For 18 years, the host began by asking the primarily female audience, “Would you like to be queen for a day?” And for the next 30/45 minutes, “Queen for a Day” ran on radio, then NBC Television, and on ABC Television, beginning in 1945.
Host Jack Bailey would engage with multiple contestants, as they shared the uniqueness of their individual circumstances, publicly sharing their financial and emotional plight. The more dramatic and dire the straits, the more intense and sustaining was the audience applause meter. The audience applause meter would then lead to the chosen “queen.”
Donned with a crown, robe, and throne, with roses an apt gifted decor and “Pomp and Circumstance” played in the background, the winner’s typical tears were drowned out seemingly only by the announcement of a plethora of prizes. To quote the host in his trademark sign-off: “This is Jack Bailey, wishing we could make every woman a queen, for every single day!”
Friends, welcome to the onset of reality TV.
“Reality TV” is the television genre featuring real-life situations and supposedly real-life people — not actors (… ok… one can decide for themselves if any of the Kardashian’s mimic real life…). What takes place is arguably unscripted (… granted, any regular reality viewer will acknowledge a key suspicion of some moments that are far too uncanny to be totally authentic).
While “Queen for a Day” may have been the beginning of this unique, far-cheaper-to-produce format, reality TV gained steam in the early 90’s in Europe, and then in the U.S. in the late 90’s, as MTV’s “The Real World,” CBS’s “Survivor,” and all the musical “Idols,” biggest somethings, etc. spurred the format on. A whole new genre became accepted television viewing.
My sense is there is no issue in the format being acceptable; the issue is in the acceptance of the television being reality.
It makes this current events, cultural observer wonder…
Are there places we are unknowingly mistaking circumstances, reactions, and relationships as something other than they actually are? Are we thinking something is real that is not?
“Fear Factor” used to seemingly pride itself in creating the most grotesque eating challenge possible. FOX’s “Temptation Island” used to divide actual couples into two locales, filling them each with multiple persons willing to aid in their potential, adulterous stray.
If we accept each somehow as “reality,” does that mean it’s acceptable and honorable human behavior?
Even as a semi-frequent viewer, “Survivor” sometimes reminds me of those grade school kickball days, where there was that punch-in-the-gut feeling for the unpicked kid left standing on the sidelines. And “Big Brother” — geepers — I really don’t need to watch any person 24/7… and if I do, I’m ok if they have a little more clothes on.
My point this day is not to knock reality television. Truth told, my household tends to find many such series quite entertaining. My concern instead is where are these pockets and places where we confuse what’s on TV with reality? Because it’s not… TV’s not… TV’s not always good and true and right… much less even acceptable. My sense, therefore, is that reality TV is totally, completely, unfortunately, inaccurately named.
Last night, by the way, was the conclusion of ABC’s “The Bachelor.” This was their 21st season, of one man — or one woman — choosing between seemingly three zillion, desiring others. Which one would be their soulmate? Which one could he/she propose to? “Real love” is the pursuit… real love is the answer… real love.
Noted, veteran contestant Nick selected beautiful Vanessa to be the one… she wins!! And Nick proposed! They’re in love!!
I’m so happy! It was so sweet, so wonderful… no doubt they’ll make it! I love reality!
(… ok… so I hope it is…)
Respectfully…
AR