Class Relations of Self-Performance on Reality Television & Frontier House

These two articles focused mainly on how British television focuses solely on class relations, and how spoiled people actually are today. Shows such as Nanny 911 or Super Nanny are shows that create shame and guilt for the parents that cannot discipline or handle their children. Also, these nannies often come from Britain, and they are magically able to change the children's habits and make the parents better parents. Also, shows like Honey, We're Killing the Kids cause shame and guilt for parents that are feeding their children horrible things and causing their obesity themselves. All of these shows then offer rules and advice for the parents to follow to help change the lifestyles of the parents and children. However, how long after the nannies or nutritionists leave do the changes stay? How long do the children behave before they are back to their ways of misbehaving? I think that this is a flaw in the construction of reality for these shows. There is no way that one little intervention with a nanny will permanently change your parenting habits or your children's behavior. These are definitely not accurate depictions of reality.

In Frontier House, people are put through the hardships of life before electricity and all of the pamperings we are used to today. There are crazy restrictions put on these people, but they are in fact reality of how people once lived. For example, there was no toilet paper to use, and women could not use any type of feminine products. The interesting thing about this show is that even though people were forbidden to have relationships outside the cast, people often made deals with the crew and could essentially "cheat" and receive luxuries such as steaks or a mattress. An interesting quote from this article says, "While reality television certainly bears some resemblance to a documentary format, there are several very important distinctions. Foremost is the fact that while the documetary can be said to prsent itself as the "truth," the reality show is more concerned with the "authentic." This means that often documentary films present the account of an event, and a reality television show is more interested in a social character. This is very true it seems. For example, how do people get cast on the Real World? They embody a certain person that the producer wants. For example, on the present season of the Real World, Mike was cast as the bisexual male. This would essentially cause drama in the house, which the producer could not turn down. Therefore, throughout the show, Mike had a certain persona to exemplify.

The Representation of Wives and Mothers in Reality Television & Representations of Race in Reality Television

These articles focused mainly on shows like Wife Swap or Extreme Makeover, shows that target mothers, wives, and middle class women. The article also mentions again that in the U.S. we tend to focus more on race than on class, as they do in Britain. The articles also categorized reality television shows into five main groups: Competition, where there are shows based on talent, money, and love; Crime Solving, where there are shows such as the First 48; Court Shows, where there are shows based on general courts, specific courts, and personality based courts; Docusoaps, where there are shows based on real people and shows based on celebrities; and lastly, there are Transformative shows that include physical make overs, celebrity based makeovers, houses being made over, and other things. This last category of reality television shows is the largest group that targets mothers, wives, and just women in general. There are constantly mothers/wives on Wife Swap that need to learn from the other family in order to transform themselves. Also, shows such as Extreme Makeover or What Not to Wear focus mainly on women that need to be made over in order to be socially acceptable by society. It seems the focus is always on transforming women, wives, or mothers. This may be driven by womens constant drive to be perfect or to be better than they are, as well as society's ever-demanding criteria for good looking women or good wives or mothers. It is quite interesting that we tend to focus so much on transformative television in the U.S. It seems as though we have an obsession.

Sherman's March

Sherman's March, directed by Ross McElwee was a linear closed documentary. McElwee used the voice of God narration in the beginning, and some of the images were random. McElwee shot this film in a participatory mode because you can see and hear him. He is often speaking to his subject and can be seen in random shots where there are mirrors. He used word/signal phrases on word titles. This film could definitely be considered an avant-garde film because of its extremely unusual characteristics. There are points of no narration in this film, for example, when Pat is doing her cellulite exercises, he turns off the sound on the camera. There are other instances like this where he seems to be so focused on his subject he cannot narrate at the moment. It can be considered to have been shot by an amateur camera man because of the many times you see the camera and McElwee often hugs his subject and leaves the camera to focus on nothing or to be jostling around. There are constant interviews that constitute for the narration, there is no one narrator. There is a mix of historical places and just following Pat around randomly. There is often dim lighting throughout the film, and at one point McElwee even films himself, so he obviously needed a tripod for that one scene in his hotel room. There were also points where McElwee stayed focused on one frame but spoke a lot. For example, the moon in the sky was the focus, but he was rambling about the A bomb tests. There were also not always smooth transitions between frames.

When relating to the masculine conquest in this movie, you can relate the title to Sherman's actual military march which was a conquest of destruction, McElwee had a romantic conquest in the film, the camera (the way he used that to attract the women to him and also gave him something to talk about), the car work ( an attempt to be masculine by McElwee) , and the nuclear war (a way to get out aggression in his mind).

London

London was a film that can be considered an avant-garde film. This means unusual or over the top. London was produced by Patrick Keiller and funded by the British Film Institute. London was also a mock travelogue that was narrated by Paul Scofield. London used word captions or titles, but often they would relate only briefly to what was being said or being shown in the documentary. There was a voice of God narration, and the images did not always match up to what the narrator was saying. This can be considered abstract, adding to the film's avant-garde classification. There were also a few moments of no narration whatsoever. Two examples of this were when looking at the remains of a building after being bombed, and when the camera was focused on the rippling of a pond with birds chirping in the background. Here was another case of things not matching up, or nonsynchronous sound, there should have been water sounds, not birds chirping. This film was also mainly shot in medium shots, and the camera stayed on the subject for long periods of time. One question that arises while watching this is "Who's story is this?" There are clearly two main characters, but neither is ever shown. Also, although the film should be highlighing the positive things in London, it shows negative things such as buildings being bombed. Also, they don't visit very famous places. There is a clear use of irony in the images and narration. This film can be considered observational and has a level of spontaneity. It is also a very detached film and is shot with a static camera.

Ric Burns

The Ric Burns presentation was extremely captivating. I truly enjoyed hearing him speak and being the first audience outside of his crew to see his up and coming documentary. While watching his documentary I noticed that he used recreation or dramatization in that whale film. The crew and ship were obviously not the crew from the ship years ago, and the battle scenes had to have been re-enacted as well. Also, there was a voice of God narration, except for when he would use his experts for interviews. Burns also used old letters to help narrate, being read by the voice of God narrator. It was clear that he also did immense amounts of research about his topic and found the best historians and experts that he could use for interviews. He also had a lot of objects that helped to relate the viewers' minds to the time of the actual whale hunters. He was very well educated on his topic, and as he warned the audience, was a bit crazy with all of the information he had retained. I specifically remember one woman asking a question after we had watched the second clip of the film and he took twenty minutes to answer it. I truly enjoyed watching his documentary clips and listening to him speak.

Seven Up

Seven Up was a journey film or series that followed the lives of many children from the age seven and continues to follow them in incriments of seven years. For example, the first film was filmed while all of the subjects were seven years old, and the next filming was done at age fourteen. The children are now ages 53-54. The producer Michael Apted referred to it as a humanisitic documentary. He was also known for saying, "Give me a child till he's seven, and I'll give you the man." This documentary focused on class, not on race, as television or movies often to in the U.S. Apted followed around children from low class to high class, clearly exemplifying the differences just by filming them. Apted in a way exploited the beliefs of the low, middle, and upper classes. He played around with the certainity/uncertainty in the children's lives. For example, one of the low class boys had no idea what he was going to do with his life when he was seven, but by the 21st year, he was in a steady job and seemed to be much matured from what he once was. On the other hand, one of the upper class boys was certain he would be in a good job and wealthy when he was older, but for many years in his life, he was unemployed and barely making it. I believe that Apted did showed these differences purposefully to show that nothing is ever certain. This added to the documentary's label of a retrospective documentary becuase the children are recapping what has gone on in their lives for the past seven years in a short period of time.