{"id":1327,"date":"2015-05-07T17:17:25","date_gmt":"2015-05-07T23:17:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/?p=1327"},"modified":"2015-05-07T17:17:25","modified_gmt":"2015-05-07T23:17:25","slug":"game-shows-wonderfully-fun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.sintellectual.org\/hstr491\/archives\/1327","title":{"rendered":"Game Shows: Wonderfully Fun"},"content":{"rendered":"

Game shows have been a part of entertainment, almost from the birth of radio. Academics have for the most part ignored game shows as serious inquiry, interpreting them as mere entertainment instead of a true reflection on the culture from which they were born. Olaf Hoerschelmann, an Associate Professor of Media Theory and Criticism, challenges this view with his book, Rules of the Game: Quiz Shows and American Culture[1]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>. Written in 2006, most of the prior approaches to the subject were written as critical pieces, either supporting game shows continued presence on television, or despising their greedy materialistic portrait of America. Whatever the critics are saying, the numbers do not lie; game shows are prevalent because they are popular. Amir Hetsroni (2004), in his study entitled \u201cThe Millionaire Project: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Quiz Shows From the United States, Russia, Poland, Norway, Finland, Israel, and Saudi Arabia,\u201d found that over 70 countries had adapted ABC\u2019s Who Wants to be a Millionaire <\/em>into their own countries[2]<\/a>. For much of the fifties, seventies, and early eighties, game shows rated amongst the most popular television shows in America, and they continue to be one of the most pervasive and prevalent genres on television today. Their popularity has much to do with its ability to captivate its viewers. Viewers watch people just like them, play fairly simple games that encourage spectators to play along, win fabulous prizes, all in the name of fun! Adding to their appeal, especially seen in the popularity of the Game Show Network (GSN), are game shows\u2019 ability to foster a nostalgic experience. Classic game shows like Match Game<\/em>, are returning to their former glory; just as it was in the seventies, Match Game <\/em>was the number one viewed game show for much of GSN\u2019s early years.\u00a0\u00a0 Active spectatorship, particularly its role in consumer culture, the every man, and nostalgia are the most vital pieces to the prominent nature of game shows for the last seventy years.<\/p>\n

According to Hoerschelmann, most game show enthusiasts trace the genre back to as early as the 1920s, but the genre really came into its own in 1932 when Vox Pop<\/em>, made its first broadcast in Houston, Texas. Self-branded as the first \u201cAudience Participation Program,\u201d Vox Pop <\/em>rose to fame by interviewing the common man on the street, giving them a dollar a question[3]<\/a>. The appeal of \u201cAudience Participation Programs\u201d was undeniable and they became one of the most popular genres broadcasted to Americans. The average American could empathize with the men talking on the radio or playing on television, it was not just the typical announcer or host but the literal \u201cman on the street.\u201d Hetsroni (2004) portrays this nicely when addressing game show popularity in the 1950s when he says, \u201cLetting ordinary people win large sums of money and become instant superstars in a solemn ceremony, these shows caught the yearnings of war veterans, bored housewives, and frustrated youngsters to reinvent themselves in postwar America and achieve a bit of stardom.\u201d[4]<\/a> The average man became the sole stars, excluding the host, of game shows, and stars they became. Contestants, such as Herbert Stemple (Stemple was later involved in the take down of big-money quiz shows after he admitted to being involved in the rigging of the show) a Jewish WWII Veteran from New York who won big on 1950s Twenty-One<\/em>, were idolized and rose to fame overnight.[5]<\/a> The appeal of the everyday man was highly favorable to networks as well, as the creators of Vox Pop<\/em> put it, \u201cNo paid talent: no cost.\u201d[6]<\/a> Thus the use of the man on the sidewalk, not only made the show possible, but what made the show an instant success. From the very beginning of game shows the contestants were meant to be like everyone, and anyone could then see themselves in their shoes, playing well and winning fabulous prizes.<\/p>\n

The other side of the coin is that from the very beginning of the genre the \u201ceveryman\u201d that participated fit nicely into the \u201cwhite male\u201d persuasion. Women did participate, and their participation became more pronounced once they were deemed the ideal consumer, but they too were made to fit the standard white housewife. Differing races were included especially after the civil rights movement in the 1960s, but the majority of contestants were still white[7]<\/a>. Game shows, especially once televised, were instrumental in portraying to the rest of the country some of the very first interpretations of the \u201cAverage American.\u201d The norm came to be handsome, courteous, white men in their professional business attire, with their beautiful, doting, white wife on their arm. On the same note, they were also some of the forerunners in adapting to social changes. What\u2019s My Line?<\/em>, a panel game show where 4 celebrities using yes\/no questions ascertain the contestant\u2019s occupation, aired for the first time in 1950. On their pilot episode the female contestant was a Hat Check Girl, and the second episode featured a Female Wrestler and Housewife. Many of the following episodes had similar appearances, if one female contestant challenged the status-quo the next one fit the bill. But, by the late 50s and early 60s one episode featured a female Bomb Decommissioner, and female Test Driver. Similarly their female panelists were often strong women, such as Dorothy Mae Killigan, a famous journalist and author. The celebrity portion, in which celebrities tried to fool the blindfolded panelists to earn money for a charity, also featured famous powerful women like Eleanor Roosevelt. The Newly Wed Game <\/em>also followed similar steps, with its first episode portraying perfectly white heterosexual couples, but within a couple seasons black couples are included, and today interracial couples are common, and gay\/lesbian couples were first introduced in the 2009-10 season. While the beginning of game shows fit squarely in the ideals of a White America, they were also the forerunners in portraying and embracing the diverse nature of America.<\/p>\n

The ability to relate to the contestants in game shows, leads to the next appealing attribute of games shows: active participation by home and studio audiences. In their study on game shows, Stephen Gould and Pola Gupta (2006) described the game show viewer as experiencing a phenomenon known as empathetic imagination[8]<\/a>. They quote one participant as saying, \u201cBeing able to answer the questions \u2026 makes you feel like you are part of the game yourself.\u201d[9]<\/a> When a home or studio audience listens to or views a game show they are able to actively participate in the game. When Bob Barker, on the Price is Right<\/em>, asks the contestant \u201cWhat is your bid for this marvelous fur coat?\u201d everyone at home has a price in mind; maybe even shouting at the television when the contestant so obviously failed. Who Wants to be a Millionaire\u2019s<\/em> home viewers want to know the answer to the $1,000,000 question, and if they know it faster than the actual contestant, well then they could be on the show winning big too. Watching shows like the Newlywed Game<\/em> every couple wonders how they would match up if they themselves were on the show. For example even in the first year of being on air, the Newlywed<\/em> Game<\/em>, began to receive letters from the home audience. In 1966, one such letter was read by Bob Eubanks at the beginning of the show he said:<\/p>\n

We received a letter from a women in Grand Island Nebraska. I\u2019d like to read it to you, \u201cMy husband and I have been married for 10 years and you would be surprised how little he knows about me. I wrote down some of your questions and had my husband answer them. He only knew 2.\u201d<\/p>\n

Home audiences became invested in the game shows they watched, and this was based heavily in their ability to create active speculative fun. Beyond just instigating yelling at the radio or television, audiences were encouraged to send in their own questions to the show. In the same Newlywed Game<\/em> episode mentioned above, Bob Eubanks looking directly into the camera, asks the people of America to send in their own questions to be utilized in future shows. Another tactic for subsuming their distant audiences was to allow them to win big just for watching. On the famous episode of Press Your Luck <\/em>(1984), featuring the man who cracked the Press Your Luck<\/em> code, Michael Larson, Michael Landry won $1,000 during the Home Player Spin. Today this tactic is still in use. Jean a participant in the Gould & Gupta (2006) study stated that she loved Wheel of Fortune<\/em> because, \u201cthey even give viewers a chance to win a prize just by watching their show. It\u2019s great! They call it the Wheel Watchers Club.\u201d[10]<\/a> Hoerschelmann states, \u201cIt was as close as an audience came to controlling directly the content of its own programming.\u201d[11]<\/a> America made up the contestants, the questions, and the winners, making everyone invested in the success of their favorite game shows and their lucky contestants. It could be you! Viewers approach game shows with absolute attention and interest, active game shows integrate audiences in ways that other media genres are incapable of doing. (Video below: what was considered racy in 1977!)<\/p>\n