Jeremy to distract us. But now it's happened and, for those not in the know, this is something we in the industry call "crossing the line."
In general, fraternizing with the Talent is discouraged. That includes everything from hanging out with cast members outside of work to having sex/a relationship with them. Which isn't to say that it doesn't happen. I can think of numerous cases off the top of my head. There was the producer on The Real World who crossed the line with a cast member and was fired. Then there's Todd Tucker, the Line Producer on Real Housewives of Atlanta who started dating cast member Kandi Burruss and ended up a regular on the show (which, I suppose, is punishment enough). On yet another series, the 40ish Showrunner quit after starting a relationship with a 23 year-old cast member. (Sorry, an NDA keeps me from sharing that one.) She later moved into his RV and started working at a nearby titty bar. No word on how that relationship is holding up.
It's easy to understand why line crossing happens. For one thing, we spend a lot of time with cast when we're shooting. We see them more than anyone else in our lives and, just as office romances happen on regular jobs, so too they often happen on set. We are also tasked specifically with befriending them (or seeming to, anyhow) with a view to exploiting that relationship for story. So lines do get blurry.
However, there are plenty of good reasons why crossing the line is frowned upon. For one thing, as is by this point (I hope) abundantly clear, we are manipulating these people. And it is hard (if not impossible) to manipulate someone you're having a bona fide emotional relationship with for work purposes. (Everyone knows that manipulating your partner is strictly a recreational activity.) Additionally, crew members possess information that cannot be shared with cast. For instance, we may be planning a series of scenes with a particular goal in mind, that will not work if some idiot shares that information with a cast member they're in lurv with.
Finally, and maybe this is just me, we shouldn't cross the line because we're in a position of power over these people; especially on a Competition show (like Everlasting) where cast are essentially our prisoners and we have access to (deeply personal) profiles compiled by show psychologists. So, to me, crossing the line feels like a teacher taking advantage of a student or a doctor taking advantage of a patient Don't get me wrong, power is a powerful aphrodisiac. But only losers abuse it.
All that being said, I expect our girl Rachel will find a way to make this dalliance work to her advantage in acquiring the Showrunning position Chet is dangling before her.
So you go, you bad girl, but Jeremy's gonna be pissed.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
UnREAL: Episode 6
On episode six of UnREAL, Rachel invites the abusive ex of cast member Mary to spice up the date she and her child are having with bachelor Adam. Things go (predictably) south when the ex becomes violent, tries to attack Adam, and, ultimately, has to be held down by Rachel's ex, Jeremy the DP, and a random sound dude (I think). Sadly this kind of violence is all too common on Reality sets and, while I have never actually encouraged cast members to go at it, cast are well-aware that this makes for good TV so they tend to go there themselves (particularly if they're wasted, which we generally ensure they are). The only thing that leaps out about the situation on UnREAL is the lack of Security. These days, we tend to have Security on hand for any brawls that might occur.
That being said, I strongly disapprove of these kinds of set skirmishes. Take this fer instance: I once worked on a show where a male cast member (drunk) was getting into it with a female cast member (drunker), and ultimately ended up grabbing her by the wrists and shaking her. This guy was built like a brick shithouse and had this woman by the arms and Security did not step in. Nor did they step in when the female cast member started saying (clearly to production) "He's really hurting me, he's really hurting me!" When the Producer on the ground tried to step in she was stopped by Security, who were hired by the broadcaster, because—they informed her—they are "trained" to know when to intervene. When I later relayed this little training factoid to the Producers around me we had to shoehorn our eyes out of the backs of our heads.
WTF is the kind of Security training doesn't require that you help a cast member when she's saying that she's being hurt? Even setting that egregious error aside, what training provides you with the skill to know exactly when some drunken mess is going to pop off? How do you learn to read the intent to become violent? And even if you read that intent, how do you know where it's going to go? Will it be aimed at the other cast members? Will it randomly involve someone not even connected to the show? Will it be focused on a crew member, as it was on Rachel when Mary's ex went batshit?
Even if such "training" is plausible and you have well-trained Security on set, there is no way to assure that cast and crew are 100% safe (or even 90% safe). Drunken brawls are not controlled situations. How do you protect a cast member from getting struck with a stray fist that makes it between the muscled arm and bulky torso of Security? How is it possible for a camera operator to be safe, when the footage shows someone slamming into his lens? How do you protect a camera operator with Security, if that Security isn't in front of his lens to stop someone from slamming up against it, when you can't have security in front of the camera operators lens because, you know, footage. At least the sound guy doesn't have a huge piece of metal jammed up against an eye socket. And yet a sound guy is usually lumbering around with shit-tons of equipment, making it hard to maneuver in the best of circumstances, let alone a fight.
The fact is that no one is particularly safe in these situations including members of the public who, while they may have tacitly agreed to appear on camera, did not tacitly agree to physical assault. These shows are accidents waiting to happen, and the fact that a major accident hasn't occurred yet doesn't make it permissible for so-called "adults" to continue to play the odds. Because that's what they'll do. And anyone who argues against them will be called a troublemaker.
Don't get me wrong. I get it. These brawls make for amazing television. Sometimes, when you're producing a fight in Post that doesn't culminate in physical violence, there's a sense of letdown. In the case I mentioned above, for example, we couldn't include the male-on-female violence because it violated the broadcaster's policies (although apparently letting it happen doesn't violate their Security's policy) and, as a result, the scene didn't climax in a satisfying manner. An argument culminating in violence provides a release, it appeals to the part of us that would like to see a particular character smacked in the head. It appeals to our sense of Justice: we think they had it coming. But we really need to leave that shit to narrative TV. Because the Marys and Adams we work with, not to mention the Rachels, Jeremys, and Sound Dudes, are real people who can get hurt, and no great climax to some shitty scene is worth it.
#UnREALLifetime #BachelorABC #RealityTV #BadGirlsClub #SafetyForSarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)