Welcome to Eureka Street

back to site

Humankind cannot bear very much reality

 

Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind

Cannot bear very much reality.

Time past and time future

What might have been and what has been

Point to one end, which is always present.

‘Burnt Norton’ from Four Quartets, T.S. Eliot

 

What is reality and why can’t we bear much of it? In the past, I’ve written about the phenomenon of ‘reality’ shows; I’ve even been on one (Everyone’s A Critic) and although it was more honest than the majority of its ilk, it was still framed, constructed, deconstructed, reconstructed and served up as a digest of what its cast members said, the raw material having gone through the internal economies of its producers pretty much as impressions and experiences go through the brain of a fiction creator.

As I’ve said, EAC was one of the better ones. My husband and I, along with 22 other ‘talent’ people were treated well, fed lavishly, driven or flown to galleries from Melbourne to Sydney and lodged in decent accommodation. We were easily outnumbered by the huge production team: There were producers and their assistants, photographers, sound engineers, caterers, travel coordinators, and Uncle Tom Cobley & all. Cast and crew came to about a hundred souls, all to put on a small program that filmed people looking at art in galleries and talking about it. It must have cost millions.

Some of the field producers wanted a particular vibe from you. They’d stop you and ask for something ‘more personal’. One producer disagreed with what Rick and I were saying about a contemporary piece and wanted us to start over and say something different. Not all, though. We actually protested about that and the main production team were supportive. Most weren’t like that and were simply there to make sure you were able to see the piece properly and that you were comfortable. But when active direction happened it felt strange, because one’s response to a work of art is entirely personal, made up from what you know and what you experience in the moment of contemplation of the actual piece.

When it’s genuine response, you notice stuff and point it out. Or you don’t notice much and don’t feel much. It’s personal. You make judgements, because that’s what you do anyway when looking at art, or politics, or life. But then the editors get onto your maybe ten-to-fifteen-minute substantial conversation and clip out the twelve seconds where you happened to mention your mum – and that’s what makes it to air. They want strong reactions, but not all types of strong reaction. The contentious things we said about that piece in Sydney didn’t make it to air and I’m not surprised. (It was pretentious and crappy. Well, they said they wanted our opinions …) The editors also cut out some harsh things I said in Melbourne when looking, if I remember rightly, at a particularly strong Gordon Bennett. I slammed electoral divisions in Victoria being named after mass murderers of Aboriginal people like Angus MacMillan. I might been a tad critical of John Howard too. Naughty naughty. The producers obviously didn’t want the program to be too political or abrasive, and sometimes I suppose I am. Fair cop. (This was 2017, and Macmillan wasn’t renamed until 2019. It’s now Monash. About bloody time.)

So, when I compare this admittedly benign and mostly enjoyable experience with what I’ve seen and heard about what happens on other shows that are labelled ‘reality’, I think that EAC was a bit of a unicorn. It only tweaked and mostly didn’t attempt to script or direct us, which is a world away from the highly constructed faux-reality dramas of Married at First Sight, Big Brother, Real Housewives, Jersey Shore etc, etc. I try to watch them sometimes so that I’ve got a finger on what’s happening in media land, and indeed covered Big Brother in some detail in the distant past of Eureka Street, when I was the Watching Brief columnist.

But it’s different now. That small freckle of Sylvania Waters, the Osbournes and Big Brother has metastasised into the ever-spreading melanoma of falsity and porn-adjacency we now see. I can’t sit through five minutes of Kardashians or enjoy seeing people being forced to eat cockroaches and slimy viscera. I would not have been happy to go to the Colosseum had I been an ancient Roman. Given my views, I would probably have been the ‘talent’ anyway, short-lived food for lions and pitiless human voyeurs. At least a lion would only eat my body. The other lot want your soul.

But then, why do people want this? As King Lear said, ‘what makes these hard hearts?’ How do some people watch something happening and come to radically different views? Relativity is important, context is important. But there have to be some hard lines drawn, surely. You can’t fall back on context when someone is calling explicitly for the genocide of another group, as we saw memorably enacted in US Congress earlier this year. And strangely, egregiously, we saw this week that the contract of the UN’s special advisor on the prevention of genocide, Alice Wairimu Nderitu, was not renewed when she determined that Israel was not perpetrating genocide in Gaza. This Kenyan woman, whose entire professional career has been based on the study and prevention of genocide, failed to deliver the conclusion that was desired by the Secretary-General. 

The warring points of view over what has been happening in the Middle East since October 7 only serve to make the point that what you bring to the world when you are bearing witness tells me what you are as much as what you saw. Or believed you saw. If you are getting your news only from Al Jazeera, SBS, ABC or The Guardian, you will believe one thing. If you read a bit further and from a wider variety of sources, and if you're well-versed in history, you might well believe something else.

I have a rule of thumb now: if your question enrages your listener, then you have part of your answer. If your question makes them hate you, you have another part of the answer. If your disagreement with their argument makes them want to hurt you in some way, that’s as much an answer as anything verbal.

It doesn’t make me want to stop asking questions.

 

 


Juliette Hughes is a freelance writer. 

 

Topic tags: Juliette Hughes, RealityTV, Television, Art, Reality, Truth

 

 

submit a comment

Existing comments

Another angle is that truth can be stranger (or wilder) than fiction… certainly in my experience! And would also be lost on the cutting floor—of the studio, or the mind.


Paul Fyfe | 05 December 2024  

Your 'problem' - if it is indeed such - Juliet, is that you are intelligent, well-informed, independent and speak your mind clearly and concisely. Good Lord! What other Orwellian 'thought crimes' are you going to commit? The situation in the Middle East, with a witch's brew of characters: Israel; Hamas; Hezbollah; Iran; Bashar al Assad; Russia; Turkey and the USA makes it hard to call the situation there. Several atrocities - real ones: murder; rape; attacking defenceless civilians and aid workers - have occurred. Behind much criticism of Israel, some justified, some not, lurks the dreadful spectre of centuries-old antisemitism. The false 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' has a wide circulation in the Middle East.


Edward Fido | 06 December 2024  

Similar Articles

Sanmao and the priest

  • Margaret Simons
  • 13 December 2024

High in Taiwan’s mountains, Jesuit priest Barry Martinson found a soulmate in celebrated author Sanmao, who inspired millions with her writing. Their relationship—neither romantic nor conventional—was a profound meeting of kindred spirits, rooted in shared curiosity, literary love, and the sacrificial essence of friendship.

READ MORE

Jordan Peterson wrestles with God

  • Peter Craven
  • 06 December 2024

As an outspoken psychologist and best-selling author, Jordan Peterson become a lightning rod for debate on culture, gender, and the meaning of life itself. His newest book, We Who Wrestle With God, attempts to reinterpret the Bible through a psychological lens. Yet, some critics question whether his explorations of scripture offer revelation or revisionism.

READ MORE
Join the conversation. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter  Subscribe