paintings, which are “like something you remember….but you never seen.” (15) Deafening laughter is heard on the “audience sampler” and the “high drives” latch on to this as a necessary evil and extension of the “fruit skin” effect. The programmers understand that simple schadenfraude cannot be relied upon to satisfy the “low drives” and resolve to raise the stakes: the audience require empathetic stimulation corresponding to their masochistic as well as sadistic impulses. (16)

Nat worries that he “helped to kill [Hodder]”, but cannot ultimately argue with the head programmer, who says: “Jumbo relief, jumbo laugh. See those ratings? Toppest in six months!” At this point, the “high drives” develop the idea to place a few people in a house on a remote Scottish island and watch them, “to make a show”. Initial promises that the programmers will not interfere in any way other than to place cameras in the house are quickly broken, and a psychopathic crab-eating neanderthal is brought into the mix: “No interference. Just a bit of scene-setting…..It’s a show…Something got to happen.” The play predictably ends with the juxtaposition of brutal murder and the roaring pleasure of the audience, accompanied by clinking of executive glasses and smiles all round. (17)

The play’s pessimistic vision of future broadcasting trends is as relevant to the contemporary news agenda as it is to “reality TV”.

“Whether we were watching these people live or die, we had no right to be there. At best, journalists in such circumstances are irrelevant. At worst, they act as publicists for the terrorists, guaranteeing them global coverage to the spectacle they stage.” (Peter Conrad)

Filtered through the over-familiar structure of the televisual medium, any type of distressing subject matter has the simultaneous effect of implicating the viewer in creating a demand for such horror, while equally exonerating them from any real sense of responsibility and distancing them from the event. Scenes may be apprehended but it remains arguable whether or not they are comprehended. It is easy to feel sympathy for the families of victims killed in the latest terrorist atrocity, but only a tiny minority of people watching could ever be in a position to have real empathy. The rest will struggle to avoid consuming the spectacle in merely aesthetic terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mainstream broadcast media has come a long way since Gulf War 1 : Desert Storm. The sequel was an altogether more entertaining affair, not only because it was illegal, or because “embedded” reporters could satisfy the desire for greater “visibility” of military operations, but also thanks to the outrageous pronouncements of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf. If the first victim of war is said to be truth, and there is currently a war on “terror” to which no end can be envisaged,

effective anticipation and critique of current media practices, even if this is achieved with the use of excruciating lingo, deeply unsubtle symbolism and ham acting.
Just as audiences are seen to be getting bored with sex, Kin Hodder – a protester trying to subvert the airwaves with Goya-like portraits of pained faces – falls to his death, live, tracked by the director – Nat Mender – who has already become fascinated with his powerful

M
E
N
U
S

O
.ARCHIVE
.EGOS
.CONTRIBUTE
.CONTACT
.SUPPORT
.CONTENT

P
A
G
E

.GUY VEALE - "Voyeurism, Vaccum, Death", 2004 (page 5)
41