NOT ALL REALITY IS CREATED EQUAL

It makes sense that after several years of reality-show mayhem not to mention repeated discussions about how reality television is on its way out that rather than a decline in the number of reality series we've seen two very different and distinct things happen. First, you get the bastardization of the old: all the shows still trying to essentially copy Survivor or The Real World, usually failing miserably but occasionally discovering that one little twist that allows it work. The second, and personally to me more interesting, result is the creation of essentially "new" (although in the grand scheme of things, not really) reality genres.

If you look at the "Other TV Shows" section" of TWoP, you'll see they've broken it down into "Competitive Reality Shows," "Candid Reality Shows" and "How-to Reality Shows," and that doesn't include sections for "Pop Culture Shows," "Game Shows," "Educational and Non-Fiction Shows," or "News and News Magazine Shows," some of which could definitely cross over and be considered "reality."

This summer, as reality TV continues to die just as it has every year since its "breakthroughs" with Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? and Survivor, there's more "reality" than ever across the broadcast and cable landscape. From the inexplicably cheesy hit Dancing With the Stars (lets take The Surreal Life with its C-List celebs and have them ballroom dance in an American Idol-style competition) to CBS's god-awful Rock Star: INXS (uhm, Dave Navarro -- why the hell did you want to give up all your rock start cred by being a total suck-up sell-out to a bunch of I'm-too-cool-for American Idol-so-let-me-front-a-sad-excuse-to-reap-millions-using-the-name-INXS posers?) to any number of other current programs, the choices are endless.

But I give credit to ABC, a network that despite its desire to consistently fire all its programming execs and no matter how hard new Disney CEO Bob Iger has tried to make it the seventh place net in a field of six, has to be given the prize for most successful development of new programming in recent memory. Not only did they bring us both Lost and Desperate Housewives this fall, but this summer they've brought the two best (and I'm talking actual quality here, not necessarily guilty pleasures) new reality programs. (And yes, I am also completely cognizant of the fact that ABC is also responsible for the worst travesty to hit TV last season, The Benefactor.

I'm speaking of both Brat Camp (which airs tonight with an encore of last week's second episode at 8 PM and a new episode at 9 PM) and Hooking Up (Thursdays at 9 PM), the latter of which is credited to ABC News.

Both shows are serious looks at their subjects without the standard reality-kitsch or irony and, seemingly, while some situations may be arranged (so as to record both sides of a conversation both on or off camera), they certainly never seem staged. What both shows do in actuality is what The WB's recent Beauty and the Geek claimed it was attempting, namely to conduct a "social experiment." BatG turned out to be a lot of fun, but ultimately it was still a cheesy competition with one couple splitting a $250,000 prize. Both Brat Camp and Hooking Up, on the other hand, are completely sociological in nature, and fly-on-the-wall documentary in style, without hosts or rewards: just records of the experiences.

Brat Camp was particularly fascinating. You know all those parent/kid combos Maury Povitch and Montel Williams always have on their shows -- the parents can't handle the kids anymore so they get sent away to survival camp? Well, that's Brat Camp. These parents simply can't deal with their "out-of-control" kids anymore, so they take them to SageWalk, a wilderness camp for troubled teens in Oregon. They don't tell their kids where their going or, for example, that once they get there, they'll have to give up all their personal possessions -- including clothes and toiletries -- and will be spending the remainder of the winter camping out in the freezing woods. They'll be there until the counselors determine they have sufficiently changed enough to "graduate." This means they'll be missing Thanksgiving with their families (tonight's 8 PM episode) and possibly Christmas.

I think the promos for the show tried to exploit the subject matter for entertainment value a bit too much, so that it appears not so different than the way it might on Maury or Montel, but the truth is, watching these kids and especially their interactions with the counselors and each other is fascinating, and not for the standard, "Ooooh, I can't believe she said that" reasoning. This is a hard core show. These counselors don't give these kids a break, and their lives are so regimented, hearing one of them say it's like their in a prison actually isn't an exaggeration.

On the other hand, Brat Camp also subtly exposes the meaning of parents' wits ends. Are all these troubled teens really so much worse than most teens or even most of us were at that age? Maybe. It's not really that easy to tell because the presentation of them, for the good of the show, is such that they have to appear beyond out of control. Maybe they are. But also maybe they have super-controlling parents. Maybe they come from ultra-conservative families and communities. I'm not trying to defend any of them or say that they don't "deserve" this experience, but it is the missing element. Still, it's a fascinating show, and I can't wait to see where it takes us.

Hooking Up is a very different series -- and a shorter, limited one at that -- following 12 single women through the perils of online dating. It feels much like a show one might find on TLC, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. In some ways, the nature of the subject matter makes Hooking Up more provocative and like other standard reality fare than Brat Camp, yet it's still interesting to go inside the lives of these women and their dates.

I've done my share of internet dating in the past. In fact, I met my ex-girlfriend (which was a four-year-plus relationship) on JDate. The dynamics of meeting someone online can actually be fascinating, and in the first episode alone, Hooking Up exposes much of the good and the bad. The general thoughts have always been that it's good to get to know somebody before meeting him/her. By reading a profile and corresponding or talking on the phone, you discover whether or not you have similar personalities, shared likes, dislikes and opinions, etc. On the other hand, people are different online than they are on the phone. They're different on the phone than they are in person. Someone with whom you have everything in common with on paper, you might discover you have nothing to talk about in person.

The show managed to expose one guy who had used a photo of himself that was 15 years old. The woman who was going ouot with him -- Cynthia -- seemed very excited to meet him ... until she actually did and he showed up looking like a slightly strung-out wannabe British rock star and talking with only slightly more enunciation than Ozzy Osbourne.

Then there's Lisa, a 36 year old gynecologist who just flat-out lies about herself to her dates until she determines that she likes them. She uses a different name -- "Jennifer" -- and doesn't tell them that she's a doctor because she seems to think she's such a catch that the moment a date learns her occupation he will want to go out with her for the wrong reasons. It was fascinating to watch Lisa go on more than one date with a plastic surgeon feeling the need to cover-up her occupation. When she finally came clean and mentioned not only that she was an MD but also that she hadn't been using her real name -- and in the process telling him that those were the only two things she lied about -- her date was understandably upset, and I'm pretty sure they're not going out again. (Meanwhile, last weekend, Lisa made the NY Times because apparently she's had some legal licensing difficulties as well, and the Times seemed to question what else she likes to lie about.)

People in the online dating world always complain about others lying in their profiles. Why would you? If you want to meet, isn't that lie going to be exposed? Doesn't that kind of hurt your chances in moving forward with that person? I suppose it depends on what one is looking to get out of the situation. Hooking Up does a decent job of covering all the bases, from Amy the 28 year-old South Dakota transplant who is quite up-front about her search for a husband, to 26-year-old Claire's short-lived infatuation-turning-into-heartache via a break-up email. And they haven't even introduced all the women yet.

One not-so-curious fault with the show, however, could lie in the casting. All of the women look to be relatively successful in their lives and made-for-TV attractive. I don't mean their all models, but none of them are exactly plain or overweight either. They're very pleasing to the eye which would make me think that they don't necessarily always represent that average online dating experience. Of course, this is no surprise: here's a show going on major broadcast network primetime, and ABC News or not, it's still primarily entertainment on the schedule. Plus, all the women are living what I would guess the rest of America would consider a New York "cosmopolitan" lifestyle. It just makes me wonder how much these "news" producers took their participants physical appearance into consideration. Sure, when you're doing Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, of course you want that family that's down-on-their-luck with the chubby kids and parents. (Or even more obvs, take plain old Extreme Makeover, why don't you.) But with a show about dating? We don't want to see anybody who has trouble with online dating. Who is insecure about her (or his) picture. Who posts her own ad and replies to others but maybe doesn't get dates out of it all the time? Maybe that would be too much reality.

Still, I became an instant fan of both Brat Camp and Hooking Up, and for all of you who either decry reality TV as the end of civilization as we know it or the rest of you who seem ashamed to admit you watch it as a guilty pleasure, these are two shows you should check-out.

Comments

[Chuck]

I should check out "Hooking Up" and "Brat Camp," but I'm now embarrassed to admit that I like "Rockstar INXS" in a kitschy sort of way.

[Aaron]

You know I'm all for kitsch, and I think too many reality show "judges" do a terrible job trying to mimic Simon Cowell, but the comments from Navarro and the band is what just really kills this show for me. I mean, Navarro especially has nothing constructive or critical to say EVER. And the performers aren't all that good -- most of them simply look to be following every bad rock star cliche at a night of karaoke. And finally, every time Brooke Burke describes the contestants as the group of "rockers," I cringe at how cheesy it is and how some producer thinks that word is giving the show some sort of cool quotient.

Yeah, I've actually now stopped watching ... probably!

[Chuck]

You're right--they're not *really* rockers or great performers, and Navarro's "you go girl" feedback is about as substantive as something from Paula Abdul. Maybe it's the show's bad car wreck quality that I like. I've also found the show's gender politics interesting. I'm curious to see if INXS is willing to choose a female lead singer and to see how that might change the dynamic of the band.

Maybe *my* cool quotient has melted away from this heat wave.....

[sweeps]

No, not all reality shows are created equal!

I been curious why they are called reality shows, and not televised auditions or job interviews.

The best reality shows I can think off would be Cops, and the nightly news; that's truely reality.