This is an instalment of a regular commentary on Big Brother from Dr Toni Johnson-Woods, Lecturer in Contemporary Studies, The University of Queensland.
Burke's Backyard, Money, Getaway, Survivor, The Mole, Boot Camp, and Big Brother may be all considered reality TV shows but they are all different.
The first three are "infotainment" shows: ones that inspire viewers to improve their houses or lifestyles. The final four are reality TV gameshows: contestants take part and someone wins money.
Boot Camp and Survivor are "spectacular" game shows: the big budget shows which are reminiscent of movies such as Gladiator. They open with stirring music, panoramic shots of their exotic locations and rather attractive contestants. Careful editing and camera work highlight the dramatic moments and, as we now know, stand-ins and re-enactments often take the place of reality.
On the other hand, Big Brother has a contrived ordinariness. The camera work is not always clear, and the editing often jerky. Re-enactments seem highly improbable (though nothing is impossible on TV), and relatively inappropriate-a glossy look for BB would detract from its "authenticity". Survivor/Boot Camp contestants are also given substantial camera time; thus they are more like "characters" or actors. Viewers don't really know much about the BB contestants unless they watch the internet 24/7. To date, only limited excerpts from the diary room have been screened and the conversations in the nightly show are often difficult to follow.
The high production values are most evident in the carefully theming of Boot Camp and Survivor. Their rituals are highly stylised, carefully choreographed and effectively lit, especially the final ceremonies. Even the metaphors maintain the theme: Boot Camp contestants "endure", Survivor ones "survive"; tribal council versus dismissal hill; missions versus challenges.
BB lacks these high-production values. Nowhere is the difference between game show and reality more obvious than in the contestants' perceptions of the show. Boot Campers and Survivors discuss their strategies for winning, their voting alliances etc.: they are there to win. One Boot Camper confessed his chicanery to the camera thus providing the show with added drama, especially when his strategy worked and his nemesis was dismissed. But he doesn't have to worry about viewer's approval.
So far, most of the BB contestants have been rather vague about why they are voting someone off-they have not revealed their strategies. But then, they have to woo the public. In the UK, "Nasty Nick" was evicted for being too strategic. Nick wasn't playing cricket and his win-at-any-cost strategy back-fired. An American public might be more forgiving. Perhaps the BB contestants are cannier than Nick and realise that in order to win they have to adopt an I-hate-to-do-this-but? strategy. Though viewers speculate about strategies, the comments (on the web site) are fairly condemnatory. Those contestants who have a strategy are "back-stabbers".
Finally, the most obvious element BB lacks (at the moment) is drama. Each week Survivor and the like have dramatic moments which may result from one of the tasks (a marriage proposal) or from some event (flooding the campsite). But BB shows a group of average people doing "stuff"-even their challenges lack dramatic appeal.
However, narratives can develop over 12 weeks, as they did in the UK with the "Nasty Nick" storyline. People who have viewed the UK BB agree that it was during Nasty Nick's plotting that they became addicted-after he left, they felt the show lacked zest.
It is perhaps because of the two different styles that viewers are divided about BB's appeal. Those who love high dramatic moments, strong emotions and exotic locations will find Survivor/Boot Camp entertaining-others find the very ordinariness of BB riveting viewing.
Dr Toni Johnson-Woods
The complete set of commentaries is available at https://www.uq.edu.au/news/bigbrother
