Sacrificed to an Idol

Unlike Ann Althouse, I've actually never watched "American Idol."  So-called "reality TV" has never grabbed me.  ("The Sopranos" is my idea of reality TV.)  I did watch the first season of "Survivor," hooked by the haunting theme music and the beautiful production values, but it made me wince because I live with an actual survivor and there wasn't any helicopter hovering nearby with a hot pizza when he was hungry (which was all the time for two years).  I realize I've missed an entire era of American culture by not giving a bleep who the Bachelorette picked.  Frankly, my dear, I don't give a bleep.

But if "American Idol" is as described in this New York Times editorial, I may be missing one of the signal phenomena of our era:

The high points of the early episodes of the show are the moments in which desperately clueless singers deliver unbearable versions of pop standards in front of judges who either burst into derisive laughter or helpfully advise the would-be idols that they are way too fat, badly dressed, funny looking or simply "honestly, excruciatingly awful." . . . [S]ome of the contestants . . . are simply weak and vulnerable. The producers seem to feel it's funny to watch a trio of wealthy and famous adults making fun of a simple 16-year-old girl whose only sin was being "pretty sure I have a good voice" when she didn't.

About 100,000 contestants, all in their teens or 20's, auditioned for "American Idol," and the ones who wound up on national television survived at least two elimination rounds. . . . [I]t is hard to imagine that any of the extremely naïve contestants understood that they were being moved along only because they showed promise for being ridiculous. . . . [T]he viewers are invited to roar while young people who in many cases appear to be poor, of low intelligence or even mildly disturbed, sing enthusiastically and then stand gape-mouthed with shock while their heroes insult them on national television.

It's no coincidence that "Idol" is a smash hit on the conservative network Fox.  The Republicans and Hollywood have weirdly conspired to promote a vision of life in America as a social-Darwinist zero-sum game of "winners" and "losers."  In a society where you have to succeed big just to survive, the deepest terror is to be a "loser," and this dread and shame is exorcised by the ritual humiliation of a scapegoat, someone so obviously a "loser" that it proves you, the watcher, are not. 

What's sad is that so many of these young people who volunteer to be sacrificed to the pitiless show-biz spotlight could be quiet, qualitative successes in so many other aspects of life.  But what aspects of life, they might ask?  A job at Wal-Mart?  They've bought into the belief that only the camera's kiss and the adulation of millions can redeem their existence; that there are only two alternatives:  the struggling, obscure life of the loser -- or celebrity, wealth and fame.

What about us bloggers?  Are we really secretly auditioning for the big time, too (like Wonkette, who recently got a six-figure book deal)?  Or are we -- at least in the meantime -- creating a charmed third space where we do what we do for the sheer intrinsic pleasure of it, and for the eyes of a non-mass audience of our peers?

- amba

Comments

[joe]

don't waste your time watching.........

[EG]

And I thought I was the only living American to have never watched the ‘American Idol’ show! I’ve only seen the commercials and had conversations about the show at the company ‘water cooler’.

I’m not sure who are the real losers on this show. Simon Cowell (a high school dropout) is a complete jerk and removed himself from a British equivalent of the show for his lack of manners. Paula Abdul – she was a great dancer but she wasn’t known as a singing diva in the 1980s. Can’t comment on Randy Jackson.

Then, as you mentioned, are the contestants. What I don’t get is why these people are ridiculed and the pop ‘sensations’ who have multi-million contracts cannot sing? If you brought some of those sensations before the judges, they would be berated. That says much more about what the music industry is offering the listening audience.

You brought up an interesting issue about Fox and American Idol. I would have thought that the show would be a ‘blue state’ hit and less in the red states. I’m not so sure that’s not true. I did notice the show appeals to 18-49 year olds.

My water cooler pals were well past that age! When I asked why they watched, they said the music was ‘standard ballads’ and they could relate to that format. They are Bush supporters so perhaps ‘Idol’ does appeal to red staters.

[Tamar]

"creating a charmed third space where we do what we do for the sheer intrinsic pleasure of it, and for the eyes of a non-mass audience of our peers?"

Perfect! That's why I do it!