The Family

[diggedy derek]

This is extremely compelling TV – even though I'd determined not to watch it, now I can't stop.

Channel 4 at its best, I'd say. Not something I've been tempted to say for the last six years or so.

[wingco]

The Family

I have written exactly the same thing for the grauniad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/tvandradioblog/2008/sep/17/realitytv.channel4

Although what I have seen is the second episode, I think.

[evilC]

The Family

diggedy derek wrote:

This is extremely compelling TV – even though I'd determined not to watch it, now I can't stop.

Channel 4 at its best, I'd say. Not something I've been tempted to say for the last six years or so.

Y'see, I've vowed the same thing ...and succeeded in my abstinence.

So tell me, chaps - what is it about this that is so compelling? Is it more than just watching a bunch of people on couches who might as well be staring into large mirrors?

To me, the concept just seems like 'Big Brother in your own home', i.e. another way of getting people to put their own lives on hold whilst staring at the (pretty much identical) lives of others. How does it transcend that, if at all?

As I said, I've admittedly only seen the trailers, but they had me writhing with frustration.

[Mumpo]

The Family

Moreover, it represents the point at which reality TV has come full circle

I'd be pleased to read that statement if if it meant that The Family had become the final reality TV show, but a truer reflection might simply have been 'reality TV eats itself'.

I saw 'The Hughes' on breakfast TV this morning, all styled and wardrobed and completely at ease in front of the cameras, and I couldn't help think of the selection process that saw them chosen for the series, and how much of a consideration might have been given to the visual allure of the mother. As if, of course, such considerations would be assigned a high priority.

[cackaforte]

The Family

Have to agree with Mumpo, they seemed too much at ease with the cameras in their home so it felt a bit staged at times. Plus the use of a Kate Nash song at the end was very annoying but will probably give it another go next week.

[ian.64]

The Family

I saw 'The Hughes' on breakfast TV this morning, all styled and wardrobed and completely at ease in front of the cameras, and I couldn't help thinking of the selection process that saw them chosen for the series, and how much of a consideration might have been given to the allure of the mother. As if, of course, such considerations would be a high priority.

Nailed. It's a bit of a cliche to look back at the early years of television 'fly-on-the-wall' documentary and say that its participants were honest in their spontaneity in front of the cameras, but I'd suggest the public has become quite camera-savvy after all the years of watching (and appearing in) Big Brother (and perhaps crap like the X-Factor and Pop Idol) and can exhibit a more relaxed attitude before the prying lens. The era of the Great British Public letting it all hang out before the cameras has probably nurtured a strange kind of professional attitude when a camera crew's in town.

[wingco]

The Family

Mumpo, Ian, it did occur to me that they might be displaying signs of camera-consciousness (I've actually only seen the second episode, which comes out next week). But people who participate in long haul, fly on wall things like this always say there quickly comes a point where they forget the camera is there. Also, if they were putting on a controlled performance (which all of us are doing in life to some extent in any case), why choose to portray yourselves like the Hughes do?

[ian.64]

The Family

I'll come clean and say that I haven't seen one minute of The Family. It may be excellent viewing, and I'm not going to slag off something I haven't seen, but I think the 'reality' kind of television has been so debased and mutated into a hundred wanky forms - as you pointed out, wincgo - that there's a shrug of the shoulders and a resigned acceptance to any such product that has 'reality' stamped all over it. The era of just pointing at something or anyone with a camera and hoping something happens is an empty experience to go through at times.

(That said, nature programmes do the former all the time, so I may have shot myself in the foot with that one).

[Guest]

The Family

From Wingo's otherwise excellent article:

There are early, turn-of-the 90s cult classics such as a First Tuesday documentary on ex-boxer and ex-convict Chris Needham, both of which can be seen in full on YouTube and which you are implored to watch

Poor Chris...

[Gangster Octopus]

The Family

Poor quoting. It should read :

There are early, turn-of-the 90s cult classics such as a First Tuesday documentary on ex-boxer and ex-convict Paul Sykes or In Bed with Chris Needham, both of which can be seen in full on YouTube and which you are implored to watch.

[Wyatt Earp]

The Family

Poor subbing for the Web, by the look of it.

[Nishlord]

The Family

Man, I wish I could see the original The Family again.

[wingco]

The Family

Ach, that is poor subbing - that was a reference to Paul Sykes. Could have sworn it was in piece as i saw it in the guardian too.

[Guest]

The Family

I don't think the new Family sees reality TV come full circle at all. There are three very modern aspects to it that make it very, very different to the 1974 show, and make it both more and less "real".

The first is the greatly advanced technology. The 1974 show would have used hulking, whirring cameras, sat in the middle of the room like chrome and plastic elephants. Nobody featured could ever have truly stopped noticing them, and being filmed would in itself have been a great novelty. The Hughes family had their house rigged with hidden cameras which, after a few days, would easily be forgotten.

However, against this is the fact that they are familiar with reality shows and, having volunteered/been selected for this one, are the sort of people who will consciously provide entertainment for their public. This was what made Big Brother more interesting in its second, third and fourth series than it was in its first: to begin with it was footage of ordinary people who had more or less forgotten that they were being filmed and were naive about its consequences. Then it was footage of fairly ordinary people who knew they were being filmed and consequently changed their behaviour slightly. Then it was footage of people who knew both how people look on reality TV and how the audience reacts, and further refined their behaviour. Eventually it collapsed because that watching me watching you watching me feedback loop turned into the unbearable high-pitched squeal of thick wannabes who were nothing like any real people you've ever met. The Family certainly has the element of watching apparently real, apparently unguarded people who nevertheless applied for, and now know they're participating in, an entertainment programme.

However, against this is the point I thought was the glaring omission in wingco's piece. Just as the subjects' knowledge of what they're participating in is toothpaste that can't be put back in the tube, so is our knowledge of how such programmes are made. When the 1974 Family aired, or even when Big Brother 1 was broadcast, audiences more or less thought that what they were seeing was what had happened. But now we know that what we see has been carefully selected by the producers from hours of footage - 24-hour Big Brother on E4 was what alerted reality audiences to this. So the new Family isn't "real" at all - it was created from more than 6,000 hours of film and is, as most of the audience will be aware, a narrative constructed by the programme-makers that's almost as authored as a scripted drama. Or in The Family's case, a comedy - it is (successfully) constructed like a comedy drama, complete with quotable lines by oblivious comedy characters ("Can we stop this now? We've got roast duck for dinner") and redemptive, serious scenes resolving comical conflicts.

I thought it was great, and the format is retro-simple, but to say that it returns to the roots of reality TV is, I think, insufficient- reality TV can never do that. The constantly changing, second-guessing relationship between reality TV and the audience is what makes it sometimes fascinating but mostly self-destructive and ever more cheap and contemptible.

[Guest]

The Family

That post brought to you by an ill-advised liquid lunch.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

The Family

I thought this was going to be that roddy doyle tv series that was possibly the most shocking thing I've ever seen on television

[wingco]

The Family

This reply is brought to you courtesy of an ill-advised liquid supper!

I would actually agree with you, Horse, that The Family doesn't technically, strictly bring things back "full circle" insofar as there is no such thing as a perfect circle. The only way it represents a return is that is a reality TV show about a family, interacting and squabbling in the way that families kind of do. That's all I really wanted to say.

As for your point about the Wilkins's consciousness of the cameras in the 70s as opposed to the Hughes, I think this is unknowable - but i would suggest that the Wilkins managed to become less conscious of the cameras, despite their obtrusiveness, than you suggest, and did at least succeed in providing a documentary of authentic human behaviour unstilted and unaffected by their presence. Had they not, I don't think the show would have been broadcastable. As for the Hugheses barely noticing the cameras, I agree. Which to me contradicts the idea that they would have behaved in a savvy/selfconscious/aware they were on telly mode.

As to your point about the material of the Hughes series being shaped and themed, I don't have a problem with that. Indeed, I'd rather than than the random 24 hour footage of Big Brother.

I'm least certain about the idea of the Hughes belonging to this generation so steeped in reality TV that they "know how to behave" when in front of the cameras themselves. I am sure it would have been, for them, a very novel and unfamiliar experience being filmed like that, as I'm sure it would have been for any of us. There's a difference between watching reality TV and being its subject.

In any case, I'm not concerned about any of this. Even if they were pulling off some conscious, meditated facsimile of family behaviour, it's a bloody convincing one. What counts for me is the outcome, rather than the dubious issue of how "real" it all may or may not be.

[Spearmint Rhino]

The Family

The womenfolk of the family all look like Jade Goody with a touch of Dave 'Showaddywaddy' Bartram thrown in.

They were unusually touchy-feely, I thought. I'm not saying they were playing up the physical contact for the cameras - I dare say they really are like that, all the time - but I've never known a real-life family to be stroking and hugging each other as often as this lot.

The fucking Kate Nash moment felt very forced (probably on the part of the camera-aware protagonists), and the Neil Diamond montage was pure cheese (more the fault of the programme-makers).

[Harbinger of Hope]

The Family

"The Family" is the same as most reality tv. A copy of a copy of a copy.

I would say it resembles more the most recent and popular program of this exact genre. "The Osbornes", due to (as someone already mentioned) the revolution in cameras,editing,production,etc.

Reality TV was best long ago when it was cutting edge and different. These days most reality TV ideas are cloned 20 times. This has lead to almost blanket coverage.

Mrs Tyson loves reality police shows. And oh my god has she got soo many to choose from (especially if you have sky). The list is endless. Personally they bore me rigid, as most reality TV does. I watch TV to escape reality, not watch some fat bird with a bee hive cleaning a crack-heads flat, thats not seen a vacuum for 8 years.

Since when did the mundane become entertainment? My head tells me reality TV is alive and well, mainly due to budget constraints. It is very, very cheap TV, and producers have seemingly persuaded the public to accept it willingly. We have been spoon-fed this crap and told to like it, as if we are children.

I have hated all Cheap TV, though it has had many faces. Wether it be the many cookery, DIY, Talent or 'Everyday job' shows.

For god sake stop flogging dead horses. Can't we have just one of each?!

[ian.64]

The Family

But now we know that what we see has been carefully selected by the producers from hours of footage - 24-hour Big Brother on E4 was what alerted reality audiences to this. So the new Family isn't "real" at all - it was created from more than 6,000 hours of film and is, as most of the audience will be aware, a narrative constructed by the programme-makers that's almost as authored as a scripted drama.

Private Eye's telly column touches on a similar point:

"Adding to the artificiality is the decision to impose a narrative on each episode, as a sitcom would. So programme one is called 'Life Begins At Forty' and centres on the depression that Jane Hughes feels as she approaches a landmark anniversary. The air of contrivance is increased by every production decision. When we see Jane and hubby Simon whispering in the dark, as he assures her that 40 isn't so awful, we know that they must know they are being recorded for a short time before the cameras are switched off to leave them for sleep or sex. Even in the wretched state TV has reached, it's unimaginable that they would have been filmed secretly throught the night and then this single scene extracted."

[Guest]

The Family

The only way it represents a return is that is a reality TV show about a family, interacting and squabbling in the way that families kind of do. That's all I really wanted to say.

Oh indeed. People do live in ordinary houses with their families in a way that they don't live in a specially constructed compound in Elstree with strangers. I just felt that there was quite a bit more to say than that.

As for your point about the Wilkins's consciousness of the cameras in the 70s as opposed to the Hughes, I think this is unknowable - but i would suggest that the Wilkins managed to become less conscious of the cameras, despite their obtrusiveness, than you suggest

Yes, point taken. But the novelty of it might actually have made it easier for them. I think that goes to my point about the subjects of reality TV being savvier about it: the Wilkins weren't too aware of the consequences of being filmed.

There was an example of this on BBC4's excellent recent series What Happened Next, which revisited the subjects of classic documentaries from years ago. In one, the headmaster featured in 1982's Kingswood: A Comprehensive School conceded that by modern standards, he was crazy to allow cameras to film the interview process for the school's new deputy head. But, he said, back then he simply hadn't appreciated what it would mean.

On the one hand, the Hughes might have forgotten about the cameras, because they're hidden. But on the other, they'll never really forget, because the reality genie is irreversibly out of the bottle. It's hard to say which of those is more influential.

I am sure it would have been, for them, a very novel and unfamiliar experience being filmed like that, as I'm sure it would have been for any of us. There's a difference between watching reality TV and being its subject.

Sure, but this is key to what I'm saying. The Hughes know that they're subjects. The mother has said that she wanted to do the programme to show that ordinary families still exist and still flourish - ie she had a reason for doing it. She volunteered, knowing that it was a platform for her, because she's seen similar programmes. Saying that it's just as novel and unfamiliar for her as it would be for me or you doesn't hold water - because we would never have applied to be on the show, and wouldn't have been selected if we had. The Family isn't footage of an ordinary family caught off guard - it's footage of the sort of family who apply to be on TV. Which is to say, not an ordinary (or "real") family at all.

The fucking Kate Nash moment felt very forced (probably on the part of the camera-aware protagonists)

Possibly, but they only have to do it once during the months of filming. The producers chose to show it, and to place it where it was in the narrative.

[ian.64]

The Family

For the power of what repercussions the filmed interview can have for its participants, I'm immediately reminded of Roger Graef's Police series from the early eighties, where two police officers interviewed a rape victim with a powerful lack of insensitivity and consideration. The two coppers almost casual destruction of the victim's esteem - a play for the cameras to display their imagined cleverness and control of the situation - backfired hideously for them.

[Mumpo]

The Family

Saw the second installment (the one that was the subject of Wingco's Guardian piece) last night. It's soap, that's all. Glorified soap. Despite the strains of classical music playing in the background (how classy), it was like watching two episodes of Eastenders tacked together.

[Guest]

The Family

I got bored of it in any case, but: what the fuck are they thinking, getting the eldest daughter to do a scripted, post hoc voiceover? Way to undermine your own format!

[wingco]

The Family

Nothing deserves to be compared to Eastenders. Compare something to Nazi Germany, fair enough, but never to Eastenders. That is in truly bad taste.

I had slight misgivings about the voiceover too but it wasn't the sort of thing that was so intrusive as to capsize the entire project.

It may be that over the long haul, The Family will become indeed become boring as a week in, week out proposition. But right now I find the weird mother/father dynamic in particular morbidly intriguing.