Unreality of Reality TV Revealed in 90s Sitcom

The other day I came across a rerun of the "Our 15 Minutes" episode of the sitcom Mad About You (1995) that hilariously shows all the different ways cameras and the prospect of being broadcast affect our behavior--to the point where we get confused about what it even means to be real and honest.

Jamie can't get a word in to warn her sister about the cameras documenting her embarrassing behavior.

The episode presents an amazing opportunity to discuss what sort of "reality" can be represented on reality TV shows, how people act on camera (especially when they know lots of people might see them in that moment), and how we feel about living with cameras around us all the time and the possibility of others sharing moments in our lives whenever. The show plays with relationship humor around a newlywed white couple in New York City, Paul (Paul Reiser) and Jamie (Helen Hunt), a documentary filmmaker and a public relations specialist. The episode begins with Jamie returning to their apartment to find Paul setting up cameras in every room to record 15 minutes of their lives for a PBS special on ordinary New Yorkers, "Just our lives, that's all they want to see. 15 minutes...A slice of life." Needless to say, they can't just "be themselves" as comedy ensues from their efforts to be interesting, edgy, and smart while hiding the messiness and mundanity of their lives. Try keeping a list of all the ways the cameras influence the characters, and the ways that cameras make problems when characters act truthful and authentic. Got your columns set up? Okay...check it out!
 
After the jump, I'll share my list and some resources for organizing viewing (times, scenes, themes, notes) as well as discussion and activity ideas. It's amazing to think about how this episode hits on so many of the issues with authenticity in reality TV when the genre was about to blow up with popularity and prominence. "Our 15 Minutes" aired around the same time of the third season of MTV's The Real World just before its success opened the floodgates of reality shows that have become dominant in television today. It's a fascinating case to study with a media studies or English class talking about fiction/non-fiction or documentary/entertainment, especially in comparison to contemporary examples. It also makes a great text following reflection and discussion of our own feelings about how reality TV today portrays reality, and about the (omni)presence of cameras, and video-sharing, in our lives. That's where I would start with high school or college students (although frank talk about sex--mild by today's standards--ensues before the couple can warn Jamie's sister about the cameras, which may be a little racy for some high school groups--fair warning! Skip it if you must 15:30-17:30).

Classing up the Winter Olympics with Onion Satire

With all the TV coverage focused on national identities and the satirical news taking shots at the whiteness of competitors while sending up the anti-homosexual policies of host-nation Russia amidst all of the usual gay stereotypes associated with the winter games (see any Colbert Report or Daily Show over the past few weeks), it's easy to overlook the socio-economic issues involved in the Olympic dream. Bring class back into your class discussion of media representation and reality with this poignant headline and short article from the masters of satire at the Onion (click link to see article):

Winter Olympics Inspire Nation’s Youth To Try Sports Their Parents Can’t Afford

Who can afford to go for the gold?

Just before this article cracked me up, I watched NBC do a short piece tallying the cost of Bode Miller's skiing equipment, which they estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's not like the money issue is subtle in Olympic coverage--with all the sponsors, the talk about the costs of bobsleds, etc. However, seldom do we see the equipment costs connected with the opportunities for people to compete or enjoy participating in the featured sports (and even more rare is any connection made between such class issues and nationality, or race, or gender). So, here's an easy way to start the conversation through a bit of satire about media construction of heroes, and unreachable desires--and the Onion's framing within parent-child tensions around money makes this an accessible piece for middle school through college age students in social studies, English, or media studies settings.

Ask a Slave: Historical Re-enactment Survivor Makes Ignorance Look Stupid

In Philadelphia public schools, where I used to teach, African American History is not relegated to Black History Month, but is a required course for graduation alongside World History and U.S. History. Inevitably, teachers must respond to questions about the need for such a course, usually from a non-African American student or parent. Well, Azie Mira Dungey has created a perfect response in her comedy web series, Ask a Slave. The short videos feature ignorant and insensitive questions from tourists to Lizzie Mae, George and Martha Washington's slave whom Dungey played as a historical actor at Mount Vernon. The videos are embellished re-enactments of real interactions Dungey had with tourists addressing her in character as a historical figure--that's a cool enough whirlwind of representation and reality to fuel a full class period's discussion in itself! But the real jumping off point for using this series in teaching and learning is at the intersections of race, gender and history.


The comedy comes in part from the facepalm-inducing outrageousness of the actual questions addressed to Dungey (as Lizzie Mae), and develops in the answers and looks she gives the camera to highlight the tourists' ignorance.  So, the videos call out ignorance about history, but what else do they do? What do they say about our dominant historical narratives about our "founding fathers"? Is it even possible to respectfully address and ask questions of a slave? What knowledge, empathy and sensitivity would remedy the ignorance in the tourists' questions? What media messages and experiences could deliver such knowledge? The videos are ripe for media literacy analysis through the lens of race and gender representation, and they all suggest a need for historical knowledge that your learners could seek and create media to communicate. However, many other discussions need to happen around these videos, as well. For educators, is it harmful to the spirit of inquiry in your learning environment to show videos that shame people for asking questions? Can the portrayal of (mostly) White ignorance do more than instigate paralyzing White guilt and shame, and reactionary righteousness or dissmissiveness? Should we even consider humor as a part of educating about something as difficult, complex, and shameful as the historical institution of slavery? These are great questions for teacher education as well as media studies and social studies classes of high school or college students. But as with any good inquiry about race and representation, it won't be easy.