Yes, it's been a while. There's good reason for that, which will be revealed in good time. For now, however, I've reached out to the back of the shelf to drag this blog into the light of day, in order to write about a certain reality show that's generating headlines here, there and everywhere.
I feel that, until the other day, I had done an excellent job in avoiding 'I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!' altogether, until I ended up in the same room as someone who wanted to watch it. It started out as me simply being too lazy to move, and ended in myself getting drawn in by the beast I saw before me. Much like the proverbial car crash - I was fascinated and horrified in equal measure. It made me feel pretty helpless too. The show manages to hit viewing figures as high as ten million, and people take part in the public vote in their thousands.
Before I properly begin (yes, I know I'm already on paragraph four), let me get one thing out of the way. I know the 'celebrities' put themselves up for it. I know that they know exactly what the show's like and what to expect. What I want to talk about is not so much the ins and outs of the show in itself, but the appeal on which it runs.
In which case, I'll hurry past the fact that the programme was a staggering hour and forty minutes long, along with the first hour or so of standard reality set-up, padding and melodrama, and get straight to one of the more interesting alarm bells it set off. I guessed the second they opened up voting who was going to end up enduring a 'bush tucker trial' . Clearly it was the one who made the most fuss over completing their first challenge. Whether the audience do it as a punishment for showing such 'weakness' or because it'll prove more entertaining to see someone provide them with bigger reactions to the challenge, I'll leave to be discovered. One thing is clear though - the audience pounced upon the person they perceived would, at least outwardly, have the worst time during the trial. The audience wanted to create a bigger struggle to an actual person. The confines of a reality show seem to completely change our reactions to someone having a bad time. Or does it simply make the same thing we've always felt deep down more acceptable?
The whole voting aspect really does say something in itself. 'I'm a Celebrity...' is not a show that's simply based upon revelling in the pain, fear and discomfort of others, but where the audience get to feel like they're making it happen. They choose, they decide. 'Hey people of the UK - who shall we throw bugs over today?'
The other thing that astounded me was the psychological level on which the show operated. From very deliberately degrading names and environments such as the 'celebrity slammer,' and its 'inmates' being dressed in stereotypical prisoner's clothes, to making the survivor of the first 'bush tucker trial' choose which group to give their food to, clearly planting a few early seeds for conflict later on. The whole thing seems to be grounded in a very transparent social manipulation of the contestants. I use the word 'transparent' but in actuality it was a celebration of it, and I'm pretty sure I spotted more than a hint of disappointment in the eyes of Ant and Dec when the decision was actually made very easily and painlessly.
Talking of the nation's cheeriest hosts - the whole thing is presented to us in a fun-loving style with plenty of gags from the chirpy presenters. The voting details are displayed in a garish yellow font with upbeat snazzy music and a friendly voice-over. This, ladies and gentlemen, is entertaining and accessible. This is easy viewing. Let's find some nearly-famous people, starve, humiliate and come as close to torturing them as we're allowed, all because their careers haven't quite gone to plan. It's not at all dissimilar to theatre theorist Antonin Artaud's concept of a 'Theatre of Cruelty.' The idea that there is a sub-conscious part of all of us that responds to pain and wants to see more of it.
The show does have some redeeming features. Watching a group of people band together to face their fears, forming friendships and realising they're capable of things they never thought they could do, was genuinely quite joyful to watch. However, I doubt the show would do nearly as well if everyone was able to face all the challenges in their path with a good nature and all come out stronger and happier. Let's face it, that's not what the show thrives from.
So what does all of this say about us? About the programme's audience, and those who vote? I know plenty of people who watch this show who are genuinely lovely, caring and empathic. I really struggle to understand their enjoyment of the show. Does it come down to that basic idea of detachment? It's on a screen therefore it's safe, it's a different world? Is it purely cynicism - that not even reality TV is real, everything's fixed, therefore this is ok? Or is there something much darker in even the nicest of us? Maybe someone better versed in psychology than me could answer that question.
I'm sure, as far as the jungle itself goes, everything that happens is actually fine. Everyone knows they're on a TV show which is produced and structured as any other would be. I'm sure whatever happens in those three weeks, everyone goes home pretty unscathed, both physically and mentally, but that's a little beside the point. The show is based on the enjoyment people get from watching and voting on real people have a rough time. It's that underlying buzz from watching others struggle that's interesting, and concerning. I would be very surprised if the show isn't once more covered by 'Gogglebox' (a programme that I'm sure at some point will merit its own blog post), and I very much look forward to watching some of the (heavy editing aside), base human reactions it generates.
I'm sure, as far as the jungle itself goes, everything that happens is actually fine. Everyone knows they're on a TV show which is produced and structured as any other would be. I'm sure whatever happens in those three weeks, everyone goes home pretty unscathed, both physically and mentally, but that's a little beside the point. The show is based on the enjoyment people get from watching and voting on real people have a rough time. It's that underlying buzz from watching others struggle that's interesting, and concerning. I would be very surprised if the show isn't once more covered by 'Gogglebox' (a programme that I'm sure at some point will merit its own blog post), and I very much look forward to watching some of the (heavy editing aside), base human reactions it generates.
I have to admit, that although it's the most obvious example, this jungle-based circus is not alone on thriving on the ideas discussed in this blog. I also imagine plenty of people would disagree with my analysis altogether, and I'd love to hear your opinions. However, as I have mentioned before, the media can become an astoundingly perceptive mirror into the way we are, and the consistent success of 'I'm a Celebrity...' forms a fascinating, if not somewhat worrying reflection to look at.