Living Out Loud

As a child of the reality tv generation, the opportunity to watch what could possibly be considered the pilot series for the genre was an eye opening look at its maturation over the past thirty years. The critical backlash, as Craig Gilbert described in his reflections, was truly what spawned the negative sentiments surrounding the show- both general viewers and the family themselves seemed, according to Gilbert, content with the content. Personally, I think the parents in “A Married Couple” or the teachers in “High School” are far more deplorable than the Louds, in the two episodes I saw. However, as the Louds were presented essentially in a series of twelve films, the look at their human fallibility is more penetrating as it is broader in scope and readily provides more examples for a critic. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, the wacky pair in “A Married Couple” exit the screen after two hours, leaving the viewer free to disassociate and live his or her life differently or “better” than that of the subjects whose behavior s/he had just spent the time viewing.

A weekly television series provides more fuel for the critical fire, so to speak. Because Craig Gilbert and the Raymonds were essentially making a twelve hour long documentary, they had the freedom to include more minutiae than a single feature length film would allow, for there was less risk of losing the audience. Despite the cataclysmic event of the series, in which Pat asks Bill for a divorce, there are still quiet moments in the episode, reinvigorating a sense of normalcy. The girls awkwardly play flute, missing notes, and only a complete over intellectualization would possibly present that this has anything to do with the state of their psyche (the unbalance of not having their father in the house resounds in a dissonant tone, blah blah blah.) When Pat visits Lance in New York, the tedium of some of their time together is also captured on film. As they both sit in her room at the Chelsea, not really conversing, the lull in conversation is replete with the awkwardness felt by a grown child trying to entertain his mother in a somewhat unusual setting. To me, this is more genuine insight into the lives of these people than a shorter format would allow. The luxury of having twelve hours to present a documentary on the Louds and the state of an/the American family, means less pressure on the construction to speak as definitively towards a thesis in every moment. In fact, Gilbert mentions in the first half of his article that he was ultimately forced to fire an editor who was trying to shape the Louds into character types. He wanted the presentation to be a natural, unbiased presentation of the seven months he spent with this family.

“An American Family” provides fantastic contrast to modern reality television, even when the situations are somewhat similar. My generation, having been raised on MTV’s “The Real World,” spent most of high school trying to figure out “who we would be” on the show, in case the casting agent ever came to call. This is in direct opposition to what Gilbert says he was attempting with “An American Family.” Modern reality TV takes advantage of the understanding that conflict will draw viewers, and intentionally shapes the subjects of its programming into heroes and villains. The teenagers on “The Real World” probably did not outwardly differ much from Grant and Lance Loud. However, the editing establishes this girl as the “militant black lesbian” and this boy as the “intolerant frat boy,” with someone else in the house serving as the “enlightened liberal mediator” between the two. After watching even one season of “The Real World,” a viewer is highly aware of the fact that the title is exceptionally misleading.

Craig Gilbert says that the most negative reactions against the show came from the critics, facing what he called “the shock of recognition.” The mundane moments, as I described before, along with the day to day concerns of the family, were perceived as deep seated superficiality; a product of white privilege. Gilbert argues that this lashing out in the press comes not from the availability of flaws in the Louds as much as from the recognition by the critic of these shortcomings in his own household. One way to pacify the uneasiness of being greeted with your own somewhat ugly behaviors is to publicly decry them, as if you can, by doing this, establish yourself as a moral master above such things. By criticizing the Louds, those writing were able to ignore the unattractive truths of the average American- they had superficial concerns, they fought with family members, and oftentimes did not say anything of particular philosophical worth. However, trapped behind the screen of the television, the normality of the Louds’ idiosyncrasies proved to be a sitting duck for the insecurities of those who would rather that this imperfect family not be representative of the typical.

I would prefer that reality television took the approach of Craig Gilbert in providing a less constructed view of its subjects. But it is likely that the nature of the medium’s structuring towards highly dramatic portrayals has to do with the modern market’s need for constant, intense stimulation. This, and the ease of identification (although still from a privileged critical distance) are the reasons why reality television has had such a prolific history in recent years, as audiences are more willing to invest themselves in the televised constructions of actual people rather than completely fictionalized characters, likely because they know that once the season ends, these real people can disappear back into the obscurity of day to day life.