Documentary at a Crossroads: Reality TV and the Hybridization of Small-Screen Documentary

Jelle Mast,

Jelle Mast

University of Antwerp

Search for more papers by this author

Jelle Mast,

Jelle Mast

University of Antwerp

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 26 November 2009

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00242.x

Citations: 3

Read the full text

About

PDF

Tools

Share a link

Email
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Wechat

Abstract

Today, as tendencies of popularization and hybridization have fundamentally redefined conventional notions of (small) screen documentary, the genre (re-)emerges as a particularly appealing topic of scholarly research. This article elaborates some of the main strands of the multifaceted debate about these ongoing developments, thereby focusing on the ‘reality TV’ phenomenon, which is probably the most notable, yet also most controversial embodiment of the shifting that takes place. Discussing key positions regarding the problem of labeling and definition, questions of documentary values, and ethical issues, it is argued that a comprehensive, nuanced approach based on profound conceptualizations as well as empirical research into production and reception contexts are invaluable in making an astute assessment of the popular hybrid documentary.

References

Aslama, M. 2009. ‘Playing House: Participants’ Experiences of Big Brother Finland. International Journal of Cultural Studies 12: 81–96.
10.1177/1367877908098852
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Austin, T. 2007. Watching the World: Screen Documentary and Audiences. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.

Google Scholar
Beattie, K. 2004. Documentary Screens: Non-Fiction Film and Television. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1007/978-0-230-62803-8
Google Scholar
Beattie, K. 2008. Documentary Display. London: Wallflower Press.

Google Scholar
Bignell, J. 2005. Big Brother: Reality TV in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.1057/9780230508361
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bondebjerg, I. 1996. ‘Public Discourse/Private Fascination: Hybridisation in True-Life-Story Genres. Media, Culture and Society 18: 27–45.
10.1177/016344396018001003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Bondebjerg, I. 2002. ‘ The Mediation of Everyday Life: Genre, Discourse and Spectacle in Reality TV.’ Pp. 159–92 in Realism and ‘Reality’ in Film and Media, edited by A. Jerslev. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Google Scholar
Boussé, D. 2000. Wildlife Films. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
10.9783/9780812205848
Google Scholar
Brenton, S. and R. Cohen 2003. Shooting People: Adventures in Reality TV. London/New York: Verso.

Google Scholar
Bruzzi, S. 2000. New Documentary. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar
Calvert, C. 2000. Voyeur Nation: Media, Privacy, and Peering in Modern Culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 1995. Television Form and Public Address. London: Arnold.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 1996. The Art of Record. Manchester/New York: Manchester University Press.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 1999. Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2000. ‘What Can We Say About Documentary?’ Media, Culture and Society 22: 681–8.
10.1177/016344300022005009
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2002a. ‘Performing the Real: Documentary Diversions. Television and New Media 3: 255–69.
10.1177/152747640200300302
Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2002b. ‘ Documentary Values.’ Pp. 139–57 in Realism and ‘Reality’ in Film and Media, edited by A. Jerslev. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2003. ‘ Documentary Realism.’ Pp. 126–9 in The Television Genre Book, edited by G. Creeber. London: BFI.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2004a. ‘ Afterword: Framing the New.’ Pp. 290–9 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by S. Holmes and D. Jermyn. London/New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2004b. ‘ Foreword.’ Pp. xii–xviii in Big Brother International, edited by E. Mathijss and J. Jones. London/New York: Wallflower Press.

Google Scholar
Corner, J. 2008. ‘ Documentary Studies: Dimensions of Transition and Continuity.’ Pp. 13–28 in Rethinking Documentary. New Perspectives, New Practices, edited by T. Austin and W. De Jong. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Google Scholar
Dovey, J. 2000. Freak Show. First Person Media and Factual Television. London: Pluto Press.

Google Scholar
Gitlin, T. 2000. Inside Prime Time. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Google Scholar
Glynn, K. 2000. Tabloid Culture: Trash Taste, Popular Power and the Transformation of American Television. Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Google Scholar
Grierson, J. 1933. ‘The Documentary Producer. Cinema Quarterly 2: 7–9.

Google Scholar
Gross, L., J. Katz and J. Ruby (eds) 1988. Image Ethics. The Moral Rights of Subjects in Photographs, Film and Television. London: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar
Halbert, D. 2003. ‘ Who Owns Your Personality: Reality Television and Publicity Rights.’ Pp. 37–56 in Survivor Lessons. Essays on Communication and Reality Television, edited by M. J. Smith and A. F. Wood. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Google Scholar
Hartley, J. 1994. ‘ Popular/Popular culture.’ Pp. 231–3 in Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies, 2nd edn., edited by T. O’Sullivan, D. Saunders, J. Hartley, J. Fiske and M. Montgomery. London: Routledge.

Google Scholar
Hibberd, M., R. Kilborn, B. McNair, S. Marriot and P. Schlesinger 2000. Consenting Adults? London: Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Google Scholar
Hill, A. 2005. Reality TV: Audiences and Popular Factual Television. London/New York: Routledge.
10.4324/9780203337158
Google Scholar
Hill, A. 2007. Restyling Factual TV: Audiences and News, Documentary and Reality Genres. London/New York: Routledge.
10.4324/9780203099735
Google Scholar
Holmes, S. and D. Jermyn 2004. ‘ Introduction: Understanding Reality TV.’ Pp. 1–32 in Understanding Reality Television, edited by S. Holmes and D. Jermyn. London/New York: Routledge.

Google Scholar
Kilborn, R. 1994. ‘How Real Can You Get? Recent Developments in “Reality” Television. European Journal of Communication 9: 421–39.
10.1177/0267323194009004003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Kilborn, R. 2003. Staging the Real: Factual TV Programming in the Age of Big Brother. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Google Scholar
Kilborn, R., M. Hibberd and R. Boyle 2001. ‘Reports and Debates. The Rise of the Docu-Soap: The Case of Vets in Practice. Screen 42: 382–95.
10.1093/screen/42.4.382
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Mast, J. 2009. ‘New Directions in Hybrid Popular Television: A Reassessment of Television Mock-Documentary. Media, Culture and Society 31: 231–50.
10.1177/0163443708100316
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Messenger Davies, M. 2006. ‘Production Studies. Critical Studies in Television 1: 21–30.
10.7227/CST.1.1.5
Google Scholar
Mills, B. 2004. ‘Comedy Verite: Contemporary Sitcom Form. Screen 45: 63–78.
10.1093/screen/45.1.63
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Mittell, J. 2004. Genre and Television. From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. New York/London: Routledge.

Google Scholar
Montemurro, B. 2007. ‘Toward a Sociology of Reality Television. Sociology Compass 1: 1–23.

Google Scholar
S. Murray and L. Ouellette (eds.) 2005. Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture. New York/London: New York University Press.

Google Scholar
Nabi, R. L. 2007. ‘Determining Dimensions of Reality: A Concept Mapping of the Reality TV Landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 51: 371–90.
10.1080/08838150701307111
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Nabi, R., E. N. Biely, S. J. Morgan and C. R. Stitt 2003. ‘Reality-Based Television Programming and the Psychology of its Appeal. Media Psychology 5: 303–30.
10.1207/S1532785XMEP0504_01
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Nichols, B. 1991. Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Google Scholar
Nichols, B. 1994. Blurred Boundaries: Questions of Meaning in Contemporary Culture. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Google Scholar
Nichols, B. 2001. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington/Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.

Google Scholar
Papacharissi, Z. and A. L. Mendelson 2007. ‘An Exploratory Study of Reality Appeal: Uses and Gratifications of Reality TV Shows. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 51: 355–70.
10.1080/08838150701307152
Web of Science®Google Scholar
Plantinga, C. 1997. Rhetoric and Representation in Nonfiction Film. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar
Shufeldt, M. and K. Gale 2007. ‘Under the (Glue) Gun. Containing and Constructing Reality in Home Makeover TV. Popular Communication 5: 263–82.
10.1080/15405700701608980
Google Scholar
Syvertsen, T. 2001. ‘Ordinary people in Extraordinary Circumstances: A Study of Participants in Television Dating Games. Media, Culture & Society 23: 319–37.
10.1177/016344301023003003
Web of Science®Google Scholar
C. Von Feilitzen (ed.) 2004. Young People, Soap Operas and Reality TV. Göteborg: NORDICOM.

Google Scholar
Winston, B. 1995. Claiming the Real: The Documentary Film Revisited. London: BFI.

Google Scholar
Winston, B. 2000. Lies, Damn Lies and Documentaries. London: BFI.

Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume3, Issue6

December 2009

Pages 884-898

Documentary at a Crossroads: Reality TV and the Hybridization of Small-Screen Documentary

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Documentary at a Crossroads: Reality TV and the Hybridization of Small-Screen Documentary

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information