While reading the article, the word "institution" used to describe the popular show American Idol strikes me as the most appropriate in capturing the gist of this article. After 8 seasons, it is no surprise that the producers have streamlined their production methods to keep the show still relevant and appealing to its television audience.
I think that the author has succeeded to a large extent in expressing his view about the efficiency of the show. The article covers most parts: the sideline entertainment of the judge's squabbling, the amazing talent that helps attract huge fans, the fact that the show is a good ground for other companies to advertise their brands and how each show is so well-produced that even the live ones look taped. These parts collectively form the "institution" of American Idol that can continue to do so well despite the country going through an economic recession.
However, he does make several assumptions. One being how America chose the most recent winner. Having followed the season and watched the finale as well, i think that America voted not purely based on the voters' personal taste in music. I think that at the finale night, Kris Allen performed slightly better than Adam Lambert and that was what allowed him to win.
He also assumes that roles were assigned to the participants to take on certain personalities. I do not believe this to be completely true. One can only fake a persona for a certain period of time. Even months after the show, the participants still stay true to their character. So is their public character pre-assigned or self-created?
But, I must say, he does construct a solid write-up to show how this show has led the way for many other talent competitions and transformed itself from more than a yearly production to something that is its own "television series".
Thoughts anyone?
Good analysis Elliot!
ReplyDeleteIt was certainly such a well-oiled machine that even years after its first season, "idols" are consistently produced off a machine belt!
What I felt was in stark contrast to the "Asia Spin-offs Wins" article, was that Stanley took facts and ideas from the issues, and using his own persona, crafted a well-thought and expressive article that literally speaks to you like a friend. This made it an enjoyable and easy read that really connects with the reader, a big difference from Boon Chan, who unintentionally distance himself from the reader.
Regarding your question:
"So is their public character pre-assigned or self-created?"
Could it be a bit of both? I am sure you would agree that the contestants already had their own personalities and traits before entering the competition.
Throughout their stay and experience under the menacing limelight, with constant media attention, fans' appreciation and judges' disdain, they have to adopt a totally different way of interacting with the people and things around them.
It is also debatable of what is a "public character" and a "person's character" per se.
=)
Durwin
Both of you make some very interesting comments. I agree that it becomes impossible to recognise the "real" person once a camera is directed at you. We definitely amend our behaviour when we know we are being watched.
ReplyDeleteElliot, it is interesting that you build your analysis on the idea of "insititution". It conjures up dependability, but also staidness - not the excitement and energy that one expects of a reality show. This seems to support Stanley's point: there is a contradiction at the heart of the show.