Cathy come home
What has the
early docudrama (e.g. Cathy Come Home) contributed to the development
of Reality TV? Discuss in the context of a contemporary reality
TV show.
How does Hill
define reality TV?
Cathy Come
Home (1966) is a hard-hitting television drama that
brought the plight of Britain’s homeless into the public attention.
Hill (2005) describes reality TV as having 4 elements;
non-professional actors, unscripted dialogue, surveillance footage,
and candid photography. Cathy Come
Home has none of these elements. It is fiction,
the only ‘docudrama’ elements being some passive voice-overs
providing statistics on housing.
However Hill (2005)
cites other authors who include fictional drama and even soap operas,
which are not only fictional, they are often totally far fetched
in the type of problems they portray. Under these definitions Cathy
Come Home could
be included in the docudrama sub-genre of reality TV.
This type of
docu-drama highlighting social problems is certainly not dead and has influenced several more recent examples of the genre. In
the field of animal rights, recent offerings include The Cove
(2009), Speciesism:
the movie (2013), and Carnage
(2017). The latter is set in a utopian future where eating animals
is as unthinkable as slavery is today, and uses a documentary format
to describe the horrors that people of that time experience when they
understand how animals were treated in the past.
None
of the films mentioned above are available on standard television,
which reflects the way in which broadcasting
has become more commercialised in both the UK and New Zealand since
Cathy Come Home was
first broadcast. Ken Roach,
director of Cathy Come Home,
recently made a similar docu-drama on poverty in Britain (I, Daniel Blake, 2016), but this
time it appeared as a film, not a television broadcast. The recent
BBC offering
Benefit Street (2014)
has the same themes of unemployment and poverty, but it is treated in
a more light-hearted manner, not as an advocacy piece, showing the way that
television has changed its focus from education to entertainment.
There
are exceptions.
Mind the gap, a New
Zealand documentary
about inequality and poverty was broadcast on
public television in 2013.
It is ironic however that it was the commercial channel TV3 that
showed this program, and not the government owned channels.
With
the neo-liberal model spreading in the English speaking countries,
public television
is no longer seen as
a public good providing quality information to ensure the voting public are aware of issues. Instead
it is simply one more commodity, which has to turn a profit to its
share holders, in this case the government.
The
irony of this change was brought home to me in the last lecture of
this course. Soon after seeing a slide about reality TV headed with the rhetorical
question ‘Education or Entertainment?’, we were asked to rate our
course and our lecturers. These people will be judged on how they
entertained their students, not on how well the students
were taught. We have not yet got to the stage where the lowest
polling lecturer is ousted from their job, complete with voice-overs
and the catchphrase ‘You
are the weakest link’, but if education policy goes the way of
broadcasting policy, it is only a matter of time.
Reference
Hill,
A. (2005) The reality genre. In A. Hill, Reality TV: Audiences and
Popular Factual Television. (pp. 14 – 40). Oxon: Routledge.
Comments
Post a Comment