Realiti's Nickson: How his story came about

"Why was Nickson kicked out? To prove the point that gays can't be on reality TV? That's tragic isn't it?"

That's what Karin wrote below, as a comment to episode 8 of Realiti. And yes, I agree that if that was the point, then it would be extremely tragic. But, of course, that wasn't really the point we were trying to make.

(I was going to reply to this in a comment, but then realised that it would have taken up a little bit too much space. And everything I write below is from my vague and fuzzy memory. Ping might contradict what I have here, and if he does, I'll edit this post to accommodate his comments.)

First of all, the idea of Nickson as an effeminate character was Ping's from the very beginning. He felt that people would like watching him, and I think the original preview audience feedback supported it. People like a campish character who bitches about everything and generally acts silly.

I personally didn't like that we had to resort to that kind of humour to reach an audience. It's a cheap shot, and because we're doing it over and over again, it's a bucket-load of cheap shots. Like buckshot made of rock salt or something. Not difficult to get hold of, and leaves a funny taste in the mouth. On the other hand, there were real-life people who fitted the mould (Adam of Malaysian Idol 2, for example; or Bob from Akademi Fantasia), so it wasn't really that far of a stretch to put them in.

Never mind, I said. What's the story? What is it about them that will change throughout the series? I don't remember there being any doubt that we would be tackling Nickson's effeminity (is there such a word), one way or the other. Exactly what, we debated upon that.

One choice would be to have people insisting that he be more manly, that he stop being so soft. This is exactly what happened to Adam of MI2. Judges kept telling him to firm up, add a little masculinity to his performance. I always wondered, "Why?". The core of every performance is honesty, and if somebody feels a fake in what they do, then I don't think they do so well. So, I thought this would be an interesting dilemma.

The other choice was to actually step up and make Nickson gay. If we did that, the dilemma would be different. He would have had more to lose. Can an openly gay character win votes on a reality show? Maybe, maybe not. There certainly would be controversy, but I think there have been plenty of Malaysian artists who have that implicit lifestyle. So being gay, in itself, may not cause that many problems.

But what if his fanbase were primarily young, teenage girls? How would that play out? As I asked, what if Daniel of MI2 had told all his teeny-bopping pink-clad hyperactive female fans, "sorry girls, I'm more interested in guys". I think he would alienate his core base, and lose votes.

Of course, it doesn't have to be sexual orientation. In fact, we put Amir through a similar sort of wringer with all the accusations of him being involved with Baby. But the big difference is, Amir doesn't choose which way to go. With Nickson, we tried to put it at his feet. Make a choice: Deny your close relationship with Calvin, or lose your chance to win Malaysian Star.

(Incidentally, Karin, it is this element of choice that is important in storytelling. Remember, Raz or David said that you shouldn't have an Act of God as a key plot element? It should be a choice. And it can't be an easy choice. That's what I like about the Burn/Melody storyline in episode 7. After Mac discovers the drugs, everything that happens to them is a result of choices made. I think that the Nickson story in episode 8 lacks that build-up.)

Despite what you may read into what I've said above, I need to make one thing clear: We were NOT trying to tackle homosexuality as an issue. We were trying to tell a story, and those issues happened to be the mechanisms to tell that story. We were certainly not trying to say whether it's right or wrong.

If we had Nickson admit his relationship with Calvin, and then carry on to get the votes, then there wouldn't be a dilemma. He wouldn't have lost anything. It would have been a bad story.

(Myself, I feel that a personal lifestyle choice is... well, personal. As in, not anybody elses business.)

Labels: realiti, tv