Commentary

Reviling For Dollars: 'The Briefcase' And Reality Porn

It’s so weird and hyper-manipulated that it’s hard to explain the concept of the new “unscripted” CBS summer replacement series “The Briefcase.”

But here goes: heavily in-debt, lower-middle-class families (if there is still such a status) sign on to be in a documentary about money.  “What they don’t know” — as the announcer intones — is that they’ll end up receiving a black attaché case stuffed with stacks of green. ($101,000 to be exact)

But there’s more! They’re told they can keep it, or give some or all of it (only $100,000) away to another financially stressed family.

“Why would anyone having a hard time give away one cent of the money?” a tough-minded friend asked me. “That makes no sense.”

But it makes sense to an even-more-cynical TV producer who needs to yank the chains of his already falling and demoralized subjects in search of a higher reality concept to peddle. Despite the fact that the “unscripted” genre is now 22 years old (dating to the premiere of "The Real World" on MTV), and freak shows like “Honey Boo Boo,”  and “19 Kids and Counting” have foul, if not illegal, back stories that have blown up in the producers’ faces, there still seems to be an appetite for reality-raunch.

advertisement

advertisement

And this financial Frankenstein really ratchets up the tension. Mixing elements of “Let’s Make a Deal,” “Wife Swap,” “Queen for a Day,” “The Millionaire,” and “A Christmas Carol” with good old-fashioned budget-shaming, “The Briefcase” is economy porn for the equally strapped. And that includes most of us, who, post-9/11, 2008, and the rise of the 1%, have fallen from the financial life we expected. It lets us get all voyeuristic, judge-y, and superior about other people’s lives.

Determining how much these families keep vs. how much they give away creates strife not only between the two families, but also between each husband and wife (or wife and wife.) Inevitably, one is focused and pragmatic and the other is more generous and selfless. (And these qualities do not divide along gender lines.)

It’s all limited to a window of 72 hours. There are tears; one woman even vomits.  But first, we get to see their trailers and their pain.

And the producers really made an effort to find the modern Bob Cratchits among us.

The first episode features a young Iraqi war veteran who lost a leg, who lives in a third-floor walk-up apartment with his toddler and wife, a pregnant nurse and the family wage-earner. The other couple has three teenaged daughters and, due to the husband’s illness and previous job losses, a start-up ice cream business that’s been driven into the ground. Each family gets to poke around in the other family's house and bills, over lugubrious music. (Cue shots of three prosthetic limbs lined up in a bedroom.)

As with the ghost of Christmas past, the couple with the three teenagers saw an earlier version of themselves in the tough start of the war veteran/nurse family. And in the ghost of Christmas future, the guy with the artificial limb and his pregnant wife looked at the messy state of disrepair inside the older couples’ home (even though it’s a nice shell of  a house in a middle-class suburb) and their junkyard company trucks, and lack of health insurance, and said, “Just shoot us if this turns out to be our future.” Actually, they didn’t. But what is interesting is that each felt less needy than the other.

Thus, the outcome is unbelievably feel-good: Each gave the other the entire $100, 000.

But this give-away bit could prove to be the show’s eventual albatross. The second episode was not as poetic or matchy-matchy. It pitted a couple who are both "little people," who have decent jobs and live in a tidy, nice furnished trailer home that they own, against a family with three kids (one with autism) who lost their business and had gone bankrupt in New York. The mother and kids were now living apart from the dad, who moved to Florida to earn a living as a fisherman. They visit him as much as they can in his RV, which is tiny and chaotic inside and barely holds two people, never mind five. The first couple has dreams of adopting a child from out of the country (who would also be a little person) but live “paycheck to paycheck.”

The other mother of three, who seems very emotional and guilt-ridden, immediately decides that the other couple’s dream of adopting a child is more deserving than her own three kids’ need for a stability. (They seem pretty desperate and live hand to mouth. Paycheck to paycheck would be a huge step up.)

In the “shocking and emotional reveal,” which comes after endless commercials, obvious tightening of the story vise, and tears, it ends up that the family of five gives the little couple (which is already the title of another TLC reality show) $40,000.

The little people (the wife is the tough one) give the fisherpeople $20,000. So the rapidly sinking family of five walks away with $80,000, and the homeowner couple get $120,000. This seems a bit outrageous, but the fisher-mother is happy, and says it’s enough to  “clear up my bankruptcy.” (Cue super-judgey music.)

There’s little doubt that our economy is at a tipping point. The divisions are too extreme, and the center cannot hold. It’s good to shine a light on that story, one of hard-working people who, with the loss of the safety valves that the middle class used to have,  still can’t survive.

But semi-poverty is not a competitive sport, nor should it play as an entertainment product. The way these people are manipulated is excruciating. And remember, they didn’t sign on to be dancers or Housewives. They were told this is a documentary. Ho-ho.

Meanwhile, the show’s creator/executive producer, David Broome, (who also created the similarly brutal and much-attacked “Biggest Loser”) is now fighting back from all the criticism to the show.  “The takeaway is to educate and inform,” he told the New York Post. “I want to make shows that make a difference — and that’s what ‘The Briefcase’ is all about.”

Right. Making a difference for his pocket, and that of CBS. (I hope the show doesn’t get picked up, but it probably will.)

Meanwhile, Broome gets to appear on camera, like some sort of saint, delivering the money to his shocked and crying subjects. (Nobody makes a bed of it or uses it to light their cigars, sadly.)

Most of the faux-transparency here comes from the shots that pull back to show the camera crew filming: a real inside look.  At the same time, it’s true that most the subjects who signed on for a documentary end up walking away with money.

Why would anyone give the money away? Because they were manipulated, overwhelmed, and feeling pressured, knowing they were going to be judged on television. And they wanted to feel better about themselves.

That hardly seems like a fair bargain on either end.

13 comments about "Reviling For Dollars: 'The Briefcase' And Reality Porn".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Terry Wall from First Impressions VIdeo, June 11, 2015 at 3:59 p.m.

    FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT'S HOLY, can we PLEASE get rid of this (fake) reality programming?!?! These shows are all train wrecks...all of 'em, and despite having several friends who seem to enjoy the guilty pleasure of watching some of this garbage, I just don't get it! I was at the CineGear expo this past weekend and got into a spirited discussion with a young lady who produces reality shows...needless to say, we agreed to disagree about our respective takes on this programming. There's nothing 'real' about them, and all the fake, artificial conflict drives me to distraction. Even on something as tame as "House Hunters" (my wife's favorite show), every couple the producers choose seem so hell-bent on disagreeing about everything with the houses they browse, that they might be candidates for the next 'divorce' reality show to come down the road. 

    OK, rant over! Sorry, Barb, but I really do hate this kind of programming! As if you couldn't tell! :-)

  2. Linda Moskal from WNPV Radio, June 11, 2015 at 4:08 p.m.

    I had prided myself on never having watched any of this so-called reality programming until I read Terry's comment.  Uh-oh!  I don't watch "House Hunters" but I do watch "Property Brothers" so I guess I have to eat some crow and admit that I do watch some of this fake programming!  

  3. Cynthia Amorese from JAL Enterprises NY, June 11, 2015 at 4:17 p.m.

    "But semi-poverty is not a competitive sport, nor should it play as an entertainment product. The way these people are manipulated is excruciating."

    I'd love to hear what the families taking part in the show think of the experience, both now and a year down the road. Haven't seen the show and won't (because I find nothing entertaining about financial struggle), but would be mildly curious to hear their points of view and learn how they spent (or didn't) the extra money.  

  4. Larry steven Londre from Londre Marketing Consultants, LLC and USC, June 11, 2015 at 5:06 p.m.

    Makes me think back. This show I remember was so heart-warming. Reminds me of that fairly simple and thought-provoking show from 1955 to 1960 starring Marvin Miller "The Millionaire."

    He was a multi-millionaire who indulged himself by giving away one million dollars to people he never met.  Just watched them and their actions and made their lives better with the check. 

    People liked the show. You could never binge-watch that show. TV programs and TV viewing is so different now.

  5. Elaine Underwood from Prevalent Comm, June 11, 2015 at 5:17 p.m.

    I've been know to watch some reality TV, but I am feeling sick reading this one, Barbara. What a horrible show, unveiling people's need in such a terrible way, with the suitcase hanging over them. Now if there were Go Fund Me pages for these families...well in this economy, where would it end?

  6. Rob Frydlewicz from DentsuAegis, June 11, 2015 at 5:30 p.m.

    Which week are Mark Rubio and his family appearing?

  7. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, June 11, 2015 at 6:14 p.m.

    Until the tax men (whatever) cometh calling. Federal, state, social security and the other people out of the woods who only want some of the money. How many of the people who got new, extravagant new houses had to sell it or just left  (property taxes, upkeep, burning through home equity loans for bad business choices, etc.) ? Isn't this programming more like throwing the christians in with the lions or gladiator shows ? One dies and the only one who prospers is the slave/gladiator owner.

    Rob: Don't you mean Mark Rubio and Mark Insantorium who complained how hard it was to live on $176,000/yr plus full paid benefits ?

  8. david marks from self, June 11, 2015 at 6:15 p.m.

    Always the most spot on insights, Barbara Lippert delivers an analysis worth it's weight in, well, briefcases, and none too soon. I'm not interested in a show which seems to cater to fantasy and misguided, if not contrived, altruism.

  9. Jim English from The Met Museum, June 11, 2015 at 10:38 p.m.

    Thanks Barbara.   Cloying,  insincere programming.  Not exactly sure why I had Briefcase on in the first place. I was very careful to turn off Extreme Makeover which also attempted to manipulate people and rob them of their personal dignity.

  10. Terry Wall from First Impressions VIdeo, June 12, 2015 at 4:56 p.m.

    I had to chuckle when I read Linda Moskal's comments. She buster herself! LOL!!

  11. Terry Wall from First Impressions VIdeo, June 12, 2015 at 4:57 p.m.

    BUSTED...not 'buster'!! Damn small phone keyboards!! And MediaPost won't let its subscribers edit their posts. BAD HOST!!

  12. Randall Tinfow from CLICK-VIDEO LLC, June 17, 2015 at 10:11 a.m.

    McLuhan and Chayefsky are laughing in their graves.  Jerry Mander still looks pretty grim. None of them are surprised.

  13. marnie delaney from doodlebug, June 17, 2015 at 9:50 p.m.

    Have you been watching "unreal" on LIfetime?  I think it's on the same night as the Bachelorette which clearly inspired it.  It's kind of "the reality behind the unreality of reality programming" or something like that.  This one takes the cake - I don't even want to think about the screening conversations.  Yuck.


Next story loading loading..