'Joe Schmo' takes reality television to new depths
• Show's creators 'acted very responsibly' for comedy
• Poll: Offend-o-meter ballot
By Mary Kaye Ritz
Advertiser Religion & Ethics Writer
 |
| Matt Kennedy Gould, a law school dropout turned pizza delivery man, competes in the "These Drawers Aren't Yours" game on Spike TV/TNN's "The Joe Schmo Show."
Spike TV |
 |
| A competitor licks chocolate off a candy-covered exotic dancer on "The Joe Schmo Show." |
Surely Matt Gould, the title character and a law school dropout turned pizza delivery man, knows that the reality TV show "Lap of Luxury" in which he is supposedly competing for a measly $100,000 is a setup, right?
Surely he's figured out that he's surrounded by improvisational actors portraying reality TV archetypes (the gay guy, the snotty rich girl, the virgin)? After all, if you were asked to play the game "Hands on a High-Priced Hooker," seeking to determine which contestant can touch the almost-naked lady the longest without bowing out in consternation, you'd have to be pretty naive to not think it's all a big joke, Gray said.
But even if Gould was a schmo in a later episode, sobbing unconsolably on national TV when "grizzled veteran" Earl (played by character actor Franklin Dennis Jones, with whom Gould shared a room and, our patsy believed, a bond) was voted out of the house, Gray wasn't about to give up watching his reality TV.
"It's like Discovery Channel for humans," the 20-year-old University of Hawai'i-Manoa student said.
When the UH class took up the topic of reality TV, the tribe had already spoken about the place this genre will hold in broadcast history. We've grown accustomed to watching so-called "real" people in contrived situations in reality shows — and some, like "Survivor," are ratings winners.
Evolving genre
But during the past three years, reality programs have taken some truly bizarre twists. (Can you say "Love or Money"?) The latest permutations such as "Joe Schmo," with its on-air humiliations, are surely beyond the bounds, aren't they?
Some in the Islands think so. The October cover story in the Hawaii Pacific Baptist newspaper bears the headline, "Trash TV is 'crisis of crudity,' observers say."
The genre has even taken to parodying itself. Brislin, for example, calls "The Joe Schmo Show" a satire of reality TV.
"It's the rare program that exists as a satire of itself, so self-aware that it sets up ridiculous situations," Brislin said.
And he was talking before last week's episode, when the men — and women — in the show competed in a "game" involving a chocolate-covered stripper. Underneath the candy coating were letters stuck to her body that, when unscrambled, formed a word. The problem was that contestants could only use their tongues to unearth the letters.
Bob Thompson, founding director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University in New York, finds the arrival of "The Joe Schmo Show" a fascinating development.
"Most arts are around a long time before going into their hyper, self-reflexive mode," he said. "Reality TV did it in a few years."
Not only does "Joe Schmo" show its cameras and the director, it also gives its actors on-screen time to reflect on the reaction they're extracting from Gould.
The show airs in Hawai'i at 6 p.m. Tuesdays on Spike TV/TNN.
Gould, as the Truman in this reality TV version of "The Truman Show," is turning out to have such a big heart and to be so good-natured that the "Joe Schmo" cast and crew started having doubts about humiliating him on national TV.
The departure of Earl left Gould genuinely bereft."I didn't think this through," he said through his tears. "No amount of money is worth this!"
That, in turn, led the improvisational actors to question whether to continue the charade."He's saying all the things we're thinking," lamented a stricken-looking David Hornsby, a Houston actor who plays the resident jerk.
Cameras continue to roll
Of course the show does go on. So much for self-reflection. (See response from "Joe Schmo" creators, below.)
It's this complexity that has caused Thompson, in New York, to watch every episode.
"As the thing goes on, Joe Schmo is sucking the scripted actors into his own vortex," Thompson said. "He's crying real tears. We thought this was going to be one thing, but this one guy is now calling shots."
However, it elicits a different response from critics nationwide, including those calling "Joe Schmo" tacky, just plain cruel and the latest in humiliation television.
But it has its fans, "While it's terrible to laugh at the guy, he's so clueless that you just can't help it," writes New York Post's Linda Stasi.
Brislin's colleague, UH professor of sociology Peter Manicas, finds permutations such as "Joe Schmo" upsetting.
"Where do we stop?" he asked. "Do we keep going as long as it sells? The really hard question is, why? If you've watched, you're offended. Lots of people aren't. What is it that makes us different? I don't know. It's very upsetting."
Christine Wright knows from guilty pleasures — after all, she watches "Paradise Hotel." But as a graduate student and teaching assistant for Brislin's class, she's also cognizant of the packaging that's part and parcel of this and other reality TV shows' allure: the high production values, the manipulated conflict set to pounding music, the nicely wrapped emotional payoff.
And she and the 34 juniors and seniors in class know "Joe Schmo" and his TV brethren are not reality.
If you ask them, "Law & Order" is more real than "Big Brother."
Reach Mary Kaye Ritz at mritz@honoluluadvertiser.com or 525-8035.
• • •
Show's creators 'acted very responsibly' for comedy
"Joe Schmo" creators Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick talk about "The Joe Schmo Show" and its subject, Matt Kennedy Gould:
Q. I've read that Matt refused to do publicity for the show. Is that true?
Reese — We can't address that topic because to do so would reveal how our show ends. We're all under a gag order, eh, Paul?
Wernick — Our goal, sort of the drama, is to see 'How will he react?' I think we want our viewers to take that journey with Matt. Matt's not talking. Why, we can't tell you. It might tip off how he did react.
Q. Is your show a parody of a reality show?
Wernick — It's absolutely a parody or sendup of reality shows. We took all the elements — stock characters, the eviction style, form of competition — and amped them up even grander. Reality TV set the bar so high. Yes, it's a parody of a reality show. Yes, it's also a reality show.
Reese — In your definition of "reality show," we fail one major adjective. Our show is not unscripted. One element we couldn't control was Matt Kennedy Gould. We could only script it 90 percent. The last 10 percent took us into directions we couldn't predict.
Wernick — I'm a reality producer, I come from that world, Rhett comes from the scripted world. The journey we took, Matt took as well, and it took some pretty dramatic turns at times. ...
Reese — There was a willingness to make fun of ourselves as producers.
Wernick — Our hard-core fans include reality producers.
Q. Talk about what was involved. At one point, Gould sobbed unconsolably on camera when the "grizzled veteran" left the show.
Reese — At the core of our show is a deception — no ducking that. We could intellectualize that, but it was different once we actually got into the house. There were certain feelings of guilt and misgivings. Given that, which were real and good to have, it helped restrain us from being irresponsible. We were very responsible within that framework, we took great care to make sure it was a comedy and tried to get not too deep. It took us by surprise.
Wernick — We went where the lead character took us. We sat down every night after each shoot, and had to adjust. Storylines changed.
Q. Did you have a counselor on the set?
Reese — We had one on call. He met with Matt after (the crying episode). Before we started, a psychologist had given him a clean bill of health. That particular night, we definitely felt it necessary for him to talk to a professional. (He told us Matt was) a stable guy, a resilient guy who had been through much more difficulty than this. That assuaged our fears. We moved forward. We adjusted, tried to keep the games as silly, light and goofy as possible.
Wernick — We acted very responsibly. When most reality producers see tears, they're thrilled, because it makes good television. To our credit, we did adjust, we didn't amp them up. A lot of reality producers do that and have done that and will do that in the future. We dialed it back. There were very serious discussions. At its core, this is a comedy.
Reese — I've heard the criticism, "This show is mean." I say, "Check us out." People are eating testicles and being slammed off boats, their hearts broken (on other reality shows). None of those things happen on our show.
Wernick — (Matt) is a fan of reality. He knew what he was signing up for, knew all the perils of reality shows.
Q. Even after questioning whether it was worth it to go on, Matt did. Why?
Reese — We knew if Matt walked out the door, he would've been disappointed. His staying was what was best for him. The next morning (after the crying scene), he was embarrassed. He wanted to go forward.
Q. Did you feel you were serving a greater purpose?
Reese — Entertaining people is a greater good. I think life without entertainment would be boring, mundane. This is a pretty silly, innocuous thing, and people enjoy it. People learn something about the human condition. I think this show will make people laugh, cry, question things — and make people think. It's silly and shallow, but it really does make people question.
Wernick — It definitely provokes discussion, makes people think about reality TV and provides entertainment. It's a good, fun sort of laugh, a departure from your everyday life. Is it going to change the world? No. Are we proud of what we put on TV? Absolutely. It's smart, thought-provoking. People say reality TV is like a psychology experiment in a lab. Professors play it in a classroom, see what kind of intellectual discussion it spurs.
Q. Like that experiment in which students press a button to inflict pain?
Reese — You mean the Milgram experiment.
Wernick — Rhett was a psychology major.
Reese — I think it's apples to oranges. They're two very different environments. You can create any world — a mean, evil one, where people are torturing each other. The Milgram experiment placed people into difficult, painful, evil situation, inflict pain to point of murdering someone. I think that IS unethical. When you're creating a fake world, you have a responsibility. In the wrong hands, it's a dangerous thing.
Wernick — It's a crazy world. Rhett and I were raised right. We acted more responsibly than most people in that situation.
