Some may think that the pinnacle of reality television lies within Bachelor Nation or the Real Housewives franchise, but HBO’s hidden gem, the “Jerrod Carmichael Reality Show,” should be taken as a serious contender.
Comedian Jerrod Carmichael follows up his stand-up special “Rothanial” with a bordering-voyeuristic look into his private sphere.
The show explores topics spanning from his complex relationships with his friends and family to the intricacies of a truthful representation of a subject in reality television.
Reality television, much like stand-up comedy, superimposes a likeness of authenticity over a loosely pre-formulated narrative. Carmichael and Ari Katcher, the director of the show, attempt to subvert the nature of falsity that resides within reality TV by using techniques that documentarians have experimented with over the past century.
The self-reflective nature of the “Jerrod Carmichael Reality Show” is not the first of its kind. Films like William Greaves “Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take 2 1/2,” Abbas Kiarostami’s “Close-Up” and the work of Caveh Zahedi, among many others, explore similar questions about the representation of reality and truth in film.
The question of how to reflect reality most objectively was explored thoroughly during the documentary film eras of 1950s to 1970s Cinéma Vérité and 1960s to mid- 1970s Direct Cinema.
These eras of documentary filmmaking were kick-started by the introduction of the handheld 16-millimeter camera. Filmmakers no longer had to set up their camera and could now easily “whip out” the 16mm and unobtrusively “drop-in” on or follow their subjects.
The cinéma vérité and direct cinema styles differ in that cinéma vérité is often dependent upon the audience’s awareness of the documentarian and camera’s presence, fostering a relationship between the cameraman and the subjects. In some cases, the filmmaker intervenes in the film or stages situations.
Direct cinema attempts to hide the camera as much as possible in order to be an objective observer. The technique lets the subject draw themself out rather than the filmmaker doing so by asking questions.
To put these terms into perspective, cinéma vérité is more closely related to the reality television we often think of, like “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” or “The Bachelor.”
In these shows, there are direct-to-camera interview segments in which the producers ask their subjects questions and prompt certain conversations. Sometimes, they even break the fourth wall, and we hear the producers’ voices.
Cinéma vérité and “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” relate in the sense that the camera’s presence is acknowledged, but the ultimate goal of cinéma vérité is to get closer to the truth and give the audience a more authentic grasp of the subject.
In the case that the subject is “performing” in some manner, the audience can tell.
The ultimate goal of the “Jerrod Carmichael Reality Show” is to clue in the audience to a subject’s potential masking of their performance.
The show meshes the covert filming techniques of direct cinema with the intervention of cinéma vérité in a self-reflective manner to show the audience that, in his effort to be completely honest, Carmichael might fail due to the medium of the project.
The show’s efforts beg questions concerning the audience’s revelation that this is not reality and whether or giving the illusion of reality is deceitful.
The show continues to seduce the audience into thinking that they are seeing the whole of Jerrod Carmicheal.
Where does the responsibility of knowing that there is falsity in this show lie?
By continuously acknowledging the cameras, the crew and the nature of the medium during each episode, Carmichael and Katcher attempt to address this question and take ownership of this responsibility.
In the first ten minutes of the pilot episode, Carmichael lets the production crew into his house and they set up the cameras.
Jerrod’s friend, “Anonymous,” whose identity is concealed by a thorough and intentional mask, then comes over and proclaims his distaste for the untruthful nature of reality TV. While pointing to the cameras, he references “The Truman Show” and says that what the audience is seeing is not honest.
This scene acts as a disclaimer for the audience. Do not trust everything that you see. Though there is an attempt at representing truth and reflecting reality, the achievement of it is unlikely.
Through this disclaimer, the audience can enjoy the show for what it is — a digestible and entertaining experimentation of the formal techniques of documentary film and an exploration of the performative nature of the self baked into boundless comedic interjections with lots of drama.
In its best moments, watching the show is like talking with a stranger who’s surprisingly honest and forthcoming. The show’s refreshing projected skepticism and detachment from imposing convictions of honesty on its audiences are its best attributes and serve for a trust that is a rarity in today’s media.
It scratches that ever-present itch for bluntness and candor.
