Awkwardness on Dutch television: A research to identify the construction of on-screen awkward moments in nine contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs

(1)

Awkwardness on Dutch television

A research to identify the construction of on-screen awkward moments in nine

contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs

Author: Thomas de Boer University of Amsterdam Student number: 10764976 Master’s Thesis

E-mail: tdb1312a@gmail.com MA Television and Cross-media Culture Supervisor: Dhr. dr. J.W. Kooijman Professional track - documentary

(2)

(3)

ABSTRACT

Awkwardness has become a very popular

form of humour in our society. Not only in

real life, but on-screen as well. In this thesis

nine reality-based programs of the Dutch

television landscape are analysed on the

awkward moments they show and how these

moments are constructed. The different

positions of respectively the maker, the

subject and the viewer are all examined in

relation to the construction of awkward

moments. Drawing upon genre theories and

the book on awkwardness of Jason

Middleton, this thesis identifies how

awkwardness is constructed in contemporary

reality-based media products. Awkwardness

is a strong, affective narrative tool that is

used commonly, either intended or

unintended.

Keywords: awkwardness – conventions – genre – reality TV – humour – ordinary – social norms – Dutch television

(4)

Foreword

I am writing this foreword of my thesis, the day of Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as the next President of the United States. It is no joke, it really happened. Something totally unexpected happened. The orange clown, who had the most minimalistic argumentation ever during his campaign last year, became the President of the United States. Apparently a man who said “Grab ‘m by the pussy!”, who starred in Wrestlemania 231 and who denies climate change, is able to be elected as the most powerful leader in the world. And to be honest, that really ís a little bit awkward, if you ask me.

Although my thesis is not finished yet, I felt the urge to write my foreword on this historical day. As a curious student and (world) citizen, I was of course interested in the campaigns of both Trump and Clinton. Now, after more than a year of die-hard campaigning, the elections are over and Donald J. Trump won. Despite of the fact that millions of people totally disagree with this outcome, there are reasonable explanations for his win, sadly enough. Lots of people were angry, did not like the way Barack Obama ran their country, and wanted a radical

change. Trump fed this anger with his bullying rhetoric, his ridiculous statements and

unorthodox performances. With the knowledge we have now, we know that this is a joke that has gone badly out of hand. But, to be honest, till Election Day, it was actually quite

entertaining to watch him act and speak. Though his statements and actions crossed some social norms and were mostly painful and disturbing to hear, I kept watching the debates and videos on the Internet. It then struck me that this it showed great similarities with the subject of this thesis, awkwardness.

Awkwardness is often painful to watch as well, but it has been a major form of humour in television series, documentaries and other reality based media formats since over two decades. Although awkward moments make us cringe from time to time, they also generate laughter and entertain us often. This thesis will show that awkwardness is an important, strong narrative strategy in contemporary visual media. The analysis shows that this is also

applicable on the Dutch contemporary television landscape, by examining different television programs.

Before you start reading, I want to thank a few people, who have helped me during my long period of writing, struggling and thinking. First of all, I want to thank Jaap Kooijman for his supervision. I also want to thank my fellow students, family and roommates for constantly motivating me to keep going. Special thanks as well for the Icelandic band ‘Kaleo’ who inspired me to write with their album A/B. Lastly, I want to thank my beautiful girlfriend Esther for believing in my ability to write this thesis.

I hope you enjoy this interesting and sometimes awkward thesis.

(5)

Introduction

On-screen awkwardness is popular

It’s Saturday night 8 pm, the 7th of May in the Netherlands. More than a million people are seated on their couch to watch the first episode of the renewed series of Idols (RTL 5, 2016-present). The well-known tune starts and the two new presenters welcome the viewer. The jury is introduced, including Jamai Loman, the winner of the first season of Idols, and soon it is time for the first auditions of the new season. One of the contestants the viewers get to see is Betty, a normal, but little shy, young woman. Through editing, tension is built up till the start of her performance. First she tells the presenter about her aspirations to become a singer and next, her boyfriend is interviewed about her talent, saying that he does not hear her sing that often, but that he believes in her talent. When Betty starts singing in the audition room, it becomes clear that she is not going to be the next Idol. Immediately after her first notes Martijn Krabbé, member of the jury, cannot control himself and starts laughing. During the whole song, Krabbé settles himself under the jury desk, in order to control his laughter. When Betty is finished, Krabbé crawls back upon his seat and says: “Dear, dear Betty, you sound like you are singing through a snorkel.” Jamai adds: “With diving goggles on, ha ha.” Betty accepts the feedback and does not show much emotion. After the other jury members agreed that it was not good enough to proceed in the competition, Betty accepts the rejection and leaves the room.

Many viewers probably remember, and have seen, the first series of Idols, which aired from the year 2002 till 2008. The format’s two successful ingredients back then were the auditions done by talents (rough diamonds) and the weird, bad, awkward auditions. Now, with the revival of Idols in 2016, nothing has changed, except for the jury, presenters and the decoration. The awkward and stunning auditions are still the important ingredients of the program and Betty’s audition is a good example of that. Other than The Voice of Holland (RTL, 2010-2017) or Popstars (SBS, 2008-2011), Idols gains its success partly from this awkward entertainment. That was the case in 2002 and even more in 2016.

However, that is not much of a surprise, because awkwardness is undoubtedly popular these days as well on-screen as off-screen (Kotsko 2010: 4-5, Middleton 2014: 18-19.) Young people, all over the world, often scream “awkward” when a clumsy situation happens and in the Netherlands the word was even determined by a small group of people to be the “Anglicism of the year 2013”. MTV aired a teen comedy series on television called

(7)

challenges are more popular than ever. Comedy series such as Modern Family (Comedy Central, 2009-present) and JEUK (NPO 3, 2014-2017) are driven by awkward humour and even in documentaries and reality TV awkwardness has become a popular narrative aspect. With programs as Streetlab (NPO 3, 2015-present), Man Bijt Hond (NPO 1, 1999 -2015), Ik

heb het nog nooit gedaan (RTL 4, 2013-2014) and Idols (RTL 5, 2016-present) awkward

encounters have become a significant part of the Dutch television landscape.

Despite this increased popularity of awkwardness, there have not been many authors willing to write about awkwardness as a social phenomenon in general, let alone

awkwardness on screen. Given the fact that it has become a popular buzzword and a strong affective and frequently used narrative aspect, this seems odd. Media scholar Jason Middleton cited in his book on awkwardness that the word was frequently used to describe the loss of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 US elections and his failure to connect with voters (Middleton 2014: 19). A similar situation occurred in the Netherlands, when the news program PowNews decided to frequently target politician Job Cohen with difficult and unconventional questions. Cohen clearly could not handle the reporters of PowNews and made the interviews often awkward, while other politicians such as Alexander Pechtold or Geert Wilders did not. In 2012 Cohen announced the end of his career as politician and

PowNews claimed that they shared a part in that decision.

These two examples sketch the strong affective potential of awkwardness. The feeling generated by awkwardness is hard to grasp or to put a name on, but it easy to feel.

This affective quality that awkwardness has on screen and the fact that it has not been

researched much in the past ten years, made me excited to dedicate my thesis to this narrative phenomenon. In his book Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedies and Media

Spectatorship (2014) Jason Middleton writes that, after the first airing of the British

production of The Office, awkward humour has emerged as a common subgenre not only in comedy series but also in documentaries and reality TV programmes (Middleton 2014: 18-19). While I was reading his analysis of mostly American examples, I thought of Dutch media examples and I could think a lot of awkward encounters I had seen on Dutch television the past few years. With the knowledge of Middleton saying that awkwardness has not been adequately theorized in media and film studies yet (Middleton 2014: 20), I decided to explore and identify the aspects that are important for the construction of awkward moments on television in my own country the Netherlands. In order to structure my thesis the main research question will be the following question:

(8)

‘How are awkward moments constructed in nine contemporary Dutch

reality-based television programs and how do (genre) conventions and textual elements

play a role for the construction of these moments.’

It is self-evident that I cannot cover and include the whole Dutch television landscape in my thesis. Therefore I choose to select nine Dutch television programs for my analysis. These selected programs are programs that are produced and aired by different broadcasting companies, as well public as commercial. The programs differ in format, but they all include awkward moments, constructed in different ways. By analysing these nine programs I want to provide an overview of the Dutch television landscape, to show that awkwardness is not just an occurrence in one or two programs, but that awkward humour is a very popular narrative tool. Thus, the programs and examples in my analysis are used to outline the bigger picture.

For my analysis I have selected short fragments of each of the nine programs. The analysis of these fragments will be based on genre conventions and textual elements such as ‘dialogue’ and ‘editing’. Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton both name the importance of conventions for the construction of awkward moments on-screen, which I will further discuss in the first theoretical chapter. Especially the violation of conventions as well social and generic is important for the rise of awkwardness. Drawing upon genre theory and the concept of ‘genre mixing’, introduced by Jason Mittell, I will look at how conventions are contested in many of the programs and how this relates to the awkwardness that is constructed. I will also examine how certain textual elements are related to the contestation of conventions and the awkward moments. Each chapter of analysis starts with a short theoretical elaboration on the genres of the selected programs and on the conventions. After each chapter the most

important differences or similarities are summed up, which will show where and how the awkward moments are constructed.

As I said, not many scholars have written about awkwardness as a narrative aspect, appearing in documentary and television programs. Of the past ten years, Jason Middleton and Adam Kotsko are the two most recent and, at the same time, only scholars who focused their books on awkwardness in contemporary visual media. I will often use the research of Jason Middleton to relate to in this thesis.

Despite the lack of studies on awkwardness, I will be able to contribute in a constructive way to the already existing research on awkwardness, through the use of a combination of theories about humour, genre and reality TV. Just as Middleton, who focuses

(9)

on documentary and reality-based media in his research, I will focus on reality-based programs as well. Would I choose to analyse awkward moments in fiction film or comedy series, the difference with Middleton’s study would be too big and I would not be able to extend and contribute to his study. By solely changing the country of research and keeping reality-based media as the base of my analysis, I will be able to contribute to the existing study of awkwardness.

In total this thesis contains five different chapters. In the first chapter I will start by discussing the concept of reality TV, because the programs I analyse are mostly linked to this field of research. I will focus on the genre and conventions within reality TV and I will discuss the position of Dutch reality-based television programs. Also, I will introduce the concept of ‘genre mixing’, following the theory of Jason Mittell. After that I will introduce the most important research on awkwardness, done by Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton. After I defined some of the concepts that are used to describe awkwardness, theories of humour will be added to the chapter. Lastly, I will introduce the different forms of awkwardness, described by Middleton that will be used as the guidelines for the analysis chapters. In the second, third and fourth chapter my analysis will be conducted. In every chapter three programmes are analysed on respectively the awkwardness in relation to the maker, the subject and the viewer. The choice for this strategy will be explained when the three positions are being discussed in detail. The fifth chapter will consist of a discussion and a conclusion of the findings in the analysis, the method and theory that the research is based on. I will reflect on the findings and encourage other scholars to broaden the study of awkwardness.

(10)

Chapter 1 Contemporary Dutch reality-based television and on-screen awkwardness

Jason Middleton, who I mentioned in the introduction, wrote his book on documentary, reality-based media and awkwardness because he noticed that in the period since the British production of The Office (BBC, 2002) first aired, awkward humour had become more and more integrated in media but awkwardness itself had also emerged to describe a wide variety of intersubjective experiences of everyday life (Middleton 2014: 18). He shows that in the different American media examples he discusses, awkwardness exists in different forms and is used very commonly. But not only the American film and television landscape are affected by awkwardness, as Middleton notices himself (Middleton 2014: 30). Awkward moments and situations are common to be found all over the Dutch television landscape as well. As I wrote in the introduction, it is my purpose to extend the study of Jason Middleton, by shifting from the American to the Dutch television landscape and analysing different awkward moments in nine different Dutch reality-based television programs.

Therefore, in this chapter, I aim to outline the theoretical context for my analysis on awkward moments in contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs. First, I will elaborate on the television genre of ‘reality TV’. I will discuss the development of this kind of television and draw some of the genre conventions that are theorized. I will introduce the concept of ‘genre mixing’ by Jason Mittell, which will be important for my analysis. I will also discuss the situation in the Netherlands, regarding programs that are linked to reality TV. Second, I will discuss the concept of ‘awkwardness’ in relation to the screen. While

contextualising this with theories of humour that I can relate to awkwardness, I will focus on the most striking aspects and notions of awkwardness and filter out those who are helpful in analysing contemporary Dutch reality-based television. It is important that I have some sense of how awkward situations arise and why they feel awkward to us, in order to determine and discuss the awkward moments in my analysis. Third, I will elaborate on the distinction between the subject, viewer and maker. This distinction is important to discuss, because each position has a different connection to awkwardness. It shows how awkwardness spreads or moves through different levels.

1.1 Reality-based television: Reality TV, ordinary people and genre conventions

In the introduction I often used the term ‘reality-based television programs’ to refer to the sort of programs that are researched in this thesis. What I actually meant to say was ‘related

(11)

to the genre reality TV’. However, the genre of reality TV is not so clear. Often, people tend to link the term ‘reality TV’ to real life soaps of celebrities or programs as Survivor (CBS, 2000-present), but reality TV includes a wide range of different programs. According to media scholar June Deery reality TV is ‘a way of making television’: the formats or topics may trend only for a time, but the production aspects remain much the same, which are ordinary people, actual events, participation and interactivity (Deery 2015: 19-20).

Therefore, reality TV can be seen as a hybrid or mega-genre that amalgamates other genres such as the documentary or the soap opera (Deery 2015: 20). Annette Hill describes reality TV in her book as follows:

Reality TV is a catch-all category that includes a wide range of entertainment programmes about real people. Sometimes called popular factual television, reality TV is located in border territories, between information and entertainment,

documentary and drama. (Hill 2005: 2)

This notion clearly shows that reality TV definitely covers a wide range of programs and not only real life soaps or game shows. According to Hill reality TV, as it is today, arose from three different categories of factual television: tabloid journalism, documentary television and popular entertainment (15). In the late 1980s and 1990s television as an institute was subjected to a period of increased commercialisation and deregulation, which caused a hybridization of existing successful genres in order for television to survive (23-24). So to say, the three early categories that Hill described merged into a new hybrid genre: reality TV as we know it nowadays. In the 1990s reality TV definitely found her spot in peaktime television schedules. Reality TV subgenres such as ‘infotainment’, docu-soaps, lifestyle programs and reality gameshows were developed and aired throughout the 90s, reaching an established position at the begin of the 21th century (Hill 2005: 24). These developments took place in the United States and parts of Europe. In the Netherlands the rise and

popularity of the ‘new’ reality TV in the Netherlands was established in 1999 by the airing of the first season of Big Brother (Veronica, 1999). This program, in which twelve normal people lived together in a new-build house and were followed 24/7 by cameras, was

developed by John de Mol and was a huge success. After this first season more seasons and several spin-offs were aired, including the programs De Gouden Kooi (Tien, RTL 5, 2006-2008) and Utopia (SBS, 2013-present) that still runs nowadays.

(12)

After Big Brother, other subgenres as docu-soap, lifestyle programs, infotainment, real-life soap and human-interest, were also developed and aired more and more on Dutch television. As well on the public channels as on the commercial channels reality TV formats established a major role in the airing schedules. For example, the Dutch human-interest program Man Bijt Hond ran from 1999 until 2015. In this program the ordinary man, someone who would normally not appear on television, was the focus of attention. Other examples are De Rijdende Rechter (NPO 1, 1995 - present) or Oh Oh Cherso (RTL 5, 2011-2012), the first about a driving judge who solves problems of mostly neighbours and the second about eight young people drinking and partying in Chersoneses.

However, the airing of Big Brother could thus be seen as a definite starting point for the development of the new, hybrid reality TV formats over the last two decades. In these decades there has been one stable factor that is arguably an explanation of the success of reality TV, namely ‘the highly visible presence of ordinary people in ‘unscripted’ situations’ (Biressi & Nunn 2005: 2). Viewers are attracted to the ‘real’ emotions and experiences of the subjects (Deery 2015: 31). However, Deery notes that because of its production practices such as casting, editing and filming, reality TV presents the ‘real’, but in a dramatized way (31). Important is thus the claim of reality TV to be real, the idea that the viewer witnesses ordinary people that have real problems, experiences or discussions. This counts for all the subgenres of reality TV, not only for real-life soap but for reality game shows as well. The viewer witnesses people who are no actors, but who are real. As one of the respondents in the research of Mark Andrejevic said about Survivor: “I like the fact that it’s real people, people I can identify with, instead of superstars and Olympians.” (2004: 9) So it may be clear that the participation of ordinary people in reality TV is an important convention for most reality-based programs.

In the essay A critical-historical genre analysis of reality television (2008) scholars Penzhorn and Pitout applied a historical analysis on reality TV to find out the leading conventions that are related to the mega-genre of reality TV. Next to the already named focus on ordinary people, the other conventions that they found are that there is a voyeuristic element involved, that there is encouragement of audience participation and the attempt to simulate real life (Penzhorn & Pitout 2008: 66-67). However, as Deery, Hill and other scholars noticed, reality TV is not a clear genre and covers a whole range of different

programs. In other words, a reality-based television program does not have to include all four conventions to be categorized as reality TV. In fact, irrespective of its own conventions, reality TV is a genre that is composed of elements of other genres (Penzhorn & Pitout 2008:

(13)

72). In his book Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture (2004) Jason Mittell suggests that the limited classification system of genres should be replaced with a ‘generic mixture’ approach (153-154). In his conclusion Mittell states that one of reality TV’s central production strategies is genre mixing, recombinantly drawing conventions and assumptions from a range of genres in both innovative and derivative fashions (197). Although Mittell pleads for a cultural approach to television genres, he does values the analysis of textual conventions in generic mixes, for example the reliance of quiz shows on documentary style or the use of strategic typecasting for reality dramas (197). In the analysis of this thesis Mittell’s concept of ‘genre mixing’ will be used to analyse how certain genre conventions are apparent and mixed in the different programs and how these conventions relate to the awkwardness on-screen. Therefore, it is necessary first to give some insights in the concept of awkwardness.

1.2 Awkwardness on screen

Probably everybody who reads this thesis has encountered awkward moments in his or her live. These awkward moments could arise when someone, for example, accidentally sends an intimate text message to his or her ex-partner or when a simple handshake fails, because the other thought of doing a ‘fistbump’. Awkwardness is humane and humans are awkward at odd times. But except from awkward encounters in real life, we also witness awkward

moments on screen, appearing in series, (live) television programmes and in online videos. So not only do we have to deal with awkwardness in real life, but we also have to watch it on screen.

Though, what awkwardness precisely is most people do not immediately know, but it is very quickly felt when something is awkward. These moments can be painful, but at the same time we tend to laugh at these situations. Therefore, it could be said that awkwardness is a mode of humour that is intuitively felt by many, but logically explained by few (Ballingall 2014: 1). Fact is that awkward humour has become a common and identifiable category of film, television and Internet comedy the past fifteen years (Middleton 2014: 19). Somehow, there are many authors that have tried to theorize ‘humour’, from Freud’s joke triangle to Noel Carroll’s Humour: A Very Short Introduction (2014), but there are not many authors that have given it a try on awkwardness as a mode of humour, even not on awkwardness. There are a few, however.

One of them is Adam Kotsko, author of the book AWKWARDNESS (The title makes it very clear what the book is about). In this work he defines different kinds of awkwardness

(14)

from a philosophical point of view and analyses television programs as The Office and Curb

Your Enthusiasm on their awkward moments. However, before he starts his analysis, Kotsko

points out some important notions on the word ‘awkwardness’. He describes that the word ‘awkward’ implies a movement, drawing upon the ontology of the word itself. That

movement, he considers, is a movement in the wrong direction, but above all it is a movement within the social:

Even when personal deficits make certain individuals seem extremely awkward by nature, awkwardness remains a social phenomenon […] Awkwardness moves through the social network, it spreads. You can’t observe an awkward situation without being drawn in: you are made to feel awkward as well, even if it is probably to a lesser degree than the people directly involved. (Kotsko 2010: 8)

In other words, awkwardness always involves more than one individual. It is a feeling that exists and moves within a social context. According to this statement awkwardness on screen logically could affect the viewer as well.

Based on his observation that the social context plays such an important role for the feeling of awkwardness, Kotsko distinguishes two different forms of awkwardness, namely ‘everyday awkwardness’ and ‘radical awkwardness’ (7-8). ‘Everyday awkwardness’

originates from particular individuals. We are able to identify someone as awkward, when the person does something that is inappropriate for a given context. Mostly, this violation is not based on a written law, but on unspoken norms (Kotsko 2010: 7). According to Kotsko, ‘radical awkwardness’ arises when there doesn’t seem to be any norm governing a given situation at all (8). Most often, this happens because of an encounter between two sets of norms.

Kotsko offers here an important aspect regarding awkwardness, namely norms. Awkwardness exists because of the violation of given norms, or because of an encounter between two totally different sets of norms. Actually, the aspect of norms is slightly similar to the aspects of expectations and the social combined: social expectations. Norms are social rules that we expect to be followed in any given context. A violation of these social norms by anyone draws attention to itself. The fact that one can’t observe an awkward situation without being drawn in (Kotsko 2010: 8) makes it a potentially strong narrative strategy for

(15)

is one of the few authors who analysed awkwardness in relation to media products as reality-based television and comedy programs.

That is one of the reasons why Jason Middleton, film scholar, wrote his book

Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedies and Media Spectatorship (2014). In this

book Middleton examines the varied rhetorical uses of awkwardness in contemporary documentary film and reality-based media, as well as in comedy series as The Office and

Modern Family. He tries to show that awkwardness has become a very popular narrative

strategy the last decade, in which it has been part of many contemporary, so-called ‘cringe comedies’ and other reality-based media formats. In his case studies Middleton researches ‘awkward moments’. To analyse awkward moments adequately he explains his ground rule understanding of these moments as followed:

Awkward moments occur when an established mode of representation or reception is unexpectedly challenged, stalled or altered: when an interviewee suddenly confronts the interviewer, when a subject who had been comfortable on camera begins to feel trapped in the frame, when a film perceived as a documentary turns out to be a parodic mockumentary. (Middleton 2014: 2)

In other words, awkward moments exist because of unexpected changes of established modes. Hence, awkwardness has to do with expectations: expectations of viewers, subjects or

presenters, which are suddenly challenged. He adds something more to this notion later in his book when he explains ‘awkward moments’ more in detail: ‘awkward moments can be understood as documentary moments. They are moments when an encounter feels too real: unscripted, unplanned, and above all, occurring in person’ (Middleton 2014: 20). Again, Middleton notes the unexpected element of awkwardness, but he adds another element to awkward moments, namely the importance of ‘a too real encounter occurring in person’. In other words, awkwardness is not only related to expectations, but also to the social. In our contemporary digital culture most of our social interactions are mediated by social media, on which we can carefully present ourselves. When a conversation on social media turns

different than expected, there is the delay of the send button to cover up any wrong words. But when a miscue happens in a face-to-face encounter, it is awkward, because it is too unmediated and too immediate (Middleton 2014: 20). Awkwardness exists by the notion of social contact and awkward moments are about social relations.

(16)

Concluded, there are three aspects intermingled and related to awkwardness. Because of norms (i) we expect (ii) a certain social behaviour of individuals in a social context (iii). Would these norms that we expect to be known be violated in the given social context, then the situation presumably could get awkward.

While these awkward moments are mostly uncomfortable for the person who caused the awkwardness, for viewers these moments are also enjoyable to watch. But why is that? Why is watching these situations where social norms are awkwardly violated mostly funny and enjoyable? To explore that question, Middleton grabs back on one of the earlier studies on humour, realised by Henri Bergson in 1924. Middleton focuses on the widely known key term of Bergson’s theory of laughter, namely ‘mechanical inelasticity (Middleton 2014: 47). As I referred to earlier, Adam Kotsko notes that the word ‘awkward’ implies a ‘wrong’ direction. In an awkward situation, there is a misunderstanding, someone does not understand the given social norms and things go different than expected. The term ‘mechanical

inelasticity’ that Bergson came up with, describes the phenomenon of laughter when something goes wrong. He uses an example of a man walking down the street, which suddenly stumbles and falls down. The comic element for the spectator lies, according to Bergson, in the involuntarily downfall of the man. Normally, as the man and spectators expect, the muscles would adapt to the given pavement, so that the man would not fall down while walking. But, in this case the ‘mechanical inelasticity’, the involuntary fall because of a non-adaption of the muscles, causes the comic element (Middleton 2014: 47). As Pansy Duncan puts it in his essay Joke work: comic labor and the aesthetics of the awkward (2017): “The awkward individual, in other words, is a figure whose commitment to a mechanical, rigid line of action, in a context in which the flexibility and adaptability typical of play might be more appropriate, becomes both excruciatingly conspicuous and deeply problematic” (41). In relation to the rest of the people involved in the situation, the awkward individual is so to say ‘not in play’ (Duncan 2017: 41).

This idea has been one of the grounds of the ‘incongruity’ theory of humour. In his essay Humour Noël Carroll describes this theory in detail and comes up with a detailed definition:

…one version of the Incongruity Theory, then, someone is comically amused if and only if (i) the object of her mental state is a perceived incongruity, (ii) which she regards as neither threatening or anxiety producing, and (iii) which she does not approach with a genuine, puzzle-solving attitude, but (iv) which, rather, she enjoys. (Carroll 2005: 251)

(17)

Looking at the first part of the definition, it is clear to say that Bergson’s ‘mechanical inelasticity’ could function as the basis of this theory; someone finds something funny, because she perceives a situation as being incongruent. Middleton notes that it is especially this perceived incongruity of the viewer, as described by Carroll in his Notes on the Sight

Gag, which is an important factor for the comical value (Middleton 2014: 47). Carroll argues

in this work that the comic moment in awkward situations proceeds from a marked

divergence on perspectives on a given scene: the way the viewer perceives the situation on the one hand, and on the other, the way the character is perceived to understand the situation (Middleton 2014: 47). What Middleton attempts to clarify is that awkward humour in documentaries and reality-based media could derive from different perceptions and feelings of the viewer, subject and filmmaker (48).

Though, this perceived incongruity is not the only source of the comic element of awkwardness. Middleton refers to the theory of Jerry Palmer to describe how plausibility is an important source as well:

Palmer’s explanation for the comic effect of visual gags such as this one holds that a tension arises between these two competing syllogisms, in which the mode of

reasoning that perceives the event to be plausible is inferior, based upon a lesser logic. But it is the structural possibility of this lesser logic within the gag itself that serves as the basis of the comic effect. (Middleton 2014: 49)

In short, Palmer’s idea is that when something normally implausible happens to be plausible in the given world of the joke or comedy series, there is a comic effect.2 However, Middleton notes that with documentary and reality-based media this works in a slightly different way. Because there is an overarching premise that these media forms always represent the ‘real’, anything that we witness on screen is seen as plausible (Middleton 2014: 50, Nichols 2001: 2,24). When something we do not expect or ought to be implausible, such as an awkward moment, happens, the comic effect derives from the fact that the situation is just too bizarre (Middleton 2014: 50). This is strengthened by the fact that we expect the images on screen to

2

In a joke, for example, a man is squashed by an elevator, but comes out smaller. In real life, the man would be dead or squashed (but not smaller). But because the result of squashing an object could be a reduction in size and the man comes out smaller, the event has a measure of plausibility.

(18)

be real. According to Middleton this plausible-implausible theory is also an important argument for the comic effect of awkwardness.

A third theory of humour that could be important for certain reality television programs and the awkward moments that these programs carry is the superiority theory. Sheila Lintott states in the introduction of her essay Superiority in Humor Theory (2016) that “the superiority theory is concerned with the affective response that often accompanies comic amusement, which it maintains as an enjoyable feeling of superiority to the object of

amusement (347). However, in her essay Lintott contests that the superiority theory on itself could be seen as an explanation for the humorous element (348). Feelings of superiority towards subjects on screen could for example contribute to the laughter that is caused by incongruent happenings. So according to Lintott, the superiority theory could be seen as an addition to other theories of humour, but does not stand by itself as a theory (348).

Nevertheless, the notion of superiority towards other people could be an interesting aspect in chapter three, when programs are analyzed in which the subjects play a leading role for the awkward moments.

In this second part of this chapter I tried to explore the different notions and aspects of awkwardness and awkward situations both in real life as on screen, by outlining the

arguments of Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton. I also pointed out how some leading theories of humour and laughter could be connected to awkwardness. In the next part of this chapter my aim is to show that awkwardness is moving between different roles of people and that it creates different relations, between viewers, makers and subjects.

1.3 A triangle of maker, subject and viewer.

Different from an awkward moment in real life, there is a third person that experiences the awkwardness when an awkward moment occurs in a documentary film or a television

program: the viewer. So, it could be said that on screen awkwardness differs in that way from real life awkwardness, because on screen awkwardness is mediated and viewed by probably thousands of people. As I already stated in the previous sequence, Middleton argues that awkward humour is mostly rooted in the difference of perspectives of the viewer, subject and filmmaker. It makes sense then that he comes up with different relations of awkwardness, in reality-based media. In relation to the observations of Adam Kotsko that awkwardness spreads through a social network, he identifies three general causes and relations of awkwardness. These three notions of awkwardness are more or less relatable to either the

(19)

viewer, the subject or the director/presenter. I will discuss all three notions, because they will be guiding the chapters of my analysis.

The first form of awkwardness that Middleton identifies is the use of awkwardness as a deliberate strategy with methods and goals. Directors or presenters are able to arrange awkwardness between subjects or between the interviewer and interviewee and therefore they can use awkwardness as a rhetorical strategy (Middleton 2014: 22-23). With inappropriate questions or with certain body language it is possible for the presenter to influence the situation as such that awkwardness is generated. One of the important examples Middleton uses to illustrate this form of awkwardness is the technique of director Michael Moore, who mostly uses awkwardness to accomplish a certain message with his documentaries. The awkwardness that is created with this form is mainly one that originates on-screen, but I will return to this point later, when I explain that the three different forms of awkwardness are all coherent.

Middleton describes the second form of awkwardness as an unstable ‘fantasy of mutual recognition’ between eccentric documentary subjects and filmmakers (22). Sometimes it seems like the director and the subject have a good understanding of both their desires and needs, but underneath there is actually an incongruity between these desires and needs of each. Awkwardness is thus generated by this profound incongruity, which often leads to moments of rupture (23). For example, when a subject stops answering questions of the interviewer, or even worse, does not want to be filmed anymore. But it also rises when it becomes clear for the viewer that the subject and maker have different motives to participate or produce the program. However, often this form of awkwardness goes along with the danger of exploiting an eccentric or alternative subject. An example of a reality-based television program in which this form of awkwardness is present, is the Dutch program Man Bijt Hond (KRO-NCRV, 1999-2015). A lot of short video reports regarding eccentric subjects, most often people with some sort of absurd hobby, were shown in this program. Awkwardness in these kinds of programmes is then generated by the behaviour of the subjects and how the makers of the program represent them. Thus, awkwardness in this form lies mostly with the subjects.

The third and last form of awkwardness that Middleton defines is described as an affective and epistemic disparity between the text itself and the viewer (23). This form is about the relation of the viewer with the images on the screen. This relation could be one concerning the undermining of the comprehension of the viewer, in the case of a hoax program or mockumentary (23). However, it could also be about an affective response of the

(20)

viewer, opened up by differentials in perception between the viewer and the subjects on screen (23). An example that is used by Middleton to describe this form of awkwardness is the movie Borat, made by Sascha Baron Cohen. The comprehension of the viewer is constantly questioned by the behaviour of Borat and the people he encounters. The awkwardness that is accomplished in this form lies especially with the viewer.

Although the three forms of awkwardness are apparently different, it has not to be said that they are also totally separated. Awkwardness could be used as a rhetoric strategy and at the same moment lie with the viewer. It could be a difference in expectation between the maker and subject, but at the same time set up on purpose by the director. However, because the focus of the analysis in this thesis lies with awkwardness that happens on-screen, the position of the viewer needs some extra attention. A presenter can deliberately try to create awkward moments, but if the viewer does not get the point, his strategy does not work. A subject can be extraordinary with unconventional actions, but if the viewer not perceives it as unconventional because he wields different social norms, the awkwardness is not transferred. Dutch sociologist Giselinde Kuipers researched this position of the viewer and wrote the essay Television and taste hierarchy: the case of Dutch television comedy (2006) on the difference in taste of viewers. She looked at Dutch television comedy and conducted

interviews with people from different social categories to discover a taste hierarchy. She notes that taste can be understood as a form of cultural knowledge, that is necessary to enjoy a comedy television show (Kuipers 2006: 2). This knowledge always precedes appreciation, Kuipers says, because ‘you have to be aware of something in order to like it, hate it or be indifferent to it’ (2). It is thus important to bear in mind that there could be a difference in perception between the viewers of awkward moments as well. This difference could then be due to a difference in knowledge of the social norms or social context, as awkwardness is closely related to this field. When a viewer has a totally different standard of the social, the awkwardness could be not the same for that viewer as for another viewer. This notion of Kuipers is one to keep in mind during the analysis. Though the analysis in this thesis is not directly focused on viewer experience, it is something that has to be discussed in further research. However, according to media scholar Jan Teurlings, the viewer does not have to be underestimated. In his essay “Media literacy and the challenges of contemporary media culture: on savvy viewers and critical apathy” (2010), Teurlings argues that the dominant viewing position of the viewer can be described as a ‘savvy’ one (359). Savviness means that the viewer is not naïve and literally sees through the televisual text or understands the

(21)

where makers always try to claim ‘the real’ in their programs, this notion is important. In his essay, Teurlings shows that the viewers of reality TV are firmly aware of the production processes and the fact that scenes can be scripted (368). In relation to awkward moments on television, this stance is interesting, because awkward moments arise often in reality TV programs. Often these moments arise from weird or divergent behaviour of the subjects. But if the viewer knows that scenes are often scripted and thus these subjects are partly playing a role, is the awkwardness still the same then? And if the viewer is as savvy as Teurlings states, would every viewer be able to discover less obvious awkwardness, smoothly worked in by the director, such as Michael Moore does in his interviews? I cannot answer these questions in this thesis, but they are important to consider and to keep in mind, just as the notions of Giselinde Kuipers. The notions of Kuipers and Teurlings question the position and reception of the viewer and are therefore meaningful to discuss in the research on on-screen

awkwardness.

All the same, in the analysis I will investigate all three positions (maker, subject, viewer) in relation to the construction of awkwardness, by connecting each of the position to a separate chapter. In each chapter I analyse three programs that seemingly incorporate

(22)

Chapter 2 Awkwardness as a deliberate strategy of the presenter

In one of the most famous scenes of the documentary Bowling for Columbine (2002) filmmaker Michael Moore forces the president of the National Rifle Commission, Charlton Heston, in an awkward position with difficult questions and non-subtle statements about weapons. Not accidentally, but on purpose. Suddenly, Heston notices that the conversation is growing in a different and more negative way than he expected. He starts to stumble over his words and decides to walk away from the interview, not feeling comfortable anymore. Moore accomplished what he wanted all along: to create a form of awkwardness through a deliberate strategy in order to convey a message. This happens to be the first form of awkwardness as described by Middleton. Awkwardness is used as a rhetorical strategy, where the awkward moments are generated and directed by the presenter or maker. It is rooted in how the maker interacts with his subjects, the situation he places himself in and his on-screen behaviour (Middleton 2014: 60).

The three programs that I will analyse and discuss in this chapter are De week van

PowNed (NPO 3, 2016-present), Nog Meer Voor Mannen (RTL 7, 2014-2016) and Streetlab

(NPO 3, 2014-2016). In each of these programs the presenters or reporters have a clearly defining role in generating the awkward moments. An important aspect for the construction of these awkward moments is the concept of ‘genre mixing’, as described in the previous chapter (Mittell 2004: 198). On the surface the three formats in this chapter seem quite similar to the first three forms of reality TV as Annette Hill described in her book (15): De week van

PowNed as a form of tabloid journalism, Nog Meer Voor Mannen as documentary television

and Streetlab as popular (scientific) entertainment. However, a closer look on the formats show that they mix up different genre conventions. De week van PowNed can be referred to as a news-reporting program, but it combines its journalistic practices with irony and a cheeky form of interviewing. Stephen Harrington shows in his research that these satire

news-programs bring ‘chaos’ to normally very ordered systems such as politics and politicians and the traditional journalism (39). Where objectivity is a greater good for reporters of traditional journalistic institutes, the comedians and reporters of these new formats contest these

traditional forms by asking impertinent questions and disrupting for example the political establishment, in order to come closer to the truth (Harrington 2011: 40,44). Politicians, but also CEO’s, spokesmen etc., have to deal with cheeky, unconventional interview styles. It is

(23)

this contestation of the conventions that can attribute to potential awkward moments, which I will show in the analysis of De week van PowNed.

In Nog Meer Voor Mannen the goal of presenter Maxim Hartman is to revalue the position of the oppressed man. As a reporter Hartman travels through the country to talk to famous and ordinary men and to search for real manly hobbies and activities. The design of the format shows similarities with the conventions of documentary journalism and even public affairs formats. Hill describes that “documentary journalism addresses topical subjects in a series format, using journalistic conventions, and usually involving the ‘“quest” of a presenter/reporter” (19). In Nog Meer Voor Mannen Hartman is on a “quest” as well, exploring the topic of the oppressed man in multiple episodes. As for the conventions of a public affairs program, Patricia Aufderheide states the following in her work on documentary:

Such documentaries typically undertake an investigative or problem-oriented approach, feature sober exposition with narration and sometimes a host… and focus on representative individuals as they exemplify or illustrate the problem. They promise an authoritative, often social-scientific view of an issue, speaking as professional journalists on behalf of a public affected by the problem. (Aufderheide 2007: 56-57)

Nog Meer Voor Mannen holds a problem-oriented approach and a host as well in the form of

Hartman searching for the oppressed position of the man to be revalued. Hartman also speaks with individuals who illustrate the problem and often uses the term ‘we’ as if he speaks on behalf of all the men affected by the so-called problem. Although the program shows great similarities with the conventions of documentary journalism, Hartman’s actions are in conflict with some of the conventions regarding the behavior of a reporter and the use of

representative individuals. In the analysis I will show how these violations of Hartman can create awkward moments.

The third program Streetlab combines the content of socio-scientific experiments with the conventions of a candid camera format. In chapter four I will discuss the conventions of candid camera formats in depth, but important for Streetlab is the use of the unguarded moment (Penzhorn & Pitout 2007: 65). While the topics of their experiments are already inherently awkward, the use of the candid camera could even strengthen the awkward moment because it captures the real reactions of the ordinary people who are involved in the experiment. In the analysis I will discuss some of their topics and show how formal elements also contribute to the awkwardness of these unguarded moments.

(24)

I will start the analysis with a short description of each program. After that, for each program I will analyse one or two short fragments on the actions of the presenter, including the questioning, behaviour, situation, but also the editing, sound etc. After each program I will summarize the findings shortly and I will end the chapter with a conclusion, in which all the findings are compared.

2.1 De Week van Powned (NPO 3, 2016-present)

De Week van Powned is a weekly television program filled with short actual (news) reports.

Since September 2016, it is aired on television every Friday night. Recently, it is the only program produced by broadcaster PowNed that is aired on television. PowNed as a broadcasting company has a very recent history. It originated form the weblog GeenStijl, which was established in 2003 by Dominique Weesie. The mission of his weblog was “to become an important opinion leader through the existing media that matter” (powned.tv: 2016). With the beginning of GeenStijl TV in 2006 and the establishment of the their own broadcasting company PowNed in 2009, Weesie clearly followed his mission. Between 2009 and 2016 programs as Powlitie (NPO 3, 2012-2014), Camping Powned (NPO3, 2013) and

PowNews (NPO 3, 2010-2015) were successfully aired by PowNed, reaching a steady group

of viewers. Nowadays, with their own YouTube channel they still reach more than 90.000 subscribers with their content. PowNed has indeed become one of the important opinion leaders in the Dutch media landscape.

They quite differ from the other existing news broadcasters such as the NOS and RTL. As PowNed mentions on their website, they are ‘on top of the news, but though, rude, critical and with humour’ (powned.tv: 2016). It is this tone of their reports, their news items, that distinguishes them from the other news broadcasters. With the difficult and rude questions in the Dutch House of Representatives and, from time to time, weird subjects in their items, PowNed definitely shook the Dutch television landscape.

As I said, one of the defining elements of the reporters of De Week van Powned is the though, brazen form of questioning, that clearly differs from the traditional questioning of journalists. Herein embedded lies the enabling of potential awkward situations. To show this I will take a short fragment of Rutger Castricum interviewing Job Cohen in the House of Representatives (where almost all the political interviews of PowNed take place) about a statement Cohen made on a television show the night before.3 The item is introduced by

(25)

Dominique Weesie, who states that Cohen made another slip and that it is maybe time for him to switch jobs, in other words, to quit politics. After this, the fragment of Cohen’s appearance in a talk show is shown, in which he said that, in his opinion, the prime minister Mark Rutte does not separate his function as leader of the country and leader of his political party enough, for example when he appeared in Alphen aan de Rijn to speak out his condolences.4 Then, the interview with reporter Rutger Castricum starts, while they are walking in the hall way:

Rutger: Mr. Cohen, don’t go there anymore, don’t do it again… Cohen: What ‘don’t go there anymore?'

Rutger: To Pauw & Witteman.. Cohen: Ah come on boy.

Rutger: Accidental slip number 812.

The mood of the interview is directly established by the first words of the reporter. With a disappointed tone, like a fatherly figure, he tells Cohen not to go sit at television shows anymore (or in other words, according to the introduction of the item by the presenter in the studio, to just quit politics). At this moment, Rutger Castricum immediately is in control of the interview and the politician, Cohen, is shrinking, so to speak. This is exactly the

impertinent way of interviewing that contests the traditional form of journalism and interviewing. A conventional start of the interview would have been something like ‘Mr Cohen, what do you think of your performance on television last night?’ But the

unconventional start, the judgement of Castricum and the degrading tone of his voice, makes the position of Cohen unstable. As a politician he has to be polite and professional all the time, but the way of questioning contests that. Nevertheless, Cohen tries to stay correct:

Cohen: Everything is fine though. Rutger: Again, not very clever right? Cohen: Everything will be fine.

Rutger: Everything will be fine? But this was not good.

4

Job Cohen refers to the events in Alphen aan de Rijn in April 2011. A man randomly killed 7 people (including himself) in a mall and injured sixteen people. A day later, Mark Rutte spoke out his condolences and concern at the commemoration in Alphen aan de Rijn.

(26)

Cohen: That’s your opinion. Rutger: You thought it was okay? Cohen: (repeats) That’s your opinion.

Rutger: That you have to mention ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’ Sir… Cohen: Hm, yes, that’s what I found.

Rutger: You found that? Cohen: Yes, indeed. I…

Rutger: (interrupts) That is stupid right? Cohen: No, that is not stupid at all.

While Cohen politely answers the questions, Castricum keeps repeating that his appearance was stupid, a bad performance, and interrupts him when Cohen tries to explain his opinion. This repetition causes that Cohen cannot give any different answers then answers as ‘that’s your opinion’ and ‘that’s what I found’. Harrington describes that repeating key words in an interview was a method developed by politicians to counter the difficult questions of

‘traditional journalistst’ (45). However, this conversation shows that not all politicians have found a way to counter these unconventional forms of questioning.

Because Castricum also interrupts Cohen when he tries to explain his opinion, it seems like Cohen does not know what to say or how to react to the ‘questions’ of Castricum. Though, we can never know if Cohen really does not know what to say, but it is clear that it is the interview technique of Castricum, the repetition and tone, which makes Cohen struggle with his position and words. Eventually, Cohen gets the opportunity to broaden his

explanation:

Cohen: When he is there as the prime minister, he has to separate his VVD

background from this position and if he does that, he stands there much better, that is what this is about.

Rutger: But then you say that in Alphen aan de Rijn, he stands there as the VVD leader and not as prime minister?

Cohen: No, he is there as the prime minister, but because he often links his position to his own VVD party, people will see that. And he shouldn’t do that. That is my opinion on the situation.

(27)

Rutger: But isn’t it dangerous then, to bring up ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’, this situation? You should have named one other example, instead of this one.

Cohen: No, I wouldn’t know why I should have done that. Why?

Rutger: Because it is a very sensitive subject nowadays in our country… Cohen: I wouldn’t know why…

Rutger: You’ll keep your opinion as it is? Cohen: Yes, that is where I stand for.

Rutger: Come to our place sometimes, we will explain to you how it all works. How you deal with these things.

Cohen: I already see you too often. Bye.

In this final part of the interview, Cohen finally has the chance to explain his opinion to the reporter. However, Castricum does not really respond to the content of the opinion, but instead he asks Cohen again if the example of ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’ that he used the night before was not a bad example. It is not even a question, because Castricum tells him that he should have chosen a different example as well. Again, it is the repetition of the content of Castricum his questions that makes it difficult for Cohen to respond in a confident way. He constantly has to search for words and answers to defend his position, over and over again. Some people manage to do this in a very quick and confident way, but Cohen is not capable of doing that. Therefore, this form of questioning works well with Cohen, in order to make him struggle and create a rather awkward situation. With the final remark of Castricum saying that they (the people from PowNed) can learn Cohen how to deal with these things, the

approach of the interview is again underscored. By stating this out loud, Castricum creates an extra awkward momentum. Although it could be that it is said with a wink, it is rather

awkward when a reporter tells the leader of a big political party that he can teach him how to do his job.

This fragment shows how the interview technique of Rutger Castricum (which is representative for the other PowNed reporters as well) influences the mood of the interview and the interviewee and how it enables the opportunity for awkward moments to arise. That does not mean that this technique always generates awkwardness, but it can function as a catalyst for these awkward moments. For example, Job Cohen was a frequent target of PowNed during his period as political leader of the PvdA, because he was sensitive for this

(28)

way of interviewing. Not only in this fragment, but at other moments too he often struggled with the interviews of PowNed. Meanwhile, other politicians, such as Geert Wilders or Ronald Plasterk, were much better in dealing with the reporters of PowNed. This shows that the interview technique can generate awkward moments, but that it is not a certainty. Clearly this is in interplay with the subject that is interviewed.

2.2 Nog Meer Voor Mannen (RTL 7, 2014-2016)

This program was aired from 2014 till 2016 on the commercial broadcaster RTL 7 and was developed and presented by Maxim Hartman. The concern of the program is to revalue the manly being, to search for real masculinity. In this search presenter Hartman meets known- and unknown Dutch men and women and sees a lot of hobbies, jobs, rooms that all contribute to definition of the term ‘masculinity’. Implicitly, this yields funny, extraordinary and weird moments.

Maxim Hartman has the reputation as an unorthodox television-maker. With programs as Lekker Dansen (1994) (in which he just danced on the street and asked other people to also dance on the song) and Rembo & Rembo (1987-1995) (a youth program with often dirty themed sketches and weird dilemma’s) Hartman showed his own funny, but weird style of humour. When he later developed programs that were more centred on Hartman as a

reporter/interviewer, his own brutal, funny and unorthodox style became even clearer. With newer programs as Omroep Maxim (2011-2012) and Eredivisie op Vrijdag (2016 - present) he shows that he has no mercy for his subjects, targeting them with difficult, weird and brutal questions. One of the most famous fragments of Omroep Maxim is probably the item with subject Ben Strik and his antique basket.5 In this fragment antique seller Strik shows one of his pieces to Hartman and tries to explain what it is. Up to three times Hartman interrupts him to tell him that the description has to be shorter, until Strik only shouts out the word ‘basket’. The fragment clearly shows how Hartman treats his subjects and questions them in order to reach humorous items. In the more recent program Eredivisie op Vrijdag Hartman has a section in which he interviews professional Dutch soccer players. In these items as well, it is clear that a lot of these players are overcome by the questions and behaviour of Hartman. He asks them questions, which normal journalists would never ask these players. In Nog Meer

Voor Mannen he uses this same style of reporting again.

In the fragment “Ik schrik hier een beetje van”, available on YouTube and aired in the season of 2015 of Nog Meer Voor Mannen, Hartman visits and interviews Francis, a rather

(29)

old man who lives alone.6_{Hartman introduces the fragment with the following words: “Most} men are lost, they do not know what to do anymore. Therefore we, from Nog Meer Voor

Mannen, are always happy when there is someone who says that he does know how it works

and what to do. Francis!” Although his description is rather vague and general, Hartman clearly refers to the subject ‘women’, because the whole format is formed around the differences and relations between men and women. When the camera moves to Francis, the viewer sees an old man standing in his small garden, working on his blackberry bushes (Image 5).

At first sight, Francis is not exactly the man one would expect to be the expert on the topic ‘women’. Though later in the item, it becomes clear that Francis has a rather unknown theory and metaphor about women and that he indeed could be called an expert, in his own way. What happens as well is that Francis directly starts to tell his story without Hartman introducing him properly. Also he gets a little irritated by Hartman and even later in the item Francis takes over the microphone for a two-minute monologue. These happenings and aspects make Francis an extraordinary and unpredictable subject. Subjects like Francis say things that deviate from the common, often contest the social norms by their hobbies or actions and act unpredictable sometimes. This could give some input for potential awkward moments, but it is still very important how the presenter/maker treats the opponent, as was the case with De Week of PowNed as well.

After the introduction of Hartman, Francis says “Hallo”. When he finds out that Hartman does not immediately (after one second) ask him another question, Francis starts to talk about his background, where he lives and what he does. Hartman walks towards him and says to him, partly staring into the camera: “Before you start telling us your whole life story Francis, tell us, what are you doing here?” Hartman notes the unexpected behaviour that the viewer also witnessed. He is aware of that and with a look into the camera, directed to the viewer, he confirms the fact that it was indeed an unexpected begin, but this look also means something like “this man is indeed an extraordinary figure”. Although these actions of Hartman are very small and could be considered as details, these details push the item in a certain way. Hartman could have proposed to redo the introduction with Francis and he could have not repeated what the viewer already saw. Instead, he chose to let the situation unfold in order to create a humorous item. This is something that fits in Hartman’s style and something

6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTQALsDyq0Y&list=PLw1m-W4FtiaRM0pFYMM-kyJ6WNmiUHOYA&index=35 -“Ik schrik hier een beetje van” – Nog Meer Voor Mannen

(30)

he does more often; he gives the subject the opportunity to act freely, in order to create abrupt, funny and awkward moments.

Image 1 - The first shot of Francis. He stands on a ladder, cutting his bushes.

However, in the remaining part of the item becomes clear how Hartman also chooses to adopt a total opposite stance towards his subject, namely one in which he suddenly

interrupts the subject or asks brutal questions. At a given moment, Francis explains his theory to Hartman while he is standing on a ladder, which makes him considerably taller than

Hartman. As Francis is telling his story, Hartman suddenly interrupts him and says: “You are standing on the ladder, higher than me. Would you please come down from the ladder, because it makes me feel uncomfortable and submissive.” This is the first verbal reaction that Hartman gives on the story of Francis. Instead of reacting to the content of Francis’ story, Hartman ignores the information and begins about something completely different. As an interviewee this could make you unsecure about your position, when the interviewer does not respond or listens to your story.

Even though Francis handles this situation well by not complaining and ascending from the ladder, later in the item he becomes a little irritated by the behaviour of Hartman. It is again Hartman who interrupts Francis, this time to conclude some of the sayings of Francis. Hartman focuses on the viewer and repeats the most important points of Francis’ theory, adding some things that Francis never said. Francis disagrees with Hartman and becomes agitated. Hartman notices that and asks Francis why he is irritated. Francis tells him that he

(31)

concluded his words wrongly and that he constantly interrupts him. The situation results in an agreement between Hartman and Francis, which gives Francis two minutes time to take over the microphone and tell his story, without interruption, while Hartman is waiting inside behind the front door (Image 6), with an overly serious facial expression.

Image 2 - Francis filling his two minutes, while Hartman waits inside.

These shots in association with the information that the viewer receives, makes Francis almost some sort of actor. It shows some connection to Michael Moore’s technique of framing his subjects as if they are fictional persons. Middleton describes that as followed:

One of Moore’s signature rhetorical strategies is to frame his political opponents to make them come across if they were fictional Guest constructions: We laugh in

disbelief as they look straight at the camera and make un-self-conscious proclamations of viewpoints the films frame as ridiculous and offensive, amazed that these people could be ‘for real.’ (45)

The subject Francis has an unconventional theory about how to treat women as a man, which gives Hartman enough opportunities to build a humorous item. With silences, brutal

interruptions and unexpected questions, Hartman provides the item with humorous and sometimes awkward moments. He gave the subject space to act in his own way for example,

Awkwardness on Dutch television: A research to identify the construction of on-screen awkward moments in nine contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs