As it's the last series, I thought I may as well tune into Big Brother tonight. See what's going on, what the characters are like this final year and so on.
I lasted eight minutes.
Once I'd listened to two different housemates discussing whether it is possible to die of flatulence, in two separate conversations, I'd had enough. It wasn't so much the banality of the topic that irritated me, but the pseudo-naive voice and manner adopted by the conversationalists, evidently under the impression that such gormless ramblings would somehow endear them to a reality-hardened public.
Nowhere is the theory that reality television has completely lost touch with its core concept better illustrated than on Big Brother. They might be significantly cheaper and more pliable/desperate than the average actor, and they might spout gems of dickheadedness on a half-hourly basis without the need for pricey scriptwriters, but the contestants on Big Brother are the Robert de Niros and Meryl Streeps of Stockton-on-Tees.
For the last 10 years, these people have been studying the changing face of the reality show winner with a dedication that might have been better spent elsewhere, such as on developing a sense of self-respect. Now that the final ever series of Big Brother has brought no-marks swarming out of the woodwork, all desperate to get that last stab at overnight fame for doing nothing, the cast of this year's show are more plastic than the contents of Madame Tussaud's bathroom bin.
Of course people have wanted to get on telly ever since the medium first elbowed its way into sitting rooms across the globe, but Big Brother was the true mothership which spawned a billion scouts, feeling their way further and further into the population with every passing hour. Hordes of wannabe Wags and boy band gonks ran screaming towards the alien crafts each year, begging to be taken aboard and their faces beamed across the globe to the blanket adoration of all those who espied them. The fact that the public reaction was more generally, at best, utter indifference and at worst, outright hostility that persisted throughout living memory just because someone once did something unwise with a wine bottle, has done nothing to deter these attention-seeking dimwits.
It might sound cruel to tar them all with the same brush and make out they are all weirdos who are simply desperate to jump on the celebrity bandwagon and become famous just for being famous. Some claim to just want 'the experience' and never mind the media possibilities that inevitably follow the more successful housemates, even though these periods of press interest tend to be shorter than an episode of Emmerdale.
But come on - this is hardly the behaviour of a sane individual, is it? To give up all your privacy, dignity and anonymity (not for long, granted) in exchange for a pop at winning £100,000 just doesn't seem remotely justifiable to the average person possessing a modicum of self-respect. An excruciating half-hour trying to outwit fellow smartypants on some daytime quiz show would be just about the level most people would consider, if the potential reward was big enough to make being ineptly insulted by Anne Robinson worth the embarrassment.
It is no coincidence that while most of the contestants on things like Going For Gold were swivel-eyed goons who looked ecstatic to win £50 and a button, the people appearing on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire generally look like they could tie their own shoelaces. Because the potential prize on offer was infinitely worth briefly, and in a respectable environment, giving up their anonymity - which, for most people, is one of their most precious assets.
Although we might all sigh and envy the Hollywood stars on MTV Cribs, we don't really want to be them. We might like to attain a high level of respect and acclaim in our chosen field, but we don't want to get papped outside the Co-op and have our cellulite thighs splashed across the Daily Star every other week. What we want is financial freedom, something which only shedloads of cash can bring and unfortunately, having a famous arse can often seem a quicker route to riches than building a business empire or winning a Nobel Prize.
But most ordinary people wouldn't go down that route. They would rather accept that they will never be able to quit work or own their own personal island, than give up their right to poo in private. And this is where Big Brother contestants and their ilk differ in a bone-chilling way. When humankind has spent hundreds of thousands of years establishing an etiquette and a code of basic civil rights, most people refuse to retreat to caveman conditions just for the sake of cash. If someone came up to me and offered me £100,000 to pose spread-eagled across the centre pages of Playboy (you never know, it could happen), I'd say no. That's not to cast aspersions on women who do choose to do that, but it goes against my personal moral code. So there's no way I'd give millions of viewers a flash of my lady garden for free.
But even this is missing the point, because the Big Brother hopefuls aren't playing for money. They are playing for fame, for attention, for a shot at a free ride. And just as £100,000 doesn't buy you very much these days, neither does your pride.
So I won't be shedding any tears for the demise of Big Brother. Once a nightmarish vision of the future, it is now a tedious and worn out part of our televisual past. And long may it stay there.
No comments:
Post a Comment