Bit
1 | |
And Big Brother has become a game show. In a little over 50 years, George Orwell’s classic, shocking distopian vision has been reduced to this? Or perhaps there are more fundamental and disturbing links between the novel, the game show and the underlying themes of 1984.
|
Bit
2 | |
When Big Brother the reality game-show hit the screens in Britain in summer 2000 it was lauded, it was slated, but most of all it was talked about - and so it was watched. A summer long “reality” show was unprecedented, and this contributed greatly to its success. As with soap opera, a continuously unfolding narrative is a compelling thing, especially when the media gets behind it. Big Brother benefited from the “water cooler” effect. A progression from the by now tired reality programmes about airports and such, Big Brother drew together a number of popular strands of successful television narrative - soap opera regularity, the voyeurism of “fly on the wall” documentary and the promise of a “winner”.
|
Bit
3 | |
Interactivity
Big Brother I gave us half hour television slots but also the opportunity to view the action via internet webcams. In Britain few people have connections fast enough to facilitate proper use of such technology, but, given that what everyone most wanted to see was someone naked, or on the toilet, the flickering, grainy effect of the peep-show was perhaps a suitable medium. This promise of interactivity was enough to hook us to the more traditional means of viewing, where, as ever, we give up ourselves to the choices of the producers. And why not? It’s what we are used to. Big Brother’s challenge: to create compelling “drama” out of a bunch of people locked in a house for ten weeks. They gave us Nasty Nick.. We gave them our loyalty.
|
Bit
4 | |
Websites sprang up and many column inches, both traditional and virtual hosted discussions about Big Brother. It is less significant what they actually said, more significant that Big Brother the game show became a truly cross-media feeding frenzy. So much so that for the final evictions in Big Brother I , Channel 4 broke all viewing figures.
|
Bit
5 | |
Even after the event, Big Brother refused to go away. Whether the talk was about a “one hit wonder” an “unrepeatable experience” or the “fifteen minutes of fame” accorded to the everyman “stars”, everyone still talked about Big Brother. Craig, the winner of Big Brother I shocked, delighted and surprised the public (if not the producers?) by giving his prize money away to a personal “good cause.” It didn’t take long for Big Brother to capitalise on this and on the back of Red Nose Charity, in the winter of 2000 they allowed us to love Big Brother again.
|
Bit
6 | |
Celebrity Big Brother was a week long, fast-tracked event. Was this because celebrities don’t live in real-time? Or because we wouldn’t put up with another 10 week extravaganza? Or because no one could afford even the “minor” celebrities for that long? Or because Big Brother didn’t need to do it that way any more.
|
Bit
7 | |
Big Brother is in control of our viewing. He can dish out what we like and when we like it. Celebrity Big Brother gave us something, but it was only a version of the real experience. It worked though, because it kept us talking about Big Brother.
So by the time Big Brother II was announced - despite all the somewhat familiar column inches about “would it work?” “could it be repeated?” we all knew that it could and would. And besides, we were to be given a new, improved experience. As consumers we are all well aware that everything can and should be new and improved as often as possible to keep our interest and loyalty.
|
| | | |
Bit
8 | |
Reality TV - What is Reality?
Big Brother II had something more important than interactivity. It was “live.” You could now tune in for 18 hours a day. On your television. This changed the peep-show into something totally new. Big Brother really came of age. With Big Brother II it became obvious that “reality” television just does not exist. And that Big Brother doesn’t care. Big Brother will cheat us. And we will love him all the same. Imagine a live, real time soap opera. Big Brother promised us narrative in its most primitive form. But he failed to deliver.
|
| | | |
Bit
9 | |
Watching Big Brother II was at least a frustrating experience, at most an intensely annoying one. For huge periods of time no sound was delivered to viewers. The captions on screen saying this was “to comply with viewing regulations” killed off the “live” experience. You could wait twenty minutes to hear someone speak. And you did. And you missed the “juicy” bits. Big Brother controlled you too. Digital “interactivity” allowed switching between cameras - and back to earlier times - but being offered alternatives, “goods to the value of” was not the same as “live” experience. It swiftly became apparent that all the contestants had to do was pepper their language with common or garden swear words (the same ones which viewers like me were launching interactively at the set as the volume cut out at the most interesting point of discussion) to render themselves safe from the viewer, if not from Big Brother.
Realisation dawned that one was not watching “live” at all. The programme was subject to a 10 or 20 minute delay so tape could be doctored to prevent us from hearing anything Big Brother didn’t want us to. This completely ruined the entire point of live reality television. Or did it? It meant that we had to accept that Big Brother was lying to us.
And that we had to love him just the same.
|
| | | |
Bit
10 | |
If you spent hours on end watching Big Brother, you were also locked into a room, in some very potent way controlled by Big Brother. The regular Big Brother programmes every evening meant that one could view the experience from a number of different perspectives. This gave a whole new dimension to watching television. A whole new meaning to “repeat” viewing. One was being fed by Big Brother. And one felt under his control.
The realisation that we were being lied to and controlled might have led to cynicism. Certainly with Big Brother II predicting the winner was easy, even as early as 5 weeks in. But Big Brother could deal with our feeble cynicism. The contestants thought they had some control. They didn’t. The viewers in terms of voters thought they had control, stubbornly refusing to vote Paul or Helen out.
|
| | | |
Bit
11 | |
Big Brother took control of the situation. More people voted for one single Big Brother eviction than for the winning party in the General Election, and Big Brother manipulated how we should vote. We were repaid for our loyalty by the “romance” of Paul and Helen. How could the few Winston Smith’s amongst us not see that as Big Brother’s ultimate controlling gesture. Paul and Helen’s romance was a Big Brother tease. We knew they were being played with, that we were being played with and that the ending would be no ending, it would happen “after the event”. But Paul and Helen managed to ensure their longevity in the house by, wittingly or unwittingly, providing us with drama when the “live reality” had become banal and the eventual winner had long been obvious. In true traditional dramatic style, we fell for a “love story.”
|
| | | |
Bit
12 | |
Winners and Losers
Celebrity Big Brother gave us one real star. Jack Dee. His stock in comedy trade is quiet cynicism. He gave us exactly this, manipulating us and his fellow contestants constantly throughout the show. And we loved him for it. Big Brother II proffered two contenders for hero’s crown: Bubble and Brian. Both were comedians. The house wasn’t big enough for both of them. Brian’s humour initially too “obscure”, always camp, hard-core; Bubble the Craig-clone wide-boy joker. Variations of Jack Dee? Ultimately Brian got the “popular” vote. He gave us more vulnerability. Big Brother dealt him the “honesty” card. With Bubble voted out only Brian could win. The others became so much set dressing. Big Brother reckoned we wouldn’t stand a month of this. So Paul and Helen came to the rescue as Romeo and Juliet. A story which Big Brother could milk long after Brian walked away with the prize money.
|
| | | |
Bit
13 | |
Who is Big Brother?
As in Orwell’s novel, Big Brother was not the voice heard in the diary room. This voice could change sex, tone, attitude at will. These voices were so many O’Briens. No. Big Brother lurks much deeper in the whole “experience” Big Brother is the coming together of all media in the pursuit of controlling the viewer while giving him the illusion that he is free. There is no escape. Orwells’ vision holds true. And we love Big Brother.
|
| | | |
Bit
14 | | Citation reference for this article
MLA style:
Cally Phillips. "We Love BIG BROTHER" M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01. [your date of access] <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/cphillips.html>.
Chicago style:
Cally Phillips, "We Love BIG BROTHER," M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01, <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/cphillips.html> ([your date of access]).
APA style:
Cally Phillips. (2000) We Love BIG BROTHER. M/C Reviews 25 Oct. 01. <http://www.media-culture.org.au/reviews/features/interactive/cphillips.html> ([your date of access]). |
