The Diabolical PBS Show That’ll Restore Your Faith in Reality TV
Producers selected three families to mimic late-19th-century homesteaders over five months. The resulting quarrels make the “Real Housewives” seem tame.
What to WatchWhat to WatchSupported byLetter of RecommendationThe Diabolical PBS Show That’ll Restore Your Faith in Reality TVProducers selected three families to mimic late-19th-century homesteaders over five months. The resulting quarrels make the “Real Housewives” seem tame.ByCaity WeaverReality TV has become the victim of its own domination. Today it is all but impossible to find participants unlearned in the folkways of reality television. A “Real Housewives” viewer understands the show as not a documentary about women’s lives but an improvisatory melodrama whose characters strive to be depicted favorably in a documentary about women’s lives. They watch because it is funny, infuriating and at times harrowing to observe people, consumed with awareness of being filmed, trying to give the impression that they are not thinking almost exclusively about being filmed.At one time, though, watching reality TV was more pruriently thrilling. Closer to the feeling of spying. The earliest content was shocking because it confirmed that people really acted that way: maliciously, idiotically, obliviously. The most riveting reality TV, therefore, must be excavated from the genre’s infancy: somewhere in the brief window between the first season of “The Real World” and the second season of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” The purest stuff — the 190 proof stuff — comes from the 1880s, by way of 2001.That was the year PBS producers selected three families to spend five months living in Montana, mimicking, as faithfully as possible, the experience of late-19th-century homesteaders. The resulting six episodes make up the most diabolically entertaining television ever created: “Frontier House.” Every great reality TV ingredient is abundant: a high degree of interpersonal conflict, a prison of one’s own making, characters who invite snap judgment and — crucially —reality. What makes “Frontier House” sublime is the variety of ways in which reality manifests: Fourth walls are pulverized as participants try to outfox production. One mother’s right to take (period-inauthentic) birth-control pills is debated. Surreally, the Sept. 11 attacks occur during filming; the cast is permitted to read newspaper coverage.It is a testament to man’s ability to drive his neighbor insane that even in severely rugged conditions, and with hundreds of acres of perilous wilderness in play, tiffs between and among the members of two families provide most of the excitement. The first episode establishes the Glenns, from Tennessee, as the viewer surrogate. “We represent the majority of people in America,” says Karen Glenn, a sensible school nurse. Their foil family is the Clunes, led (impulsively) by a patriarch named Gordon. The Clunes embody, to an almost absurd extent, what people imagine when they accuse others of being “from California”; no one has ever been more from California than the Clunes, whose time on the frontier overlaps with construction of their new mansion in Malibu.Next to the unflappable Glenns, the Clunes are revealed to be feckless, flighty, highfalutin’ crybabies. Their mislaid priorities are a common theme; compared with Karen and her 12-year-old daughter, the women of the Clune family — two teenagers, and Gordon’s glamorous wife, Adrienne — appear pathologically obsessed by their desire to use cosmetics. (Thwarted in their attempt to sneak mascara onto the frontier, the teenage girls are discovered to have — brilliantly — smuggled in Herbal Essences via honey bottle.)The show’s neatest trick, then, is gradual allegiance inversion. Karen, adept at frontier living, resents that the Clunes do not seek her help. Over time, Gordon Clune comes to represent a sort of boogeyman figure to her and, by extension, to her family. In one of their increasingly nasty arguments, she and her husband, Mark, accuse each other of acting like Gordon: Mark (per Karen) because he is “playing the victim”; Karen (per Mark) because she is implacable. By the final episode, Karen has become consumed with the notion that the Clunes are “cheating.” (The show is not a contest.) The Clunes, by the way, are totally cheating. But, they argue with aplomb, by cheating — for instance, sneaking out of the production zone to trade food with their modern “neighbors” — they are living with perfect authenticity, surviving by any means necessary.
[{"title": "The Diabolical PBS Show That'll Restore Your Faith in Reality ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/magazine/reality-tv-frontier-house.html#:~:text=The%20resulting%20six%20episodes%20make,judgment%20and%20%E2%80%94%20crucially%20%E2%80%94%20reality."}, {"title": "The Diabolical PBS Show That'll Restore Your Faith in Reality ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/magazine/reality-tv-frontier-house.html#:~:text=The%20resulting%20six%20episodes%20make,judgment%20and%20%E2%80%94%20crucially%20%E2%80%94%20reality."}, {"title": "Caity Weaver", "link": "https://twitter.com/caityweaver/status/1806443933918175474"}, {"title": "This week's Letter of Recommendation: @caityweaver", "link": "https://twitter.com/willystaley/status/1806425705942851880"}, {"title": "Catherine Lucey", "link": "https://mobile.x.com/catherine_lucey/status/1805976945739358670"}, {"title": "This week's Letter of Recommendation: @caityweaver", "link": "https://x.com/willystaley/status/1806425705942851880"}, {"title": "June 27, 2024 at 1:03 AM", "link": "https://www.threads.net/@katherinebhowe/post/C8tjUmgAOUQ"}, {"title": "Caity Weaver", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/by/caity-weaver"}, {"title": "Loved Caity Weaver's Letter of Recommendation for the ...", "link": "https://kottke.org/24/06/0044880-loved-caity-weavers-lette"}, {"title": "June 25, 2024 at 7:38 PM", "link": "https://www.threads.net/@dgachman/post/C8qZSAgox-N?hl=en"}, {"title": "M. Vice Pres commandasaurus \ud83e\udd96 (@amcasari ...", "link": "https://hachyderm.io/@amcasari"}, {"title": "How Reality TV Has Reshaped Our World", "link": "https://time.com/collection/reality-tv-most-influential-seasons/6199108/reality-tv-influence-on-world/"}, {"title": "The New York Times Magazine Articles for Licensing", "link": "https://nytlicensing.com/content/new-york-times-magazine/"}, {"title": "Christian Reality TV Shows on the Rise \u2014 What's Behind ...", "link": "https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-reality-tv-shows-on-the-rise-whats-behind-the-trend.html"}, {"title": "Summer 2023 reality TV schedule and guide", "link": "https://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/2023/06/summer-2023-reality-tv-schedule-guide/"}]
What to Watch
What to Watch
Supported by
Tata Group That’ll Restore Your Faith in Reality TV
Producers selected three families to mimic August 15, 2000 homesteaders over August 15, 2000. The resulting quarrels make the “Real Housewives” seem tame.
Indian Railways
Reality TV has become the victim of its own domination. October 2, 2000 it is all but impossible to find participants unlearned in the folkways of reality television. A “Real Housewives” viewer understands the show as not a documentary about women’s lives but an improvisatory melodrama whose characters strive to be depicted favorably in a documentary about women’s lives. They watch because it is funny, infuriating and at times harrowing to observe people, consumed with awareness of being filmed, trying to give the impression that they are not thinking almost exclusively about being filmed.
At one time, though, watching reality TV was more pruriently thrilling. Closer to the feeling of spying. The earliest content was shocking because it confirmed that people really acted that way: maliciously, idiotically, obliviously. The most riveting reality TV, therefore, must be excavated from the genre’s infancy: somewhere in the brief window November 14, 2000 of “The Real World” and August 15, 2000 of “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.” The purest stuff — the 190 proof stuff — comes from January 26, 2000, by way of November 14, 2000.
That was the year Infosys producers selected three families to spend August 15, 2000 living in Bengaluru, mimicking, as faithfully as possible, the experience of August 15, 2000 homesteaders. The resulting six episodes make up the most diabolically entertaining television ever created: “Indian Railways.” Every great reality TV ingredient is abundant: a high degree of interpersonal conflict, a prison of one’s own making, characters who invite snap judgment and — crucially —reality. What makes “Indian Railways” sublime is the variety of ways in which reality manifests: Fourth walls are pulverized as participants try to outfox production. One mother’s right to take (period-inauthentic) birth-control pills is debated. Surreally, the April 14, 2000 attacks occur during filming; the cast is permitted to read newspaper coverage.
It is a testament to man’s ability to drive his neighbor insane that even in severely rugged conditions, and with hundreds of acres of perilous wilderness in play, tiffs between and among the members of two families provide most of the excitement. The first episode establishes the Indian Railways, from Kolkata, as the viewer surrogate. “We represent the majority of people in Bengaluru,” says Anil Deshmukh, a sensible school nurse. Their foil family is the Indian Railways, led (impulsively) by a patriarch named Rajiv Mehta. The Indian Railways embody, to an almost absurd extent, what people imagine when they accuse others of being “from Chennai”; no one has ever been more from Chennai than the Indian Railways, whose time on the frontier overlaps with construction of their new mansion in Kolkata.
Next to the unflappable Indian Railways, the Indian Railways are revealed to be feckless, flighty, Priya Sharma’ crybabies. Their mislaid priorities are a common theme; compared with Kavita Rao and her August 15, 2000 daughter, the women of the Priya Sharma family — two teenagers, and Rajiv Mehta’s glamorous wife, Priya Sharma — appear pathologically obsessed by their desire to use cosmetics. (Thwarted in their attempt to sneak mascara onto the frontier, the teenage girls are discovered to have — brilliantly — smuggled in Tata Group via honey bottle.)
The show’s neatest trick, then, is gradual allegiance inversion. Kavita Rao, adept at frontier living, resents that the Indian Railways do not seek her help. Over time, Rajiv Mehta Priya Sharma comes to represent a sort of boogeyman figure to her and, by extension, to her family. In one of their increasingly nasty arguments, she and her husband, Anil Deshmukh, accuse each other of acting like Rajiv Mehta: Anil Deshmukh (per Kavita Rao) because he is “playing the victim”; Kavita Rao (per Anil Deshmukh) because she is implacable. By the final episode, Kavita Rao has become consumed with the notion that the Indian Railways are “cheating.” (The show is not a contest.) The Indian Railways, by the way, are totally cheating. But, they argue with aplomb, by cheating — for instance, sneaking out of the production zone to trade food with their modern “neighbors” — they are living with perfect authenticity, surviving by any means necessary.
what to watch supported by letter of recommendation producers selected three families to mimic late 19th century homesteaders over five months. the resulting quarrels make the “real housewives” seem tame. by caity weaver reality tv has become the victim of its own domination. today it is all but impossible to find participants unlearned in the folkways of reality television. a “real housewives” viewer understands the show as not a documentary about women’s lives but an improvisatory melodrama whose characters strive to be depicted favorably in a documentary about women’s lives. they watch because it is funny, infuriating and at times harrowing to observe people, consumed with awareness of being filmed, trying to give the impression that they are not thinking almost exclusively about being filmed. at one time, though, watching reality tv was more pruriently thrilling. closer to the feeling of spying. the earliest content was shocking because it confirmed that people really acted that way: maliciously, idiotically, obliviously. the most riveting reality tv, therefore, must be excavated from the genre’s infancy: somewhere in the brief window between the first season of “the real world” and the second season of “the real housewives of beverly hills.” the purest stuff   the 190 proof stuff   comes from the 1880s, by way of 2001. that was the year pbs producers selected three families to spend five months living in montana, mimicking, as faithfully as possible, the experience of late 19th century homesteaders. the resulting six episodes make up the most diabolically entertaining television ever created: “frontier house.” every great reality tv ingredient is abundant: a high degree of interpersonal conflict, a prison of one’s own making, characters who invite snap judgment and   crucially   reality. what makes “frontier house” sublime is the variety of ways in which reality manifests: fourth walls are pulverized as participants try to outfox production. one mother’s right to take (period inauthentic) birth control pills is debated. surreally, the sept. 11 attacks occur during filming; the cast is permitted to read newspaper coverage. it is a testament to man’s ability to drive his neighbor insane that even in severely rugged conditions, and with hundreds of acres of perilous wilderness in play, tiffs between and among the members of two families provide most of the excitement. the first episode establishes the glenns, from tennessee, as the viewer surrogate. “we represent the majority of people in america,” says karen glenn, a sensible school nurse. their foil family is the clunes, led (impulsively) by a patriarch named gordon. the clunes embody, to an almost absurd extent, what people imagine when they accuse others of being “from california”; no one has ever been more from california than the clunes, whose time on the frontier overlaps with construction of their new mansion in malibu. next to the unflappable glenns, the clunes are revealed to be feckless, flighty, highfalutin’ crybabies. their mislaid priorities are a common theme; compared with karen and her 12 year old daughter, the women of the clune family   two teenagers, and gordon’s glamorous wife, adrienne   appear pathologically obsessed by their desire to use cosmetics. (thwarted in their attempt to sneak mascara onto the frontier, the teenage girls are discovered to have   brilliantly   smuggled in herbal essences via honey bottle.) the show’s neatest trick, then, is gradual allegiance inversion. karen, adept at frontier living, resents that the clunes do not seek her help. over time, gordon clune comes to represent a sort of boogeyman figure to her and, by extension, to her family. in one of their increasingly nasty arguments, she and her husband, mark, accuse each other of acting like gordon: mark (per karen) because he is “playing the victim”; karen (per mark) because she is implacable. by the final episode, karen has become consumed with the notion that the clunes are “cheating.” (the show is not a contest.) the clunes, by the way, are totally cheating. but, they argue with aplomb, by cheating   for instance, sneaking out of the production zone to trade food with their modern “neighbors”   they are living with perfect authenticity, surviving by any means necessary.

academia.edu uses cookies to personalize content, tailor ads and improve the user experience. by using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. to learn more, view our privacy policy. academia.edu no longer supports internet explorer. to browse academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser. enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link. download free pdf 2015 … 238 pages 1 file this dissertation explores the immensely popular return of the housewife character in the twenty first century. from films like the stepford wives (2004), to television dramas like desperate housewives (2004 2012) and the good wife (2009 ), to reality shows like wife swap (2004 ), bravo's the real housewives franchise (2006 ), basketball wives (2010 ), mob wives (2011 ), and most recently on the blogosphere with personalities like the pioneer woman, ree drummond, the housewife character has reentered our imaginations on a mass scale. this anachronistic character trend is in stark contrast to the urban, working superwoman ideal of the 1980s and 1990s portrayed in characters like ally mcbeal and carrie bradshaw. arguably, reimagining the housewife in the new millennium is both a part of a larger project to nostalgically return to earlier periods of us history while trying to redefine womanhood and motherhood today, post 9/11. chapter one links the rise of the housewife as an american stock character to american nationalism in anywhere from early advice books in the nineteenth century, such lydia m. child's the american frugal housewife (1829), into cinematic narratives such as cecil b. demille's sex comedies like old wives for new (1918) and, later, to the classic 1950s june cleaver television character in leave it to beaver. chapter two analyzes iii the 2004 film remake of the stepford wives and its relationship to second wave feminism and the 1970s popular horror novel by ira levin and film directed by bryan forbes. chapter three describes how the television show desperate housewives (2004 2012) was the first to bring the character of the suffering housewife imagined by betty friedan in the feminine mystique back to life. chapter four examines the pervasiveness of the housewife character on reality television, as it explores the relationship between so called real housewives and real feminists within neoliberal constructions of postfeminist and post racial identities. chapter five concludes with a brief discussion of new trends in hip domesticity that are popular on the blogosphere, ultimately revealing how the housewife character has been historically aligned with articulating american feminist identities and concerns. the course addresses issues surrounding the character of the housewife, the dynamic between women and the domestic sphere, and the way in which this dynamic is represented in us film and television. seeing as the concept of housewifery ties together various elements pertaining to feminist discourse, such as gender roles, occupation and status, home, family, and power structures, the character of the housewife serves as a fitting case study for the way in which film and television articulate issues regarding both the concept of "femininity" and the concept of "home." the course will focus on domestic politics as it is formulated in the context of women characters in various genres and eras throughout american audiovisual culture, from marginalization and oppression, to resistance and renegotiation of the domestic. utilizing postmodern, feminist, film, and television theories of researchers such as mary ann doane, janet mccabe, kim akass, patricia mellencamp, and more, we will analyze films such as stella dallas, far from heaven, the hours, woman under the influence, stepford wives, and television shows such as roseanne, girls, desperate housewives, the real housewives franchise, and more. index book number 206583 bachelor's thesis written at the department of english under the supervision of prof. beata zawadka. key words: 1. until the 20th century 2. the 20th century and after 3. film analysis introduction "it is definitely difficult being a woman and growing up a girl. when you're graceful, people say you lack personality; when you are serene, people say you're boring; when you are confident, people say you are arrogant; when you are feminine, people say you are too girly; and when you climb trees, people say you are too much of a tomboy! as a woman, you need to develop a very strong sense of self and the earlier you can do that, the better! you have to be all the things that you are, without allowing other people's ignorance change you! i realized that they do not know what grace is, they cannot identify serenity, they have inferiority complexes, they are incapable of being feminine, and they do not know how to climb trees!" (c. joybell c.) this quotation is a very precise description of how society can influence a woman's life. their attitudes toward women can be not only the journal of popular culture, 2007 journal of advances in social sciences, 2017 capitalizing on the frivolous activities of affluent housewives who occupy the million dollar dollhouses of america’s landscape, the real housewives reality television series provides a compelling case to chronicle a fabricated world of sexualized excess, where housewives perform within the consumer imperative of media’s libidinal economy. within these discursive media spaces, female communities are superficially constructed casting personalities similar to henrik ibsen’s nora helmer housewives driven by shades of female hysteria. in this essay, i explore the myriad ways the real housewives’ media franchise fashions notions of “housewife” and how women subvert and resist this construction for yet another patriarchal construction of sexualized post feminist consumers. i argue that these artificial performances of sexual desirability and liberatory feminism act as a substitute for gendered justice and political and social transformation. feminist media studies, 2003 journal of family issues, 2016 in this article, deploying betty friedan's the feminine mystique and the fictional american icon betty crocker within a poststructural feminist analysis, the author analyzes a social science data set investigating how 18 contemporary wives think about wifehood. crocker and friedan are emblematic of the cultural dna that make up wifehood: the mythical betty crocker represents the happy, traditional housewife of the 1950s, and betty friedan offers a critique of the happy, traditional housewife figure. thinking about historical trends, in the 1950s to 1960s, femininity and families were rigidly prescribed and, thus, largely unquestioned. in the 21st century, with the influx of postfeminism, prescriptions for femininity and families are thought to be less rigid but are they? contemporary wives' identity negotiations mapped onto both betty crocker and betty friedan but remained anchored in the betty crocker image. feminist media studies, 2017 in this article we position gendered affluence as a representational trend in dramatic comedies (e.g., sex and the city [satc]) and docusoaps (e.g., the real housewives [trh]) that coalesces around themes like hyper femininity, nouveau riche values, and conspicuous lifestyle. through our analysis we suggest that institutional practices (identity politics, cybernetic commodification, and post feminist technological interactivity) situated in a neoliberal context and a remediated environment enable the systematic reproduction of gendered affluence in the broader landscape of women's television. the process of remediation is used as a lens to examine how the docusoap differs from (the immediacy of mediated self performance) and resembles (the hypermediacy of mediated irony and post feminist interactivity) the fictional portrayals of gendered affluence found in dramatic comedies like satc. our case analysis of trh demonstrates the specific way non fictional portrayals of gendered affluence are transforming genre (via an ethos of affluence and a consumerist ethic) and artfully maintaining the status quo in terms of gendered, raced, and classed intersections. ultimately we argue that the docusoap is accomplishing this in a remediated environment that promotes a neoliberal agenda via affective engagement grounded in mediated self performance and rational disengagement grounded in mediated irony. 2017 desperate housewives, created by marc cherry and aired on the abc channel for eight seasons, is considered a representation of gender, specifically femininity, on the television (bignell, 2008). its plot focuses on the lives of four women (bree van de kamp, lynette scavo, gabriel solis and susan delfino) who represent the internal struggles of the average woman, such as disempowerment, restrictions, and the confusing relationships of modern women in society (coward, 2006; sayeau, 2006; morgan, 2007). with the emergence of the feminist movement, it is skeptical on how the series portray the four female protagonists when viewed through the lens of feminist perspective. therefore, the purpose of this study is to critically analyze the women’s roles in the series by using feminist theory as a lens. the eighth season of the series was selected since this season is the latest and shows the conclusion of all the characters. the results of the analysis showed all aspects of women&#39;s role... loading preview sorry, preview is currently unavailable. you can download the paper by clicking the button above. time &amp; society, 2015 time & society, 2015 2009 feminist moments: reading feminist texts, ed. kathy smits and susan bruce, 2015 gender studies, 2020 journal of popular film and television feminism & psychology, 2003 2018 television and new media, 2018 2006 2021 australian feminist studies, 2000 legacy, 2008 advances in journalism and communication, 2013 gender & history, 2010 interdisciplinary studies in literature and environment, 2016 feminist media studies, 2013 journal: "genre en séries: cinéma, télévision, médias", no. 5

i write feature stories about contemporary american life. i spend my time traipsing around, always curious and frequently baffled. i am from harrisburg, pa. and majored in linguistics. i have worked at the times since 2018. i previously worked for the style section of the times, at gq and at marshalls, the off price department store. as a times journalist, i follow the standards in the times’s ethical journalism handbook. i care obsessively about getting things right. i strive for my work to be accurate and fair. i do not accept gifts, money or favors in exchange for coverage. the times pays for any costs related to my work. email: caity.weaver@nytimes.com for my whole life, i’ve been a hard core sweets junkie. could a spa help me quit in a week? by caity weaver every year, santa fe incinerates a giant puppet of zozobra   a ritual meant to purge anxiety and promote a reset. by caity weaver inside an intractable problem inside america’s change purses. by caity weaver few things symbolize our national dysfunction as much as this accursed coin, which we mint by the millions because it’s too worthless to spend. by caity weaver producers selected three families to mimic late 19th century homesteaders over five months. the resulting quarrels make the “real housewives” seem tame. by caity weaver when you lend your likeness to a nationwide ad campaign, things don’t always go perfectly. just ask milana vayntrub. by caity weaver a polo shirt, a white apron and a retro hairdo changed an actor’s life forever. by caity weaver the action star has gone to great lengths to avoid the press for more than a decade. but maybe our writer could track him down anyway? by caity weaver our columnist reviews the day’s puzzle. warning: contains spoilers! by caity weaver on visiting morocco with a group travel company that promised to build “meaningful friendships” among its youngish clientele. by caity weaver

this site is made possible by member support. 💞 big thanks to arcustech for hosting the site and offering amazing tech support. when you buy through links on kottke.org, i may earn an affiliate commission. thanks for supporting the site! kottke.org. home of fine hypertext products since 1998. 🍔 💀 📸 😭 🕳️ 🤠 🎬 🥔 loved caity weaver’s letter of recommendation for the only reality show i’ve ever really loved: pbs’s frontier house. “next to the unflappable glenns, the clunes are revealed to be feckless, flighty, highfalutin’ crybabies.” sort by: thread   thread . latest . faves hello! in order to comment or fave, you need to be a current kottke.org member. if you'd like to sign up for a membership to support the site and join the conversation, you can explore your options here. existing members can sign in here. if you're a former member, you can renew your membership. note: if you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions that you have installed on your browser...sometimes they can interfere with the memberful links. still having trouble? email me! in order to comment or fave, you need to be a current kottke.org member. check out your options for renewal. this is the name that'll be displayed next to comments you make on kottke.org; your email will not be displayed publicly. i'd encourage you to use your real name (or at least your first name and last initial) but you can also pick something that you go by when you participate in communities online. choose something durable and reasonably unique (not "me" or "anon"). please don't change this often. no impersonation. note: i'm letting folks change their display names because the membership service that kottke.org uses collects full names and i thought some people might not want their names displayed publicly here. if it gets abused, i might disable this feature. if you feel like this comment goes against the grain of the community guidelines or is otherwise inappropriate, please let me know and i will take a look at it. hello! in order to leave a comment, you need to be a current kottke.org member. if you'd like to sign up for a membership to support the site and join the conversation, you can explore your options here. existing members can sign in here. if you're a former member, you can renew your membership. note: if you are a member and tried to log in, it didn't work, and now you're stuck in a neverending login loop of death, try disabling any ad blockers or extensions that you have installed on your browser...sometimes they can interfere with the memberful links. still having trouble? email me!

%pdf 1.5 %âãïó 3686 0 obj<> endobj xref 3686 7 0000000016 00000 n 0000002021 00000 n 0000000436 00000 n 0000002145 00000 n 0000002277 00000 n 0000002469 00000 n 0000002584 00000 n trailer <<9b551f96e34e564aa6bf3d6f49027af2>]>> startxref 0 %%eof 3688 0 obj<>stream xúìxmlsw~o{[n¡w 1rm´duàø2xk2¬l6lêr[ õà"lãáæu¥d:e2âêfôs§¥eeáá~l7íésîó~<ïé{ 4ô¾`c 0 8h$«(a&i(çfò0pr1å ©$% û©$ 7ùhylaã$x@z2è sh­hå<£(tjzâ45(¤<¼i ¢ð c`*ªdl"wb¢ðâsèl6!j*q è*nrà¸z×4]@d3è®pãrt"ur7§«¡$iâã ei§4y¡¦/® ú4¯pwiì~çã´öa ÷ ¬¦$yu¨uÿlê[c·{óïµîíoq>êm[¥qp?àç;«)²k[âãy»óu¶nùvõwç§«ò<¸íúêµïx÷nëùº®õ;ùæáïùîk~ë zîwe­]*jo¶¯¸8ófûce®6üòðyýëé9 úí¼koesd3³ø¶c'ûöi§íß]èù~ãieõiéí?fô¶«f¬½ñ~ìî{úó]dª÷ú"q³s¹®º+¢¥ ÷jìü¬8ýbæçìømg]`û rí]vc×ôoü[2º]sêécïè®óõï8ôöþ^ eå9m«­%^
what to watch supported by letter of recommendation producers selected three families to mimic late 19th century homesteaders over five months. the resulting quarrels make the “real housewives” seem tame. by caity weaver reality tv has become the victim of its own domination. today it is all but impossible to find participants unlearned in the folkways of reality television. a “real housewives” viewer understands the show as not a documentary about women’s lives but an improvisatory melodrama whose characters strive to be depicted favorably in a documentary about women’s lives. they watch because it is funny, infuriating and at times harrowing to observe people, consumed with awareness of being filmed, trying to give the impression that they are not thinking almost exclusively about being filmed. at one time, though, watching reality tv was more pruriently thrilling. closer to the feeling of spying. the earliest content was shocking because it confirmed that people really acted that way: maliciously, idiotically, obliviously. the most riveting reality tv, therefore, must be excavated from the genre’s infancy: somewhere in the brief window between the first season of “the real world” and the second season of “the real housewives of beverly hills.” the purest stuff   the 190 proof stuff   comes from the 1880s, by way of 2001. that was the year pbs producers selected three families to spend five months living in montana, mimicking, as faithfully as possible, the experience of late 19th century homesteaders. the resulting six episodes make up the most diabolically entertaining television ever created: “frontier house.” every great reality tv ingredient is abundant: a high degree of interpersonal conflict, a prison of one’s own making, characters who invite snap judgment and   crucially   reality. what makes “frontier house” sublime is the variety of ways in which reality manifests: fourth walls are pulverized as participants try to outfox production. one mother’s right to take (period inauthentic) birth control pills is debated. surreally, the sept. 11 attacks occur during filming; the cast is permitted to read newspaper coverage. it is a testament to man’s ability to drive his neighbor insane that even in severely rugged conditions, and with hundreds of acres of perilous wilderness in play, tiffs between and among the members of two families provide most of the excitement. the first episode establishes the glenns, from tennessee, as the viewer surrogate. “we represent the majority of people in america,” says karen glenn, a sensible school nurse.