Why "America's Got Talent" is Part of the Problem

(original published at the now-defunct www.poweredbyshows.com)

Just to set things absolutely straight before we go on, I am a very big fan of reality television. Despite the fact that since last March Entertainment Weekly has declared the absolutely true notion that we are currently living in a “Golden Age of Television” in this country, there is still a very large percentage of poorly written, formulaic garbage on network TV we as an audience have to sift through in order to get to the good stuff. (This also would be due to the fact that a good portion of this Golden Age programming happens to not be on the Big Four.) This is where reality TV comes in: for those of us sick and tired of the same police procedurals and sloppy characterization, shows such as Survivor, Big Brother, The Amazing Race, American Idol, America’s Next Top Model and Hell’s Kitchen sort of circumvent that process and give us what we as viewers truly demand: unabashed entertainment. You can gripe all you want about its blight on the television landscape, but it has opened up the industry to nearly twice as many news jobs (consider all the editors and writers needed for each show) and have the ability to be far more interesting and unpredictable (it’s the nature of the best of the shows) than another family drama.

Just like any genre, though, reality TV has its share of groaners. Other than a few random series watched more for the novelty than for the entertainment (Average Joe, For Love Or Money, Joe Millionaire, Mr. Personality), I have avoided nearly all dating shows. Same goes with wife-swapping shows and programs that have “nanny” in the title. These are stinkers. But one that truly gets my goat is NBC’s smash summer hit America’s Got Talent.

Nothing against David Hasselhoff, but this is a pretty awful show that tries to ride the line between Chuck Barris Gong Show ridiculousness and American Idol competition and tends to fail time and time again. It preys on our interest as an audience that we want to see train wrecks happen onstage, but this rubbernecking is something that has led to ineffective nightly news and the muckraking of such pundits as Bill O’Reilly. It’s stupid without being funny, and cruel without being constructive. It’s a freakshow and nothing more.

In the best reality competitions, the contestants have to possess skills in order to move ahead, hence the combined popularity and good critical reception of such programs as Top Chef, Project Runway, Project Greenlight and early seasons of The Apprentice. The participants cannot get by on silly tricks but instead must step forward and pretty much rock the show’s foundation. Not so with America’s Got Talent. In this talent show mess, people from across the country show acts that they believe can earn them $1,000,000. Problem is, no magic show or small animal act is worth even a fraction of that, nor are circus/sideshow tricks designed for birthday parties. These people either expose their delusions, which is pathetic even on megahit American Idol, or simply want their 15 minutes of fame, something the best reality shows refuse to dole out. It’s a formula for obnoxious, unwatchable television.

The bad acts don’t entertain, the good acts belong on other shows, and against the conceit of the show that the program is intended for a variety of great acts, a singer will without question win if left up to the vote of the American people...which it is. I’d love to see a show where contestants bring forth advances in sociological or technological or political advances and allowing the show to fund their dreams and help them reach the people who can really make a difference in the world. It might not work as a show, but I won’t feel like I’ll need a shower after watching it, either. Reality television can one day change the world, and while I am very delighted with most of the good entertainment reality television brings forth, I also support it for what it can do.

"Hell's Kitchen: How to De-Bone a Fish

(reposted from the now-defunct poweredbyshows.com)

Last night’s second episode of FOX’s glorious guilty pleasure cooking competition Hell’s Kitchen finally put the show back on track with its former seasons. Gone were the whimpering shenanigans of last week’s show, where the 12 new contestants, all vying for Chef Gordon Ramsay’s affection and the ownership of a high-class restaurant in Las Vegas, pretty much told us what we already know: Chef Ramsay yells a lot, makes you feel inadequate and is all-around terrifying as a boss.

Now that those people who weren’t already fans of the show are caught up with what the show entails--I often sense fans of Bravo’s Top Chef tuning in, getting very frightened of what they’re watching, and turn the channel back to reruns of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy--last night’s episode finally gets down to the nitty-gritty of the restaurant trade.

The teams, split up once again to men-versus-women (which will last at least half the season if the show follows it previous formula), found themselves thrust into another tough night of service, struggling with the menus pushed at them by Chef Ramsay. This week, each group finally learned to work together as a team (for the most part), and it was mostly a welcome relief. Last week, both kitchens were an absolute disaster as the dichotomy familiar to the show came forth. This dichotomy, of course, is between the contestants who know their way around a reality television ensemble and do their best to stand out, either by being horribly antagonistic to their teammates or acting as pathetic but memorable failures (respectively Vinnie the night club chef and Aaron the retirement home chef this season), and those who have the potential to be great cooks but have little personality (about one-third of the contestants).

Once Ramsay puts said people in line--you can’t get by on this show without knowing, say, how to cook Beef Wellington to perfection--the results are a great deal more interesting. Despite a great improvement between the two weeks, though, there always has to be some conflict in Hell’s Kitchen, and that boiled down to kidney disease-sufferer Eddie being pushed around the men’s kitchen by nearly everybody, costing him his chance to continue on with the show.

Most viewers, of course, want Aaron to go, not only for his constant tearful breakdowns (he even fainted for a moment last night) but for his inability to de-bone a cooked fish for the restaurant patrons in any time less than 15 minutes. This is FOX, however, and such an odd character won’t go away that easily. We need our entertainment, and a large Asian 48-year-old man who can’t stop crying is at the same level as some of the “talent acts” on NBC’s America’s Got Talent.

If Hell’s Kitchen continues to improve week-after-week at this quick rate, we’re looking at the best finale so far for a reality show that doesn’t get the great ratings it deserves.