by Ceri Payne - Thursday, 28 February 2008, 01:05 PM
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Anthropic principle is the scientific name for the theory of observed change. This is getting a bit heavy with the scientific theory i know but the princple links to the question I pose.
'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?'
Examples:
Big Brother, Wife Swap, Supernanny, Brat camp,The Simple Life, Bowling for Columbine, Supersize me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bus 174,
Radio four's Documentary: Securing Pakistan's bomb
These are all programs which have a producers, directors, editing teams - and audience they market to. All with opinions and views. Ex Big Brother contestants tell of the editing done to the live feeds where events and story lines are pre-planned. In 'The Simple Life' a Documentary about two media icons has a disclaimer at the beginning of the show 'parts of the show are staged for Dramatic Purposes'
The observation of real life as in wife swap or Documentary Bus 174 i feel can never show the true reality of a situation. As in being observed by a camera/microphone or around strangers ones nature or behavior changes, no matter whether conciously or not.
So does the above question apply to Theatre at all? can all forms of media and art be tinted with the same brush? can there ever be a 'representation' on stage which is unbiased or true about its subjects?
Sourced from:
'Imdb.com', bbc.co.uk
'cultural theory and popular culture' John Story Pub.1994
'The Simple life' Channel Four, broadcast 26/02/08
Edit | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Saturday, 1 March 2008, 11:27 PM
To answering your question 'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?', I believe that television can portray human behavior with an un-bias view point, but to an extent. Fair enough the examples that you have given, definitely do not show a true un-bias representation of human life, as they are edited and pre-organized. But I also believe that to a degree, Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat, shows a pretty good example of how people react when led into a false sense of security.
I think that as his mini documentaries are filmed and presented by unknown seemingly unthreatening characters Sasha achieves extraordinary results.
Two examples of his work which expose extreme, real human reactions from his subjects, are in an episode where Sasha as Borat talks to Texan hunters:
(by the way neither of these clips are nice, both pretty racist actually, but I think we understand why)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRqe9L56t4
And then sings a particularly racist song to a room full of more Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo&feature=related
I think that both of these examples show an un-tainted picture of human life, as the subjects don’t believe that what’s being recorded would be shown to the public, and so act realistically.
Thus, I believe the only way to get a real account of human behavior is to have the subject so relaxed with the situation that they forget that they’re being filmed, or have the subject in an extreme situation, where again they forget they are being filmed.
I don’t think that it would be possible to do this in theatre, as having an audience in front of you would automatically change your behavior to a situation and so you would not show an un-tainted representation of yourself.
I hope this makes sense, good subject Ceri.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Julian Bryant
Re: Copies and Originals
by Julian Bryant - Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 06:19 AM
Might be worth checking out Marshall McLuhan on media stuff. There's also a phrase "the ecstasy of communication" - can't remember the reference - that's part of the whole postmodernism thing. Potentially very imprtant duscussion guys!
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of rachael dowling
Re: Copies and Originals
by rachael dowling - Thursday, 20 March 2008, 12:38 AM
In answer to your question can there ever be a representation on stage which is true or unbiased about uts subjects I believe there can.
For example the American Hippy musical 'Hair' opened in London one day after the abolishion of theatre censorship. This allowed scenes of drug-taking and the audience were invited to join the cast on stage in the nude. Each night was real, no editing, no playbacks, only the next performance.
Every theatre performance is different to the last, be it from mistake, ad lib. And its honesty and passion lives on through every performance.
Its like improvised theatre its unpredictable, spontoneous and uncertain. You do not know what is going to happen.
Reality tv is similar to theatre in a way because in reality tv the contestants play up to the camera where as in theatre the actors play to the audience.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Friday, 21 March 2008, 02:44 AM
Well I believe that the point is not whether the show is going to be different night to night week to week etc, but rather that by putting an actor on stage to play a character, you then see exactly that, an actor playing a character. I think that because in theatre, you watch actors pretending to be someone else, it will always be impossible to show a true unbias representation of human behavior on a stage in real life. The only ways to show people acting like they would were they not being watched, are totally unachievable on stage. What ever happens the person is likely to realize that they are being watched.
Although…….
What about stand-up comedy?
Do you think that there may be a difference? Do you think that you get closer to seeing someone's true characteristics when you see them on stage at a comedy gig than you would by pointing a camera in their face or seeing them onstage reciting lines of a play?
I think that from experiencing meeting comedians before and after gigs at Brixton every week. Many are very similar to talk to in real life as they are to watch when they are on stage. They show their true personality to the audience which is seemably how they are in real life. So is this a truer unbias representation of human behaviour on stage? Also we know that this is not edited in any way for the viewer.
Although saying all of that, it is supposing whether stand-up comedy is classed as a type of theatre. Hmm,
Is stand-up comedy, theatre?
Come to think of it i think that in some cases stand-up comedy is quite theatrical, if you see Paul Tonkinson or Tony Law on stage they go through scenes as characters to prove a comic point of opinion of theirs. Or sketch comedy, which can also be very theatrical. Both have the same processes of creation. They are both written, directed, rehearsed and performed; just one is on a much smaller scale than the other. Stand-up comedy is a much more interactive form of entertainment from an audiences view, and it’s a much more relaxed atmosphere but you can get audience participation in theatre (Rocky Horror Show) and Bertolt Brecht was attempting to create a theatre where you should be relaxed and can sit back and enjoy the performance. “A theatre that cant be laughed in, is a theatre to be laughed at.” (Bertolt Brecht, Brecht for beginners by Michael Thoss).
I dislike it when people do this in essays etc but here's what it says in an online version of the oxford dictionary:
theatre
4 a: dramatic literature : plays b: dramatic representation as an art or profession : drama
I suppose that this definition would suggest that comedy is not a type of theatre, but i'm not sure i agree with this description. Comedy is not dramatic literature, nor is it a dramatic representation of any kind, but It’s still a performance and I think of it as theatre of some sort.
Any way I feel I have gotten a little side tracked.
This got me thinking earlier... About whether we judge people differently based on what we have seen on television. For example would i react differently to some one with long greesy hair from a council house in Manchester because i of what i have seen on the tv show 'Shameless'? Or better still would i react in a bias way towards someone from america after watching a tv program like 'the simple life' or 'friends' etc.
Does TV affect the way we see people from a certain part of the world or certain cultures? I just think that maybe television is such a large part of culture today and although it is there for entertainment, news etc we get influenced by what we see and who we see doing it. I wonder whether less people go in to the east-end of London because they see bad things happening to people there on their tv screens every week.
Of course there are also shows like ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’, where certain types of people go to try to tackle problems such as;
I Was Your Husband's Mistress... Now I'm Pregnant With His Child!
You Ran Off with My Best Mate - Did You Have His Baby?
(and my personal favorite)
2 Babies, 2 Mums, 3 Potential Dads-DNA Results
(http://library.digiguide.com)
Do programs like this make us look at certain cultures in this country in a different bias way, as we have seen their ‘dirty laundry’. Watching "a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people" (Judge Alan Berg) ultimately makes us stereotype people from a similar place or class, as dysfunctional as the people that were seen on the program.
I realize it’s a little late to ask for any reply’s but if you can get in before the deadline that would be awesome.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
You are logged in as Julian Bryant (Logout)
SM202
Moodle Docs for this page
Cultural Theory 202
* All logs
*
? Previous activity
*
Chase the reference quizCultural Theory PowerpointList of topicsCultural theory project briefJump to...Culture matters - powerpointShort booklistThe Century of the SelfArticle on Simone de Beauvoir & feminismThe complexity revolution9.11 and the Global SpectacleJoseph Rowntree Foundation poverty report 2007Monty Python - postmodern philosophyMont Python on identityQueer theory
*
Next activity ?
You are here
* Learning
* / ? SM202
* / ? Forums
* / ? Cultural Theory Spring 2008
* / ? Copies and Originals
Help with Search (new window)
Picture of Ceri Payne
Copies and Originals
by Ceri Payne - Thursday, 28 February 2008, 01:05 PM
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Anthropic principle is the scientific name for the theory of observed change. This is getting a bit heavy with the scientific theory i know but the princple links to the question I pose.
'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?'
Examples:
Big Brother, Wife Swap, Supernanny, Brat camp,The Simple Life, Bowling for Columbine, Supersize me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bus 174,
Radio four's Documentary: Securing Pakistan's bomb
These are all programs which have a producers, directors, editing teams - and audience they market to. All with opinions and views. Ex Big Brother contestants tell of the editing done to the live feeds where events and story lines are pre-planned. In 'The Simple Life' a Documentary about two media icons has a disclaimer at the beginning of the show 'parts of the show are staged for Dramatic Purposes'
The observation of real life as in wife swap or Documentary Bus 174 i feel can never show the true reality of a situation. As in being observed by a camera/microphone or around strangers ones nature or behavior changes, no matter whether conciously or not.
So does the above question apply to Theatre at all? can all forms of media and art be tinted with the same brush? can there ever be a 'representation' on stage which is unbiased or true about its subjects?
Sourced from:
'Imdb.com', bbc.co.uk
'cultural theory and popular culture' John Story Pub.1994
'The Simple life' Channel Four, broadcast 26/02/08
Edit | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Saturday, 1 March 2008, 11:27 PM
To answering your question 'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?', I believe that television can portray human behavior with an un-bias view point, but to an extent. Fair enough the examples that you have given, definitely do not show a true un-bias representation of human life, as they are edited and pre-organized. But I also believe that to a degree, Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat, shows a pretty good example of how people react when led into a false sense of security.
I think that as his mini documentaries are filmed and presented by unknown seemingly unthreatening characters Sasha achieves extraordinary results.
Two examples of his work which expose extreme, real human reactions from his subjects, are in an episode where Sasha as Borat talks to Texan hunters:
(by the way neither of these clips are nice, both pretty racist actually, but I think we understand why)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRqe9L56t4
And then sings a particularly racist song to a room full of more Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo&feature=related
I think that both of these examples show an un-tainted picture of human life, as the subjects don’t believe that what’s being recorded would be shown to the public, and so act realistically.
Thus, I believe the only way to get a real account of human behavior is to have the subject so relaxed with the situation that they forget that they’re being filmed, or have the subject in an extreme situation, where again they forget they are being filmed.
I don’t think that it would be possible to do this in theatre, as having an audience in front of you would automatically change your behavior to a situation and so you would not show an un-tainted representation of yourself.
I hope this makes sense, good subject Ceri.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Julian Bryant
Re: Copies and Originals
by Julian Bryant - Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 06:19 AM
Might be worth checking out Marshall McLuhan on media stuff. There's also a phrase "the ecstasy of communication" - can't remember the reference - that's part of the whole postmodernism thing. Potentially very imprtant duscussion guys!
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of rachael dowling
Re: Copies and Originals
by rachael dowling - Thursday, 20 March 2008, 12:38 AM
In answer to your question can there ever be a representation on stage which is true or unbiased about uts subjects I believe there can.
For example the American Hippy musical 'Hair' opened in London one day after the abolishion of theatre censorship. This allowed scenes of drug-taking and the audience were invited to join the cast on stage in the nude. Each night was real, no editing, no playbacks, only the next performance.
Every theatre performance is different to the last, be it from mistake, ad lib. And its honesty and passion lives on through every performance.
Its like improvised theatre its unpredictable, spontoneous and uncertain. You do not know what is going to happen.
Reality tv is similar to theatre in a way because in reality tv the contestants play up to the camera where as in theatre the actors play to the audience.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Friday, 21 March 2008, 02:44 AM
Well I believe that the point is not whether the show is going to be different night to night week to week etc, but rather that by putting an actor on stage to play a character, you then see exactly that, an actor playing a character. I think that because in theatre, you watch actors pretending to be someone else, it will always be impossible to show a true unbias representation of human behavior on a stage in real life. The only ways to show people acting like they would were they not being watched, are totally unachievable on stage. What ever happens the person is likely to realize that they are being watched.
Although…….
What about stand-up comedy?
Do you think that there may be a difference? Do you think that you get closer to seeing someone's true characteristics when you see them on stage at a comedy gig than you would by pointing a camera in their face or seeing them onstage reciting lines of a play?
I think that from experiencing meeting comedians before and after gigs at Brixton every week. Many are very similar to talk to in real life as they are to watch when they are on stage. They show their true personality to the audience which is seemably how they are in real life. So is this a truer unbias representation of human behaviour on stage? Also we know that this is not edited in any way for the viewer.
Although saying all of that, it is supposing whether stand-up comedy is classed as a type of theatre. Hmm,
Is stand-up comedy, theatre?
Come to think of it i think that in some cases stand-up comedy is quite theatrical, if you see Paul Tonkinson or Tony Law on stage they go through scenes as characters to prove a comic point of opinion of theirs. Or sketch comedy, which can also be very theatrical. Both have the same processes of creation. They are both written, directed, rehearsed and performed; just one is on a much smaller scale than the other. Stand-up comedy is a much more interactive form of entertainment from an audiences view, and it’s a much more relaxed atmosphere but you can get audience participation in theatre (Rocky Horror Show) and Bertolt Brecht was attempting to create a theatre where you should be relaxed and can sit back and enjoy the performance. “A theatre that cant be laughed in, is a theatre to be laughed at.” (Bertolt Brecht, Brecht for beginners by Michael Thoss).
I dislike it when people do this in essays etc but here's what it says in an online version of the oxford dictionary:
theatre
4 a: dramatic literature : plays b: dramatic representation as an art or profession : drama
I suppose that this definition would suggest that comedy is not a type of theatre, but i'm not sure i agree with this description. Comedy is not dramatic literature, nor is it a dramatic representation of any kind, but It’s still a performance and I think of it as theatre of some sort.
Any way I feel I have gotten a little side tracked.
This got me thinking earlier... About whether we judge people differently based on what we have seen on television. For example would i react differently to some one with long greesy hair from a council house in Manchester because i of what i have seen on the tv show 'Shameless'? Or better still would i react in a bias way towards someone from america after watching a tv program like 'the simple life' or 'friends' etc.
Does TV affect the way we see people from a certain part of the world or certain cultures? I just think that maybe television is such a large part of culture today and although it is there for entertainment, news etc we get influenced by what we see and who we see doing it. I wonder whether less people go in to the east-end of London because they see bad things happening to people there on their tv screens every week.
Of course there are also shows like ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’, where certain types of people go to try to tackle problems such as;
I Was Your Husband's Mistress... Now I'm Pregnant With His Child!
You Ran Off with My Best Mate - Did You Have His Baby?
(and my personal favorite)
2 Babies, 2 Mums, 3 Potential Dads-DNA Results
(http://library.digiguide.com)
Do programs like this make us look at certain cultures in this country in a different bias way, as we have seen their ‘dirty laundry’. Watching "a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people" (Judge Alan Berg) ultimately makes us stereotype people from a similar place or class, as dysfunctional as the people that were seen on the program.
I realize it’s a little late to ask for any reply’s but if you can get in before the deadline that would be awesome.
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Anthropic principle is the scientific name for the theory of observed change. This is getting a bit heavy with the scientific theory i know but the princple links to the question I pose.
'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?'
Examples:
Big Brother, Wife Swap, Supernanny, Brat camp,The Simple Life, Bowling for Columbine, Supersize me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bus 174,
Radio four's Documentary: Securing Pakistan's bomb
These are all programs which have a producers, directors, editing teams - and audience they market to. All with opinions and views. Ex Big Brother contestants tell of the editing done to the live feeds where events and story lines are pre-planned. In 'The Simple Life' a Documentary about two media icons has a disclaimer at the beginning of the show 'parts of the show are staged for Dramatic Purposes'
The observation of real life as in wife swap or Documentary Bus 174 i feel can never show the true reality of a situation. As in being observed by a camera/microphone or around strangers ones nature or behavior changes, no matter whether conciously or not.
So does the above question apply to Theatre at all? can all forms of media and art be tinted with the same brush? can there ever be a 'representation' on stage which is unbiased or true about its subjects?
Sourced from:
'Imdb.com', bbc.co.uk
'cultural theory and popular culture' John Story Pub.1994
'The Simple life' Channel Four, broadcast 26/02/08
Edit | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Saturday, 1 March 2008, 11:27 PM
To answering your question 'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?', I believe that television can portray human behavior with an un-bias view point, but to an extent. Fair enough the examples that you have given, definitely do not show a true un-bias representation of human life, as they are edited and pre-organized. But I also believe that to a degree, Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat, shows a pretty good example of how people react when led into a false sense of security.
I think that as his mini documentaries are filmed and presented by unknown seemingly unthreatening characters Sasha achieves extraordinary results.
Two examples of his work which expose extreme, real human reactions from his subjects, are in an episode where Sasha as Borat talks to Texan hunters:
(by the way neither of these clips are nice, both pretty racist actually, but I think we understand why)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRqe9L56t4
And then sings a particularly racist song to a room full of more Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo&feature=related
I think that both of these examples show an un-tainted picture of human life, as the subjects don’t believe that what’s being recorded would be shown to the public, and so act realistically.
Thus, I believe the only way to get a real account of human behavior is to have the subject so relaxed with the situation that they forget that they’re being filmed, or have the subject in an extreme situation, where again they forget they are being filmed.
I don’t think that it would be possible to do this in theatre, as having an audience in front of you would automatically change your behavior to a situation and so you would not show an un-tainted representation of yourself.
I hope this makes sense, good subject Ceri.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Julian Bryant
Re: Copies and Originals
by Julian Bryant - Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 06:19 AM
Might be worth checking out Marshall McLuhan on media stuff. There's also a phrase "the ecstasy of communication" - can't remember the reference - that's part of the whole postmodernism thing. Potentially very imprtant duscussion guys!
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of rachael dowling
Re: Copies and Originals
by rachael dowling - Thursday, 20 March 2008, 12:38 AM
In answer to your question can there ever be a representation on stage which is true or unbiased about uts subjects I believe there can.
For example the American Hippy musical 'Hair' opened in London one day after the abolishion of theatre censorship. This allowed scenes of drug-taking and the audience were invited to join the cast on stage in the nude. Each night was real, no editing, no playbacks, only the next performance.
Every theatre performance is different to the last, be it from mistake, ad lib. And its honesty and passion lives on through every performance.
Its like improvised theatre its unpredictable, spontoneous and uncertain. You do not know what is going to happen.
Reality tv is similar to theatre in a way because in reality tv the contestants play up to the camera where as in theatre the actors play to the audience.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Friday, 21 March 2008, 02:44 AM
Well I believe that the point is not whether the show is going to be different night to night week to week etc, but rather that by putting an actor on stage to play a character, you then see exactly that, an actor playing a character. I think that because in theatre, you watch actors pretending to be someone else, it will always be impossible to show a true unbias representation of human behavior on a stage in real life. The only ways to show people acting like they would were they not being watched, are totally unachievable on stage. What ever happens the person is likely to realize that they are being watched.
Although…….
What about stand-up comedy?
Do you think that there may be a difference? Do you think that you get closer to seeing someone's true characteristics when you see them on stage at a comedy gig than you would by pointing a camera in their face or seeing them onstage reciting lines of a play?
I think that from experiencing meeting comedians before and after gigs at Brixton every week. Many are very similar to talk to in real life as they are to watch when they are on stage. They show their true personality to the audience which is seemably how they are in real life. So is this a truer unbias representation of human behaviour on stage? Also we know that this is not edited in any way for the viewer.
Although saying all of that, it is supposing whether stand-up comedy is classed as a type of theatre. Hmm,
Is stand-up comedy, theatre?
Come to think of it i think that in some cases stand-up comedy is quite theatrical, if you see Paul Tonkinson or Tony Law on stage they go through scenes as characters to prove a comic point of opinion of theirs. Or sketch comedy, which can also be very theatrical. Both have the same processes of creation. They are both written, directed, rehearsed and performed; just one is on a much smaller scale than the other. Stand-up comedy is a much more interactive form of entertainment from an audiences view, and it’s a much more relaxed atmosphere but you can get audience participation in theatre (Rocky Horror Show) and Bertolt Brecht was attempting to create a theatre where you should be relaxed and can sit back and enjoy the performance. “A theatre that cant be laughed in, is a theatre to be laughed at.” (Bertolt Brecht, Brecht for beginners by Michael Thoss).
I dislike it when people do this in essays etc but here's what it says in an online version of the oxford dictionary:
theatre
4 a: dramatic literature : plays b: dramatic representation as an art or profession : drama
I suppose that this definition would suggest that comedy is not a type of theatre, but i'm not sure i agree with this description. Comedy is not dramatic literature, nor is it a dramatic representation of any kind, but It’s still a performance and I think of it as theatre of some sort.
Any way I feel I have gotten a little side tracked.
This got me thinking earlier... About whether we judge people differently based on what we have seen on television. For example would i react differently to some one with long greesy hair from a council house in Manchester because i of what i have seen on the tv show 'Shameless'? Or better still would i react in a bias way towards someone from america after watching a tv program like 'the simple life' or 'friends' etc.
Does TV affect the way we see people from a certain part of the world or certain cultures? I just think that maybe television is such a large part of culture today and although it is there for entertainment, news etc we get influenced by what we see and who we see doing it. I wonder whether less people go in to the east-end of London because they see bad things happening to people there on their tv screens every week.
Of course there are also shows like ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’, where certain types of people go to try to tackle problems such as;
I Was Your Husband's Mistress... Now I'm Pregnant With His Child!
You Ran Off with My Best Mate - Did You Have His Baby?
(and my personal favorite)
2 Babies, 2 Mums, 3 Potential Dads-DNA Results
(http://library.digiguide.com)
Do programs like this make us look at certain cultures in this country in a different bias way, as we have seen their ‘dirty laundry’. Watching "a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people" (Judge Alan Berg) ultimately makes us stereotype people from a similar place or class, as dysfunctional as the people that were seen on the program.
I realize it’s a little late to ask for any reply’s but if you can get in before the deadline that would be awesome.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
You are logged in as Julian Bryant (Logout)
SM202
Moodle Docs for this page
Cultural Theory 202
* All logs
*
? Previous activity
*
Chase the reference quizCultural Theory PowerpointList of topicsCultural theory project briefJump to...Culture matters - powerpointShort booklistThe Century of the SelfArticle on Simone de Beauvoir & feminismThe complexity revolution9.11 and the Global SpectacleJoseph Rowntree Foundation poverty report 2007Monty Python - postmodern philosophyMont Python on identityQueer theory
*
Next activity ?
You are here
* Learning
* / ? SM202
* / ? Forums
* / ? Cultural Theory Spring 2008
* / ? Copies and Originals
Help with Search (new window)
Picture of Ceri Payne
Copies and Originals
by Ceri Payne - Thursday, 28 February 2008, 01:05 PM
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
Anthropic principle is the scientific name for the theory of observed change. This is getting a bit heavy with the scientific theory i know but the princple links to the question I pose.
'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?'
Examples:
Big Brother, Wife Swap, Supernanny, Brat camp,The Simple Life, Bowling for Columbine, Supersize me, Fahrenheit 9/11, Bus 174,
Radio four's Documentary: Securing Pakistan's bomb
These are all programs which have a producers, directors, editing teams - and audience they market to. All with opinions and views. Ex Big Brother contestants tell of the editing done to the live feeds where events and story lines are pre-planned. In 'The Simple Life' a Documentary about two media icons has a disclaimer at the beginning of the show 'parts of the show are staged for Dramatic Purposes'
The observation of real life as in wife swap or Documentary Bus 174 i feel can never show the true reality of a situation. As in being observed by a camera/microphone or around strangers ones nature or behavior changes, no matter whether conciously or not.
So does the above question apply to Theatre at all? can all forms of media and art be tinted with the same brush? can there ever be a 'representation' on stage which is unbiased or true about its subjects?
Sourced from:
'Imdb.com', bbc.co.uk
'cultural theory and popular culture' John Story Pub.1994
'The Simple life' Channel Four, broadcast 26/02/08
Edit | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Saturday, 1 March 2008, 11:27 PM
To answering your question 'Can Reality television, documentories, and lifestyle programs on television and Radio and film ever be a true & unbiased representation of its subject?', I believe that television can portray human behavior with an un-bias view point, but to an extent. Fair enough the examples that you have given, definitely do not show a true un-bias representation of human life, as they are edited and pre-organized. But I also believe that to a degree, Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat, shows a pretty good example of how people react when led into a false sense of security.
I think that as his mini documentaries are filmed and presented by unknown seemingly unthreatening characters Sasha achieves extraordinary results.
Two examples of his work which expose extreme, real human reactions from his subjects, are in an episode where Sasha as Borat talks to Texan hunters:
(by the way neither of these clips are nice, both pretty racist actually, but I think we understand why)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHRqe9L56t4
And then sings a particularly racist song to a room full of more Americans:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo&feature=related
I think that both of these examples show an un-tainted picture of human life, as the subjects don’t believe that what’s being recorded would be shown to the public, and so act realistically.
Thus, I believe the only way to get a real account of human behavior is to have the subject so relaxed with the situation that they forget that they’re being filmed, or have the subject in an extreme situation, where again they forget they are being filmed.
I don’t think that it would be possible to do this in theatre, as having an audience in front of you would automatically change your behavior to a situation and so you would not show an un-tainted representation of yourself.
I hope this makes sense, good subject Ceri.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Julian Bryant
Re: Copies and Originals
by Julian Bryant - Tuesday, 4 March 2008, 06:19 AM
Might be worth checking out Marshall McLuhan on media stuff. There's also a phrase "the ecstasy of communication" - can't remember the reference - that's part of the whole postmodernism thing. Potentially very imprtant duscussion guys!
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of rachael dowling
Re: Copies and Originals
by rachael dowling - Thursday, 20 March 2008, 12:38 AM
In answer to your question can there ever be a representation on stage which is true or unbiased about uts subjects I believe there can.
For example the American Hippy musical 'Hair' opened in London one day after the abolishion of theatre censorship. This allowed scenes of drug-taking and the audience were invited to join the cast on stage in the nude. Each night was real, no editing, no playbacks, only the next performance.
Every theatre performance is different to the last, be it from mistake, ad lib. And its honesty and passion lives on through every performance.
Its like improvised theatre its unpredictable, spontoneous and uncertain. You do not know what is going to happen.
Reality tv is similar to theatre in a way because in reality tv the contestants play up to the camera where as in theatre the actors play to the audience.
Show parent | Edit | Split | Delete | Reply
Picture of Spencer Tiney
Re: Copies and Originals
by Spencer Tiney - Friday, 21 March 2008, 02:44 AM
Well I believe that the point is not whether the show is going to be different night to night week to week etc, but rather that by putting an actor on stage to play a character, you then see exactly that, an actor playing a character. I think that because in theatre, you watch actors pretending to be someone else, it will always be impossible to show a true unbias representation of human behavior on a stage in real life. The only ways to show people acting like they would were they not being watched, are totally unachievable on stage. What ever happens the person is likely to realize that they are being watched.
Although…….
What about stand-up comedy?
Do you think that there may be a difference? Do you think that you get closer to seeing someone's true characteristics when you see them on stage at a comedy gig than you would by pointing a camera in their face or seeing them onstage reciting lines of a play?
I think that from experiencing meeting comedians before and after gigs at Brixton every week. Many are very similar to talk to in real life as they are to watch when they are on stage. They show their true personality to the audience which is seemably how they are in real life. So is this a truer unbias representation of human behaviour on stage? Also we know that this is not edited in any way for the viewer.
Although saying all of that, it is supposing whether stand-up comedy is classed as a type of theatre. Hmm,
Is stand-up comedy, theatre?
Come to think of it i think that in some cases stand-up comedy is quite theatrical, if you see Paul Tonkinson or Tony Law on stage they go through scenes as characters to prove a comic point of opinion of theirs. Or sketch comedy, which can also be very theatrical. Both have the same processes of creation. They are both written, directed, rehearsed and performed; just one is on a much smaller scale than the other. Stand-up comedy is a much more interactive form of entertainment from an audiences view, and it’s a much more relaxed atmosphere but you can get audience participation in theatre (Rocky Horror Show) and Bertolt Brecht was attempting to create a theatre where you should be relaxed and can sit back and enjoy the performance. “A theatre that cant be laughed in, is a theatre to be laughed at.” (Bertolt Brecht, Brecht for beginners by Michael Thoss).
I dislike it when people do this in essays etc but here's what it says in an online version of the oxford dictionary:
theatre
4 a: dramatic literature : plays b: dramatic representation as an art or profession : drama
I suppose that this definition would suggest that comedy is not a type of theatre, but i'm not sure i agree with this description. Comedy is not dramatic literature, nor is it a dramatic representation of any kind, but It’s still a performance and I think of it as theatre of some sort.
Any way I feel I have gotten a little side tracked.
This got me thinking earlier... About whether we judge people differently based on what we have seen on television. For example would i react differently to some one with long greesy hair from a council house in Manchester because i of what i have seen on the tv show 'Shameless'? Or better still would i react in a bias way towards someone from america after watching a tv program like 'the simple life' or 'friends' etc.
Does TV affect the way we see people from a certain part of the world or certain cultures? I just think that maybe television is such a large part of culture today and although it is there for entertainment, news etc we get influenced by what we see and who we see doing it. I wonder whether less people go in to the east-end of London because they see bad things happening to people there on their tv screens every week.
Of course there are also shows like ‘The Jeremy Kyle Show’, where certain types of people go to try to tackle problems such as;
I Was Your Husband's Mistress... Now I'm Pregnant With His Child!
You Ran Off with My Best Mate - Did You Have His Baby?
(and my personal favorite)
2 Babies, 2 Mums, 3 Potential Dads-DNA Results
(http://library.digiguide.com)
Do programs like this make us look at certain cultures in this country in a different bias way, as we have seen their ‘dirty laundry’. Watching "a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people" (Judge Alan Berg) ultimately makes us stereotype people from a similar place or class, as dysfunctional as the people that were seen on the program.
I realize it’s a little late to ask for any reply’s but if you can get in before the deadline that would be awesome.
Last modified: Thursday, 7 June 2012, 2:15 PM