From Reality Television to Daily Vlogs
A Shift in Aesthetics
Deirdre van Diepen 10184244
MA Television and Cross Media Faculty of Humanities
Attending teacher: Sudeep Dasgupta June 24 2016
Index
1. Abstract...4
2. Introduction...5
3. Theoretical Framework on Aesthetic Transformations...7
3.1 Reality Television...7
3.2 Soap Opera...9
3.3 Documentary...11
3.4 YouTube...12
4. Transformation in Aesthetics: From Reality Television to Daily Vlogs...14
4.1 Keeping Up with the Kardashians...14
4.1.1 Celebrity...15
4.1.2 Visual Aesthetics...16
4.1.3 Content...18
4.2 Daily Vlogs: The SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS...21
4.2.1 Celebrity...21
4.2.2 Visual Aesthetics...22
4.2.3 Content...25
4.2.4 Change in Platform...26
5. Theoretical Framework on Performance of Authenticity...29
5.1 Performance...29
5.2 Authenticity...31
5.3 The Creation of Stars...32
6. Performance of Authenticity, Interactivity and Commercialism...34
6.1 Authentic Camera Movement...34
6.2 Performance of Authentic Truth...35
6.2.1 Authentic content...36
6.2.2 ‘Authentic’ People...37
6.3.1 Production of stars...40
6.4 Interactivity; Platform & Twitter...41
6.5 Commercialism...42
7. Conclusion...46
8. Bibliography...48
1. Abstract
In this research will be analysed what happens if the genre reality television is created for an online platform, YouTube, and how on both mediums people perform their authenticity. The first part focuses on the aesthetic transformation from the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007-present) to the daily vlog channels from the SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS. In here, the similarities and differences in aesthetics between the two mediums will be addressed. The second part of the research focuses on the performance of authenticity. In here, will be analysed in what way performances in both reality television and daily vlogs are created and how this affects their claim for authenticity.
2. Introduction
Have you ever watched a television program, and questioned yourself whether it was still actually a television program or more like a film? This is not a strange feeling, as it is a shared opinion that more and more television watchers believe. I too, have the same feeling. Specifically when I watch series like Game of Thrones (2011-present) or Sherlock (2010-present), I feel like that it is more a mini-film than a television program.
It has been discussed by many different authors how television has taken over some of the aesthetics of film. Numerous television series are being produced nowadays with the same budget and outlook of a film. There is a blurring between television and film and therefore it is hard to see the distinction between the two. This blurring of aesthetics is no longer limited between television and film. The blurring shows that nowadays there is no clear distinction of aesthetics for each medium, but rather a mix of aesthetics or aesthetics that shift between different mediums. In my opinion this can also be recognized for the internet, and specifically the platform YouTube. Over the last few years there has been an increase of video content on the internet. Starting in 2005, the platform YouTube is responsible for a big part of this increase. YouTube, like television, is a platform where different media content is channelled. Like television many different genres of videos can be found.
What happens if the same kind of content is constructed for a different medium? To analyse this, I will focus on a genre that is both found on television and on YouTube, which is the reality genre. On television this is reality television and on YouTube this genre is what one calls daily vlogs. So, I want to analyse what happens when a form of reality television is created for YouTube.
Daily vlogs are video blogs where ordinary people film themselves doing everyday activities. Daily vlogs have many similarities with reality television. In both types of video content, the viewer is to be believed that what one is watching, is something real. However, one of the main associations with reality television is the questioning of the truthfulness and the realness surrounding the genre. Although, it is one of the most popular genres on television, many viewers question if people put up performances, and with that the authenticity of the genre is doubted. On the opposite YouTube videos are often praised for their realness. YouTube is a platform where people can post their own and self-made content, opposed to the big crew and a huge production effort as is common for reality television. On the basis of my own experience and doing some research on viewers’ opinions surrounding this genre, it appears that the smaller the platform and production, the more authentic one perceives it.
As daily vlogs are videos that are specifically made for the internet, the aesthetics are different from a reality show that is aired on television. In what way can one find the aesthetics of reality television in
the daily vlogs, and how do they differ from each other? In other words: What are the aesthetic
transformations in the reality genre when shifting from television to YouTube, and further, how is the performance of authenticity represented?
To answer this question I will focus on two different YouTube channels, the SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS. These two channels are compared with the reality show
Keeping Up with the Kardashians (2007-present). Like both YouTube channels, this show focuses on a
single family, and therefore the three of them represent the same genre.
The research is divided into two parts. One part focuses on the aesthetic transformations between reality television and daily vlogs. The other part focuses on the performance of authenticity. The primary focus in this thesis will be on aesthetic transformation, while the section on authenticity will be briefer. First the theoretical framework on aesthetic transformations will be described. The theories, concepts and aesthetics of ‘traditional’ reality television, soap operas, documentaries and the platform of YouTube will be outlined in this part. All three genres can be found in the objects that will be used for the analysis.
After the theoretical framework for the first part, I will compare the three shows. First the focus will be on the show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, as this reality show itself has already made a shift and transformation from traditional reality shows from the 1990s. Then, the similarities and the differences in aesthetics of daily vlogs will be analysed. This part is mainly dealing with the visual characteristics and the content.
In the second part, I will continue with a theoretical framework on the performance of authenticity. The theories and concepts of authenticity and performance in realty television and documentary will be outlined.
In the analysis of the second part, the focus will be on the aesthetics of both the show Keeping
Up with the Kardashians and the daily vlogs that are analysed in the first part. With this and the use of
visual and content characteristics, I will show if and how the performance is created, staged or even hidden, and what this does to their authenticity. In the last part I will answer the research question in the conclusion.
3. Theoretical Framework on Aesthetic Transformations
Before I analyse the aesthetics of all three objects, the theories and concepts surrounding these objects have to be outlined. Therefore I will explain the main concepts of reality television, soap opera and documentary. As the two daily vlogs channels are from YouTube, I will contextualize the platform.
3.1 Reality Television
Reality television is a relatively new genre that rose during the mid-1990s. The reason for the sudden growth of this genre was because of economic problems in the television industry. There was a rapid increase of channels, and with that an immense overload of broadcasting time that had to be filled in. This had all to be done, whilst the revenues from advertising stayed the same (Morssink 113-114; Raphael 125). To cope with these problems, producers introduced reality television. This was a cheap format that could be easily produced, and therefore could work with the same revenues from advertising. Additionally reality television used cheap cameras, which was also part of the budget cuts (Hill 39). The cheap cameras did not create beautifully styled shots. However, this was not experienced as a problem, since these shots enhanced the feeling that the program was something real (Reesink 322). Furthermore, reality television was attractive to a general wide audience (Hill 23). So, although the costs were low, the income was relatively high, which made for a successful format.
But what is reality television? Bluntly said reality television is factual programming. Just as the term factual says, it is a program that shows facts. Following the definition of Annette Hill, reality television is a very broad term that overlaps “information and entertainment, documentary and drama” (2). The term is very flexible, as it can be applied to a range of factual programming (45). Chad Raphael describes reality television “as an umbrella term for a number of programming trends” (47). In other words, it can be applied to different forms of reality, like news programs or game shows. As the concept of reality television is quite broad, it is difficult to grasp every characteristic of it. Therefore I will focus on the basic characteristics of reality television when it started in the mid-1990s, as these are applicable for the analysis.
The first, and probably foremost, characteristic of reality television is the showing of real people as opposed to actors. This is also another benefit of the format. As these people are not famous, they do not ask for payment to be on television (Reesink 322). While reality television uses real people, it has to be entertaining to keep the viewers hooked to a show. As one viewer stated: “if it was real life I’d be watching someone sitting down watching telly all day” (Hill 78). This is why reality television is often highly influenced by its producers. The producers are always looking for tension, and otherwise will make that tension happen (Morssink 122). The contestants in these shows have no power in how they are presented. Their whole performance is formatted by the show, and highly
television is a blurring between fact and fiction. Or as Richard Kilborn argued, reality television is “fictional drama rooted in real-life situations” (Hill 47). One way to make for more fictional drama in reality television, is the confessional (Morssink 122). This is where the contestants in the show are in an enclosed room where they speak directly into the camera. Here the contestants are not surrounded by other people, so they tell their true opinion on a specific event or topic. Espen Ytreberg argues this: “the definition of a person as a legitimate participant and that person’s input as legitimate participation is crucially dependent on the requirements of the format” (680). So again, here one can see how reality television is highly managed. The contestants themselves have no power, and are often guided in their performance to the liking of the producers of a show.
Another big part of reality television is the ordinary person becoming famous. As Laura Grindstaff and Susan Murray argue, it is not the foremost motivation behind the genre. Yet it is inevitable when the show becomes popular and widely discussed in the media (130). Specifically looking at game shows, where the viewers root for their favourite to win. Here the show gives hope for viewers that anyone can become famous or can achieve their dreams.
To summarize, the most important characteristics of traditional reality television are: real people, cheap cameras, influences from production, the confessional, and the ordinary person becoming famous. The characteristic of real people, speaks mainly for itself. Instead of using actors, producers put ordinary people in front of the camera, with the idea they speak their own mind.
Although nowadays even cheap camera are more and more equipped to produce clear images. In the 1990s the cheap cameras were not that advanced, and shots were often blurry. The shot in figure 1 is from the Dutch version of Big Brother (1999-2006). Most of the shots in this show are created by cameras that are hanging in the corners of each room. The outlook of the shots are like the ones given by security cameras, which are characterized by a voyeuristic look. And as security cameras are also known for their blurry shots, it fits the outlook for reality television.
Figure 1: Cheap cameras Big Brother (“Dutch Big Brother 2001, Toespelingen geven”).
The influences from the production are often not that easy to see. This is a good thing, as it enhances the reality aspect of the show. Yet, there are moments when it is clear that influences from outside are the cause for emotions. This is for example seen in the clip “Watch ‘Big Brother’ Star Frankie Grande Get the News His Grandpa Died”. Here, contestant Frankie Grande gets a letter from home, in which he is told that his grandpa died. This is quite rare, as the contestants do not have contact with the outside world. He reads the letter and often looks straight into the camera. Afterwards he burst into tears. It is obvious that it is highly possible that the production crew instructed the family to write the emotional letter. Especially the way Frankie reads the letter straight into the camera, looks like it was instructed to do so. Normally, one would read a letter quietly.
As mentioned before, the confessional takes place in an enclosed room. In figure 2 one sees Charlotte Crosby sitting in the ‘confession room’ of Celebrity Big Brother UK (2001-present). In this particular scene, she gives her honest opinion on contestant Courtney Stodden. Charlotte herself is also an example of an ordinary person becoming famous. Although she is now famous, and therefore could participate in Celebrity Big Brother, she only became famous after joining the reality show Geordie
Shore (2011-present). She entered Geordie Shore as a non-famous person, and nowadays has millions
of fans all over the world.
3.2 Soap Opera
The television genre soap opera originated from radio stations. The first successful daytime serial on radio was Painted Dreams (1930) on Chicago station WGN. This successful genre from radio only slowly moved into the television landscape. It was not until the fall television season of 1951 that the network CBS introduced “a midday made-for-television serial lineup” (Hilmes 197). It was a genre that was specifically aimed at the housewife, as it was aired during the day.
Soap opera has very specific characteristics. One of its biggest concepts is the cliffhanger. A cliffhanger means that the episode ends in the middle of a heightened scene where the outcome has to be determined in the next episode. This is often when a character’s life is in danger or when the character has a shocking revelation. The viewer is left guessing what will happen next. This use of a cliffhanger makes sure that the viewers come back for the next episode. However, sometimes even in
Figure 2: Confession room Celebrity Big Brother (“CBB 2013 Day 2 – (Celebrity Big Brother Sat 24 Aug 2013)”).
the next episode viewers do not get answers. Soap operas sometimes lack closure (Feuer 8). Another way to make sure viewers come back is with the section ‘next week’. Here a soap opera shows fragments of the next episode to keep the viewer interested in what might happen. The next episode starts then with ‘previously on’, so the viewer gets a reminder of what is important for the upcoming episode.
The majority of scenes on daytime soap operas consist of “intense emotional confrontations between individuals closely related either by blood or by marriage” (10). These scenes, which mostly involve some sort of argument, end with a close-up of at least one of the characters. The most dramatic version is “the fast zoom-in to freeze frame” (11). This use of camera movement gives the scene a climatic intensity and is mostly used to create the cliffhanger. Another form of camera movements is the shot-reverse shot. This is seen during the “intense emotional confrontations”. Here the viewer constantly sees the emotional reactions of the characters, which causes for more drama effect (10-11).
Soap operas are known for their use of excess. This is not only recognized in the editing, music and the use of a zoom-in, but also in the acting and mise-en-scène. The acting performance in soap operas is often ridiculed for their overuse in excess. It is said that the acting trespasses “the norms for a realistic television acting style” (10). However, this form of acting stays close to the enhancing of emotions that the actors are trying to bring across.
The excess in mise-en-scène is used to accompany the lifestyle of the families that are being portrayed in the soap operas. In soap operas one does not see a middle class family. In these shows most of the time only the very rich are portrayed. The family members often all participate in the family business where they started their big empire, which often gives them a lot of power or influence. This is seen in the mise-en-scène by its excess. Through its use of many high end products in the set, the family is shown as very wealthy (8-9).
The main characteristics of soap opera are: the cliffhanger, daily episodic style, the close-up, and excess of mise-en scène. Feuer describes this in her article by mostly referring to the prime time soap
Dynasty (1981-1989). To give an example of an cliffhanger, I will also refer to the show Dynasty. A
cliffhanger always ends with a fast zoom-in to freeze frame. In the scene of figure 3 a character is (re)introduced in the show. The main characters are in a courtroom and are waiting for a new witness. Leading up to the reveal of this moment, the music accompanies the scene with a mysterious sound. At the same time one sees the different characters waiting anxiously to see who will walk through the door. After the moment of reveal, the music changes to the theme song of the show where multiple close-ups are shown of the reactions of different characters. Figure 3 is also a good example of how most of the other close-ups in soap operas are shot. One sees a character either in shock or confusingly looking.
The excess of mise-en-scène is also very evident in Dynasty. The excess of mise-en-scène is to accompany the wealthy lifestyle of the characters. In this particular scene in figure 4 one sees a
character buying fur coats. Firstly, fur is known to be an expensive fabric. Secondly, the character is treated with personal assistance from the saleswoman. And lastly, the many different fur coats in the background accompany the excess of her lifestyle.
3.3 Documentary
Documentary has many different genres on its own. The genre direct cinema is the one applicable for the analysis. Direct cinema, and documentary as a broad genre, has many similarities with reality television. According to Stella Bruzzi, reality television is a genre that came from docusoaps. Reality television therefore has a close relation to the genre of documentary, as both have an emphasis on entertainment and a focus on everyday life.
As with reality television, direct cinema also uses non-professional personalities and lightweight cameras (Waugh 72; Bruzzi 75).This use of camera is to enhance the feeling of a real representation of events, just like Reesink argues for reality television (322). Direct cinema is a documentary genre that is focused on just showing, rather than directing. “The essential element of cinema-vérité [direct cinema] … is the use of real people in undirected situations” (Bruzzi 75). Here is where reality television differs from documentary. In contrast to documentary, reality TV is highly managed by its producers, while this form of documentary is focused on the undirected situations.
However, further in her book New Documentary, Bruzzi argues how documentary develops its sub-genre docusoaps, as I have mentioned above. This form of documentary is about “the importance of personalities who enjoy performing for the camera” (120). Additionally Bruzzi argues that the characteristics that direct cinema producers claim are problematic. They argue that there is no intervention of the producers. Yet, the use of music, the editing and the choice of what to film, are all choices they have to make, and therefore are “tools of interpretation” (76). This interruption already starts in the filmmaking process, as it “intrudes upon the reality of the world it is documenting” (78). People will act differently when there is a camera in their face. Thereby, John Corner argues that documentary has some aesthetic characteristics that require influence by its producers, e.g. the adding of music or the adjustments of scenes that make for an entertaining story (96-99). All have an influence on the outcome of the video. Even though, as with reality television, the viewer is to be believed that what one is watching is something real.
Figure 3: Cliffhanger Dynasty (“DYNASTY COURTROOM CLIFFHANGER”).
The main characteristics of documentary are: real people and lightweight cameras. Here again the use of real people speaks for itself. Direct cinema is a documentary genre that claims to be about real people. So actors would jeopardize that claim. As direct cinema uses lightweight cameras, the shots are not always that beautifully styled (figure 5). This, and accompanied with real people, who cameramen do not direct, causes that shots are sometimes blurry, or as is the case in figure 5, blocked by people.
3.4 YouTube
YouTube is a video sharing website that was created in February 2005 (Wikipedia). José van Dijck
defines YouTube as ‘homecasting’. According to Van Dijck the term homecasting “betrays its kinship to broadcasting, on the one hand, and to home video, on the other” (148). It refers to the convergence between television and the computer. The platform does not produce any content of its own. Its existence is based on the content produced by their users (149). Therefore the logo of YouTube says: ‘Broadcast Yourself’. A huge part of the content on YouTube is user generated content. This means that the users of the platform are at the same time the producers. These users “participate in the construction of online spaces while at the same time consuming content generated by others” (Gane and Beer 98). The function of YouTube is more of an archive of video content than a broadcast channel “whose principle function is to send audio-visual content” (149). In contrast to television, there is no central entity that controls the supply of content. That is solely in the hands of the users. Secondly, YouTube does not decide what a viewer watches at specific times (150). The search engine supports users in selecting specific kind of videos. YouTube memorizes these search histories and based on that recommends videos to their users. According to Van Dijck YouTube on the one hand is a video archive, in which viewers “flow through like any other library or collection” (150). On the other hand, it is a social media platform, where users can “form communities and connect to each other” (150).
Van Dijck argues that the term video sharing is the best term to label the social activity that is triggered by YouTube. This term includes: “quoting, favouriting, commenting, responding, posting,
Figure 5: Blocked shot Grey Gardens (“Grey Gardens”).
downloading, viewing, archiving and curating videos” (150-1). In other words, it is a social practice, because YouTube requires their users to participate in these practices with other users. Yet, the majority of users from YouTube are people who have never uploaded a video or commented on one. “This indicates that users are more willing to watch videos rather than to log in to rate and make comments” (152). In other words, people just watch the content that is available. Through this, most viewers from YouTube are not so different from television watchers, as they too only consume the video content.
To label the kind of content that is seen on YouTube Van Dijck uses the term ‘snippets’ (154). With this she means that these videos are “of limited length, ranging from several seconds to ten minutes, but the bulk of postings average between three and six minutes” (154). Snippets can be a one-time thing, but are also made serially. In other words, the same uploader posts videos that are thematically connected. It is a very broad term as it includes short and long videos, and one-time and serial videos. Yet, this defines the platform correctly, as the video content is also immense.
Over the years the platform has grown from an “amateur-run platform for user generated content to a substantial commercial player” (156). Nowadays the term YouTubers refers to people who make a living out of posting videos on YouTube. This is also the case for the two channels used in this research.
The general characteristics of YouTube are: real people, user generated content, video sharing, snippets, and social interactivity. As YouTube contributes to multiple genres, like gaming videos or beauty gurus, every different genre has its own specific characteristics. In this specific analysis I will focus on a genre on YouTube that is called daily vlogs. Daily vlogs are filmed by real people. In these videos people film themselves, holding a single simple camera. These videos contain everyday activities. So, like reality television and documentary it shows real life. YouTubers who focus on daily vlogs post a video (almost) every day. I will not go into detail on the characteristics and content of daily vlogs. The main aesthetic characteristics will be described in the analysis in the next chapter on the basis of the two YouTube channels, the SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS.
4. Transformation in Aesthetics: From Reality Television to Daily Vlogs
In the previous chapter the theories and concepts surrounding reality television and daily vlogs have been outlined. In this analysis I will first focus on the aesthetic characteristics of Keeping Up with the
Kardashians in relation to traditional reality television. After that, I will compare the findings with the
ones on daily vlogs and analyse their aesthetic characteristics.
4.1 Keeping Up with the Kardashians
Keeping Up with the Kardashians is a reality show that is based around the family of Kris and Caitlyn
Jenner (formerly Bruce). This show follows the life of the parents and their children Kim, Kourtney, Khloe, Rob, Kendall and Kylie. The show has many characteristics of reality television. The show is based around the lives of real people, like Hill and Reesink argue for reality television (Hill 78; Reesink 322). On the other hand Keeping Up with the Kardashians also has its own characteristics. The show is not based around a game to win money, but shows them in their houses and daily outdoor activities. In this way the show has many similarities to a documentary, as it is about showing the ordinary lives of people. In my opinion reality television on its own has already made a shift. Before discussing the daily vlogs, I will first show the similarities to reality television in comparison to Keeping Up with the Kardashians. After that I will analyse how in particular this show distanced itself in some way from the traditional version of reality television.
The first and foremost characteristic of reality television, discussed in the former chapter, is the showing of real people as opposed to actors. Reality television also is, as Hill argues, factual programming (2). It is a program that shows facts. This is also true for the show Keeping Up with the
Kardashians. The Kardashian family is a true existing family. They have not been put together for the
sake of entertainment. Additionally the show follows them in their day to day life, doing their everyday activities. So, it shows the facts of their lives. This is also applicable for documentary. In documentary too, in this case specifically direct cinema, the use of non-professionals and especially the showing of people are the central characteristics for the genre.
Secondly, the confessional is one of the characteristics of reality television, which is used too in Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Here the viewer sees members of the Kardashian family speak directly into the camera and give their opinion on an argument or event that just happened or still is happening (figure 6). It is also the part, according to Morrsink, where the people tell their honest opinion, as they are not surrounded by others (122). This is also seen in the scene from figure 6. Kylie speaks about her anxiety during a red carpet event where her sister Kendall leaves her. While at the actual event she did not address her sister about it. Kylie does tell her true opinion in the confessional,
but not when she is surrounded by other people. The confessional enhances the feeling that what the family are saying is true to their heart and not fake. This part of the show also gives a form of liveness. This means that the viewer experience the episode as a live event, something that is happening at the moment. The viewer is directly addressed, which causes for less distance between the family and the viewers. It is as if they are discussing the event with the viewers and watch the footage together and give live feedback. The confessional thus creates some kind of bond between the viewer and the individual family members.
This shows two characteristics that Keeping Up with the Kardashians has in common with traditional reality television. Like traditional reality television, Keeping Up with the Kardashians uses real people and the confessional. On the other hand reality television is a genre that started during the mid-1990s and over the last few years the genre has developed and changed its format many times. The above mentioned comparable characteristics show that it has characteristics similar to traditional reality television.
4.1.1 Celebrity
The most commonly known aspect of reality television is the use of real people, and with that the ordinary person becoming famous. As mentioned, the Kardashian family are real people. Yet, they were and are no ordinary people. The Kardashian family, and specifically daughter Kim, were already known to a wide audience before the reality show started. This show was not the first reality series that started with already known or famous people. Nowadays there are more and more reality series based on the lives of famous people. There is a shift in reality television about the ordinary person to celebrities. There are still shows that are focused on the use of non-professionals. Yet, during the mid-2000s there was a new form of reality television emerging. Shows like The Simple Life (2003-2007) and the Newlyweds: Nick and Jessica (2003-2005), all included famous people. Gina Tran and David Strutton use the term celebreality to identify “celebrities who were once renowned as celebrities in other contexts” (294).
Figure 6: Kylie’s confession (“Kylie Jenner Suffers Panic Attack When Kendall Abandons Her on the Red Carpet”).
Tran and Strutton add that by participating in a reality show celebrities “revived moribund careers” (294). Although the careers of the family were not moribund, they have gained more publicity and promising careers out of the reality series. It is a form of the ordinary person becoming famous, besides the fact that the family was already known. Nowadays the family is famous all around the world. Kendall is a world famous model. Kylie has her own make-up brand. Rob has his own sock line. And the three oldest sisters have their own clothing and hair product brand. Additionally many books have been published by either individual members of the family or all together. By participating in the reality show, the family has the opportunity to have careers outside of the show. In addition this causes for more content in the show itself. Thereby, as these people were already known to a wide audience prior to the reality series, they did get paid to be on television. One of the characteristics of traditional reality television was that participants did not get any payment. That the Kardashian family got payment has probably been made possible through the wide success of reality television, and the money earned with this genre. As the format has no longer the requirement to stay cheap, they can focus on people who are famous and want to be paid.
4.1.2 Visual Aesthetics
Reesink argued for ‘traditional’ reality television its use of cheap cameras (322). This was necessary as the format of reality television itself had to be cheap. This caused that the footage was not the greatest quality. In contrast to Reesink’s notion on the use of cheap cameras in reality television in
Keeping Up with the Kardashians expensive and HD cameras are being used. There is a difference
between the first season and the most recent, but that is because HD cameras are something of the most recent years. Yet, there is a remarkable additional difference between the first season of Keeping
Up with the Kardashians and other former reality shows. Instead of the shaky and blurred footage of
the former reality shows, here shots are clean and clear. Specifically in the most recent season the use of HD cameras is very obvious compared to other reality shows like Geordie Shore and Big Brother. Also, in the use of colour the difference is evident. In Keeping Up with the Kardashians the colours are more vibrant and clear than the former mentioned reality shows. In figure 7 one sees how bright the colours come across. This is probably because of its use of HD cameras. In this way the show is moving away from traditional reality television and documentary.
Looking more closely into the style and use of camera in Keeping Up with the Kardashians, the show has many similar characteristics to soap operas. A first common characteristic is the use of multiple cameras and therefore the multiple camera angles. This can be observed where the use of shot-reverse-shot is used (figure 8 and 9), especially when two family members are in either a conversation or argument. In the scene in figure 8 and 9, Khloe and Kim are discussing the pregnancy of Kim. This is an example of a ‘friendly’ conversation. It often happens too that the shot-reverse-shot is used for a heated argument (figure 10 and 11). Here Kim and Bruce are in a discussion about the divorce between Bruce and Kris. This is comparable to soap operas where this is used when two characters are in an emotional discussion. By using the shot-reverse shot the viewer can constantly see the (emotional) reaction between the characters (Feuer 10-11).
As in soap operas, the reality show also makes excessive use of the zoom-in. Again, just as in
the soap operas, the camera men zoom-in to capture the reaction of a family member. By using the zoom-in this reaction is intensified (figure 10 and 11). The most dramatic version is “the fast zoom-in to freeze frame” (11). In soap operas this is often used to create a cliffhanger. In Keeping Up with the
Kardashians the fast zoom-in is also often used. Most of the time the camera captures the facial
expression of a family member on a specific topic, where after the shot shifts to a confessional where a family member gives her or his opinion on that topic (figure 6).
Thirdly, Keeping Up with the Kardashians also uses the fast zoom-in to create a cliffhanger. Soap operas are widely known for their use of a cliffhanger at the end of their episodes. This is to
Figure 7: HD quality cameras (“Keeping Up With The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”).
Figure 9:Shot-reverse-shot (“Keeping Up With The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”). Figure 8: Shot-reverse shot (“Keeping Up With
The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”).
Figure 11: Shot-reverse-shot (“Keeping Up With The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”). Figure 10: Shot-reverse-shot (“Keeping Up With
heighten the “moments of climatic intensity” (11). Soap operas use cliffhangers to ensure the viewers come back the next episode. The cliffhangers in Keeping Up with the Kardashians are mostly used right before a commercial break or at the end of the episode before the season finale. Here too, the cliffhangers are probably used to ensure that the viewers stay on the channel or either come back to watch the season finale. In the reality show the cliffhangers are also sometimes placed in the middle or at the end of an argument, which is in the middle of a climatic intensity (Feuer 11). Because of the perfect shot-reverse shots and the right timing of a zoom-in, it is almost like the camera men know in advance when to film the right people, as if they know something is about to happen. This can also be a characteristic that Keeping Up with the Kardashians has in common with reality television. That is the characteristic of how reality television is heavily managed by its producers (Teurlings, Televisiestudies 147-148). Maybe in advance it was discussed that a certain family member would bring up an argument. This is not too obvious for the viewer, as most of the time the shots move seamlessly into each other. The dramatic and climatic scenes are also accompanied by an excessive use of dramatic music. At every cliffhanger and every emotional outcome, the producers put well-fitting music to underscore these scenes, just like in soap operas.
Concluding this, the aesthetic characteristics from Keeping Up with the Kardashians are very comparable to soap opera. The reality show uses shot-reverse-shot, zoom-in and cliffhangers, which is also characteristic for soap operas.
4.1.3 Content
The similarities in content of the reality show and soap opera are also very evident. The show is almost presented as a fictional television series. The show is very narratively strong. With this I mean that there is an almost seamless transition of events, like the show is following a script. This is something that Corner too sees in documentary. He argues that one aesthetic characteristic of documentary is the function of storytelling. This does not mean that it is not factual, but that the form is altered “to increase viewing enjoyment within circumstances of stronger competition” (99). In
Keeping Up with the Kardashians the life experiences of the family members are also told as a story.
Each episode starts with ‘previously on’ and ends with ‘next time on Keeping Up with the Kardashians’. Like other fictional television series this show builds upon previous events. The reality series shows its viewers what was important in the previous episode to understand the events of the episode that is airing. The end of each episode ensures that viewers come back next time by showing what drama is coming and keep the viewers interested in what might happen.
Jane Feuer also states that “on daytime soaps, the majority of scenes consist of intense emotional confrontations between individuals closely related either by blood or by marriage” (10). In
Keeping Up with the Kardashians most scenes too consist of the drama between the different family
other. In soap operas there is always “time for people to speak and listen lavishly” (Modleski 36). In the reality show the viewer observes the family members, either at home or in a restaurant, discussing their opinions on a specific topic. Some problems are only solved at the end of a season or the end of the episode. However, it sometimes happens that arguments are not solved at all. There is no closure. This is comparable to how soap operas have “no real beginning or end” (Feuer 12). Like soap operas,
Keeping Up with the Kardashians has no real beginning. The viewer falls in the middle of the already
existing drama. Additionally, Feuer mentions that soap operas are focused on “the capitalist ruling elite rather than the bourgeois family” (8). The Kardashian family are no ordinary family either. They are already famous, wealthy and have influence on a lot of people. This is also obvious in the excess of the mise-en-scène. Over the years the reality show has become immensely popular, which causes that the family makes a lot of money and was able to buy a bigger house and more expensive clothes. The excess of mise-en-scène in soap operas is used to economically represent the family that is portrayed. In Keeping Up with the Kardashians the excess too shows their economic status. In figure 12 one sees the shoe collection of Khloe, which is obviously enormous. This illustrates their wealthy lifestyle.
Although soap opera has a big influence in Keeping Up with the Kardashians, there are some moments when this falls apart and the evidence of a reality show comes forward. Apart from the confessional, most of the time the family members do not look straight into the camera. This enhances the feeling of the soap opera. Yet, there are moments when the family members acknowledge the existence of the camera. They sometimes mention that something is ‘caught on camera’. This happens mostly in the middle of arguments. Secondly, they have the opportunity to walk out of the shot. When there is a big fight, either one or more family member can walk into a different room, or completely leave the scene. These are places where the cameras do not follow them. Either because the fight itself is more entertaining or they tell the camera men not to follow them. Here is where the family members have some influence in what is filmed of their life, as it feels like most of the time the camera men know exactly what to film. As the members of the Kardashian family are real people as opposed to actors one cannot control them. At these moments where the members of the family ‘let loose’ the
Figure 12: Excess of mise-en-scène (“Keeping Up With The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”).
camera men are not able to style the shots and therefore the shots are sometimes shaky (figure 13). This enhances the reality of the show. Through these moments the characteristics of a reality show are more evident than to those of soap opera.
Concluding, Keeping Up with the Kardashians is a reality show that has already moved away from traditional reality television. The show features already known people, who get paid to be in the reality show. Additionally they have the opportunity to have careers outside of the reality show. The visual aesthetics are comparable to that of soap operas. Both use styled shots, zoom-in and cliffhangers. The content is also similar to soap operas. The main part of the show features the arguments and problems that play between the different family members. The pattern of soap opera does now and then fall apart. Like reality television, the facts and real people are given form to create for an entertaining narrative (Morssink 122). This can be related to Hill’s notion that reality television, in its broad sense, is “a blurring of fact and fiction”, as it feels like some of the events are spontaneous and some are planned in advance (47). On the one hand it is based around people’s real life, but on the other hand it does sometimes looks like some events are planned in advance.
4.2 Daily Vlogs: The SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS
Many authors discuss how television has taken over aesthetics of film. Jeremy Butler explains that “for broadcast TV, the culturally respectable is increasingly equated with cinematic” (71). It was a way for mainstream television “to deal with the growing threat and eventual success of cable” (Caldwell, Excessive Syle 10). Reality television as described in the beginning of this paper is not something that could be related to cinematic aesthetics, with its use of cheap cameras. However there is already a shift seen in Keeping Up with the Kardashians who present themselves with very styled camera movement. Although for this case study I will not go in to depth in the relation between television and film, I do find it worthy of mentioning as this blurring of aesthetics is no longer limited to television and film. Over the last few years there has been an increase of video content on the internet. Especially the platform YouTube has become very popular. YouTube has many different
Figure 13: Shaky shots (“Keeping Up With The Kardashians Season 10 Trailer 2015”).
categories that can either be related to film, television or games. Yet, the category of daily vlogs stands out the most for me.
Daily vlogs are video blogs where people film themselves just living their life. Notable channels are the SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS. The SACCONEJOLYs are an Irish family living in London, who consists of parents Jonathan and Anna Sacconejoly, their toddlers Emilia and Eduardo, and their six dogs. The SHAYTARDS are an American family consisting of parents Shay and Colette Butler, their children Gavin, Avia, Emmi, Brock and Daxton, and their dog and cats. Both channels post a video (almost) every day, containing footage of the previous day.
4.2.1 Celebrity
The first characteristic daily vlogs have in common with reality television, and with the show Keeping
Up with the Kardashians, is the filming of real people. Similar to reality television in general and the
reality show previously discussed, in daily vlogs one sees a real family, and not one that is put together and consist of actors. It also only shows the facts of their lives. The viewers can observe the families in their everyday lives. And again, like the reality show and documentary, daily vlogs focus on non-professionals and the showing of one’s life. Both fathers have explained in multiple vlogs that they just wanted to share their day to day life with people and saw YouTube as the perfect platform to post their content. Secondly, in contrast to Keeping Up with the Kardashians, but similar to reality television, the Butler and Sacconejoly family were ordinary and not famous starting their channels. Both channels have been up for more than five years, and today the SACCONEJOLYs have 1.4 million subscribers and the SHAYTARDS have 4.2 million subscribers. Both channels have subscribers from all over the world. Here the characteristic from reality television where the ordinary person becomes famous is applicable. Starting from being ‘nobody’, the families are now very famous with a lot of followers on their YouTube channels. As these people were not famous when they started their vlog, and use the internet as platform, they also did not get paid in the beginning of their channels. Over the years the families have been able to charge advertisers on their videos, which made it possible for them to make a living out of these videos.
Like the Kardashians family members, some members of the channels SACCONEHOLYs and the SHAYTARDS even have been able to get careers outside the YouTube platform. By participating in daily vlogs and through the phenomenon of the ordinary person becoming famous, family members have been able to get in contact with companies where they could start another career. Mostly it is the parents who have been able to do so, as the oldest child of both families is thirteen. Through his
YouTube channel Shay for example has been able to make his own production company, a
documentary, a clothing line and published many books. Jonathan has let his viewers know that he is busy putting up a company and Anna has her own jewellery line.
4.2.2 Visual Aesthetics
A similar characteristic to reality television is the camera movement. Like reality television, and direct cinema, daily vlogs make use of cheap cameras. As they are filming themselves and do not have a big camera crew, both families make use of simple photo cameras that they can hold themselves while filming themselves. In figure 13 one sees Anna holding the camera herself in the reflection of the mirror. There are no multiple camera angles as one person at the time films their lives. These vlogs are shot with only one single camera. As Shay and Jonathan use simple photo cameras, the shots are not very styled. The shots can be shaky when Shay and Jonathan are walking, and the camera angle itself is often very crooked, as the people hold the camera with their hands. The editing too has some similarities to reality television. The editing is fast and quick. It shows the most important parts. In contrast to Keeping Up with the Kardashians where the camera movement and editing is mostly based on the narrative, in daily vlogs the quick and fast movement of shots is very obvious. However, the camera quality from the videos of Shay and Jonathan can be related to that of Keeping Up with the
Kardashians. Although the camera movement is clearly different, the colour and quality is quite the
same. Just as with the reality show, the quality from daily vlogs have also improved over the years. And even though Shay and Jonathan use simple photo cameras, the quality of such cameras nowadays is most of the time HD (figure 15 and 16). Again in comparison to some reality shows nowadays the quality and colours in daily vlogs are more vibrant and clear. In figure 15 one sees how clear the waves look, and in figure 16 how vibrant the colours come across. However, the quality of daily vlogs can differ between channels and people. YouTubers who have more followers and therefore make more money are able to buy a more expensive photo camera. Yet, the overall quality of videos nowadays is improving as even the cheaper and smaller versions of cameras have better quality than a few years ago.
Figure 15: HD quality of videos (SHAYTARDS). Figure 14: Use of single camera
(SACCONEJOLYs).
So, the camera movement of daily vlogs are comparable to the documentary and reality television style, opposed to the styled camera movement in soap operas used in Keeping Up with the
Kardashians. Although the quality of the footage is overall HD and the colours are vibrant, the
movement of the cameras are often shaky and sometimes even blurry. Shay, Jonathan and other daily vloggers do not edit the parts out when they drop the camera, if the lens is dirty, if the focus of the camera takes a while to adjust or if a toddler steals the camera (figure 17 and 18). In figure 17 one sees the water smudges on the camera. In figure 18 Eduardo has stolen the camera. He is a toddler of two and therefore does not know how to use the camera, which causes for blurry shots. They leave these parts deliberately in. Daily vlogs take the ‘messy’ filming style a level further than reality television and documentary do. Additionally like reality television and documentary, and in contrast to Keeping
Up with the Kardashians, in the daily vlogs there are no purposely close-ups of reactions. When there
is a close-up, the viewer mostly sees the process of zooming in. The zoom-in is often only used to show something that is very far away or in a funny way to zoom-in on someone’s face. The process of filming, and the explicit showing of that process, is a big characteristic of daily vlogs. Besides the occasional dropping of the camera or the zoom-in, the viewer too sees the other ‘struggles’ of filming. The vloggers often mention that they are turning the camera off. So, the viewer knows that the next fragment is coming soon.
The existence of the camera is very explicit in daily vlogs. This is also evident on the channels of Shay and Jonathan. First, Shay and Jonathan, who do most of the filming, mostly speak directly into the camera. They address their viewers directly, as if they were telling their friends how they experience their daily life. It is almost a heightened version of a confessional. A confessional in a typical reality show is where participants speak directly into the camera and tell their opinion on a specific matter. Other times these participants do not look into the camera, just like in Keeping Up with the
Kardashians. However in daily vlogs the people constantly look into the camera, as they create these
videos for their viewers and address them directly. Some phrases that often occur are: ‘You guys know what I mean’, ‘Hey guys/friends’ or ‘Guys, I have a problem’. Specifically the last sentence refers to the fact that they are opening up about something that bothers them, which is where the confessional is mostly used for. As Shay and Jonathan often talk about their opinions, it gives a heightened sense of a confessional. Secondly, the existence of the camera is also evident when multiple vloggers are in the
Figure 18: Eduardo steals the camera (SACCONEJOLYs).
Figure 17: Smudge on the camera (SHAYTARDS).
same room (figure 19). As these people often show who they are talking to, or their surroundings in general, the viewer can see how and what other people in these videos are filming. In this particular scene, figure 19, one sees YouTuber Zoe Sugg filming Emilia, while Jonathan films them. Thirdly, the existence of the camera is also shown when vloggers film themselves in the mirror. Here the viewer too can see how the vlogger is using the camera, as one can see in figure 14. The obvious existence of the camera is not strange for daily vloggers, as they associate the camera with their viewers. In a video from Shay called “WE LOVE OUR KIDS MORE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!”, Shay walks with the camera to Colette and asks ‘remember this?’ pointing to the camera, to which she replies with ‘Hey guys!’. In this clip the viewer can also see Shay film himself from multiple angles in the bathroom where a lot of mirrors are positioned (figure 20). The pointing of the camera shows how they associate the camera with their viewers. Shay and Jonathan connect to their viewers on a different level than reality shows, as they address their viewers directly and refer to them as friends. Both ask frequently for their viewers’ opinions on specific topics.
4.2.3 Content
The content of the video itself is also something that is very characteristic for daily vlogs. The central part of its content is the everyday life of these two families. Although Keeping Up with the
Kardashians is also about the lives of the different family members, the drama between each member
is the central part of the show. One can see how in reality television and in particular this show the drama, and the creation of it, plays a big part. In contrast to the reality show, Shay and Jonathan still post the same kind of videos, after all these years of vlogging. Even though they are very famous nowadays, they still show their day to day activities. As viewer, one sees them doing their groceries, bringing the children to school or sitting on the couch. This is something what Grindstaff and Murray describe as “celebrifying ordinariness” (131). This can be related to the argument Hill made regarding reality television. In her article one viewer stated that in “real life I’d be watching someone sitting down watching telly all day” (78). Viewers think it’s boring when someone just sits on the couch and this is why reality television is so highly managed. Opposed to reality television, the viewers of daily vlogs do enjoy videos where the family members are just talking to the camera or are watching television.
Figure 20: Multiple angles of Shay (SHAYTARDS). Figure 19: Multiple vloggers in the same room
The daily vlogs of the SACCONEJOLYs and the SHAYTARDS also have aspects in common with the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. Both channels have created an intro that often is put at the beginning of each video. This intro introduces the family members that are featured on their channels (figure 21 and 22). The reality show too starts with an intro where the Kardashian family is introduced. Like the reality show and many other television series, the daily vlogs have their own version of credits at the end of each video. As there is not a big production team that has to be credited, they often end with a slide, which consist of a picture of their family and the names of their
Twitter accounts. During the slide there sometimes is a voice-over from Shay or Jonathan that mostly
tells the viewers what in their opinion is the funniest clip of that day or what they will be doing in the next video. This has similarities to the ‘next week on Keeping Up with the Kardashians’ fragment. On a small level this is how daily vlogs work with a narrative structure as seen in Keeping Up with the
Kardashians. With the use of an intro and the ‘previously on’ and ‘next week’ section, Shay and
Jonathan refer to prior and coming events, and try to keep viewers coming back each video.
4.2.4 Change in Platform
Daily vlogs have much in common with reality television, documentary and even some soap aspects that can also be found in Keeping Up with the Kardashians. There is a definite blurring between all these forms of video content. The digital platform still uses aesthetics from traditional network television. This is also something that Caldwell observed for digital sites that showed television content. Although there is a shift to digital, Caldwell argues that aesthetics still can come from the traditional network television (New Media 137). Teresa Rizzo sees this blurring between television and YouTube too. She sees how her little son does not see the difference between watching something on television, iPad or a phone. Rizzo argues that YouTube channels “challenge established broadcast/network production standards and aesthetics” (118). She sees it as a mixture of television and digital. But, although daily vlogs have similar aesthetics with television, documentary and soap opera, it has also created its own aesthetic characteristics. In my opinion this is mainly because of the change of platform that allows additional possibilities.
Figure 22: Intro (SHAYTARDS). Figure 21: Intro (SACCONEJOLYs).
The change of platform causes that the viewing experience changes. As previously mentioned Shay and Jonathan often ask their viewers for their opinions. Below the videos on YouTube there is a comment section where viewers can comment on the videos. Here viewers have the possibility to comment and watch the show at the same time. Viewers do not have to move to a different screen or platform. Here viewers ask questions, give recommendations or talk to other viewers of the channels. Although someone is watching the video on their own, through the comment section one can have the experience that he or she is watching with friends. This is what Lucy Bennett calls ‘group viewing’ (512). Shay and Jonathan often answer questions, or reply to comments from their viewers. Just like the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, the family members are often on Twitter replying to their viewers when a new video is put on YouTube. The idea of liveness in daily vlogs is very explicit as the video contains footage of the previous day. It is very accurate and has an intense feeling that something ‘just happened’. Where Keeping Up with the Kardashians masks the fact that the events happened sometimes months earlier, the viewer obviously notices that the family is celebrating Christmas when the episode is airing in spring. This dilemma does not occur in the daily vlogs by Shay and Jonathan.
Viewers of YouTube channels are more engaged with the families than those watching reality shows. The already mentioned end slide that the families use as credits is more often than not made by their viewers. The viewers can also have an input in the content of the video itself. When Shay or Jonathan do not have enough footage they will ask via Twitter for questions that they will answer in the video. It is a ‘participatory culture’, as viewers have the ability to participate in the creation of the video (Bennett 513). It is a very interactive form of video watching. In a recent video called “KIDS ANSWERING QUESTIONS” Jonathan asked for questions for his daughter Emilia. In the comment section below, most of the comments consist of the viewers expressing how cute Emilia is. However if one scrolls down long enough, there are comments from the people who sent their question to Jonathan. These people feel really special, because their question is answered on a video that is now watched by hundred thousands of people. One sees how viewers appreciate the input they get from either Jonathan or Shay.
Lastly, the ever changing form of the daily vlogs is characteristic for daily vlogs. With this I mean that every now and then Shay and Jonathan change their intros, editing or filming style. This is not a drastic change, but both vloggers like to experiment with the possibilities. I have argued how both channels have an intro clip, yet Shay has not used his one in quite some time. His videos nowadays start with short clips that are yet to come in the video, a form of ‘next week’ or ‘coming up’. After these clips there is a short intro where the viewer sees ‘Shay and the Shaytards’, and hears ‘Hey, I’m vlogging here’, which is a catchphrase that Shay often uses. Jonathan has recently changed his intro. He used to have a short clip that introduced his family. Now, almost every video starts with a clip of Jonathan waking his kids up. In the screen the viewers sees the following texts: ‘HI FRIENDS’, the day, ‘SACCONEJOLYs’ and the date (figure 23). Here one sees how they first take an aesthetic
from television, an intro, and after a while change this to their own liking. This is made possible, as the channels do not have some big production team behind the scenes. Shay and Jonathan are their own boss, and are therefore able to regularly change their forms of filming, editing and intros.
In this analysis one sees how between all three objects there are many similarities. All three show the lives of real people and build a narrative structure around their videos. Yet, the differences mostly stand out. Keeping Up with the Kardashians has mainly moved away from traditional reality television, while the daily vlogs from YouTube have in some way returned to traditional reality television. Traditional reality television has the notion of the ordinary person becoming famous. This is not applicable for the reality show Keeping Up with the Kardashians. The family members were already known before the reality show. The families from the daily vlogs were ordinary non-famous people before starting their YouTube channel, and have now millions of fans all over the world.
In the visual aesthetics the reality show has also moved away from traditional reality television. Keeping Up with the Kardashians uses mainly movements from soap opera. The shots are all very styled. Again opposed to that, the daily vlogs use a more reality television and documentary style in filming. Although the camera quality is HD, the movement is often shaky and crooked.
Lastly, the content between the reality show and daily vlogs is also different. While Keeping
Up with the Kardashians is more focused on the drama, like soap opera, the vlogs from Shay and
Jonathan are focused on the everyday lifestyle of their families.
Additionally, the daily vlogs have created their own aesthetic characteristics. Due to the platform their style of editing regularly changes. As the daily vlogs are posted on an online platform, the interactivity of their viewers also plays a big part. Like Van Dijck argued, YouTube is a social activity (150).
Figure 23: New intro from SACCONEJOLYs (SACCONEJOLYs).
5. Theoretical Framework on Performance of Authenticity
In the first part of this research it was mentioned how reality television is highly managed by its producers. In the analysis of the show Keeping Up with the Kardashians the camera movement gives the idea that the camera men know in advance what to film. The highly producible effect the people themselves in the show can have, was not mentioned in depth. By putting on a performance themselves, the characters themselves can have a big influence in the outcome of the show. Therefore in this chapter I will explain the theories surrounding performance, authenticity and stars.
5.1 Performance
With a discussion on reality television often comes the question of performance and authenticity. As discussed in the previous chapters, reality television is often managed. According to Annette Hill this comes with a paradox: “the more entertaining a factual programme is, the less real it appears to its viewers” (57). Also, as Jan Teurlings argues, the viewer is confronted with artificial confrontations or compilations of scenes. Although the people in the show can present themselves as true as they are, the producers can edit this for a more entertaining episode (148). Even though the events and people are true to life, the presentation is something that can be manufactured. Yet, this process can also work the other way around. Additionally the people in the reality show, but also in other forms of media, can play a role in the performance by playing some kind of role instead of being themselves. This is something that Stella Bruzzi recognizes too. She argues that, in this case, “a documentary film can never simply represent the real […] it is focused on issues of performance” (153).
Bruzzi takes a great interest in documentary film in her book New Documentary. In the second part she analyses the performance in documentary film and television broadcast. According to Bruzzi, “performance has always been at the heart of documentary filmmaking” (153). Yet, this causes for problems as the performance implies “connotations of falsification and fictionalisation”, which are characteristics opposed to what documentary identifies with (153). As previously mentioned, performance can be found in two ways. There is performance as part of the people presented on screen and as an intention of the filmmakers (185). For this research the former is most interesting. According to Thomas Waugh there are two ways of performance. He too analyses specifically documentary film. The first form of performance is representational. This is where people do not look straight into the camera and represent themselves naturally. “The image looks natural as if the camera were invisible or as if the subject were unaware of being filmed” (76). Secondly, there is the presentational performance. Here there is an awareness of the camera by the subject, “of presenting oneself explicitly for the camera” (76). Waugh argues that the difference between representational and presentational performance is not that only one of them uses performance. It means that representational hides the
performance by for example not looking into the camera, and presentational “openly acknowledges and exploits its performance components” (79). Bruzzi additionally argues that specifically the docusoaps, the subgenre of documentary, is about “the importance of personalities who enjoy performing for the camera (120). Further on Bruzzi argues that both reality television and documentary suggest that “performance is an integral part of living” (151). This is something that Erving Goffman recognizes too in his article “The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life”. When one individual enters a room with others he or she will want to know the facts of the situation one is entering. In order to gain these facts one has to communicate or observe these people. By acting in a specific way one can obtain these facts. This can also work the other way around, when the one being observed, influences the way they are being observed by the “creation of desired impressions” (7-8). In other words, people act and perform in a certain way to achieve a certain goal. Once an impression is achieved, one will be “concerned with maintaining the impression that they are living up to the many standards by which they […] are judged” (8). Even after people have achieved their goal, they will still hold on to their performance as they are being judged by the impression that they are giving or performing. In other words people keep up appearances.
In reality television the notion of performance is evident too. John Corner argues that reality television claims to be real, to tell the truth. Yet, this claim of realness is within a highly managed production. Additionally Corner argues that everything that people say in reality television, in his case
Big Brother, is because of the fact that they are in front of a camera (256). There is a process where
the ‘true self’ is emerging from underneath and through the ‘performed self’ (261). Though, this ‘true self’ can also be seen as an extended form of the performed self. With this I mean that through the pressure of being in a group, as in Big Brother, contestants are pressured to show their authentic self. As Jeroen de Kloet argues for reality television, the more authentic one comes across, the more chance one has to win (223). Therefore it can be debated if this true self is actually true, as the authentic version of a contestant is more often than not a performance.
The performance in reality television is not a big problem according to Hill. Viewers expect contestants to act up in front of the camera. Viewers look at the performance of contestants and compare those performances to how they themselves would act in a specific situation (Hill, Television
&New Media 335). This causes that the viewers “gossip, speculate and judge how ordinary people
perform themselves and stay true to themselves” (Audiences and Popular Factual Television 78). Viewers look for a moment of authenticity (Television & New Media 337).
Concluding, performances can be achieved and presented in different ways. On the one hand, performances can be upfront for the viewers, with the outcome that viewers will perceive something as less real. On the other hand, performances can be hidden and well staged. Here viewers perceive it as more real, as the construction of the performance is hidden. According to their own experiences
