The 20th Real World, the first SNL and how to destroy everything
Can they really be assembling the cast for the 20th version of "The Real World"?
I think most people my age remember the first season of the Real World (or the popular third season in San Francisco, where many people came aboard) with a sort of awe. Before anybody was using the term "reality television" it did seem revolutionary -- strange, unpredictable, maybe even a little dangerous.
It's the way our parents' generation must have felt about Saturday Night Live -- something that so changed the face, the direction, the very fabric of pop culture that it's hard to imagine what the world would now be like without it.
When you hear the story of how the network insisted that George Carlin wear a suit as host of the first episode of SNL, how he refused and they compromised by letting him wear a suit over a t-shirt -- it seems like science fiction. Could society have ever been so concerned with something like that?
Could something like "Coneheads" have ever been so completely outside the mainstream that people couldn't believe it was on television? Did John Belushi really seem so dangerous? Were average people really offended by the mocking and irreverent impersonation of the president? The whole culture looks like this now.
It's unthinkable that a TV network would care what someone wore hosting Saturday Night Live. Comedians have been making John Belushi seem tame for two generations. Chevy Chase sort of smirkingly making fun of the news for a few minutes every Saturday pales by comparison to John Stewart's Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Politicians now mock THEMSELVES on comedy shows.
And so it is with The Real World.
It's hard to explain to my little sister that at one point the idea of TV cameras following people around and recording their everyday lives was unheard of, that we couldn't imagine it on television when it first aired. Nowadays "follow me around and see what happens" television is the mainstream. It's just what's expected of faded sitcom stars and pop idols who've fallen from grace. Even major stars and (for God's sake) politicians do minor "reality specials" in which they're followed around for a few episodes to air on cable.
But then -- man, it seemed like anything might happen. They were going to put people OF DIFFERENT RACES, RELIGIONS AND SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS together. ON TELEVISION. WITHOUT A SCRIPT. It blew the top of your head off.
And now, of course, it feels ridiculous to say that out loud, to admit that we were so blown away by it. Now it seems so quaint. No one would tune in unless someone was getting "voted off," made to eat something awful without vomiting (oh, what the hell? Go ahead and vomit!) or live in the jungle without food or shelter.
Of course, like all innovations, it was a mixed bag in the end. "The Real World" certainly birthed as many monsters as SNL and is probably indirectly responsible for there being so little great scripted television on network air these days. But most real innovations essentially destroy or make antique those things that came before.
But thinking back to 1992 and the feeling you got when a friend said to you: "So, have you heard about this show? You won't believe it..." -- that still gives you a strange charge.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
But thinking back to 1992 and the feeling you got when a friend said to you: "So, have you heard about this show? You won't believe it..." -- that still gives you a strange charge.
Yeah, but did you really feel that way at the time? Maybe your friends were more cosmopolitan than mine, but at the time most of the kids around me had their TV energies focused on the nuance of "Hey Dude". I mean, we were all of 9 when the show premiered in May of '92. We either didn't notice or didn't care, because simply watching adults be adults was boring to us. I'm aware of the cultural significance of the show, but I had to be made aware once I was a bit older. I remember "The Real World" in the same way that I vaguely remember my parents saying that they planned on voting for Dukakis, and I think the first season of the show I ever really watched was Miami in 1996. I was 13, and watching MTV was what you were supposed to do.
I guess it's similar (though far less important) than the way my sister will remember the events of 9/11, which happened a month after she started kindergarten. She'll know that it was a big deal, but she's not going to feel it.
Posted on October 11, 2007 10:47 AM
Those two shows are similar in two other ways: their popularity depends entirely on a constantly changing cast, and no one I know watches either of them anymore. I mean, the networks are keeping them on T.V. so SOMEONE must be watching them. I just can't provide any evidence to prove it.
My theory on The Real World is that MTV's audience turnover due to age means the kids watching it now don't realize every season is exactly the same as last season. Or that our collective attention spans don't last long enough to realize this fact.
As for SNL, I'm stumped. I don't know why people are watching that show still. Andy Samberg isn't THAT funny.
Posted on October 14, 2007 3:32 PM
"But then -- man, it seemed like anything might happen. They were going to put people OF DIFFERENT RACES, RELIGIONS AND SEXUAL ORIENTATIONS together. ON TELEVISION. WITHOUT A SCRIPT. It blew the top of your head off."
I have a suspicion that The Real World (and MTV in general) was a strong influence on the attitude our generation has about race and sexual orientation. I doubt many people who were fans of the show in its first decade could watch a whole season and still feel at the end like the gay, or black, or Jewish, etc. cast members were inferior humans because of their difference. Maybe because the concept of reality TV was in its infancy, the idea that these were real people you might meet on the street made their experiences really moving. Watching cast members cross boundaries of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. made a lot of people realize (maybe subconsciously, not in an ecstatic epiphany) that such understanding was possible, and that stereotypes weren't always accurate. Of course, this idea seemed more radical to those of us who grew up surrounded by cows and conservative, racist homophobes than it probably did to kids in more liberal communities.
Posted on October 19, 2007 6:11 PM