[James]

Royals could use a smack of reality
By Gary Silverman
Published: January 29 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 29 2005 02:00


One of the challenges of life as an expatriate is finding new ways to kill time. But it also can be an opportunity, as I discovered recently when I made my first foray into the land of UK reality television.

It happened after I returned home from a long day at the office. I was too tired to read but too wound up to sleep. I craved distraction and if I had been back in my native New York, it would have been easy to find. This time of year, there is almost always a basketball game on television.

But I was living in London and as I flipped through the channels, I could find little in the way of audiovisual comfort food. Until I spotted Brigitte Nielsen. She is known to most of the world as the ex-wife of actor Sylvester Stallone. But what I remember most is her ill-fated romance with Mark Gastineau, the former New York Jets football player. I lingered as I wondered what had happened to Gastineau - and in the process, I began watching Celebrity Big Brother 3.

It proved to be a thought-provoking experience. For a start, I realised that my prejudices about reality television were correct. Celebrity Big Brother 3 was dreadful. I would compare the experience with waiting late at night at the Port Authority bus terminal in New York. It is fascinating, but there is a part of you that just wants to get away and forget what you saw. I pray that at some point in my life the image of Jackie Stallone, mother of Sylvester, sprawled on a couch in the Big Brother house leaves me.

When I lived in the US, I rarely thought about why people watched this kind of thing. Since Richard Nixon was elected as president for a second time, no lapse of taste in my home country has surprised me. But I was puzzled by Big Brother'spopularity in the UK. How could the land of Shakespeare, common law and X-Ray Spex sink so low?

And then it hit me. For all its faults, Big Brother represents an improvement over the traditional form of reality programming in the UK - otherwise known as the royal family.

The more I thought about it, the more the Big Brother house and the House of Windsor seemed like variations on a theme. Both feature a cast of well known but unremarkable people with little purpose in life other than to coexist peacefully while vying for the affection of the British public.

The big difference between the two entertainment franchises is that the Windsors lack the ingredient that makes reality TV so compelling - interactivity. In a proper reality show, such as Celebrity Big Brother 3, the public gets to play with the pecking order. People can vote contestants off the programme, either by calling or using the text messaging function on their mobile phones.

The Windsors are different. No matter how boring or boorish they are, they stay on the show until they die. This lifetime arrangement is based on the notion that biology is destiny and that royal blood somehow confers superiority.

But it is hard to make that argument with a straight face anymore. Indeed, when Prince Harry plunged into tabloid hell by wearing a swastika armband to a fancy dress party, his defence boiled down to the notion that he was just a dumb kid.

From a show business perspective, I think the House of Windsor should follow the lead of the other reality shows and embrace the idea of competition. If Bez - the former Happy Mondays dancer who was voted the winner of Celebrity Big Brother 3 - can take it, so can Prince Harry.

My idea is that viewers could vote to add, subtract or replace royals. The Jeffersonian in me would like to give the British public a chance to vote for an entirely new cast. But I suspect an incremental approach would work best. Perhaps we could agree that any changes would be temporary and the current queen's position would be respected.

Imagine the fun. Football star David Beckham could serve as an older brother and mentor for Prince William. Naked Chef Jamie Oliver could switch places for a season with Prince Harry, who, I think most of us would agree, would benefit from some time peeling potatoes.

The resulting activity would be great for British business. Television ratings would soar and telecom companies could reap windfall profits from all the voting by phone.

Home-grown human capital in the UK also could be put to better use. For instance, the royals seem so uncomfortable when they have to meet and greet common people.

By contrast, Michael Parkinson, a beloved talk show host in the UK, seems remarkably relaxed chatting with almost anyone. Making him a Windsor of some sort would enable the other royals to focus on what they do best, whatever that is.

For the royals themselves, a little reality show democracy could wind up being a blessing. They could finally test their mettle. They could take tangible steps to win over the public - such as opening a palace or two and inviting the neighbours over for a party. An out-of-favour royal such as Prince Harry would get a chance to repair his public image.

I, for one, would wish him all the luck he deserves.

gary.silverman@ft.com

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b910e54e-71...00e2511c8.html