Real Life
Over the
past 30 years we have seen the rise and fall of reality TV. From Big Brother
over Survivor to, well, anything really. I say fall, because I sense the genre has
gotten tired and the shows I used to watch are either cancelled or degraded
beyond what I care to watch. But there was a time where reality TV was something
of the future and the idea trying to film real life was novel and even futuristic.
Early attempts was made with Cinema Verité, but the first reality shows as we
would recognize it appeared in the seventies and the movie “Real Life” is very
much a response to this novel idea.
The
question “Real Life” asks is how real is reality TV really when you consider
how intrusive it is to be filmed and how conscious the subjects are of being
filmed. Then there is the obvious agenda of those producing the show. They need
good TV, something the average viewer will want to watch and is reality
interesting enough in itself or does it need a bit of… encouragement.
“Real Life”
is a comedy so of course it gets pretty extreme. The director of this project
to film a family throughout a year is comedian Albert Brooks as himself. I was
not familiar with him, but apparently he was a name on Saturday Night Live. His
agenda is to make a fun show, but he has very little understanding of anything
else including the alleged scientific angle on this “experiment”. This they
make a lot out of: involving a famous research institute and assigning psychologists
to follow the family is supposed to lend credibility to the experiment, but
because this is a spoof movie, we see a straight faced selection process that is
entirely ludicrous. The researchers are not much better than the director.
The Yeager
family appears like a standard family of four, but it is soon clear that each
of them has their own idea of why they are in this project and this is not at
all coordinated.
So, with a
director out of sync with his own project, a consulting partner disconnected
from reality and a family that is highly conscious of being filmed, this can
only go one way and it does so… fast.
Knowing what
we do today about reality TV it is difficult not to see this movie as prescient.
When we laugh at it today, it is because it gets so much right, 20-30 years
ahead of its time, not unlike “Network”. These are all the things that are
wrong with reality TV and also why people see it anyway. The total meltdown,
conflicts on set and setups that just have to have been artificially
introduced. I think most of us are convinced by now that there is not much
reality left.
If we take
away this hindsight and try to watch this with 1979 glasses on, I am not so
certain it is working as well. Sure it is hilariously funny that the director
sends his crew with the father for a horse operation rather than film the
daughters communion because it has more drama, and to watch Brooks displaying
his complete lack of understanding for the researchers work, but the tone gets
a bit shrill at times and there may be a little too much slapstick here for the
basic idea to truly work. Certainly, the illusion that this is seriously meant
is quickly lost when Brooks ends his introduction speech to the local community
with a song and a big band. Or to say this in other words, I love the idea here
but I was not laughing as much as I think I was supposed to.
Perhaps its
value today is mostly that the real world caught up with what was intended as a
spoof and maybe that is enough.
In any
case, I love that there is room for comedies on the List.
Real Life is funny, but it's not often "laugh out loud" funny. That's kind of true of a lot of Albert Brooks in general. That's also the problem with him--you have to really work at why he's funny, and that's not always a palatable task.
ReplyDeleteI cannot say I know enough of Albert Brooks to say if I like or get his type of comedy. This may be the only movie of his I have watched that I know of. I like underplayed humor and I like that we are not getting it in our face. In this case though I think the idea is more amusing than the result. Why it is so I am not certain. If it is the illusion that bursts, if Brooks is actually too slapstick or if there is simply limits to how far you can take this joke. Smarter people than me must be the judge of that. My laughs come mostly from the cynical knowledge that what Brooks do for comedy is disturbingly close to what actual producers do in modern reality shows.
DeleteYou've now passed me by. I now have three more films I've decided to watch for 78: Interiors, The Chant of Jimmy Blacksmith and the Tree of Wooden Clogs. I love Albert Brooks (I hope Lost in America is on the list) and I'm really looking forward to this one. I've seen several of the fly on the wall family documentaries so I think I will be able to relate.
ReplyDeleteTree of Wooden Clogs is an interesting movie. If you have not watched it already, I think you will like it. I do not know Interiors, so I look forward to read your review.
DeleteI would like to see more from Albert Brook, if for no other reason that I know very little about him