it used to be hard to be real. i’m talking, of course, about the media. it’s got a lot easier and the more real, the more genuine, the more popular it is.
moving representations of the real world, as far as we know, began in the rituals of ancient greece. the performances were open to initiates only and were participatory. the revelers in the orchestra were a part of the proceedings. in the years since, the revelers moved back into the theatre (audience) and watched the professionals. and the best professionals made us believe that what was happening on the stage was real, or at least we were willing to suspend disbelief. radio and television helped this naturalisation. on a good day, with good writing and good acting, we could almost be hoodwinked. we wanted shows about everyday life, soap-operas, in particular. in any case it was all that was available. old technology couldn’t deliver what people really craved.
a glance at the rating nowadays shows that the top spots are occupied by “reality” shows. these are scenario-led programs involving real people. shows like “the apprentice”, “wife swap”, “location, location”, “big brother”, “survival”, “dragons den”, “i’d do anything”. this is not a time for writers, but a time for provocateurs. innovations like youtube have democratised this process. people still want heightened reality, but they want genuineness, too. why? because it’s useful. it’s scenario-testing, error-correction.
