Bravo's Shaky Future

When it comes to its programming, what put the cable channel on the map may soon also lead to its downfall.

There’s certainly no need to cry any tears for Bravo... yet. Right now the cable channel is riding high. The channel can currently count among its line-up at least one prestige program, Inside the Actor’s Studio, one classy Emmy-winning reality series, Top Chef, and a true pop culture phenomenon, thanks to its gaggle of catty Real Housewives.

How quickly things have changed. Not so long ago, Bravo was barely known and even then viewed only as a lower-rent A&E. Then, in the early 2000s, with the breakout success of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (premiered 2003) and the now departed-for-Lifetime Project Runway (premiered 2004), the channel began to emerge. But it hit its greatest stride of course with the evolution and development of what can only be called the "reality soap opera", a somewhat newly emerged genre best epitomized by the likes of the Real Housewives franchise.

And though other channels are also trafficking in these same types of "lifestyle" shows -- Dance Moms (ugh!) on Lifetime, Gypsy Sisters on TLC and Kardashian-palooza over on E! -- it is certainly Bravo with the Housewives chain and programs like Flipping Out that seems to very much want to dominate this field and have it become the most identified aspect of its brand. In fact, Bravo is so enmeshed in the genre of "Let’s Give Them a Show!" trashy TV, it’s already been parodied on Saturday Night Live.

However, there's ample evidence that it might be time for Bravo to reconsider its programming strategy, or at least expand beyond its endless parade of plastic surgery victims, shallow trophy wives, and various shows devoted to rich people’s problems. Newer reality soaps on the channel like LA Shrinks, Eat Drink Love, Gallery Girls and Princesses: Long Island have all debuted, run and disappeared with little fanfare.

I think even the station’s bread-and-butter programs, the Housewives series, might be running out of steam (though the revolving door of its cast members has helped extent its life). I, for one, am growing tired of the Housewives and their basic weekly plot elements—shop, fight, shop, fight, shop, fight some more.

It's not surprising that Bravo is, for now, largely sticking with what it knows. Bravo’s two most successful recent series follow the tried-and-true formula: Vanderpump Rules, a spinoff of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, and The Shahs of Sunset, a more ethnically diverse sort of Housewives program. And though the channel has had good luck with the business rescue series Tabatha Takes Over (with Tabatha doing for hair salons what Jon Taffer does for bars on Bar Rescue) and the pseudo-dating show The Millionaire Matchmaker, its attempts to branch out into other genres, even other reality genres, have not shown much success.

Kathy Griffin’s weekly night-time talk show, simply called Kathy, got cancelled. And, notwithstanding their often above average quality, Bravo has not found success with any of its post-Top Chef reality competition series including the artist-focused series Work of Art, the songwriting contest Platinum Hit, the hairstyling competition Shear Genius, the dance contest Step It Up and Dance and what seems like a half dozen attempts to create another fashion program in the wake of losing Runway.

Sticking with what it believes works, it’s not surprising that Bravo has just recently launched a whole slate of new "reality soaps". These include 100 Days of Summer, about a group of "young, driven and successful Chicagoans" and Blood Sweat and Heels, about a group of "up-and-coming movers and shakers in New York City". These shows follow in the wake of last year’s Newlyweds: The First Year in which Bravo went "where no channel has gone before—deep inside the lives of four newlywed couples…" and Below Deck which followed a "young and single crew, known as ‘yachties,’ [who] live, love and work together onboard a privately owned extravagant yacht."

As can be ascertained from the channel-provided descriptions, all these shows are virtual carbon copies of each other and what else already exists on Bravo, only the names, location and hair colors have changed. Everyone is young, single, blindly ambitious and, more often than not, deeply entitled and decidedly shallow. Just like Bravo likes them! Let the cameras roll! Let the pettiness begin! This endless supply of overindulged, self-centered people and all the interpersonal melodrama around them is surely enough for some viewers to say "Which one is this again?" and just as many viewers to say "ENOUGH!"

I have no doubt Bravo will never run out of cities or vapid people to cast in future Real Housewives spin-offs or its permutations, but there will come a time when this formula is no longer practical or profitable. It's not uncommon for a cable channel to have to reinvent itself over time; A&E went from a repository of arts and entertainment programming to the home of Duck Dynasty. The goal is to change, subtly and strategically, before you are forced to by dwindling audiences.

In that regard, there have been some signs of evolution. Currently, the channel has in development two scripted programs, Heiresses, an hour-long drama from the writer of Pretty Little Liars, and High and Low, a drama set during the 1980s that follows two brothers who open a restaurant together.

We will, of course, have to wait to see how these new proposed, non-reality series fare once each hit the air. And how (if at all) the channel might eventually deal with declining interest in the channel’s major brands, like the Housewives. Just lately the channel has started showing a broadcast network’s complete lack of sentimentality and loyalty when it comes to killing under-performing series even if the show is well-suited to the channel’s identity. For example, after several seasons, The Rachel Zoe Project got shown the door. Is this a sign of things to come? Will a mass purging be taking place sometime down the line? Either way, it's in Bravo’s best interest to try to beat viewers to that particular punch.

In the wake of Malcolm Young's passing, Jesse Fink, author of The Youngs: The Brothers Who Built AC/DC, offers up his top 10 AC/DC songs, each seasoned with a dash of backstory.

In the wake of Malcolm Young's passing, Jesse Fink, author of The Youngs: The Brothers Who Built AC/DC, offers up his top 10 AC/DC songs, each seasoned with a dash of backstory.

Keep reading... Show less

Pauline Black may be called the Queen of Ska by some, but she insists she's not the only one, as Two-Tone legends the Selecter celebrate another stellar album in a career full of them.

Being commonly hailed as the "Queen" of a genre of music is no mean feat, but for Pauline Black, singer/songwriter of Two-Tone legends the Selecter and universally recognised "Queen of Ska", it is something she seems to take in her stride. "People can call you whatever they like," she tells PopMatters, "so I suppose it's better that they call you something really good!"

Keep reading... Show less

Morrison's prose is so engaging and welcoming that it's easy to miss the irreconcilable ambiguities that are set forth in her prose as ineluctable convictions.

It's a common enough gambit in science fiction. Humans come across a race of aliens that appear to be entirely alike and yet one group of said aliens subordinates the other, visiting violence upon their persons, denigrating them openly and without social or legal consequence, humiliating them at every turn. The humans inquire why certain of the aliens are subjected to such degradation when there are no discernible differences among the entire race of aliens, at least from the human point of view. The aliens then explain that the subordinated group all share some minor trait (say the left nostril is oh-so-slightly larger than the right while the "superior" group all have slightly enlarged right nostrils)—something thatm from the human vantage pointm is utterly ridiculous. This minor difference not only explains but, for the alien understanding, justifies the inequitable treatment, even the enslavement of the subordinate group. And there you have the quandary of Otherness in a nutshell.

Keep reading... Show less

A 1996 classic, Shawn Colvin's album of mature pop is also one of best break-up albums, comparable lyrically and musically to Joni Mitchell's Hejira and Bob Dylan's Blood on the Tracks.

When pop-folksinger Shawn Colvin released A Few Small Repairs in 1996, the music world was ripe for an album of sharp, catchy songs by a female singer-songwriter. Lilith Fair, the tour for women in the music, would gross $16 million in 1997. Colvin would be a main stage artist in all three years of the tour, playing alongside Liz Phair, Suzanne Vega, Sheryl Crow, Sarah McLachlan, Meshell Ndegeocello, Joan Osborne, Lisa Loeb, Erykah Badu, and many others. Strong female artists were not only making great music (when were they not?) but also having bold success. Alanis Morissette's Jagged Little Pill preceded Colvin's fourth recording by just 16 months.

Keep reading... Show less

Frank Miller locates our tragedy and warps it into his own brutal beauty.

In terms of continuity, the so-called promotion of this entry as Miller's “third" in the series is deceptively cryptic. Miller's mid-'80s limited series The Dark Knight Returns (or DKR) is a “Top 5 All-Time" graphic novel, if not easily “Top 3". His intertextual and metatextual themes resonated then as they do now, a reason this source material was “go to" for Christopher Nolan when he resurrected the franchise for Warner Bros. in the mid-00s. The sheer iconicity of DKR posits a seminal work in the artist's canon, which shares company with the likes of Sin City, 300, and an influential run on Daredevil, to name a few.

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.