A reality TV show with deeper message about parenting

The Advertiser

3 days ago

Part of the appeal of this show that sets real-life people and their various parenting styles against each other is the chance to look down on someone else.
Come on, I do it. You do it. When it comes to reality TV - which I think Parental Guidance squeezes into - we all do it.
Here, maybe we can laugh at the strict parents, or the hippies or the body positive parents who don't think using Botox might harm that message a bit.
That sort of thing has to be there; it's hard to imagine people tuning into a show that gave parenting advice without any of this spice.
But that spice is what allows them to slip in the stronger message - in this episode it's about body image.
And the makers take it seriously, including showing heartbreaking footage of a mother trying to get her anorexic daughter to eat.
Once you see that, you tend to forget about being judged towards the parents.
When it comes to true-crime documentaries, you can pretty much guarantee the word "evil" will be uttered at least once.
Sometimes it's overstating things, sometimes it's done to add a bit of tabloid flavour to the piece.
But in this two-parter on the 2015 murder of Stephanie Scott the use of that word is all too appropriate.
A teacher, Scott was murdered in the grounds of her school, just a week before her wedding.
Her murderer was Vincent Stanford, who was sentenced to life in prison.
This two-parter follows the usual true-crime format of having the investigating detectives and journalists from whatever network is screening the show talking to the camera about the case, along with footage of police interviews.
It's those interviews that show why calling Stanford evil is perfectly apt. He admits to the crime but explains how he carried it out in such a cold, emotionless way.
We expect murderers to show remorse, or at the other end of the scale, some amount of perverse pleasure at what they've done.
But to show no emotion at all - and to suggest he killed her just because she was there - is really, really creepy.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the creators pitched this show to the ABC.
"Okay so let me get this straight. You want to make a show about spelling?"
"Yep, and make it go for a whole hour."
"An hour, right. And the people on the show will be comedians, who will make jokes about spelling."
"Sure. Should bring the viewers in by the truckload."
They should have been laughed out of the office. But good thing they weren't, because this show really works.
It absolutely shouldn't, because the concept sounds so uninspiring. I guess it shows that any concept can be overcome if you've got the right talent - and in this case it's Guy Montgomery and Aaron Chen.
They might have even been able to make the ABC's lame-duck series House of Games better.
Part of the appeal of this show that sets real-life people and their various parenting styles against each other is the chance to look down on someone else.
Come on, I do it. You do it. When it comes to reality TV - which I think Parental Guidance squeezes into - we all do it.
Here, maybe we can laugh at the strict parents, or the hippies or the body positive parents who don't think using Botox might harm that message a bit.
That sort of thing has to be there; it's hard to imagine people tuning into a show that gave parenting advice without any of this spice.
But that spice is what allows them to slip in the stronger message - in this episode it's about body image.
And the makers take it seriously, including showing heartbreaking footage of a mother trying to get her anorexic daughter to eat.
Once you see that, you tend to forget about being judged towards the parents.
When it comes to true-crime documentaries, you can pretty much guarantee the word "evil" will be uttered at least once.
Sometimes it's overstating things, sometimes it's done to add a bit of tabloid flavour to the piece.
But in this two-parter on the 2015 murder of Stephanie Scott the use of that word is all too appropriate.
A teacher, Scott was murdered in the grounds of her school, just a week before her wedding.
Her murderer was Vincent Stanford, who was sentenced to life in prison.
This two-parter follows the usual true-crime format of having the investigating detectives and journalists from whatever network is screening the show talking to the camera about the case, along with footage of police interviews.
It's those interviews that show why calling Stanford evil is perfectly apt. He admits to the crime but explains how he carried it out in such a cold, emotionless way.
We expect murderers to show remorse, or at the other end of the scale, some amount of perverse pleasure at what they've done.
But to show no emotion at all - and to suggest he killed her just because she was there - is really, really creepy.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the creators pitched this show to the ABC.
"Okay so let me get this straight. You want to make a show about spelling?"
"Yep, and make it go for a whole hour."
"An hour, right. And the people on the show will be comedians, who will make jokes about spelling."
"Sure. Should bring the viewers in by the truckload."
They should have been laughed out of the office. But good thing they weren't, because this show really works.
It absolutely shouldn't, because the concept sounds so uninspiring. I guess it shows that any concept can be overcome if you've got the right talent - and in this case it's Guy Montgomery and Aaron Chen.
They might have even been able to make the ABC's lame-duck series House of Games better.
Part of the appeal of this show that sets real-life people and their various parenting styles against each other is the chance to look down on someone else.
Come on, I do it. You do it. When it comes to reality TV - which I think Parental Guidance squeezes into - we all do it.
Here, maybe we can laugh at the strict parents, or the hippies or the body positive parents who don't think using Botox might harm that message a bit.
That sort of thing has to be there; it's hard to imagine people tuning into a show that gave parenting advice without any of this spice.
But that spice is what allows them to slip in the stronger message - in this episode it's about body image.
And the makers take it seriously, including showing heartbreaking footage of a mother trying to get her anorexic daughter to eat.
Once you see that, you tend to forget about being judged towards the parents.
When it comes to true-crime documentaries, you can pretty much guarantee the word "evil" will be uttered at least once.
Sometimes it's overstating things, sometimes it's done to add a bit of tabloid flavour to the piece.
But in this two-parter on the 2015 murder of Stephanie Scott the use of that word is all too appropriate.
A teacher, Scott was murdered in the grounds of her school, just a week before her wedding.
Her murderer was Vincent Stanford, who was sentenced to life in prison.
This two-parter follows the usual true-crime format of having the investigating detectives and journalists from whatever network is screening the show talking to the camera about the case, along with footage of police interviews.
It's those interviews that show why calling Stanford evil is perfectly apt. He admits to the crime but explains how he carried it out in such a cold, emotionless way.
We expect murderers to show remorse, or at the other end of the scale, some amount of perverse pleasure at what they've done.
But to show no emotion at all - and to suggest he killed her just because she was there - is really, really creepy.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the creators pitched this show to the ABC.
"Okay so let me get this straight. You want to make a show about spelling?"
"Yep, and make it go for a whole hour."
"An hour, right. And the people on the show will be comedians, who will make jokes about spelling."
"Sure. Should bring the viewers in by the truckload."
They should have been laughed out of the office. But good thing they weren't, because this show really works.
It absolutely shouldn't, because the concept sounds so uninspiring. I guess it shows that any concept can be overcome if you've got the right talent - and in this case it's Guy Montgomery and Aaron Chen.
They might have even been able to make the ABC's lame-duck series House of Games better.
Part of the appeal of this show that sets real-life people and their various parenting styles against each other is the chance to look down on someone else.
Come on, I do it. You do it. When it comes to reality TV - which I think Parental Guidance squeezes into - we all do it.
Here, maybe we can laugh at the strict parents, or the hippies or the body positive parents who don't think using Botox might harm that message a bit.
That sort of thing has to be there; it's hard to imagine people tuning into a show that gave parenting advice without any of this spice.
But that spice is what allows them to slip in the stronger message - in this episode it's about body image.
And the makers take it seriously, including showing heartbreaking footage of a mother trying to get her anorexic daughter to eat.
Once you see that, you tend to forget about being judged towards the parents.
When it comes to true-crime documentaries, you can pretty much guarantee the word "evil" will be uttered at least once.
Sometimes it's overstating things, sometimes it's done to add a bit of tabloid flavour to the piece.
But in this two-parter on the 2015 murder of Stephanie Scott the use of that word is all too appropriate.
A teacher, Scott was murdered in the grounds of her school, just a week before her wedding.
Her murderer was Vincent Stanford, who was sentenced to life in prison.
This two-parter follows the usual true-crime format of having the investigating detectives and journalists from whatever network is screening the show talking to the camera about the case, along with footage of police interviews.
It's those interviews that show why calling Stanford evil is perfectly apt. He admits to the crime but explains how he carried it out in such a cold, emotionless way.
We expect murderers to show remorse, or at the other end of the scale, some amount of perverse pleasure at what they've done.
But to show no emotion at all - and to suggest he killed her just because she was there - is really, really creepy.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when the creators pitched this show to the ABC.
"Okay so let me get this straight. You want to make a show about spelling?"
"Yep, and make it go for a whole hour."
"An hour, right. And the people on the show will be comedians, who will make jokes about spelling."
"Sure. Should bring the viewers in by the truckload."
They should have been laughed out of the office. But good thing they weren't, because this show really works.
It absolutely shouldn't, because the concept sounds so uninspiring. I guess it shows that any concept can be overcome if you've got the right talent - and in this case it's Guy Montgomery and Aaron Chen.
They might have even been able to make the ABC's lame-duck series House of Games better.