Awkwardness on Dutch television
A research to identify the construction of on-screen awkward moments in nine contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs
Author: Thomas de Boer University of Amsterdam
Student number: 10764976 Master’s Thesis
E-mail: [email protected] MA Television and Cross-media Culture
Supervisor: Dhr. dr. J.W. Kooijman Professional track - documentary
Second reader: Mw. dr. J.C. Hermes June 2017
2
ABSTRACT
Awkwardness has become a very popular form of humour in our society. Not only in real life, but on-screen as well. In this thesis nine reality-based programs of the Dutch television landscape are analysed on the awkward moments they show and how these moments are constructed. The different positions of respectively the maker, the subject and the viewer are all examined in relation to the construction of awkward moments. Drawing upon genre theories and the book on awkwardness of Jason Middleton, this thesis identifies how awkwardness is constructed in contemporary reality-based media products. Awkwardness is a strong, affective narrative tool that is used commonly, either intended or unintended.
Keywords: awkwardness – conventions – genre – reality TV – humour – ordinary – social norms – Dutch television
3 Foreword
I am writing this foreword of my thesis, the day of Donald J. Trump’s inauguration as the next President of the United States. It is no joke, it really happened. Something totally unexpected happened. The orange clown, who had the most minimalistic argumentation ever during his campaign last year, became the President of the United States. Apparently a man who said “Grab ‘m by the pussy!”, who starred in Wrestlemania 231 and who denies climate change, is able to be elected as the most powerful leader in the world. And to be honest, that really ís a little bit awkward, if you ask me.
Although my thesis is not finished yet, I felt the urge to write my foreword on this historical day. As a curious student and (world) citizen, I was of course interested in the campaigns of both Trump and Clinton. Now, after more than a year of die-hard campaigning, the elections are over and Donald J. Trump won. Despite of the fact that millions of people totally disagree with this outcome, there are reasonable explanations for his win, sadly enough. Lots of people were angry, did not like the way Barack Obama ran their country, and wanted a radical change. Trump fed this anger with his bullying rhetoric, his ridiculous statements and unorthodox performances. With the knowledge we have now, we know that this is a joke that has gone badly out of hand. But, to be honest, till Election Day, it was actually quite entertaining to watch him act and speak. Though his statements and actions crossed some social norms and were mostly painful and disturbing to hear, I kept watching the debates and videos on the Internet. It then struck me that this it showed great similarities with the subject of this thesis, awkwardness.
Awkwardness is often painful to watch as well, but it has been a major form of humour in television series, documentaries and other reality based media formats since over two decades. Although awkward moments make us cringe from time to time, they also generate laughter and entertain us often. This thesis will show that awkwardness is an important, strong narrative strategy in contemporary visual media. The analysis shows that this is also applicable on the Dutch contemporary television landscape, by examining different television programs.
Before you start reading, I want to thank a few people, who have helped me during my long period of writing, struggling and thinking. First of all, I want to thank Jaap Kooijman for his supervision. I also want to thank my fellow students, family and roommates for constantly motivating me to keep going. Special thanks as well for the Icelandic band ‘Kaleo’ who inspired me to write with their album A/B. Lastly, I want to thank my beautiful girlfriend Esther for believing in my ability to write this thesis.
I hope you enjoy this interesting and sometimes awkward thesis.
1 Watch the clip on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NsrwH9I9vE
4 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: ON-SCREEN AWKWARDNESS IS POPULAR 6
1. CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REALITY-BASED TELEVISION AND ON-SCREEN AWKWARDNESS 10 1.1 Reality TV, ordinary people and genre conventions 10 1.2 Awkwardness on screen 13 1.3 A triangle of maker, subject and viewer 18
2. AWKWARDNESS AS A DELIBERATE STRATEGY OF THE PRESENTER 22 2.1 De Week van PowNed 24 2.2 Nog Meer Voor Mannen 28 2.3 Streetlab 32 2.4 Conclusion of the chapter: to shame or to be shamed 34
3. AWKWARDNESS AS AN UNSTABLE FANTASY BETWEEN SUBJECT AND MAKER 38 3.1 Love At First Kiss 40 3.1.1 Behaviour of the subjects 40 3.1.2 Strengthening of the awkward moments by the editing and format 45 3.2 De Rijdende Rechter 46 3.3 Man Bijt Hond 50 3.4 Conclusion of the chapter: eccentric behaviour in the spotlight 53
4. PRANK TELEVISION AND RADICAL AWKWARDNESS 56 4.1 Ushi and van Dijk & Bananasplit: prank formats 57 4.2 Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan 61 4.3 Conclusion of the chapter: prank formats and radical awkwardness 63
5. CONCLUSION 66
BIBLIOGRAPHY 70
MEDIA LIST 72
5 Introduction
On-screen awkwardness is popular
It’s Saturday night 8 pm, the 7th of May in the Netherlands. More than a million people are seated on their couch to watch the first episode of the renewed series of Idols (RTL 5, 2016- present). The well-known tune starts and the two new presenters welcome the viewer. The jury is introduced, including Jamai Loman, the winner of the first season of Idols, and soon it is time for the first auditions of the new season. One of the contestants the viewers get to see is Betty, a normal, but little shy, young woman. Through editing, tension is built up till the start of her performance. First she tells the presenter about her aspirations to become a singer and next, her boyfriend is interviewed about her talent, saying that he does not hear her sing that often, but that he believes in her talent. When Betty starts singing in the audition room, it becomes clear that she is not going to be the next Idol. Immediately after her first notes Martijn Krabbé, member of the jury, cannot control himself and starts laughing. During the whole song, Krabbé settles himself under the jury desk, in order to control his laughter. When Betty is finished, Krabbé crawls back upon his seat and says: “Dear, dear Betty, you sound like you are singing through a snorkel.” Jamai adds: “With diving goggles on, ha ha.” Betty accepts the feedback and does not show much emotion. After the other jury members agreed that it was not good enough to proceed in the competition, Betty accepts the rejection and leaves the room. Many viewers probably remember, and have seen, the first series of Idols, which aired from the year 2002 till 2008. The format’s two successful ingredients back then were the auditions done by talents (rough diamonds) and the weird, bad, awkward auditions. Now, with the revival of Idols in 2016, nothing has changed, except for the jury, presenters and the decoration. The awkward and stunning auditions are still the important ingredients of the program and Betty’s audition is a good example of that. Other than The Voice of Holland (RTL, 2010-2017) or Popstars (SBS, 2008-2011), Idols gains its success partly from this awkward entertainment. That was the case in 2002 and even more in 2016. However, that is not much of a surprise, because awkwardness is undoubtedly popular these days as well on-screen as off-screen (Kotsko 2010: 4-5, Middleton 2014: 18-19.) Young people, all over the world, often scream “awkward” when a clumsy situation happens and in the Netherlands the word was even determined by a small group of people to be the “Anglicism of the year 2013”. MTV aired a teen comedy series on television called AWKWARD (MTV, 2011-2016) and on YouTube prank channels or ‘try not to cringe’
6 challenges are more popular than ever. Comedy series such as Modern Family (Comedy Central, 2009-present) and JEUK (NPO 3, 2014-2017) are driven by awkward humour and even in documentaries and reality TV awkwardness has become a popular narrative aspect. With programs as Streetlab (NPO 3, 2015-present), Man Bijt Hond (NPO 1, 1999 -2015), Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan (RTL 4, 2013-2014) and Idols (RTL 5, 2016-present) awkward encounters have become a significant part of the Dutch television landscape. Despite this increased popularity of awkwardness, there have not been many authors willing to write about awkwardness as a social phenomenon in general, let alone awkwardness on screen. Given the fact that it has become a popular buzzword and a strong affective and frequently used narrative aspect, this seems odd. Media scholar Jason Middleton cited in his book on awkwardness that the word was frequently used to describe the loss of presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the 2012 US elections and his failure to connect with voters (Middleton 2014: 19). A similar situation occurred in the Netherlands, when the news program PowNews decided to frequently target politician Job Cohen with difficult and unconventional questions. Cohen clearly could not handle the reporters of PowNews and made the interviews often awkward, while other politicians such as Alexander Pechtold or Geert Wilders did not. In 2012 Cohen announced the end of his career as politician and PowNews claimed that they shared a part in that decision. These two examples sketch the strong affective potential of awkwardness. The feeling generated by awkwardness is hard to grasp or to put a name on, but it easy to feel. This affective quality that awkwardness has on screen and the fact that it has not been researched much in the past ten years, made me excited to dedicate my thesis to this narrative phenomenon. In his book Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedies and Media Spectatorship (2014) Jason Middleton writes that, after the first airing of the British production of The Office, awkward humour has emerged as a common subgenre not only in comedy series but also in documentaries and reality TV programmes (Middleton 2014: 18- 19). While I was reading his analysis of mostly American examples, I thought of Dutch media examples and I could think a lot of awkward encounters I had seen on Dutch television the past few years. With the knowledge of Middleton saying that awkwardness has not been adequately theorized in media and film studies yet (Middleton 2014: 20), I decided to explore and identify the aspects that are important for the construction of awkward moments on television in my own country the Netherlands. In order to structure my thesis the main research question will be the following question:
7 ‘How are awkward moments constructed in nine contemporary Dutch reality- based television programs and how do (genre) conventions and textual elements play a role for the construction of these moments.’
It is self-evident that I cannot cover and include the whole Dutch television landscape in my thesis. Therefore I choose to select nine Dutch television programs for my analysis. These selected programs are programs that are produced and aired by different broadcasting companies, as well public as commercial. The programs differ in format, but they all include awkward moments, constructed in different ways. By analysing these nine programs I want to provide an overview of the Dutch television landscape, to show that awkwardness is not just an occurrence in one or two programs, but that awkward humour is a very popular narrative tool. Thus, the programs and examples in my analysis are used to outline the bigger picture. For my analysis I have selected short fragments of each of the nine programs. The analysis of these fragments will be based on genre conventions and textual elements such as ‘dialogue’ and ‘editing’. Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton both name the importance of conventions for the construction of awkward moments on-screen, which I will further discuss in the first theoretical chapter. Especially the violation of conventions as well social and generic is important for the rise of awkwardness. Drawing upon genre theory and the concept of ‘genre mixing’, introduced by Jason Mittell, I will look at how conventions are contested in many of the programs and how this relates to the awkwardness that is constructed. I will also examine how certain textual elements are related to the contestation of conventions and the awkward moments. Each chapter of analysis starts with a short theoretical elaboration on the genres of the selected programs and on the conventions. After each chapter the most important differences or similarities are summed up, which will show where and how the awkward moments are constructed. As I said, not many scholars have written about awkwardness as a narrative aspect, appearing in documentary and television programs. Of the past ten years, Jason Middleton and Adam Kotsko are the two most recent and, at the same time, only scholars who focused their books on awkwardness in contemporary visual media. I will often use the research of Jason Middleton to relate to in this thesis. Despite the lack of studies on awkwardness, I will be able to contribute in a constructive way to the already existing research on awkwardness, through the use of a combination of theories about humour, genre and reality TV. Just as Middleton, who focuses
8 on documentary and reality-based media in his research, I will focus on reality-based programs as well. Would I choose to analyse awkward moments in fiction film or comedy series, the difference with Middleton’s study would be too big and I would not be able to extend and contribute to his study. By solely changing the country of research and keeping reality-based media as the base of my analysis, I will be able to contribute to the existing study of awkwardness. In total this thesis contains five different chapters. In the first chapter I will start by discussing the concept of reality TV, because the programs I analyse are mostly linked to this field of research. I will focus on the genre and conventions within reality TV and I will discuss the position of Dutch reality-based television programs. Also, I will introduce the concept of ‘genre mixing’, following the theory of Jason Mittell. After that I will introduce the most important research on awkwardness, done by Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton. After I defined some of the concepts that are used to describe awkwardness, theories of humour will be added to the chapter. Lastly, I will introduce the different forms of awkwardness, described by Middleton that will be used as the guidelines for the analysis chapters. In the second, third and fourth chapter my analysis will be conducted. In every chapter three programmes are analysed on respectively the awkwardness in relation to the maker, the subject and the viewer. The choice for this strategy will be explained when the three positions are being discussed in detail. The fifth chapter will consist of a discussion and a conclusion of the findings in the analysis, the method and theory that the research is based on. I will reflect on the findings and encourage other scholars to broaden the study of awkwardness.
9 Chapter 1
Contemporary Dutch reality-based television and on-screen awkwardness
Jason Middleton, who I mentioned in the introduction, wrote his book on documentary, reality-based media and awkwardness because he noticed that in the period since the British production of The Office (BBC, 2002) first aired, awkward humour had become more and more integrated in media but awkwardness itself had also emerged to describe a wide variety of intersubjective experiences of everyday life (Middleton 2014: 18). He shows that in the different American media examples he discusses, awkwardness exists in different forms and is used very commonly. But not only the American film and television landscape are affected by awkwardness, as Middleton notices himself (Middleton 2014: 30). Awkward moments and situations are common to be found all over the Dutch television landscape as well. As I wrote in the introduction, it is my purpose to extend the study of Jason Middleton, by shifting from the American to the Dutch television landscape and analysing different awkward moments in nine different Dutch reality-based television programs. Therefore, in this chapter, I aim to outline the theoretical context for my analysis on awkward moments in contemporary Dutch reality-based television programs. First, I will elaborate on the television genre of ‘reality TV’. I will discuss the development of this kind of television and draw some of the genre conventions that are theorized. I will introduce the concept of ‘genre mixing’ by Jason Mittell, which will be important for my analysis. I will also discuss the situation in the Netherlands, regarding programs that are linked to reality TV. Second, I will discuss the concept of ‘awkwardness’ in relation to the screen. While contextualising this with theories of humour that I can relate to awkwardness, I will focus on the most striking aspects and notions of awkwardness and filter out those who are helpful in analysing contemporary Dutch reality-based television. It is important that I have some sense of how awkward situations arise and why they feel awkward to us, in order to determine and discuss the awkward moments in my analysis. Third, I will elaborate on the distinction between the subject, viewer and maker. This distinction is important to discuss, because each position has a different connection to awkwardness. It shows how awkwardness spreads or moves through different levels.
1.1 Reality-based television: Reality TV, ordinary people and genre conventions In the introduction I often used the term ‘reality-based television programs’ to refer to the sort of programs that are researched in this thesis. What I actually meant to say was ‘related
10 to the genre reality TV’. However, the genre of reality TV is not so clear. Often, people tend to link the term ‘reality TV’ to real life soaps of celebrities or programs as Survivor (CBS, 2000-present), but reality TV includes a wide range of different programs. According to media scholar June Deery reality TV is ‘a way of making television’: the formats or topics may trend only for a time, but the production aspects remain much the same, which are ordinary people, actual events, participation and interactivity (Deery 2015: 19-20). Therefore, reality TV can be seen as a hybrid or mega-genre that amalgamates other genres such as the documentary or the soap opera (Deery 2015: 20). Annette Hill describes reality TV in her book as follows:
Reality TV is a catch-all category that includes a wide range of entertainment programmes about real people. Sometimes called popular factual television, reality TV is located in border territories, between information and entertainment, documentary and drama. (Hill 2005: 2)
This notion clearly shows that reality TV definitely covers a wide range of programs and not only real life soaps or game shows. According to Hill reality TV, as it is today, arose from three different categories of factual television: tabloid journalism, documentary television and popular entertainment (15). In the late 1980s and 1990s television as an institute was subjected to a period of increased commercialisation and deregulation, which caused a hybridization of existing successful genres in order for television to survive (23-24). So to say, the three early categories that Hill described merged into a new hybrid genre: reality TV as we know it nowadays. In the 1990s reality TV definitely found her spot in peaktime television schedules. Reality TV subgenres such as ‘infotainment’, docu-soaps, lifestyle programs and reality gameshows were developed and aired throughout the 90s, reaching an established position at the begin of the 21th century (Hill 2005: 24). These developments took place in the United States and parts of Europe. In the Netherlands the rise and popularity of the ‘new’ reality TV in the Netherlands was established in 1999 by the airing of the first season of Big Brother (Veronica, 1999). This program, in which twelve normal people lived together in a new-build house and were followed 24/7 by cameras, was developed by John de Mol and was a huge success. After this first season more seasons and several spin-offs were aired, including the programs De Gouden Kooi (Tien, RTL 5, 2006- 2008) and Utopia (SBS, 2013-present) that still runs nowadays.
11 After Big Brother, other subgenres as docu-soap, lifestyle programs, infotainment, real-life soap and human-interest, were also developed and aired more and more on Dutch television. As well on the public channels as on the commercial channels reality TV formats established a major role in the airing schedules. For example, the Dutch human-interest program Man Bijt Hond ran from 1999 until 2015. In this program the ordinary man, someone who would normally not appear on television, was the focus of attention. Other examples are De Rijdende Rechter (NPO 1, 1995 - present) or Oh Oh Cherso (RTL 5, 2011- 2012), the first about a driving judge who solves problems of mostly neighbours and the second about eight young people drinking and partying in Chersoneses. However, the airing of Big Brother could thus be seen as a definite starting point for the development of the new, hybrid reality TV formats over the last two decades. In these decades there has been one stable factor that is arguably an explanation of the success of reality TV, namely ‘the highly visible presence of ordinary people in ‘unscripted’ situations’ (Biressi & Nunn 2005: 2). Viewers are attracted to the ‘real’ emotions and experiences of the subjects (Deery 2015: 31). However, Deery notes that because of its production practices such as casting, editing and filming, reality TV presents the ‘real’, but in a dramatized way (31). Important is thus the claim of reality TV to be real, the idea that the viewer witnesses ordinary people that have real problems, experiences or discussions. This counts for all the subgenres of reality TV, not only for real-life soap but for reality game shows as well. The viewer witnesses people who are no actors, but who are real. As one of the respondents in the research of Mark Andrejevic said about Survivor: “I like the fact that it’s real people, people I can identify with, instead of superstars and Olympians.” (2004: 9) So it may be clear that the participation of ordinary people in reality TV is an important convention for most reality-based programs. In the essay A critical-historical genre analysis of reality television (2008) scholars Penzhorn and Pitout applied a historical analysis on reality TV to find out the leading conventions that are related to the mega-genre of reality TV. Next to the already named focus on ordinary people, the other conventions that they found are that there is a voyeuristic element involved, that there is encouragement of audience participation and the attempt to simulate real life (Penzhorn & Pitout 2008: 66-67). However, as Deery, Hill and other scholars noticed, reality TV is not a clear genre and covers a whole range of different programs. In other words, a reality-based television program does not have to include all four conventions to be categorized as reality TV. In fact, irrespective of its own conventions, reality TV is a genre that is composed of elements of other genres (Penzhorn & Pitout 2008:
12 72). In his book Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture (2004) Jason Mittell suggests that the limited classification system of genres should be replaced with a ‘generic mixture’ approach (153-154). In his conclusion Mittell states that one of reality TV’s central production strategies is genre mixing, recombinantly drawing conventions and assumptions from a range of genres in both innovative and derivative fashions (197). Although Mittell pleads for a cultural approach to television genres, he does values the analysis of textual conventions in generic mixes, for example the reliance of quiz shows on documentary style or the use of strategic typecasting for reality dramas (197). In the analysis of this thesis Mittell’s concept of ‘genre mixing’ will be used to analyse how certain genre conventions are apparent and mixed in the different programs and how these conventions relate to the awkwardness on-screen. Therefore, it is necessary first to give some insights in the concept of awkwardness.
1.2 Awkwardness on screen Probably everybody who reads this thesis has encountered awkward moments in his or her live. These awkward moments could arise when someone, for example, accidentally sends an intimate text message to his or her ex-partner or when a simple handshake fails, because the other thought of doing a ‘fistbump’. Awkwardness is humane and humans are awkward at odd times. But except from awkward encounters in real life, we also witness awkward moments on screen, appearing in series, (live) television programmes and in online videos. So not only do we have to deal with awkwardness in real life, but we also have to watch it on screen. Though, what awkwardness precisely is most people do not immediately know, but it is very quickly felt when something is awkward. These moments can be painful, but at the same time we tend to laugh at these situations. Therefore, it could be said that awkwardness is a mode of humour that is intuitively felt by many, but logically explained by few (Ballingall 2014: 1). Fact is that awkward humour has become a common and identifiable category of film, television and Internet comedy the past fifteen years (Middleton 2014: 19). Somehow, there are many authors that have tried to theorize ‘humour’, from Freud’s joke triangle to Noel Carroll’s Humour: A Very Short Introduction (2014), but there are not many authors that have given it a try on awkwardness as a mode of humour, even not on awkwardness. There are a few, however. One of them is Adam Kotsko, author of the book AWKWARDNESS (The title makes it very clear what the book is about). In this work he defines different kinds of awkwardness
13 from a philosophical point of view and analyses television programs as The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm on their awkward moments. However, before he starts his analysis, Kotsko points out some important notions on the word ‘awkwardness’. He describes that the word ‘awkward’ implies a movement, drawing upon the ontology of the word itself. That movement, he considers, is a movement in the wrong direction, but above all it is a movement within the social:
Even when personal deficits make certain individuals seem extremely awkward by nature, awkwardness remains a social phenomenon […] Awkwardness moves through the social network, it spreads. You can’t observe an awkward situation without being drawn in: you are made to feel awkward as well, even if it is probably to a lesser degree than the people directly involved. (Kotsko 2010: 8)
In other words, awkwardness always involves more than one individual. It is a feeling that exists and moves within a social context. According to this statement awkwardness on screen logically could affect the viewer as well. Based on his observation that the social context plays such an important role for the feeling of awkwardness, Kotsko distinguishes two different forms of awkwardness, namely ‘everyday awkwardness’ and ‘radical awkwardness’ (7-8). ‘Everyday awkwardness’ originates from particular individuals. We are able to identify someone as awkward, when the person does something that is inappropriate for a given context. Mostly, this violation is not based on a written law, but on unspoken norms (Kotsko 2010: 7). According to Kotsko, ‘radical awkwardness’ arises when there doesn’t seem to be any norm governing a given situation at all (8). Most often, this happens because of an encounter between two sets of norms. Kotsko offers here an important aspect regarding awkwardness, namely norms. Awkwardness exists because of the violation of given norms, or because of an encounter between two totally different sets of norms. Actually, the aspect of norms is slightly similar to the aspects of expectations and the social combined: social expectations. Norms are social rules that we expect to be followed in any given context. A violation of these social norms by anyone draws attention to itself. The fact that one can’t observe an awkward situation without being drawn in (Kotsko 2010: 8) makes it a potentially strong narrative strategy for filmmakers and television directors to reach and keep the audience. However, Adam Kotsko
14 is one of the few authors who analysed awkwardness in relation to media products as reality- based television and comedy programs. That is one of the reasons why Jason Middleton, film scholar, wrote his book Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedies and Media Spectatorship (2014). In this book Middleton examines the varied rhetorical uses of awkwardness in contemporary documentary film and reality-based media, as well as in comedy series as The Office and Modern Family. He tries to show that awkwardness has become a very popular narrative strategy the last decade, in which it has been part of many contemporary, so-called ‘cringe comedies’ and other reality-based media formats. In his case studies Middleton researches ‘awkward moments’. To analyse awkward moments adequately he explains his ground rule understanding of these moments as followed:
Awkward moments occur when an established mode of representation or reception is unexpectedly challenged, stalled or altered: when an interviewee suddenly confronts the interviewer, when a subject who had been comfortable on camera begins to feel trapped in the frame, when a film perceived as a documentary turns out to be a parodic mockumentary. (Middleton 2014: 2)
In other words, awkward moments exist because of unexpected changes of established modes. Hence, awkwardness has to do with expectations: expectations of viewers, subjects or presenters, which are suddenly challenged. He adds something more to this notion later in his book when he explains ‘awkward moments’ more in detail: ‘awkward moments can be understood as documentary moments. They are moments when an encounter feels too real: unscripted, unplanned, and above all, occurring in person’ (Middleton 2014: 20). Again, Middleton notes the unexpected element of awkwardness, but he adds another element to awkward moments, namely the importance of ‘a too real encounter occurring in person’. In other words, awkwardness is not only related to expectations, but also to the social. In our contemporary digital culture most of our social interactions are mediated by social media, on which we can carefully present ourselves. When a conversation on social media turns different than expected, there is the delay of the send button to cover up any wrong words. But when a miscue happens in a face-to-face encounter, it is awkward, because it is too unmediated and too immediate (Middleton 2014: 20). Awkwardness exists by the notion of social contact and awkward moments are about social relations.
15 Concluded, there are three aspects intermingled and related to awkwardness. Because of norms (i) we expect (ii) a certain social behaviour of individuals in a social context (iii). Would these norms that we expect to be known be violated in the given social context, then the situation presumably could get awkward. While these awkward moments are mostly uncomfortable for the person who caused the awkwardness, for viewers these moments are also enjoyable to watch. But why is that? Why is watching these situations where social norms are awkwardly violated mostly funny and enjoyable? To explore that question, Middleton grabs back on one of the earlier studies on humour, realised by Henri Bergson in 1924. Middleton focuses on the widely known key term of Bergson’s theory of laughter, namely ‘mechanical inelasticity (Middleton 2014: 47). As I referred to earlier, Adam Kotsko notes that the word ‘awkward’ implies a ‘wrong’ direction. In an awkward situation, there is a misunderstanding, someone does not understand the given social norms and things go different than expected. The term ‘mechanical inelasticity’ that Bergson came up with, describes the phenomenon of laughter when something goes wrong. He uses an example of a man walking down the street, which suddenly stumbles and falls down. The comic element for the spectator lies, according to Bergson, in the involuntarily downfall of the man. Normally, as the man and spectators expect, the muscles would adapt to the given pavement, so that the man would not fall down while walking. But, in this case the ‘mechanical inelasticity’, the involuntary fall because of a non-adaption of the muscles, causes the comic element (Middleton 2014: 47). As Pansy Duncan puts it in his essay Joke work: comic labor and the aesthetics of the awkward (2017): “The awkward individual, in other words, is a figure whose commitment to a mechanical, rigid line of action, in a context in which the flexibility and adaptability typical of play might be more appropriate, becomes both excruciatingly conspicuous and deeply problematic” (41). In relation to the rest of the people involved in the situation, the awkward individual is so to say ‘not in play’ (Duncan 2017: 41). This idea has been one of the grounds of the ‘incongruity’ theory of humour. In his essay Humour Noël Carroll describes this theory in detail and comes up with a detailed definition: …one version of the Incongruity Theory, then, someone is comically amused if and only if (i) the object of her mental state is a perceived incongruity, (ii) which she regards as neither threatening or anxiety producing, and (iii) which she does not approach with a genuine, puzzle-solving attitude, but (iv) which, rather, she enjoys. (Carroll 2005: 251)
16
Looking at the first part of the definition, it is clear to say that Bergson’s ‘mechanical inelasticity’ could function as the basis of this theory; someone finds something funny, because she perceives a situation as being incongruent. Middleton notes that it is especially this perceived incongruity of the viewer, as described by Carroll in his Notes on the Sight Gag, which is an important factor for the comical value (Middleton 2014: 47). Carroll argues in this work that the comic moment in awkward situations proceeds from a marked divergence on perspectives on a given scene: the way the viewer perceives the situation on the one hand, and on the other, the way the character is perceived to understand the situation (Middleton 2014: 47). What Middleton attempts to clarify is that awkward humour in documentaries and reality-based media could derive from different perceptions and feelings of the viewer, subject and filmmaker (48). Though, this perceived incongruity is not the only source of the comic element of awkwardness. Middleton refers to the theory of Jerry Palmer to describe how plausibility is an important source as well:
Palmer’s explanation for the comic effect of visual gags such as this one holds that a tension arises between these two competing syllogisms, in which the mode of reasoning that perceives the event to be plausible is inferior, based upon a lesser logic. But it is the structural possibility of this lesser logic within the gag itself that serves as the basis of the comic effect. (Middleton 2014: 49)
In short, Palmer’s idea is that when something normally implausible happens to be plausible in the given world of the joke or comedy series, there is a comic effect.2 However, Middleton notes that with documentary and reality-based media this works in a slightly different way. Because there is an overarching premise that these media forms always represent the ‘real’, anything that we witness on screen is seen as plausible (Middleton 2014: 50, Nichols 2001: 2,24). When something we do not expect or ought to be implausible, such as an awkward moment, happens, the comic effect derives from the fact that the situation is just too bizarre (Middleton 2014: 50). This is strengthened by the fact that we expect the images on screen to
2 In a joke, for example, a man is squashed by an elevator, but comes out smaller. In real life, the man would be dead or squashed (but not smaller). But because the result of squashing an object could be a reduction in size and the man comes out smaller, the event has a measure of plausibility.
17 be real. According to Middleton this plausible-implausible theory is also an important argument for the comic effect of awkwardness. A third theory of humour that could be important for certain reality television programs and the awkward moments that these programs carry is the superiority theory. Sheila Lintott states in the introduction of her essay Superiority in Humor Theory (2016) that “the superiority theory is concerned with the affective response that often accompanies comic amusement, which it maintains as an enjoyable feeling of superiority to the object of amusement (347). However, in her essay Lintott contests that the superiority theory on itself could be seen as an explanation for the humorous element (348). Feelings of superiority towards subjects on screen could for example contribute to the laughter that is caused by incongruent happenings. So according to Lintott, the superiority theory could be seen as an addition to other theories of humour, but does not stand by itself as a theory (348). Nevertheless, the notion of superiority towards other people could be an interesting aspect in chapter three, when programs are analyzed in which the subjects play a leading role for the awkward moments. In this second part of this chapter I tried to explore the different notions and aspects of awkwardness and awkward situations both in real life as on screen, by outlining the arguments of Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton. I also pointed out how some leading theories of humour and laughter could be connected to awkwardness. In the next part of this chapter my aim is to show that awkwardness is moving between different roles of people and that it creates different relations, between viewers, makers and subjects.
1.3 A triangle of maker, subject and viewer. Different from an awkward moment in real life, there is a third person that experiences the awkwardness when an awkward moment occurs in a documentary film or a television program: the viewer. So, it could be said that on screen awkwardness differs in that way from real life awkwardness, because on screen awkwardness is mediated and viewed by probably thousands of people. As I already stated in the previous sequence, Middleton argues that awkward humour is mostly rooted in the difference of perspectives of the viewer, subject and filmmaker. It makes sense then that he comes up with different relations of awkwardness, in reality-based media. In relation to the observations of Adam Kotsko that awkwardness spreads through a social network, he identifies three general causes and relations of awkwardness. These three notions of awkwardness are more or less relatable to either the
18 viewer, the subject or the director/presenter. I will discuss all three notions, because they will be guiding the chapters of my analysis. The first form of awkwardness that Middleton identifies is the use of awkwardness as a deliberate strategy with methods and goals. Directors or presenters are able to arrange awkwardness between subjects or between the interviewer and interviewee and therefore they can use awkwardness as a rhetorical strategy (Middleton 2014: 22-23). With inappropriate questions or with certain body language it is possible for the presenter to influence the situation as such that awkwardness is generated. One of the important examples Middleton uses to illustrate this form of awkwardness is the technique of director Michael Moore, who mostly uses awkwardness to accomplish a certain message with his documentaries. The awkwardness that is created with this form is mainly one that originates on-screen, but I will return to this point later, when I explain that the three different forms of awkwardness are all coherent. Middleton describes the second form of awkwardness as an unstable ‘fantasy of mutual recognition’ between eccentric documentary subjects and filmmakers (22). Sometimes it seems like the director and the subject have a good understanding of both their desires and needs, but underneath there is actually an incongruity between these desires and needs of each. Awkwardness is thus generated by this profound incongruity, which often leads to moments of rupture (23). For example, when a subject stops answering questions of the interviewer, or even worse, does not want to be filmed anymore. But it also rises when it becomes clear for the viewer that the subject and maker have different motives to participate or produce the program. However, often this form of awkwardness goes along with the danger of exploiting an eccentric or alternative subject. An example of a reality-based television program in which this form of awkwardness is present, is the Dutch program Man Bijt Hond (KRO-NCRV, 1999-2015). A lot of short video reports regarding eccentric subjects, most often people with some sort of absurd hobby, were shown in this program. Awkwardness in these kinds of programmes is then generated by the behaviour of the subjects and how the makers of the program represent them. Thus, awkwardness in this form lies mostly with the subjects. The third and last form of awkwardness that Middleton defines is described as an affective and epistemic disparity between the text itself and the viewer (23). This form is about the relation of the viewer with the images on the screen. This relation could be one concerning the undermining of the comprehension of the viewer, in the case of a hoax program or mockumentary (23). However, it could also be about an affective response of the
19 viewer, opened up by differentials in perception between the viewer and the subjects on screen (23). An example that is used by Middleton to describe this form of awkwardness is the movie Borat, made by Sascha Baron Cohen. The comprehension of the viewer is constantly questioned by the behaviour of Borat and the people he encounters. The awkwardness that is accomplished in this form lies especially with the viewer. Although the three forms of awkwardness are apparently different, it has not to be said that they are also totally separated. Awkwardness could be used as a rhetoric strategy and at the same moment lie with the viewer. It could be a difference in expectation between the maker and subject, but at the same time set up on purpose by the director. However, because the focus of the analysis in this thesis lies with awkwardness that happens on-screen, the position of the viewer needs some extra attention. A presenter can deliberately try to create awkward moments, but if the viewer does not get the point, his strategy does not work. A subject can be extraordinary with unconventional actions, but if the viewer not perceives it as unconventional because he wields different social norms, the awkwardness is not transferred. Dutch sociologist Giselinde Kuipers researched this position of the viewer and wrote the essay Television and taste hierarchy: the case of Dutch television comedy (2006) on the difference in taste of viewers. She looked at Dutch television comedy and conducted interviews with people from different social categories to discover a taste hierarchy. She notes that taste can be understood as a form of cultural knowledge, that is necessary to enjoy a comedy television show (Kuipers 2006: 2). This knowledge always precedes appreciation, Kuipers says, because ‘you have to be aware of something in order to like it, hate it or be indifferent to it’ (2). It is thus important to bear in mind that there could be a difference in perception between the viewers of awkward moments as well. This difference could then be due to a difference in knowledge of the social norms or social context, as awkwardness is closely related to this field. When a viewer has a totally different standard of the social, the awkwardness could be not the same for that viewer as for another viewer. This notion of Kuipers is one to keep in mind during the analysis. Though the analysis in this thesis is not directly focused on viewer experience, it is something that has to be discussed in further research. However, according to media scholar Jan Teurlings, the viewer does not have to be underestimated. In his essay “Media literacy and the challenges of contemporary media culture: on savvy viewers and critical apathy” (2010), Teurlings argues that the dominant viewing position of the viewer can be described as a ‘savvy’ one (359). Savviness means that the viewer is not naïve and literally sees through the televisual text or understands the production process of a program (Teurlings 2010: 359). Especially in relation to reality TV,
20 where makers always try to claim ‘the real’ in their programs, this notion is important. In his essay, Teurlings shows that the viewers of reality TV are firmly aware of the production processes and the fact that scenes can be scripted (368). In relation to awkward moments on television, this stance is interesting, because awkward moments arise often in reality TV programs. Often these moments arise from weird or divergent behaviour of the subjects. But if the viewer knows that scenes are often scripted and thus these subjects are partly playing a role, is the awkwardness still the same then? And if the viewer is as savvy as Teurlings states, would every viewer be able to discover less obvious awkwardness, smoothly worked in by the director, such as Michael Moore does in his interviews? I cannot answer these questions in this thesis, but they are important to consider and to keep in mind, just as the notions of Giselinde Kuipers. The notions of Kuipers and Teurlings question the position and reception of the viewer and are therefore meaningful to discuss in the research on on-screen awkwardness. All the same, in the analysis I will investigate all three positions (maker, subject, viewer) in relation to the construction of awkwardness, by connecting each of the position to a separate chapter. In each chapter I analyse three programs that seemingly incorporate awkwardness in the same way as the leading form of that chapter.
21 Chapter 2
Awkwardness as a deliberate strategy of the presenter
In one of the most famous scenes of the documentary Bowling for Columbine (2002) filmmaker Michael Moore forces the president of the National Rifle Commission, Charlton Heston, in an awkward position with difficult questions and non-subtle statements about weapons. Not accidentally, but on purpose. Suddenly, Heston notices that the conversation is growing in a different and more negative way than he expected. He starts to stumble over his words and decides to walk away from the interview, not feeling comfortable anymore. Moore accomplished what he wanted all along: to create a form of awkwardness through a deliberate strategy in order to convey a message. This happens to be the first form of awkwardness as described by Middleton. Awkwardness is used as a rhetorical strategy, where the awkward moments are generated and directed by the presenter or maker. It is rooted in how the maker interacts with his subjects, the situation he places himself in and his on-screen behaviour (Middleton 2014: 60). The three programs that I will analyse and discuss in this chapter are De week van PowNed (NPO 3, 2016-present), Nog Meer Voor Mannen (RTL 7, 2014-2016) and Streetlab (NPO 3, 2014-2016). In each of these programs the presenters or reporters have a clearly defining role in generating the awkward moments. An important aspect for the construction of these awkward moments is the concept of ‘genre mixing’, as described in the previous chapter (Mittell 2004: 198). On the surface the three formats in this chapter seem quite similar to the first three forms of reality TV as Annette Hill described in her book (15): De week van PowNed as a form of tabloid journalism, Nog Meer Voor Mannen as documentary television and Streetlab as popular (scientific) entertainment. However, a closer look on the formats show that they mix up different genre conventions. De week van PowNed can be referred to as a news-reporting program, but it combines its journalistic practices with irony and a cheeky form of interviewing. Stephen Harrington shows in his research that these satire news- programs bring ‘chaos’ to normally very ordered systems such as politics and politicians and the traditional journalism (39). Where objectivity is a greater good for reporters of traditional journalistic institutes, the comedians and reporters of these new formats contest these traditional forms by asking impertinent questions and disrupting for example the political establishment, in order to come closer to the truth (Harrington 2011: 40,44). Politicians, but also CEO’s, spokesmen etc., have to deal with cheeky, unconventional interview styles. It is
22 this contestation of the conventions that can attribute to potential awkward moments, which I will show in the analysis of De week van PowNed. In Nog Meer Voor Mannen the goal of presenter Maxim Hartman is to revalue the position of the oppressed man. As a reporter Hartman travels through the country to talk to famous and ordinary men and to search for real manly hobbies and activities. The design of the format shows similarities with the conventions of documentary journalism and even public affairs formats. Hill describes that “documentary journalism addresses topical subjects in a series format, using journalistic conventions, and usually involving the ‘“quest” of a presenter/reporter” (19). In Nog Meer Voor Mannen Hartman is on a “quest” as well, exploring the topic of the oppressed man in multiple episodes. As for the conventions of a public affairs program, Patricia Aufderheide states the following in her work on documentary:
Such documentaries typically undertake an investigative or problem-oriented approach, feature sober exposition with narration and sometimes a host… and focus on representative individuals as they exemplify or illustrate the problem. They promise an authoritative, often social-scientific view of an issue, speaking as professional journalists on behalf of a public affected by the problem. (Aufderheide 2007: 56-57)
Nog Meer Voor Mannen holds a problem-oriented approach and a host as well in the form of Hartman searching for the oppressed position of the man to be revalued. Hartman also speaks with individuals who illustrate the problem and often uses the term ‘we’ as if he speaks on behalf of all the men affected by the so-called problem. Although the program shows great similarities with the conventions of documentary journalism, Hartman’s actions are in conflict with some of the conventions regarding the behavior of a reporter and the use of representative individuals. In the analysis I will show how these violations of Hartman can create awkward moments. The third program Streetlab combines the content of socio-scientific experiments with the conventions of a candid camera format. In chapter four I will discuss the conventions of candid camera formats in depth, but important for Streetlab is the use of the unguarded moment (Penzhorn & Pitout 2007: 65). While the topics of their experiments are already inherently awkward, the use of the candid camera could even strengthen the awkward moment because it captures the real reactions of the ordinary people who are involved in the experiment. In the analysis I will discuss some of their topics and show how formal elements also contribute to the awkwardness of these unguarded moments.
23 I will start the analysis with a short description of each program. After that, for each program I will analyse one or two short fragments on the actions of the presenter, including the questioning, behaviour, situation, but also the editing, sound etc. After each program I will summarize the findings shortly and I will end the chapter with a conclusion, in which all the findings are compared.
2.1 De Week van Powned (NPO 3, 2016-present) De Week van Powned is a weekly television program filled with short actual (news) reports. Since September 2016, it is aired on television every Friday night. Recently, it is the only program produced by broadcaster PowNed that is aired on television. PowNed as a broadcasting company has a very recent history. It originated form the weblog GeenStijl, which was established in 2003 by Dominique Weesie. The mission of his weblog was “to become an important opinion leader through the existing media that matter” (powned.tv: 2016). With the beginning of GeenStijl TV in 2006 and the establishment of the their own broadcasting company PowNed in 2009, Weesie clearly followed his mission. Between 2009 and 2016 programs as Powlitie (NPO 3, 2012-2014), Camping Powned (NPO3, 2013) and PowNews (NPO 3, 2010-2015) were successfully aired by PowNed, reaching a steady group of viewers. Nowadays, with their own YouTube channel they still reach more than 90.000 subscribers with their content. PowNed has indeed become one of the important opinion leaders in the Dutch media landscape. They quite differ from the other existing news broadcasters such as the NOS and RTL. As PowNed mentions on their website, they are ‘on top of the news, but though, rude, critical and with humour’ (powned.tv: 2016). It is this tone of their reports, their news items, that distinguishes them from the other news broadcasters. With the difficult and rude questions in the Dutch House of Representatives and, from time to time, weird subjects in their items, PowNed definitely shook the Dutch television landscape. As I said, one of the defining elements of the reporters of De Week van Powned is the though, brazen form of questioning, that clearly differs from the traditional questioning of journalists. Herein embedded lies the enabling of potential awkward situations. To show this I will take a short fragment of Rutger Castricum interviewing Job Cohen in the House of Representatives (where almost all the political interviews of PowNed take place) about a statement Cohen made on a television show the night before.3 The item is introduced by
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwvPA-3yvMQ - Rutger Castricum interviews Job Cohen.
24 Dominique Weesie, who states that Cohen made another slip and that it is maybe time for him to switch jobs, in other words, to quit politics. After this, the fragment of Cohen’s appearance in a talk show is shown, in which he said that, in his opinion, the prime minister Mark Rutte does not separate his function as leader of the country and leader of his political party enough, for example when he appeared in Alphen aan de Rijn to speak out his condolences.4 Then, the interview with reporter Rutger Castricum starts, while they are walking in the hall way:
Rutger: Mr. Cohen, don’t go there anymore, don’t do it again…
Cohen: What ‘don’t go there anymore?'
Rutger: To Pauw & Witteman..
Cohen: Ah come on boy.
Rutger: Accidental slip number 812.
The mood of the interview is directly established by the first words of the reporter. With a disappointed tone, like a fatherly figure, he tells Cohen not to go sit at television shows anymore (or in other words, according to the introduction of the item by the presenter in the studio, to just quit politics). At this moment, Rutger Castricum immediately is in control of the interview and the politician, Cohen, is shrinking, so to speak. This is exactly the impertinent way of interviewing that contests the traditional form of journalism and interviewing. A conventional start of the interview would have been something like ‘Mr Cohen, what do you think of your performance on television last night?’ But the unconventional start, the judgement of Castricum and the degrading tone of his voice, makes the position of Cohen unstable. As a politician he has to be polite and professional all the time, but the way of questioning contests that. Nevertheless, Cohen tries to stay correct:
Cohen: Everything is fine though.
Rutger: Again, not very clever right?
Cohen: Everything will be fine.
Rutger: Everything will be fine? But this was not good.
4 Job Cohen refers to the events in Alphen aan de Rijn in April 2011. A man randomly killed 7 people (including himself) in a mall and injured sixteen people. A day later, Mark Rutte spoke out his condolences and concern at the commemoration in Alphen aan de Rijn.
25
Cohen: That’s your opinion.
Rutger: You thought it was okay?
Cohen: (repeats) That’s your opinion.
Rutger: That you have to mention ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’ Sir…
Cohen: Hm, yes, that’s what I found.
Rutger: You found that?
Cohen: Yes, indeed. I…
Rutger: (interrupts) That is stupid right?
Cohen: No, that is not stupid at all.
While Cohen politely answers the questions, Castricum keeps repeating that his appearance was stupid, a bad performance, and interrupts him when Cohen tries to explain his opinion. This repetition causes that Cohen cannot give any different answers then answers as ‘that’s your opinion’ and ‘that’s what I found’. Harrington describes that repeating key words in an interview was a method developed by politicians to counter the difficult questions of ‘traditional journalistst’ (45). However, this conversation shows that not all politicians have found a way to counter these unconventional forms of questioning. Because Castricum also interrupts Cohen when he tries to explain his opinion, it seems like Cohen does not know what to say or how to react to the ‘questions’ of Castricum. Though, we can never know if Cohen really does not know what to say, but it is clear that it is the interview technique of Castricum, the repetition and tone, which makes Cohen struggle with his position and words. Eventually, Cohen gets the opportunity to broaden his explanation:
Cohen: When he is there as the prime minister, he has to separate his VVD background from this position and if he does that, he stands there much better, that is what this is about.
Rutger: But then you say that in Alphen aan de Rijn, he stands there as the VVD leader and not as prime minister?
Cohen: No, he is there as the prime minister, but because he often links his position to his own VVD party, people will see that. And he shouldn’t do that. That is my opinion on the situation.
26
Rutger: But isn’t it dangerous then, to bring up ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’, this situation? You should have named one other example, instead of this one.
Cohen: No, I wouldn’t know why I should have done that. Why?
Rutger: Because it is a very sensitive subject nowadays in our country…
Cohen: I wouldn’t know why…
Rutger: You’ll keep your opinion as it is?
Cohen: Yes, that is where I stand for.
Rutger: Come to our place sometimes, we will explain to you how it all works. How you deal with these things.
Cohen: I already see you too often. Bye.
In this final part of the interview, Cohen finally has the chance to explain his opinion to the reporter. However, Castricum does not really respond to the content of the opinion, but instead he asks Cohen again if the example of ‘Alphen aan de Rijn’ that he used the night before was not a bad example. It is not even a question, because Castricum tells him that he should have chosen a different example as well. Again, it is the repetition of the content of Castricum his questions that makes it difficult for Cohen to respond in a confident way. He constantly has to search for words and answers to defend his position, over and over again. Some people manage to do this in a very quick and confident way, but Cohen is not capable of doing that. Therefore, this form of questioning works well with Cohen, in order to make him struggle and create a rather awkward situation. With the final remark of Castricum saying that they (the people from PowNed) can learn Cohen how to deal with these things, the approach of the interview is again underscored. By stating this out loud, Castricum creates an extra awkward momentum. Although it could be that it is said with a wink, it is rather awkward when a reporter tells the leader of a big political party that he can teach him how to do his job. This fragment shows how the interview technique of Rutger Castricum (which is representative for the other PowNed reporters as well) influences the mood of the interview and the interviewee and how it enables the opportunity for awkward moments to arise. That does not mean that this technique always generates awkwardness, but it can function as a catalyst for these awkward moments. For example, Job Cohen was a frequent target of PowNed during his period as political leader of the PvdA, because he was sensitive for this
27 way of interviewing. Not only in this fragment, but at other moments too he often struggled with the interviews of PowNed. Meanwhile, other politicians, such as Geert Wilders or Ronald Plasterk, were much better in dealing with the reporters of PowNed. This shows that the interview technique can generate awkward moments, but that it is not a certainty. Clearly this is in interplay with the subject that is interviewed.
2.2 Nog Meer Voor Mannen (RTL 7, 2014-2016) This program was aired from 2014 till 2016 on the commercial broadcaster RTL 7 and was developed and presented by Maxim Hartman. The concern of the program is to revalue the manly being, to search for real masculinity. In this search presenter Hartman meets known- and unknown Dutch men and women and sees a lot of hobbies, jobs, rooms that all contribute to definition of the term ‘masculinity’. Implicitly, this yields funny, extraordinary and weird moments. Maxim Hartman has the reputation as an unorthodox television-maker. With programs as Lekker Dansen (1994) (in which he just danced on the street and asked other people to also dance on the song) and Rembo & Rembo (1987-1995) (a youth program with often dirty themed sketches and weird dilemma’s) Hartman showed his own funny, but weird style of humour. When he later developed programs that were more centred on Hartman as a reporter/interviewer, his own brutal, funny and unorthodox style became even clearer. With newer programs as Omroep Maxim (2011-2012) and Eredivisie op Vrijdag (2016 - present) he shows that he has no mercy for his subjects, targeting them with difficult, weird and brutal questions. One of the most famous fragments of Omroep Maxim is probably the item with subject Ben Strik and his antique basket.5 In this fragment antique seller Strik shows one of his pieces to Hartman and tries to explain what it is. Up to three times Hartman interrupts him to tell him that the description has to be shorter, until Strik only shouts out the word ‘basket’. The fragment clearly shows how Hartman treats his subjects and questions them in order to reach humorous items. In the more recent program Eredivisie op Vrijdag Hartman has a section in which he interviews professional Dutch soccer players. In these items as well, it is clear that a lot of these players are overcome by the questions and behaviour of Hartman. He asks them questions, which normal journalists would never ask these players. In Nog Meer Voor Mannen he uses this same style of reporting again. In the fragment “Ik schrik hier een beetje van”, available on YouTube and aired in the season of 2015 of Nog Meer Voor Mannen, Hartman visits and interviews Francis, a rather
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypSKDY4Jp3g - the fragment about Ben Strik.
28 old man who lives alone.6 Hartman introduces the fragment with the following words: “Most men are lost, they do not know what to do anymore. Therefore we, from Nog Meer Voor Mannen, are always happy when there is someone who says that he does know how it works and what to do. Francis!” Although his description is rather vague and general, Hartman clearly refers to the subject ‘women’, because the whole format is formed around the differences and relations between men and women. When the camera moves to Francis, the viewer sees an old man standing in his small garden, working on his blackberry bushes (Image 5). At first sight, Francis is not exactly the man one would expect to be the expert on the topic ‘women’. Though later in the item, it becomes clear that Francis has a rather unknown theory and metaphor about women and that he indeed could be called an expert, in his own way. What happens as well is that Francis directly starts to tell his story without Hartman introducing him properly. Also he gets a little irritated by Hartman and even later in the item Francis takes over the microphone for a two-minute monologue. These happenings and aspects make Francis an extraordinary and unpredictable subject. Subjects like Francis say things that deviate from the common, often contest the social norms by their hobbies or actions and act unpredictable sometimes. This could give some input for potential awkward moments, but it is still very important how the presenter/maker treats the opponent, as was the case with De Week of PowNed as well. After the introduction of Hartman, Francis says “Hallo”. When he finds out that Hartman does not immediately (after one second) ask him another question, Francis starts to talk about his background, where he lives and what he does. Hartman walks towards him and says to him, partly staring into the camera: “Before you start telling us your whole life story Francis, tell us, what are you doing here?” Hartman notes the unexpected behaviour that the viewer also witnessed. He is aware of that and with a look into the camera, directed to the viewer, he confirms the fact that it was indeed an unexpected begin, but this look also means something like “this man is indeed an extraordinary figure”. Although these actions of Hartman are very small and could be considered as details, these details push the item in a certain way. Hartman could have proposed to redo the introduction with Francis and he could have not repeated what the viewer already saw. Instead, he chose to let the situation unfold in order to create a humorous item. This is something that fits in Hartman’s style and something
6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTQALsDyq0Y&list=PLw1m-W4FtiaRM0pFYMM- kyJ6WNmiUHOYA&index=35 -“Ik schrik hier een beetje van” – Nog Meer Voor Mannen
29 he does more often; he gives the subject the opportunity to act freely, in order to create abrupt, funny and awkward moments.
Image 1 - The first shot of Francis. He stands on a ladder, cutting his bushes. However, in the remaining part of the item becomes clear how Hartman also chooses to adopt a total opposite stance towards his subject, namely one in which he suddenly interrupts the subject or asks brutal questions. At a given moment, Francis explains his theory to Hartman while he is standing on a ladder, which makes him considerably taller than Hartman. As Francis is telling his story, Hartman suddenly interrupts him and says: “You are standing on the ladder, higher than me. Would you please come down from the ladder, because it makes me feel uncomfortable and submissive.” This is the first verbal reaction that Hartman gives on the story of Francis. Instead of reacting to the content of Francis’ story, Hartman ignores the information and begins about something completely different. As an interviewee this could make you unsecure about your position, when the interviewer does not respond or listens to your story. Even though Francis handles this situation well by not complaining and ascending from the ladder, later in the item he becomes a little irritated by the behaviour of Hartman. It is again Hartman who interrupts Francis, this time to conclude some of the sayings of Francis. Hartman focuses on the viewer and repeats the most important points of Francis’ theory, adding some things that Francis never said. Francis disagrees with Hartman and becomes agitated. Hartman notices that and asks Francis why he is irritated. Francis tells him that he
30 concluded his words wrongly and that he constantly interrupts him. The situation results in an agreement between Hartman and Francis, which gives Francis two minutes time to take over the microphone and tell his story, without interruption, while Hartman is waiting inside behind the front door (Image 6), with an overly serious facial expression.
Image 2 - Francis filling his two minutes, while Hartman waits inside.
These shots in association with the information that the viewer receives, makes Francis almost some sort of actor. It shows some connection to Michael Moore’s technique of framing his subjects as if they are fictional persons. Middleton describes that as followed:
One of Moore’s signature rhetorical strategies is to frame his political opponents to make them come across if they were fictional Guest constructions: We laugh in disbelief as they look straight at the camera and make un-self-conscious proclamations of viewpoints the films frame as ridiculous and offensive, amazed that these people could be ‘for real.’ (45)
The subject Francis has an unconventional theory about how to treat women as a man, which gives Hartman enough opportunities to build a humorous item. With silences, brutal interruptions and unexpected questions, Hartman provides the item with humorous and sometimes awkward moments. He gave the subject space to act in his own way for example,
31 which induced the fact that Francis felt the opportunity to take over the microphone. Opposite to that, Hartman also irritated Francis by interrupting him and drawing the wrong conclusions. With this short analysis of this item I tried to show the actions and appearance of Hartman and how his choices as the presenter could influence the rise of eventual awkward moments. Of course, I can not decide whether these actions and choices are deliberately made to accomplish awkward situations, but the format is a partly humour-based program and Hartman’s background as comedy-actor/presenter make it at least plausible to think that part of these actions are intended. Nevertheless, despite of the intention of Hartman, the actions of Hartman as a presenter contribute to the construction of awkward moments.
2.3 Streetlab (NPO 3, 2014-present) Streetlab is produced by the KRO-NCRV and was aired for the first time in 2014. Recently the third season was aired in 2016, which was called Streetlab op Reis. The four friends Daan Boom, Jasper Demollin, Tim Senders and Stijn van Vliet, who know each other from their childhood, created the format of the program and present the program as well. In each episode the four conduct social experiments, mostly on the street. They ask themselves questions like “Does the height of your voice matter when trying to hit on women” or “Is it possible to train with the selection of Schalke ’04, if you are not a professional soccer player”. With their experiments they challenge the boundaries of the social, which often leads to painful, uncomfortable, but also humorous moments. A similar program is aired on RTL 5, called Foute Vrienden (RTL, 2015-), in which the four presenters dare each other to do, mostly embarrassing, social challenges. This could be seen as the commercial variant of Streetlab. In the previous two programmes De Week van PowNed and Nog Meer Voor Mannen the presenter/interviewer played a major role in the creation of awkwardness, by asking brutal questions, remain silent or sudden interruptions. As an outcome of these actions, the subjects often react in a weird or uncomfortable way, what causes awkward moments to arise. Streetlab differs from the other programmes, because the four presenters place themselves in potential awkward situations, what makes them the centre of the awkwardness that could emerge. There is still the connection between the subject and the presenter, like in the other two programmes, but instead of pushing the subject in an awkward position, the presenters push themselves in potential awkward situations. In a returning part of the format this positioning of the presenters becomes very clear. Almost in every episode the four presenters experiment how to hit on women. For example, they test if different uniforms are of any influence or which Dutch accent is the most
32 successful. The conclusion is always drawn and based on the amount of telephone numbers that each of the presenters gathers. These experiments are always conducted on the street or in a public building such as the library. Because they try their experiments on random people the reactions are unpredictable, what provides them with a wide variety of scenes. An example of such an experiment is shown in the clip “Streetlab - Do pick-up lines still work?”.7 With different pick-up lines the guys try to convince women to give their phone numbers to them. They have to do it separately; Jasper begins, followed by Stijn, then Daan and finally Tim. Important to mention here is that since the beginning of the program in 2014, two things have become very clear about the guys: Jasper is ‘the womanizer’ of the group and Tim is ‘the awkward one’ who never has success with women and always gets rejected. Though this is not a guarantee for every experiment, it is the case most often. And, in addition, it is also something that the four men can respond to. This becomes clear when Stijn and Daan announce the attempt of Tim, in a comment shot (short sequences they use to comment on the actions in the experiment). When Tim’s part is introduced, Stijn and Daan say the following:
Stijn: Then, the last hope is based on the seduce-machine of the Netherlands. Daan: The ‘seducinator’…
With a smirk on their faces Stijn and Daan speak out these lines. The tone of their sayings is clearly sarcastic. What follows is a shot of Tim standing on the street amongst people, looking for the first woman to approach. At the same, music is edited in and audible for the viewer. The tone of the music could be associated with sad or melancholic feelings. The music, together with the notions of Stijn and Daan and the appearance of Tim in earlier episodes all contribute to the idea that Tim is going to fail again. The music stops when Tim tries his first pick-up line. As expected, he is remorselessly rejected. The same music returns and Tim fails again two times. When his last pick-up line surprisingly seems to work, the music is changed in a much more hopeful and euphoric song. Tim is relieved and the guys congratulate him at the conclusion, for receiving one of his first telephone numbers. Then why could these scenes be considered as awkward when it fails? First, the four men conduct experiments that include tests or actions, which people in normal life would probably not attempt in their daily lives. When they test the personal space of people in
7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWZY8YbFwvs
33 “Streetlab – Sociolympics: The personal space race”, they definitely contest the unspoken social norm that tells us to keep some appropriate distance when talking to a stranger. Second, they do not play a role; they are conducting these experiments as themselves. Therefore a rejection is much more personal than a rejection when playing a role. The people on the street do not know that they are conducting an experiment and threat them as any other person. The rejections or reactions can be very personal, which could make it very painful for the one who is testing the experiment. Third, the four presenters often emphasize how embarrassed or awkward the situations are. They emphasize it for example immediately after a rejection or failure, by saying how embarrassed they felt. Also the notions of Daan and Stijn before Tim’s appearance could be meant to emphasize even more on his awkwardness. Even the music contributes to this notion.
2.4 Conclusion of the chapter: to shame or to be shamed. In this chapter I analysed three television programs on the role of their presenter(s) and how this role relates to the awkward moments that are present in these programs. Prior to the analysis I discussed the different formats and the important genre conventions that belong to these formats. In the analysis I focused on the actions and questions of the presenters and how these contest the given conventions. Next to that I also analysed some narrative aspects such as editing, in order to show how this contributed to the construction of awkwardness. Thereby, I also focused on the contextual information when it seemed necessary for the understanding of the creation of awkward moments. The fragment that I analysed for De week van PowNed shows how the interview technique of reporter Rutger Castricum stressed politician Job Cohen at that moment and how the actions of Castricum contest the conventions of traditional news programs. Where objectivity and a polite way of questioning are important norms for traditional journalists, the reporters of PowNed violate these norms by their impertinent way of interviewing. Awkward moments arise when subjects don’t know how to react to this form of interviewing, such as Job Cohen. Besides professional subjects, also ordinary people often appear in the items of De week van PowNed, who are also tormented by the same style of interviewing of the reporters. Although some of these subjects sometimes behave in an unconventional way, the actions of the reporters are important for the construction of awkward moments with these subjects as well. So, the violation of the conventions of traditional news programs by the reporters of De week van PowNed as described are the important aspect for the construction of awkward moments on screen.
34 In the analysed fragment of Nog Meer Voor Mannen presenter Maxim Hartman also plays with conventions. His problem-oriented approach and the use of representative subject or experts make his program look similar to a form of documentary journalism or even a public affairs program. However, Hartman contests the conventions of these genres by his own actions and the choice of his subjects. With silences, brutal interruptions and unexpected questions, the actions of Hartman provide the item with humorous and potential awkward moments. Beside, the experts that Hartman uses to represent the problem are ordinary people, self-named experts, such as Francis in the analysed fragment. This also contributes to the construction of awkward moments, by contesting the norm of using real experts, while these self-named experts often have unconventional theories or ideas. With his actions as a presenter and the interplay with and the behaviour of his subjects, Hartman creates opportunities to construct awkward moments. As I concluded in the first chapter of this thesis awkwardness is closely related to the social; without a social context, awkward feelings are difficult to originate (Kotsko 2010, Middleton 2014). The presenters of Streetlab conduct social experiments and are continuously involved with the social. Their social experiments often violate social norms, which makes it possible for awkward moments to arise. They use the conventions of a candid camera format to capture the ‘unguarded moment’ of ordinary people that are involved in the experiment. This contributes to the ‘real’ experience of the often-awkward encounters. The awkwardness that is generated in Streetlab is mostly a very direct awkward feeling. For example, Tim tries one of his pick-up lines on a girl and gets no reaction. He asks again and she walks away. Tim is embarrassed. There is not a build-up or a whole item to feel awkward about, but this short moment causes a quick awkward feeling. Thereafter, they strengthen these moments by editing (music), verbal emphasize and their own appearances. However, when compared, the role of the presenters in De Week van PowNed and Nog Meer Voor Mannen seems to be slightly different then the role of the presenters in Streetlab. As the reporters of PowNed and presenter Maxim Hartman mostly try to shame the interviewees or make them feel uncomfortable with impertinent questions or interruptions, the four presenters of Streetlab generate awkward moments by putting themselves in uncomfortable situations. So there is a major difference in how the presenter is related to the construction of awkwardness. Most of the scenes in Streetlab consist of ‘trial and error’ scenes, in which the situations exist of very short moments and short scenes. When a try fails, the presenters often show a visible physical reaction, as well in their faces or their whole body. In the fourth chapter of Middleton’s book on awkwardness he analyses the popularity
35 of watching reaction videos of people watching a scary, dirty or painful video. An important factor of this popularity, he notices, is the real response the viewer sees when watching a reaction video (Middleton 2014, 150-151). This real response works affective and through a form of bodily mimicry the feeling of the person in the reaction video is transported onto the viewer. In Streetlab a similar thing happens, because the viewer also sees the real and bodily responses of the presenters. Next to the social context in which the experiments are conducted, this bodily mimicry is the important source for the construction of awkwardness. Thus, the awkwardness in Streetlab could be considered a more direct, short and affective form of awkwardness, in comparison to the awkwardness in the other two programs. However, this on-screen presence is not only important for awkward moments in Streetlab, but also for Nog Meer Voor Mannen and to a lesser extent for the items of De Week van PowNed, because the reporters do not appear on screen that much, so the main way in which they can influence the awkwardness themselves is the way of questioning. Though, in Streetlab and Nog Meer Voor Mannen the presenters are consequently on-screen and they do address the viewer directly sometimes. For Maxim Hartman, the on-screen presence does not have the function to transfer his own awkwardness, but to endorse the absurdity or unconventional thoughts of his subjects. When Middleton analyses Michael Moore’s use of awkwardness he states that his on-screen presence, and especially the reaction shots of Moore, is a leading factor for the awkward moments Moore creates (63). With shots of Moore’s own body language and actions he is able to put the ‘shame on them’. As Middleton tells in an example:
When I teach Bowling for Columbine, Nichols’ line about his ex-wife and Moore’s subsequent reaction shot never fail to elicit back-to-back waves of laughter from the class. One contributing factor, of course, is the contrast between Nichols’ manic energy and Moore’s expressionless response. (63)
With this reaction shot, Moore creates a moment of comic incongruity (Middleton, 63), because these reaction shots are mostly used to show the engagement of the interviewer with the interviewee’s sayings (63). Maxim Hartman carries a strategy similar to Moore in his items. Hartman’s expressions switch from extremely serious to a smiling face during the item, which creates a comic feeling. He also reacts verbally to his subjects, by repeating some of their statements, but with a sarcastic tone that could be recognized by the ‘savvy’ viewer.
36 A result of these expressions, as well bodily as verbally, is that the perception of the viewer of the subject’ story becomes less serious and the attention is drawn to the unconventional aspect of the subject. Besides the influence of the on-screen presence of the presenter, an other important aspect, which is less related to the presenters actions, became clear in the analysis of the three programs. Editing in the analysed programs clearly contributes to the construction of awkward moments. With shots of Francis cutting his bushes in Nog Meer Voor Mannen the maker contribute to the idea of the viewer that these subjects ‘could not be for real, as if they were fictional’. Michael Moore does the same by ‘splicing together key moments of his interviews through seemless editing that creates a sense of continuity’ (Middleton 2014: 62). In this way the subject can be framed as being a weird or not intelligent person. In Streetlab editing also plays a role, though not in a ‘framing’ way. It is more the sound editing that is used to strengthen the moments of shame of the presenters. Concluding, it must be clear that in all three programs the presenter(s) contribute to the construction of awkward moments. This could happen through the on-screen presence or the (mostly unorthodox) way of questioning, which violate expected genre conventions. There are also other aspects that contribute to the awkwardness, which lie beyond the control of the presenter at the time of shooting the item, such as editing, the choice of subjects and the social context. Although the focus of this chapter was the role of the presenter on-screen, these aspects were also important to mention, because they contribute to the awkward moments as well. Beside, most of the presenters of the analysed programs are also involved in the post- production of their items, so they can have their influence on, for example, editing as well.
37 Chapter 3
Awkwardness as an unstable fantasy between subject and maker
‘The cold pancakes, that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.’ says Conny. ‘I did not know that you do not like cold pancakes.’ says her neighbour Tilly. ‘Yes, you knew it and you deliberately served them cold to me.’ answers Conny. ‘No, I swear I did not know it.’ says Tilly. ‘Yes, you did.’ reacts Conny in a disappointed and angry way. This fight between Conny and Tilly is part of an episode of De Rijdende Rechter (NPO 1, 1995-present), aired in November 2016. In the episode the neighbours Conny and Tilly have a conflict about their gardens and noise disturbance. In the studio of De Rijdende Rechter they have the opportunity to talk to each other under the supervision of presenter Jetske van den Elsen. But within minutes the conversation changes in a fight and the argument of the cold pancakes is being brought in by Conny. This fragment shows how subjects can cause moments of rupture and can majorly influence the ambiance of a scene. Where in the previous chapter and programs the on-screen presence of the presenters was of influence on the awkwardness, in these kinds of moments the subjects are more responsible for the construction of awkward moments. Therefore, in this chapter the analysis is focused on the role of the subject in relation to awkward moments. In the programs that I will analyse ‘ordinary people’ are the main subjects. As I mentioned in the first chapter the use of ‘ordinary people’ in reality-based television has been one of the constant factors of reality TV (Biressi & Nunn 2005: 2). Ordinary people appear in game shows, human-interest programs or talk shows. In other words, ordinary people and their dramatic experiences are the staple of reality TV (Dovey 2000: 86). To understand what ‘ordinary people’ are, scholars often use a class-based definition where ordinary people are defined as ‘members of the working and middle classes’ (Carpentier & Hannot 2009: 601). Trine Syversten defines ‘ordinary people’ a bit more in detail by saying that ordinary people are “ people who are not media professionals, experts, celebrities or newsworthy for any other reason – people who are, in principle, interchangeable with one another for the purposes of the programmes” (319). She states that the programs in which these people appear, such as game shows and docu-soaps, are all based on the viewers’ presumed fascination with watching real people faced with improbable situations and challenges (Syvertsen 2001: 319). In these programs the focus is thus on the foregrounding of the individual subjective experiences (Dovey 2000: 21).
38 Although the experiences of ordinary people are an important aspect for most reality- based programs, it does not mean that these formats are interested in the ‘ordinary’ of these people. According to Deery the focus lies on the extra-ordinary: “…on the ordinary person displaying extreme behaviour because of an unusual situation, stress or fantasy” (89). Reality –based formats are mostly created to emphasize this behaviour. In Love At First Kiss (NPO 3, 2014) the participants are brought in an unusual situation by having to kiss immediately. In De Rijdende Rechter the subjects are always in conflict and thus stressed. And in Man Bijt Hond (NPO 1, 2004-2014) the filmed subjects often have unusual fantasies or show unconventional behaviour. So it is both the participant’s ordinariness and their different status from the ordinary that are significant for these programs (Deery 2015: 89). In these programs formal aspects such as editing, sound or voice-over often emphasize the extra-ordinary behaviour of the subjects. The extra-ordinary behaviour of the subjects in these programs is thus an important aspect for the construction of awkward moments, by contesting the conventions of ‘everyday behaviour’. However, Middleton notes that the relation between the maker and the subject also is an important aspect for the rise of potential awkward moments. He describes this form of awkwardness as an unstable ‘fantasy of mutual recognition’ between eccentric documentary subjects and filmmakers (22). This awkwardness is often generated by a profound incongruity in the needs and desires between subject and maker, which often leads to moments of rupture (Middleton 2014: 23). Moreover, when it becomes clear for the viewer that the subject has a different motive to cooperate than the maker, this also could be a source for awkward feelings. Middleton notes that it is of great importance that makers represent subjects in a way that they recognize their own image (80). The construction of awkwardness can be rooted in the difference in desires of the maker and subject that is often strengthened by the ignorance of these subjects. They fail to recognize the desire(s) of the maker, which is often to produce an entertaining program or film. In this analysis I will include the three programs De Rijdende Rechter, Love At First Kiss (NPO 3, 2014) and Man Bijt Hond (NPO 1, 2004-2014). I will focus on the actions of the subjects, the formal elements and the relation between subject and format. For example, in Love At First Kiss the format itself and the montage contribute to the awkward behaviour of the subjects. However, in de Rijdende Rechter the behaviour of the subjects is mostly related to their own frustration and in Man Bijt Hond subjects are often very eccentric. As I wrote earlier, awkwardness never originates from one person or aspect but is associated with multiple factors.
39 3.1 Love At First Kiss (NPO 3, 2014)
The Dutch version of Love At First Kiss was aired in the autumn of 2014, produced by BNN and broadcasted on NPO 3. The idea of the format is clear: Two single persons, who have never met each other before, are put together in a room and have to kiss. After the kiss one person leaves the room and the first impression is over. After this, the two singles separately decide whether they want to go on a two-minute speed date or not. If yes, he or she waits in the speed date room for the other person to enter the door or not. Again, if yes, they have a speed date and can go dating in real life if they want. Often this second date is also filmed. If no one enters the door, the person is rejected and leaves the program, again as a single. In a nutshell, that is how the format works. It might be clear that the format itself includes aspects that can cause awkward moments for the participants. A regular first date in real life is already exciting and can make one feel very nervous or act clumsy. If this is already exciting, imagine having to kiss someone totally unknown in front of the cameras. This can easily provide nervous feelings or feelings of shame. In this analysis I will examine two kissing duos, originating from the episode aired on the 28th of October in 2014. Because both the behaviour of the subjects and the formal elements that contribute to the construction of awkward moments are clearly apparent and important I will discuss them in two parts. First, I will focus on the behaviour and how this generates certain parts of the awkward moments. Second, I will examine the choices of the makers and the influence of the format that strengthen the awkward moments. Together, these aspects are both part of the construction of the awkwardness in the program.
3.1.1 Behaviour of the subjects The first subjects that I will discuss are Charelle and Wessel, both students. Charelle is introduced first. She tells the viewer what, in her opinion, the aspects of the perfect kiss are: “The ideal kiss for me, is starting slowly. That you feel what the other wants and then build up the tension and finally slow down again.” Thereafter, Charelle is standing in the ‘kissing room’, waiting for her date. Wessel shows up and walks towards her, a little bit insecure:
Wessel: Hi, I am Wessel
Charelle: Hi, I am Charelle
Wessel: Hey.
40 After this introduction, they both keep quiet and do not do anything. It looks like they do not know what to do. Wessel throws some looks at the surroundings, the camera and probably the few crewmembers of the production. He sighs and stumbles a little. Charelle waits for Wessel to make a move. Finally, Wessel comes closer and they start kissing. After about 10 seconds, Charelle puts her head back and the kiss is over. Instead of walking away directly, Wessel keeps standing in front of Charelle, giggling and stumbling a little (Image 7). Charelle stares back to Wessel and says: “Eh…well this is awkward.” Wessel repeats: “Indeed.” After a short moment of silence, Wessel continues: “Well then…bye bye.” At last, he leaves the room. The actions of especially Wessel are important for the construction of some awkward moments. This has to do with the (social) expectations of Charelle and the viewer. When Wessel enters the room and introduces himself to Charelle, this is followed by no action of Wessel whatsoever. As the viewer knows, the format tells that the participants have to kiss before they get to know each other. Thus, the expectation is that when someone enters the room, he or she introduces him-herself and approaches the other for the kiss. However, Wessel does the opposite and it looks like he is waiting for a cue to start the kiss. After a while it is Charelle who takes initiative to start kissing. By his actions, or better said ‘the lack of action’, Wessel contests the expectations of both the viewer and Charelle.
Image 3 – Charelle and Wessel. Wessel does not know how to act and looks around.
41
Image 4 - Charelle stares back at Wessel, with an awkward smile.
Later in the episode Wessel and Charelle both decide to go on the two minute speed-date. Wessel is already in the room, waiting for Charelle to enter the door. Finally, she enters but Wessel does not say that much. A short impression of the conversation shows that their second encounter, again, did not go that smooth either:
Charelle: Hey! I’m glad that you are here.
Wessel: Likewise. I was afraid I was waiting for nothing.
Charelle: Me too. Then I would sit there, all by myself.
Wessel: That would be a pitty, indeed…
(SILENCE)
Wessel: I study in Harderwijk, close to the Dolfinarium.
Charelle: Nice, what do you study?
Wessel: Business Information Studies, a mix between IT and business.
Charelle: Nice.
Wessel: And what do you study?
Charelle: Nursery, I’m in my second year.
42 Wessel: Okay. Second year… Okay… in Utrecht?
Charelle: Yes, in Utrecht, nearby the IKEA.
Wessel: Okay.
The idea of a speed-date is that you ask the other questions to find out, in a short amount of time, what kind of person the other is and if that is what you find interesting. In their conversation the have no clue what to ask each other, more than a few regular questions. There are even moments of silence in the two minutes, because they do not know what to ask. For themselves, this could feel awkward because moments of silence are often uncomfortable. For the viewer, it is awkward in a slightly different way. We, as viewers, can reflect on the situation and decide how one should act in such a situation. The actions of Wessel (and Charelle) in the speed-date are the total opposite of what a good speed-date would look like, according to the viewer. This incongruity can contribute to a feeling of superiority with the viewer (Lintott 2016, 348). The feeling of superiority rises because the viewer is able to reflect on the happenings and this results in the laughter over the awkward moment that is screened.
Image 5 - Wessel and Charelle struggle to find interesting questions.
The next subjects that I will shortly discuss are Maarten and Gina, aired in the same episode as Wessel and Charelle. Maarten is introduced first, as he is already standing in the
43 kissing room. He tells that he is working in ICT and that he does not meet many women in his daily life. He also does not go out that much and is not a flirty guy. When Gina enters the kissing room the following happens:
Maarten: Hello, my name is Maarten…
Without waiting for Gina to introduce herself, Maarten steps towards her and starts kissing her, with his mouth open wide.8 She tries to kiss him back, but his style is overwhelming. After he stops kissing her, Gina says totally in shock of what just happened: “Well, thanks Maarten.” She walks out of the room and the kissing scene is over. Just like the actions of Wessel, Maarten’s action contests the expectations and social norms of Gina and the viewer.
Image 6 - Maarten approaches Gina very directly
His unorthodox way of approaching and kissing Gina is very cringe worthy. The lack of social knowledge of Maarten becomes clear, what makes it awkward to watch. However, as I said, in this program the choices in the montage and the setup of the format clearly contribute
8 Due to copyright reasons, fragments of the Dutch Love At First Kiss are not available to watch. Except the kissing scene of Maarten and Gina. The following link directs to the fragment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSIL96_z4AA
44 to and strengthen the awkwardness that stems from the subjects behaviour. In the next part I will highlight some of these choices.
3.1.2 Strengthening of the awkward moments by the editing and format A first aspect of the format that is used in the montage to construct and strengthen possible awkward moments is the use of interviews with the subjects. For example, before the kissing scene of Charelle and Wessel, a part of Charelles interview is edited in. This is the introduction of Charelle, in which she tells how she imagines the kiss to be: slowly, with ups and downs in tension and with feeling. Right after that, the kissing scene is shown and the kiss appears to be the total opposite of what Charelle described as her perfect kiss. By choosing to put this part of the interview with Charelle before the kissing scene, the editor creates an extra incongruity. This perceived incongruity, Charelles expectation of the kiss and the real kiss, strengthens the awkwardness that was already generated by Wessel’s behaviour. If Wessel turned out to be an extremely good kisser, his awkward behaviour before the kiss would be less of value. Later in the episode, when they go on their second date, the same editing structure is used. They just had another conversation that did not went that smooth, in which the topic ‘guinea pigs’ was the most interesting. Thereafter, Charelle is shown and says to the interviewer: “I like that Wessel is such a social guy. Also the fact that he easily talks to people is something I like.” Again there is an incongruity created between what the viewers sees and what is said on screen. If one thing became clear from the scenes with Wessel, is that he is definitely not a smooth talker. Through this choice in editing the awkwardness is thus strengthened. However, important to note is the fact that this only refers to the viewer experience of awkwardness. These editing choices have influence on the viewer’s perception of the kissing scene and not on the subject’s perception. Where the behaviour of the subjects influences the awkwardness for the viewer and the subjects, the choices in editing purely refer to the awkward feeling that lies with the viewers. Another strategy that is used in the editing is repeating or emphasizing small parts of awkward behaviour of a subject. I already wrote about Wessel’s behaviour in the kissing room, in the first part of this analysis. During that scene, before they start kissing, Wessel sighs/laughs a little bit uncomfortable. This sigh is repeated three times in the following shots. Not directly in order, but for example after an interview part. The viewer is thus confronted
45 three times with the clumsy, uncomfortable action of Wessel, another way to strengthen the awkwardness even more.
Image 7 - An example of an 'interview' shot. Wessel shares his ideas of the date with Charelle.
A third factor that is used in the montage to strengthen awkward moments, by creating a perceived incongruity with the viewer, is the use of music. While Maarten is introduced, a hip-hop beat is used as background music. Hip-hop beats are mostly associated with cool, rapper like people. Maarten’s appearance and introduction is far from cool and his kissing later is also not very cool. By using this opposite kind of music, the incongruity between the actions of the subject and the image of how a perfect participant would behave becomes even bigger. Music is also used during the kissing scene of Charelle and Wessel, not to create an incongruity, but to emphasize the awkward moment. When their kiss is over, they both keep standing in front of each other without saying anything. This is assisted by a silly, slapstick- like beat, what emphasizes the awkward silence even more.
3.2 De Rijdende Rechter (NPO 1, 1999 - present) Neighbours quarrels, disputes and garden fences are often the main topic in the Dutch program De Rijdende Rechter, translated as ‘The Driving Judge’. This format runs since 1999 and is produced by KRO-NCRV. In the program judge John Reid (from 1999 till 2015 Frank Visser was the judge) makes decisions about disputes between two parties, most often
46 neighbours. A lot of disputes go about noise disturbance, borders of property and ‘the right of way’. An episode is often made up of a few returning components. First, the two parties are filmed at their homes and the problem is introduced. At the end of this scene both sides state what their definite claims are for judge John Reid. In the second part the two sides are welcomed in Castle Zeist to elaborate on their problems under the supervision of presenter Jetske van den Elsen. Thirdly, judge Reid visits the location of the two sides and sees the problems with his own eyes, often together with some professional, such as a tree-expert. Subsequently, the hearing takes place with judge Reid and the two sides can argue their case for the last time. Finally, after there has been some more discussion in Castle Zeist, judge Reid makes his decision in Castle Zeist as well. The two parties that are in conflict are often very frustrated and therefore not able to talk normally with each other. The behaviour of the subjects in scenes as the hearing or the discussion in Castle Zeist is very unpredictable, because of this frustration. Therefore, weird or awkward moments are not uncommon in an episode of De Rijdende Rechter. In the next part I will analyse some parts of the episode ‘Game Over’ (08-11-2016) and point out moments of rupture and awkward behaviour.9 In the episode ‘Game Over’ there is a conflict between the neighbours Conny and Tilly. They used to be best friends, but after some disagreements this friendship ended and they became entangled in an endless fight. Both women are introduced separately. They are both filmed at their homes and tell about their problems with each other. For example, Tilly throws little rocks to the birds, which Conny likes to feed in her garden, because the birds shit on her fence. Tilly also talks about noise disturbance when Conny plays her videogames late in the evening. Conny has some complaints as well: she wants the doorstep back that Tilly borrowed from her and she thinks that the tree in front of her front door is too big (Image 12- 13). The complaints and reactions of both women are edited in order. In this way the completely opposite opinions of the women becomes very clear. When Conny complains about the tree, in the next shot Tilly stands next to her tree saying that the allegations of Conny are total nonsense. This happens with more complaints, such as the noise disturbance and birds. It shows how diametrically opposed the two women are and how they are both ignorant to the complaints of the other. For the viewer, these problems could be seen as very minor and the idea of ‘why are they fighting over these minor issues’ could already rise.
9 http://www.npo.nl/de-rijdende-rechter/08-11-2016/KN_1684559 - the episode ‘Game Over’
47 However, in the discussion in Castle Zeist it often shows how major the issues are for the both parties.
Image 8 - Conny next to the tree she thinks is too big.
Image 9 - Tilly next to her tree. Under the supervision of presenter Jetske the two women discuss their problems in Castle Zeist. Shortly after the start, the women already begin to insult each other. A lot of irritations are brought up. For example, Tilly used to cook diner for Conny every day. In exchange, Conny paid her 7 euro. Conny says that she found that too much and that the food
48 was not that good either. According to Tilly, the price was reasonable and Conny always loved her meatballs and kromeskies. Shortly, Conny puts away her anger and confirms that she indeed liked the meatballs and kromeskies (Image 14). Thereafter, she continues her complaints, by saying that Tilly once deliberately served her cold pancakes, while she knew that Conny does not like cold pancakes (Image 15). Of course, Tilly does not agree. Presenter Jetske concludes this part of the discussion by saying that it is a shame that they act ‘super mean’, while they used to be best friends.
Image 10 - Conny snaps out of her anger to confirm that she likes the meatballs. For most viewers, the topics of the complaints could be seen as things one would not have to argue about. Normally, people would talk to each other and try to find a solution or make a deal. However, people as Conny and Tilly are far beyond that point. They are frustrated and often ignorant and they stick to their principles. These conversations and moments in De Rijdende Rechter can be quite awkward, especially for the viewer, because of the absurdity of the fights and the ignorance of the subjects. Later in the episode, when judge Reid visits the homes of Conny and Tilly together with a sound expert, it becomes clear that the complaints are not much grounded. The noise disturbance is negligible and the birds are not under control of Conny. At the hearing is also becomes clear that it is really a matter of principles instead of rights. Nevertheless, during these scenes Conny and Tilly keep on arguing and insulting each other. The most important aspect of Reid’s judgement, therefore, is that the two women have to stop nagging each other.
49
Image 11 - Conny accuses Tilly of deliberately making her cold pancakes. The moments that Conny and Tilly argue with each other, at Castle Zeist and during the visit of judge Reid, are moments of rupture. These moments cannot be foreseen, but they can be expected, considering the format of the program. Precisely these moments can cause the awkwardness that is felt by the viewer, encouraged by the ignorance and frustration of the subjects and the absurdity of their fights.
3.3 Man Bijt Hond (NPO 1, 2004-2014) The editorial office of Man Bijt Hond definitely has some criteria that the subjects have to meet. For my bachelor thesis I interviewed seven contributors of the program and it became clear that they were searching for interesting stories. The tagline that they all wielded was ‘to show how small news can be big and how big news can be small’. However, one of the contributors even told me that they like to select an extraordinary subject better with respect to a less extraordinary subject. About the intention of the makers it is hard to make statements, but the fact is that the subjects they select are often very extraordinary and sometimes the choices balance on the edge of exploitation. Nevertheless, Man Bijt Hond was extremely popular during the 10 years that it aired on the Dutch public broadcasting channels. Reports and small portraits of ‘normal’ people were the core of every episode, extended with some returning rubrics such as ‘de Babbelbox’, in which people on the street could say anything they want to the camera. As I said, most of the time extraordinary persons are the subjects of the reports or portraits. In this short analysis
50 I will discuss the two items ‘Rapper Sjors’ and ‘Fiets meneer’ to show what kind of subjects the makers chose and how the awkwardness arises. In January of the year 2012 Man Bijt Hond aired an episode in which the item ‘Fiets meneer’ was shown.10 In this portrait Kees van Voorst is introduced. First, the voice-over starts the item by saying that the Netherlands is a bicycle country and that we have the most bicycle lanes in the world. He then introduces Kees, who has a very special relation with his bicycles. In the first shots of Kees the viewer sees how Kees gets his bicycle out of the barn, while he is talking to it. “Alright bicycle, we are going for a ride. I hope you don’t mind that it rains a little, but we have to go to the centre of the village. In the evening I will put you back inside, where it is nice and warm.” is what Kees says to his bicycle. It directly becomes clear for the viewer that this man is a very eccentric subject and clearly derogates from the crowd. He has an unimaginable passion for his bicycles, which most viewers could not imagine. The more the item continues the more the viewer gets to know about Kees and his bicycles. He lives alone and has 24 bicycles present in his house (Image 16). He treats the bicycles as if they are his family. The interviewer, who is not visible on-screen, keeps on asking about his relation with the bicycles, probably because he feels there is more.
Image 12 - Kees in the background, with his bicycles in the living room. It then becomes clear that Kees not only treats the bicycles as if they are his best friends, he also feels a sexual tension between him and his bikes. He describes how he often reaches an
10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=topnqOz0L4Y - the fragment ‘Fiets meneer’
51 orgasm while sitting on his bicycles and that there is a benefit over having a relation with a bicycle instead of a woman; there will be no little baby bicycles. The situation is quite unreal and bizarre for the viewer. The fact that someone is sexually attracted to bicycles is for most viewers beyond their social norms. Of course, people are allowed to have their own hobbies and follow their passion. However, the fact that this man is viewed by thousands on national television and seems to be totally okay with that can make the viewer easily cringe. Besides, the interviewer plays a role in creating the awkward feelings as well. During the item the interviewer not directly asks Kees if he feels more than just passion for his bicycles. Instead, he subtly asks questions that are suggestive about Kees his relation with his bicycles, so that Kees himself pronounces that he feels sexually attracted to bicycles. The awkwardness is therefore not only produced by the very eccentric subject Kees, but also by the palpable differing intentions of the maker and the subject. Sjors Peter, better known as ‘Rapper Sjors’, is the subject of one of the most viewed and shared items of Man Bijt Hond11. In 2013 the makers of the program visited Sjors in his home in Brunssum, a small town in Limburg. After the airing of the item, Sjors became very popular and he got the opportunity to perform a lot in cafes or other stages. However, the possibility is high that this popularity is not due to his rap-skills, but more to the funny, weird character he is. It becomes very clear in the original portrait of Sjors that he is not a very skilled rapper. Sjors has a major Limburgs accent, lives with his parents and has to read his lyrics of a paper when he performs his rap. These things are inconsistent with the details one would expect for a talented rapper. Still, Sjors is very sure of his own talent and wants to become famous. Full of confidence he tells the interviewer how he already has more than hundred fans. His mother says that she thinks Sjors can make it as a rapper. In comparison to Ali B and other rappers he has more talent, is her opinion. Just like other subjects I discussed in this third chapter, Sjors and his mother seem to lack some self-reflection. They seem to be ignorant for the fact that Sjors is not that talented as they think. Without shame, this man presents himself on national television. This incongruity between their reality and the reality of the viewer is an important aspect for the awkwardness that exists. However, it is not only Sjors behaviour and self-image that can make the viewer cringe from time to time. Again the influence and stance of the makers of Man Bijt Hond also important for the awkwardness that is spread over the item.
11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP06SgdjUkc - the item of Rapper Sjors.
52 The item is introduced by the following voice-over words: “The Dutch hip hop culture is growing. Young people are creating more and more rap songs and prefer to tell their stories through rap. This form of poetics has also grabbed the attention of upcoming talent Sjors Peter, who is ready to share his talent with the rest of the Netherlands”
Image 13 - Sjors chokes, because of the peanut butter he had for lunch. The suggestion is that Sjors is an actual talent. As I said, the rest of the item shows that he is not so talented. The possibility is that it is meant as a sarcastic voice-over, in order to create a funny item. This would be a fair choice if this were discussed with Sjors. Though he was not involved in the production of the item. Therefore it becomes very clear that there is major difference in the desires of both parties. In the interviews that I conducted with the makers of Man Bijt Hond for my bachelor thesis, reporter Heidi who made the item about Rapper Sjors told that she knew that his talent was not that great. The choice to make the item as they did was thus very deliberate. This clear distinction between the two desires contributes to the awkwardness that was already fuelled by the ignorant stance of Sjors and his non-talent.
3.4 Conclusion of the chapter: eccentric behaviour in the spotlight
In this chapter I analysed the role of the subject(s) in three different programs in relation to the construction of awkward moments. I focused on the behaviour and appearance of the subjects, as well as on formal elements as editing and voice-over and contextual elements such as the role of the format or influence of the maker.
53 The first important conclusion is that all three programs show ordinary people who behave in an un-ordinary way. Neighbours who can not have a normal conversation with each other in The Rijdende Rechter, a man who is in love with his bicycles in Man Bijt Hond and Maarten who immediately kisses Gina with open mouth, without saying a word in Love At First Kiss. This unconventional behaviour of the subjects contests the social norms of the viewer. Bilandzic et al. (2017) state that social norms are implicit and explicit rules for determining appropriate and inappropriate behaviour, but stay invisible when they are not violated (100). In the analysed fragments the unconventional behaviour of the subjects makes the social norms visible, producing the feeling of awkwardness. In De Rijdende Rechter the whole point is to attend the subjects on their inappropriate behaviour. However, it is necessary to notice that social norms can vary in different cultures or social classes (Bilandzic et al. 2017: 100). Nevertheless, it could be said that the behaviour of the analysed subjects and the possible violation of social norms contribute in a great way to the construction of potential awkward moments. The analysis also showed how formal elements such as editing and voice-over could strengthen the awkward feelings that are generated by the behaviour of the subjects. For example, by cutting parts of the personal interviews between the kissing scene(s) in Love At First Kiss incongruity between the showed scenes and the preference of the participants is often created. Also, through the repetition of certain actions in the montage, awkward behaviour is emphasized. In De Rijdende Rechter editing is used as well to emphasize the opposite meanings and frustration of the subjects. However, the formal elements in the programs not only emphasize the unconventional behaviour of the subjects, but also create new expectations for the viewer. In Love At First Kiss it was visible how subjects for example spoke about how they liked their first kiss and how another subject who did just the opposite violated this in the next scene. These expectations are spoken out by the subjects, but created through the montage. In Man Bijt Hond expectations are created by, for example, the voice- over. Rapper Sjors, for example, was introduced as being a talent in the hip-hop scene. Another important finding that relates to the unconventional behaviour and creation of expectations is that the subjects in the programs are often without shame and lack self- reflection. When Charelle tells to the camera that she likes the fact that Wessel is such a social person and not afraid to talk with people, she is total ignorant to the fact that he did not even know what to ask her during the speed-date. When Sjors Peter thinks he is a talented rapper, but the item totally shows the opposite. When Conny and Tilly fight about cold pancakes. At these moments, the subjects lack any form of self-reflection and the viewer often sees an
54 incongruity between the subjects’ ideas and the footage that is shown. When Kees tells the interviewer that he loves bikes, the interviewer asks him if he is okay with the fact that it will be on television. Kees is fine with that. This could be seen as courageous, but the fact that he is without any shame and does not seem aware of the fact that thousands of people are going to share the video can contribute to the feelings of awkwardness of that moment. This fragment of Kees also shows how the mutual fantasy of recognition between subject and maker (Middleton 2014: 80) can encourage awkwardness. In the fragment it feels as if the relation between the subject and maker is not equal, because the interviewer is clearly in search for Kees himself to tell about his (sexual) feelings for his bicycles, instead of the interviewer asking about it. These moments, when the viewer can feel the incongruity, also contribute to the rise of awkward feelings. All the same, in this chapter I tried to put a finger on the behaviour of eccentric subjects and how this behaviour creates awkward moments. In the introduction of this chapter I outlined the use of ordinary people with unordinary behaviour as the leading convention of the analysed programs. The analysis showed that, in contrast to chapter two, not the violation of generic conventions but the violation of social conventions contributed the most to the construction of awkward moments.
55 Chapter 4
Prank television and radical awkwardness After deliberate strategies of makers and eccentric behaviour of subjects, in this chapter I will analyse a third form of awkwardness. This form focuses on the relation between the format/screen and the viewer. First, I will discuss prank formats on Dutch television, because for these kinds of programs the relation between viewer and screen is very significant. Middleton describes how the viewer has an advantaged position over the subject, when it comes to prank formats (163). Prank formats, such as Candid Camera (US, 1948-) were arguably the first form of reality television (Clissold 2004: 33). Candid Camera made its debut on television during the Cold War, when military surveillance caused social anxiety. The show turned surveillance into something entertaining and at the same time developed the concept of ‘real’ television (Clissold 2004: 33). The main idea of the format is simple: (hidden) cameras record how ordinary people are confronted by extraordinary (staged) circumstances. Variations on this format are also possible; instead of ordinary people celebrities could also be pranked. Elements that are central to these formats are that the observation is covert, the activities recorded and they are broadcast to the general public (Penzhorn & Pitout 2007: 64). These elements are more or less also inseparable from current reality programs. However, the main difference between Candid Camera and reality television nowadays is that Candid Camera set out to record the unguarded moment and reality television gives full disclosure of their surveillance practices (Penzhorn & Pitout 2007: 65). This unguarded moment is the important aspect for the awkward moments that can arise in these prank formats and for the joy of the viewer. Given the above named conventions of the prank format, the viewer knows that these unguarded moments will happen. Alexander Brock states that the humorous intent of the makers, in this case the capture of an unguarded moment, often inherent is to the genre conventions of a television program (58). As for Candid Camera and other pranks shows counts, the humorous intent of the makers and the absence of it with the victim are central to the subgenre of prank television (Brock 2015: 58). Brock analyses that the humorous effect in prank television is at least partly brought about by the discrepancy between the participation of the uninformed victim and the makers (64). It is this incongruity of knowledge that can cause a both satisfying as uncomfortable position for the viewer. Satisfying because there will be enjoyable unguarded moments, uncomfortable because the viewer knows the discomfort the subject is going to be in. The subject is then still
56 the one to experience an awkward moment, by being fooled, but the awkwardness is transferred onto the viewer and results in humorous and uncomfortable feelings for the viewer. The second aspect that I will discuss in this chapter is a form of radical awkwardness. Middleton describes in his analysis of Borat how the joke could lie with the viewer, because of an uncertainty with the viewer of what the purpose of a scene could be (136). Viewers can be questioned on their comprehension or their assumptions about certain themes. In such a case awkwardness can rise because of the viewers questioned position. Heuvelman et al. (2005) researched the concerns and norms and values of the Dutch viewer when watching different genres of television programs. They stated that with the rise of reality TV, matters of privacy became much more important in the context of what content is permitted on television (Heuvelman et al., 2005: 325). They found out that reality TV programs often caused the most irritation with their participants, because of certain negative aspects such as ‘violation of social values’, ‘privacy’ and ‘immorality’ (334, 338). These negative viewer experiences could be linked to the experience of radical awkwardness, as I will show in the second part of this analysis chapter. In the first part I will analyse prank-formats such as Ushi and the Family (RTL 4, 1999-2002 & 2009-2012) and Bananasplit (NPO 1, 2009-2014) to show how the incongruity of knowledge between viewer and subject creates a form of awkwardness. I will show some of the unguarded moments in which the victims are clearly not aware of the humorous intent. Next, I will also analyse the program Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan (RTL 5, 2014-2015) to show how this format and the subjects question the position of the viewer and how the program contains a radical form of awkwardness.
4.1 Ushi and van Dijk & Bananasplit: Prank television Ushi Hirosaki is a character created and played by Dutch actress and presenter Wendy van Dijk and appeared for the first time in the program Ushi & van Dijk (RTL 4, 1999-2002). Ushi is a Japanese journalist who interviews famous international stars such as Donny Osmond and Lionel Richie. The interviewees do not know that it is actually Wendy van Dijk playing a character, till the end of the interview. At the end, they are confronted with a picture of them together with Wendy, from earlier that day. When Wendy takes of her wig the interviewee knows for sure that he or she is pranked. Ushi & van Dijk was not the only program that Ushi (van Dijk) starred in. She also produced Ushi & Dushi (RTL, 2008-2009) and Ushi and the Family (RTL, 2011-2012), in
57 which she also created other characters than Ushi to prank Dutch celebrities. To show how the incongruity in knowledge and the awkward moments during the interview are of any influence on the viewer I will analyse the interview of Adele and Ushi in 2009, originating from Ushi & Dushi.12 The interview took place in Amsterdam in the same year that Adele debuted with her first album 19. While the viewer knows that Adele is being pranked, she fully believes that Ushi is a real Japanese journalist. During the interview Ushi (van Dijk) asks her a lot of questions a regular journalist would not ask her. At one point the topic of the interview seems to become very personal:
Ushi: So if you are in the mood and you don’t have boyfriend, what you do?
Adele: [Laughs] Uhm…
Ushi: Is very serious question…
Adele: Omg…I just go to sleep.
Ushi: But you have to do it!
Adele: You don’t have to do it.
Ushi: But it’s good for you.
Adele: It is good for you, but you don’t have to do it. I don’t really wanna talk about masturbating to you in front of all these cameras.
Ushi: I was not talking about masturbating. I was talking about singing.
Adele: [Laughs] Omg…
Ushi: You talking about sex all the time.
Adele is visibly uncomfortable when the topic of the conversation seems to be masturbation. Her awkward feelings are also strengthened by the ignorant attitude of Ushi, who pretends she sometimes does not understand her. Adele is clearly caught in an unguarded moment, which is typical for hidden camera shows as I argued in the introduction of this chapter. For the viewer the awkward feelings of Adele are understandable, because of the inappropriate questions that Ushi asks. However the viewer can also enjoy these awkward feelings because the viewer knows that the interview is a prank.
12 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iabAuKv9KPg&t=482s - the interview with Adele
58
Image 14 - Adele is clearly in discomfort with the question. Middleton talks in his research about how the positions of the maker, subject and viewer shift along the different positions in the structure of a joke, as described by Freud. Freud says that there is always a joke teller, an audience and the butt of the joke (Middleton 2014: 118). For the interview with Adele it is clear how these positions are covered: Ushi is the joke teller, the viewer is the audience and Adele is the butt of the joke. The viewer has more information about the joke than Adele, what could create a feeling of joy for the viewer. However, this joy only exists because of the fact that Adele will know that she is pranked at the end of the interview. Middleton describes how Freud also notes that the humour in these cases is fed by the energy from the release of unpleasure that takes place during the scene (128). In other words, the viewer only feels pleasure of such a joke when the discomfort of the subject is dissolved at the end of the joke. In the interview it is clear that the awkwardness is produced by the questions of Ushi and is experienced by Adele. The awkwardness is transferred onto the viewer, but also transformed into a feeling of joy because of the fact that the viewer knows that the subject will be informed at the end of the prank. Would the subject not be informed at the end of the interview, the prank would be less enjoyable to watch for the viewer. This short analysis of the Adele interview shows how incongruity of knowledge and a release of the unpleasant feelings are important for the position of the viewer. In contrast to Ushi, the subjects that are pranked in Bananasplit are sometimes famous, but most of the time regular, normal people. Bananasplit is a candid camera show that was aired since the 1980’s. The newest version of the format was presented by Frans
59 Bauer and aired from 2009-2014 on the public channels. I will use the item about driver Arie to discuss how awkwardness is created with the pranked subject and how the viewer can perceive the awkward moments. In this item driver Arie is going to pick up the newlyweds Dirk and Jannie (both actors). When he arrives at the location he first meets Dirk. They talk a little and Dirk tells Arie that it will be his third wedding. Arie tells Dirk that he is still with his first wife. Dirk reacts astonished and compliments Arie. After that conversation the girl next-door Ingrid (actress) walks by with her dog. Dirk is gladly surprised and it looks like Dirk and Ingrid have some sort of secret affaire. They start touching and kissing each other. Ingrid gets turned on and wants to go into the forest. Dirk tells Arie that he is going to enjoy his freedom while it lasts and Ingrid asks Arie if he wants to guard the dog for a few minutes. The two walk into the forest and Arie is left alone with the dog, shocked by what just happened (Image 19).
Image 15 - Arie is left alone with the dog, while sounds of pleasure rise from the forest. When the photographer (actor) joins him, Arie tells him that he never has experienced something like this. Later in the item, the bride Jannie arrives and asks Arie where her husband is and whose little dog that is. Arie has no idea how to react to the situation, which totally escalates when Dirk comes out of the bushes followed by Ingrid a minute later. Arie is perplexed and flabbergasted by the happenings he just witnessed. The awkwardness that is experienced by Arie is generated by the absurd behaviour of the actors of the prank. The behaviour is just too bizarre to be real and violates a lot of social norms. It is thus understandable for the viewer that Arie feels uncomfortable during the happenings. However, the joy of this uncomfortable feeling that could be perceived by the
60 viewer is preserved by the fact that his unpleasant feelings will be dissolved at the end of the prank. The item also shows how the discrepancy between the humorous intent of the makers and unknowing victim is the key aspect of such a candid camera format (Brock 2005: 58).
4.2 Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan (RTL 5, 2014-2015) The program Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan follows people that are still virgin on their search for love. The program also fixes dates and activities for the participants, so that the chance of meeting someone is high. The reason that I included this program in this chapter and not in chapter three is that the awkwardness that is created by the behaviour of the subjects and strengthened by the editing can make the viewer rethink his relation to the subjects and program. So it becomes more a matter of the relationship between the format and the viewer. The behaviour and happenings are often such bizarre that the question could arise whether the program is ‘real’ or not. There were a lot of people that said that the program was not authentic.13 It was also known that participants had to sign a letter of secrecy and could not talk about the production of the program in public. A few participants did talk anyway and confirmed the rumours about the program being ‘fake’. According to these participants, parts of the episodes were scripted. However, the most important question is not whether the program is authentic or not. The important question is how the perception of the viewer is challenged by the awkwardness that is viewed in the program. The awkwardness is often so radical and beyond all common norms, that questions arise as ‘why do these people participate’ and ‘should I feel sorry for them or laugh about them’. The viewer could be left with an uncertainty about his own viewing position. To discuss the awkwardness and the relation of the viewer to it, I will analyse two fragments of Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan. The first fragment is about virgin Rob.14 He receives swimming-instructor Moniek at his home for a first date. Moniek tried to dress up nicely and has to big purple feathers in her ears. She brought a puzzle with her, to play with Rob. However the puzzle takes too long and they decide to play Twister. While playing Twister, Moniek tells the camera in a commentary shot that she was a little bit turned on because of the physical contact. During the gameplay the doorbell goes suddenly. The voice-over tells that it is Rob’s second date of the day, which
13 http://www.volkskrant.nl/televisie/rtl-5-reality-programma-over-datende-maagden-deels-in-scene- gezet~a3752072/ - article about the authenticity of the program. 14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqqjx91NBJA - The fragment of Rob.
61 is an hour too early. When she and Rob enter the room, Moniek is still standing on the Twister game. Slowly the two understand that they are both dates of Rob and thus competition. Rob does not say much and is clearly uncomfortable (Image 20). In the end he tells Moniek that this is his meeting for the afternoon and that they can finish their meeting (he does not use the word ‘date’).
Image 16 - Rob and Moniek after Rob's second date entered the room.
In the item the awkward moments are constructed by the behaviour of the subjects. Rob does not know how to properly react when both girls are in the room. Moniek is silent as well. The viewer could easily feel these awkward cues. However, there are aspects in the item that makes the viewer rethink the situation and the awkward moments that are presented. The fact that the second date is an hour to early, without letting Rob know is strange. Also, Moniek keeps standing in the same position on the Twister mat, until Rob and his second date enter the room. Only then she changes position in order to shake hands with the newcomer. These moments can make the viewer question the production process of the program. This idea can strengthen the awkward feelings of the viewer even more. The viewer could think of why these subjects participate and could be puzzled about the ignorance of the subjects. In a next fragment the actions of the subjects are even more radical and bizarre. In the fragment the mother of Macy comes home and finds Macy dancing with a boy in her room.15
15 http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/6590710/357e8589/_en_waar_kom_je_vandaan_.html - the fragment of Macy and her mother.
62 They are introduced to each other and after a while the mother of Macy asks if Anwar (the boy) has a six-pack as well. Anwar shows his six-pack. At the end of the item the following happens:
Mother: And where are you from?
Anwar: My parents come from Suriname, but I was born here. So I’m a half-breed.
Mother: Half-breed…All right, well…Welcome in the Netherlands!
In the editing these sayings are followed by the typical ‘Ba Dum Tss’ sound and a not amused facial expression of Anwar. The happenings in this short fragment are just beyond all social norms and intensely awkward. A mother who asks the potential date of her daughter, the first time she meets him, if he has a six-pack and welcomes him in the Netherlands because he is a half-breed. Most viewers would cringe if this happened in real life. The awkwardness in these two fragments and in the whole program is so bizarre, that I would call it a form of radical awkwardness, as described by Adam Kotsko. There is a major collision between the set of norms of the viewer and a total new set of norms created by the subjects and the program (Kotsko 2010: 15, 56). There seem to be no norms at all in the program; the boundaries are totally gone. For the viewer, the position is therefore uncomfortable. He could ship between feelings of laughter but also feelings of sorry for the subjects. How come they participate in such a format and lack the self-reflection to analyse the program that they are in. The awkwardness that is created in these short moments considers not only these moments but is spread over the whole program. Rather than only feeling awkward about one moment, the viewer’s awkward feelings consider the whole format.
4.3 Conclusion: pranks and radical awkwardness In this chapter I analysed two prank-formats and one format that caused a radical form of awkwardness. I focused on the position of the viewer, related to the awkwardness that is created through the programs. First, I discussed the conventions of hidden camera programs to show what expectations these formats bring for the viewer. The ‘unguarded’ moment, the unknown surveillance and the staged circumstances are necessary conventions for such a format. The two analysed programs clearly followed the conventions, making it possible for awkward moments to arise. Thereby, the format of candid camera programs exists by the
63 notion that people are caught ‘unguarded’, so it makes sense that these programs stick to the conventions. However, an important aspect to highlight for the prank-formats was the incongruity of knowledge, which causes that the viewer knows that the subject is pranked. This incongruity creates a feeling of pleasure for the viewer. The viewer can only experience joy out of the awkward moments if the unpleasant feelings are dissolved at the end of the prank. It is important to see the difference between these prank-formats and prank videos on YouTube, which are also very popular. The relation with the viewer in these short prank videos, where for example a man comes out of a garbage bin to scare people, is much thinner and faster than the relation that is present with the prank-formats such as Ushi. The relation of those YouTube videos is comparable with the relation of the program Streetlab, which I analysed in chapter two. The awkward moments are short and bodily affective for the viewer. The same counts for a startle response, which is immediately affectively felt by the viewer. Opposite to that is thus the relation of the viewer with the prank-formats, where it is necessary to release the unpleasant feelings at the end, in order to feel joy from the awkward moments. I also analysed Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan to show how the actions of the subjects and the decisions of the makers/format together create a form of radical awkwardness. The extremely abnormal behaviour of the subjects creates indeed awkwardness in a same way as for example the subjects in De Rijdende Rechter, but through different cues in the program the viewer is challenged in his belief in the authenticity of what he sees on screen. This contests his relation towards the program and the way he receives the awkwardness. The awkwardness can be felt as a radical form of awkwardness that covers the whole concept of the program and questions the participation of the subjects. It could be compared to how ‘comedies of deception’ make use of awkwardness, as described by Middleton. He says the following about these films:
The scenes…all provoke forms of discomfort and unease, for the social actors onscreen and the viewer as well. Their awkward moments are intended to pierce through layers of social and political complacency or hypocrisy, bringing forth discomfiting truths from which we might prefer to look away. (Middleton 2014: 120)
Just like these films the format of Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan could challenge the ideas of the viewer and may let him rethink his position, towards the subjects, the program or even the society.
64 Now that all positions (maker, subject and viewer) and a wide scale of programs have been analysed in relation to the construction of awkwardness, the next chapter will be the conclusion of results of the research and will answer the main question of this thesis.
65 Chapter 5
Conclusion In this thesis I sought to find out how awkward moments are constructed in different Dutch reality-based television programs and how (genre) conventions and textual elements play a role for the construction of those awkward moments. I conducted this research because I noticed that awkwardness, as a form of humour on screen, was under-theorized, while from my own experience I had seen lots of awkward encounters on television in my life. Only Adam Kotsko and Jason Middleton focused in their literature on awkwardness as a form of humour on screen. Therefore the goal of this thesis was to extend their research by exploring and identifying the construction of awkwardness in nine Dutch reality-based television programs. In order to contribute to the existing research on awkwardness I chose to use the same conditions as Middleton uses in his analysis of awkward moments. Therefore I used only reality-based television programs and conducted my analysis on the basis of the three different forms of awkwardness, regarding the maker, the subject and the viewer, as described by Middleton. Both Kotsko and Middleton described how the contestation of given conventions is an important factor for awkward feelings to originate. That is why I chose to follow genre theory as the main theory for the analyses of the nine programs. By discussing the generic conventions of the different sorts of programs, I was able to analyse how these conventions were contested, followed or used and how this related to the construction of awkward moments. Next to that, I also analysed different textual elements in order to find out how these elements contributed to the construction of potential awkward moments. In chapter two the analysis was focused on the role of the on-screen presenter in relation to the construction of awkward moments. One of the important findings is that all the analysed formats and presenters mix up generic conventions. The presenters of De week van PowNed and Nog Meer Voor Mannen contested traditional conventions of respectively news programs and documentary journalism, where the presenters of Streetlab used the conventions of candid camera programs to the awkward moment they experienced during their social experiments. The violation of these conventions could make the scene uncomfortable for subjects, when the brazen questioning of the reporters of De week Van PowNed for example torments them or when they have to deal with the unconventional appearance of Maxim Hartman. Another finding is that the on-screen personae, facial and bodily expressions, of a presenter could also be encouraging for the awkward feelings of as well the subject as the
66 viewer. However, there are also presenters that deliberately put themselves in uncomfortable positions to create awkward moments. They strengthen these moments often by emphasizing it through their own reactions on screen, such as saying ‘that was awkward’ afterwards. In chapter three the role of the subjects in relation to the construction of awkward moments was researched. For each of the three analysed programs the most important generic convention is the foregrounding of ordinary people with unconventional behaviour. The showing of these ordinary subjects and their eccentric behaviour is the basis of the awkward moments that are constructed in the programs. This is because social norms that are normally invisible are now brought on to the surface through the violation of them by the behaviour of the subjects. It is the violation of social expectations that is an important aspect for the construction of the awkward moments. However, some of the expectations are also created by the use of textual elements in the fragments. Through editing or sound, expectations of future happenings and behaviour are created, which are often violated later in the fragment. This also contributes to the construction of potential awkward moments. Furthermore, the lack of self-reflection of the subjects could also be seen as a possible aspect for the construction of awkwardness, because the viewer is able to reflect on the behaviour of the subject. In the fourth chapter the analysis was focused on the role of the viewer in relation to the format and the awkward moments. The discussion of the generic conventions of candid camera programs showed that these kinds of formats are made to fool unknowing people and thus create unguarded, awkward moments. Awkwardness in these formats often rises because the fooled people are brought in an unconventional and absurd situation. To enjoy the awkwardness of the people that are pranked, in a candid camera show or prank interview, the viewer needs to see dissolution of the unpleasant feelings of the pranked subject. Because there is an incongruity in knowledge between the viewer and the subject, the viewer experiences joy on the forehand. Only because the viewer knows that the subject will be informed at the end of the scene the viewer is able to enjoy the awkward happenings on screen. The chapter also discussed how some formats violate social conventions and emphasize unconventional behaviour so much, that a form of radical awkwardness can rise with the viewer. This radical awkwardness questions the relation of the viewer to the format on screen. By examining a different position in relation to awkwardness in each chapter of analysis, it was possible to reveal and identify in detail the different aspects that play an important role for the construction of awkwardness. However, this does not mean that the positions of the maker, subject and viewer/format are not intertwined. Where a presenter
67 could deliberately violate given generic conventions at one time in a fragment, at the same time a subject could behave very eccentric, which both contribute to the construction of potential awkward moments. The analyses of the different programs showed that certain textual elements for all the programs emphasized the awkward behaviour of subjects or awkward moments. Through sound effects or editing unconventional aspects of the behaviour of subjects are highlighted. This shows similarities with the strategy of Michael Moore as described by Middleton, who often tries to frame his subjects as if they were fictional characters (62-63). In general, textual elements as editing and voice-over are thus great contributors to the emphasizing and construction of awkward moments. To sum up the findings, it could be said that for the position of the maker the violation of generic conventions ought to be the important aspect for the rise of awkwardness, that for the position of the subject the violation of social conventions are found to be the most striking and that some formats, such as Bananasplit, follow their conventions because they are made to create awkward moments. However, there are some implications that I have to take in account for this research. First, I could have been biased by the fact that I was searching for awkward moments in the analysed programs. Different people can have different expectations or social norms within the same context. Therefore, my intention was not to conclude whether the scenes I analysed were awkward or not, but my intention was to find out how awkward moments could be constructed and what aspects contribute to the construction of these feelings. Nonetheless, examining multiple people on their experience of the awkward moments, for example, could strengthen my findings. By letting them rate the awkwardness on intensity and asking them why and how they felt awkward at certain moments of viewing, this research could be invigorated. Second, the use of Middleton’s theory on the different forms of awkwardness as guidance for my analysis helped me to discover the different aspects that contribute to the awkward moments in detail. Though, in his book the focus is often on the goal of the use of awkwardness of certain directors or makers. For example, he describes how Michael Moore stages an interview with Charles Heston and makes it deliberately awkward, in order to accomplish a greater message. In my research it was impossible to discover the goals of the makers or producers. Therefore the use of Mittel’s ‘genre mixing’ and other genre theories to discuss the conventions and to show how makers or subjects contest generic or social expectations was a helpful addition to the basis of Middleton’s theory. Third, the analysis of the construction of awkwardness in Dutch programs could have been strengthened by the incorporation of a discussion about contemporary Dutch culture and the appreciation of social
68 and cultural values. Combined with research on viewer experience this could give an insight in the experience of awkwardness with the Dutch viewer. However, would I have incorporated such a discussion, this research would have been twice as long. In the end, it was my goal to reveal and identify how awkward moments are constructed on-screen in different sorts of Dutch reality-based television programs. In this research I discovered important aspects that contribute to the construction of awkward moments. However, the question of why awkward moments are being aired so much remains unclear. Further research on the goal and choices of television producers and on Dutch contemporary social and cultural values could treat this question. This would be a great addition to the already existing literature and my research on how awkward moments are constructed. Especially, because the use of awkward moments on Dutch television has not been examined before, while it appears to be a major aspect of contemporary Dutch television.
69 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrejevic, Mark. Reality Tv: The Work of Being Watched. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2004.
Aufderheide, Patricia. Documentary Film: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford UP, 2007.
Ballingall, Tim. "Documentary's Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship. Jason Middleton. New York: Routledge, 2014. 186 pp. The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 48, no. 1, 2015, pp. 209-211.
Brock, Alexander. "The borders of humorous intent – The case of TV comedies." Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 95, 2016, pp. 58-66.
Bilandzic, Helena, et al. "The Morality of Television Genres: Norm Violations and Their Narrative Context in Four Popular Genres of Serial Fiction." Journal of Media Ethics, vol. 32, no. 2, 2017, pp. 99-117.
Biressi, Anita, and Heather Nunn. Reality Tv: Realism and Revelation. Columbia UP, 2012.
Carpentier, N., and W. Hannot. "To be a common hero: The uneasy balance between the ordinary and ordinariness in the subject position of mediated ordinary people in the talk show Jan Publiek." International Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 12, no. 6, 2009, pp. 597-616.
Carroll, Noel. Humour: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Clissold, Bradley D. “Candid Camera and the Origins of Reality TV.” In Understanding Reality Television, edited by Su Holmes and Deborah Jermyn, 33-53. London: Routledge, 2004.
Deery, June. Reality Tv. Hoboken: Wiley, 2015.
Dovey, Jon. Freakshow: First Person Media and Factual Television. Pluto P, 2000.
70
Duncan, Pansy. "Joke work: comic labor and the aesthetics of the awkward." Comedy Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2017, pp. 36-56.
Heuvelman, Ard, et al. "Irritating, shocking, and intolerable TV programs: Norms, values, and concerns of viewers in The Netherlands." Communications, vol. 30, no. 3, 2005.
Hill, Annette. Reality TV: Audiences and popular factual television. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Kotsko, Adam. Awkwardness. Winchester: Zero Books, 2010.
Kuipers, Giselinde. “Television and taste hierarchy: the case of Dutch television comedy.” Media, Culture and Society 28.3 (2006): 359-378.
Lintott, Sheila. "Superiority in Humor Theory." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 74, no. 4, 2016, pp. 347-358.
Mittell, Jason. "A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory." Cinema Journal, vol. 40, no. 3, 2001, pp. 3-24.
Middleton, Jason. Documentary’s Awkward Turn: Cringe Comedy and Media Spectatorship. New York: Routledge, 2014.
Nichols, Bill. Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.
Penzhorn, Heidi, and Magriert Pitout. "A critical-historical genre analysis of reality television." Communicatio, vol. 33, no. 1, 2007, pp. 62-76.
Syvertsen, T. "Ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances: a study of participants in television dating games." Media, Culture & Society, vol. 23, no. 3, 2001, pp. 319-337.
71 Teurlings, Jan. “Media literacy and the challenges of contemporary media culture: On savvy viewers and critical apathy.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 13.3 (2010): 359-373.
MEDIA LIST
Bananasplit. AVROTROS. 26 December 2011.
De Rijdende Rechter. KRO-NCRV. 8 November 2016.
Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan. RTL. 26 July 2015.
Ik heb het nog nooit gedaan. RTL. 16 August 2015.
Love At First Kiss. BNN-VARA. 28 October 2014.
Man Bijt Hond. KRO-NCRV. 28 March 2013.
Man Bijt Hond. KRO-NCRV. 24 January 2012.
Nog Meer Voor Mannen. RTL. 30 March 2015.
Streetlab. KRO-NCRV. 18 September 2015.
De Week van PowNed. PowNed. 2016.
Ushi & Dushi. RTL. 10 December 2009.
72