Do reality TV talent shows such as The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent challenge the concept of being a "Star"? Why might this be so?
“Stars almost never wed or shack up with ordinary folk, and this only reinforces the “us and them”
Talent shows have been around for years; one of the first reality TV shows to air in the U.K was Opportunity Knocks in 1987. Shows like these give chances to the ordinary public to become overnight celebrities. TV ‘stars’ consist of characteristics that the so called ‘passive’ audience aspire to be like. In recent years many winners of talent shows such as Britain’s Got Talent and The X Factor don’t conform to the stereotypical portrayals of ‘stars’. But do the shows really challenge the concept of being a ‘star’ or is it just a marketing strategy? In this essay I will be answering the question: Do reality TV shows such as The X Factor and Britain’s Got Talent challenge the concept of being a ‘star’? Why might this be so?
The first thing to do is to establish, what a star exactly is. Our perception of what makes someone a star has drastically changed according to many critics. Today’s celebrities are merely talentless individuals seeking fame according to Piers Morgan who states in a Guardian article “Jordan, Jodie, Jade, Alicia, Tara, Lady Victoria ... the names trip off the tongue like Marilyn, Ava and Audrey. But none of them can actually act, sing, dance or write” . During the 1950’s the succession of Marilyn Monroe had begun, she became what every man wanted, and what every woman wanted to be. She ticked all the boxes of what a conventional ‘star’ should be “Monroe may have been a wit, a subtle and profound actress, an intelligent and serious woman” [Dyer] but most of all her selling point was her sexuality. Her ‘image’ became a phenomenon, “in the fifties, there were specific ideas of what sexuality meant...and because Marilyn Monroe acted out those specific ideas...she was charismatic, a centre of attraction” [Dyer]. So maybe ‘stars’ are meant to conform to the public’s expectations, but that doesn’t make them a star does it? For whatever the reason Monroe is now an iconic figure and remains to be. Similarly Elvis Presley caused hysteria amongst teenage fans during the 1950’s because of his “blatantly sexual gyrations, particularly the one that got him nicknamed ‘Elvis the Pelvis’” (IMDB). He had the looks, he could sing and he danced the way his fans wanted him to. He conformed to all the expectations of the ‘permissive society’.
There has been an up rise in reality TV shows, Britain’s Got Talent, The X Factor and Got to Dance, to just name a few. They give a chance to ordinary people to show off their talent in hopes to win the show and achieve stardom. The viewers follow the journey of the contestants’ right from the beginning through the auditioning process to the end, where one contestant is crowned the ultimate winner from the viewer’s votes. Through certain media shots and parallel music the production company are able to create a certain feeling amongst their viewers. The very famous ‘sob stories’ on reality shows make us feel sympathy towards the contestants. Having an insight about their lives make us feel that they are similar to us, unlike the conventional stars of the past who carried a sense of mystery with them and made audiences feel that they were special, alienated or ‘stars’. The notion of reality makes us as audiences to expect something that is familiar to us: we expect reality stars to be “Complex, interesting “human beings” whose unique talents and gifts are accompanied by traits that are commonplace and familiar to ordinary people” [Charles Leon]. Winners of shows such as The X factor and Britain’s Got Talent have become revolutionary. The story of Susan Boyle swept across not only national but also international. She became an overnight celebrity through her incredible voice. Initially her presence made people frown, and close up of Piers Morgan showed his disgust in Boyles gyrating. Other shots of the audiences showed people making faces and laughing at her. There was a sense of hegemony and prejudice as the audiences laughed, making the ‘ordinary’ Boyle seem inferior and the judges seem superior. However this was all turned around when her extraordinary voice echoed through the hall and the speakers of the TV sets at home.
Americanisation has changed our perception of beauty. We are repetitively exposed to the same faces, with the petite figure, flawless skin and the amazing talent. Through repetition we start to accept these images to be a part of the norm. The representations of these perfect people become the foundation of our opinions according to Rayner, Wall and Kruger to claim “the effect of these representations is cumulative and, as we saw with stereotypes, they deny the complexity of human existence and reduce it to a basic issue of right or wrong” . But through the revolution of Reality TV we have become accepting of other representations which previously we denied as we were ‘passive’ audiences. Through online forums, and voting, audiences are able to voice their opinions and chose who they accept and reject. This process naturalises the repetition of unconventionally beautiful people. Boyle’s success started to bloom as every aspect of the media wanted a piece of her. Through the gossip in magazines and interviews the viewers of BGT were able to gain some form of personal identification as her private and ordinary life was presented to the public. The first thing that struck people about Susan Boyle was her image. She wasn’t considered to be what we conventionally expect beauty to look like. But with the change from passive audiences to active audiences, more and more people prefer to see someone who they feel reflect ‘reality’. Boyle then went on to coming second in the competition but won the best success she could ask for.
The reason for the shift in acceptance is the revival of not only reality TV but also ‘natural beauty’. Nine in ten women would change the way they look if they had the chance to. Most people lack self confidence due to this reason. However thanks to channel four for their groundbreaking shows, the nation is on its way to recovery. Gok Wan is a fashion icon, a style guru, who has hosted one of the most self esteem raising show: How to Look Good Naked. Wan takes some of the most ‘real’ women who feel low about their looks and sets himself up to making them feel better about their appearances without dieting and cosmetic surgery. The target audience of the show are primarily women and with the show airing every week and more and more stories about women being presented on the show, the public become aware of the issue and soon enough accept that the way people look is inevitable and that people don’t have to look like stereotypical beauties to be beautiful or accepted in society. The copycat theory suggests that as the public are repetitively exposed to something they start to copy this. This is prominent through shows such as The X Factor where the public become the contestants.
However we shouldn’t applaud reality shows just yet. Though we see some winners challenging the stereotypical representations of stars, most winners conform to the stereotypes and some conform to the conventional expectations of a star after taking part on the show. “The trouble with ordinary heroes is that they don't stay ordinary for very long” Susan Boyle transformed in front of our eyes, the comparison of the way she looks can be seen through the contrast of her first audition and her last performance in the competition. This process happened in front of our eyes, so maybe it suggests that we like the idea of having someone ordinary become a star, but we don’t particularly accept their appearance for long?
Hegemonic values are always presented to us on a daily basis. The production company will always try to put their values across to the public. The media “are part of a battleground in which different power elites fight for supremacy in terms of the acceptance of their ideas” . With so many other shows around, every show must try and gain as many viewers as possible by setting views and ideologies which inevitably the passive audience take on board. Though I have previously said that the audiences have become active, but when certain ideologies are represented every week, every year then the audience become passive, where the values are injected into them. On The X Factor’s judging panel there are four respected people. Simon Judge is the boss and with his massive production SyCo TV, he is able to control every aspect of The X Factor production process. This enabled him to present certain hegemonic values yet also seem humble with comments where he commends people for their effort and their past stories.
We are a nation obsessed with celebrities, reading autobiographies, gossip magazines and following celebrities on twitter. I believe that as the ordinary public, we like the fact that stars are different from us. It makes their lives seem more interesting than ours. It’s a sense of escapism to follow the rich and beautiful. The fact that they are different from us makes us like them more, as we are just ‘ordinary’ people and there is nothing sufficiently interesting about us. Although we like the idea of making stars out of the normal public, we’d still rather see people who are true stars, those who conform to and exceed our expectations of a star. Shows such as The X Factor and BGT just give a sense of hope to the public, that they too can become stars (rich and beautiful). I think that even with reality TV shows we see real ordinary people become stars, but they are still the conventional ‘stars’ take Alexandra Burke for instance. She was skinny, beautiful and had an incredible voice from the beginning, which is why she won, people like to see something extraordinary on their TV sets, not something ordinary. We mustn’t forget that reality TV shows are also produced for entertainment values and that’s what people want to see...entertainment.
