Wife Swap – The Norwegian version Wife Swap Swap was In Norw Norway ay,, the the form format at Wife was prod produc uced ed unde underr the the titl title e
‘Konebytte’, by the production company Rubicon, and broadcast on the commercial channel TV 3 (Viasat). The format was produced for two seasons, autumn 2004 (7 episodes) and spring 2008 (6 episodes), and was considered a relative success with 10 percent market share, and a partic particul ular ar high high share share of female female viewer viewers, s, which which was was defin defined ed as the target group. The channel TV 3 had previously (autumn 2003) shown the British Wife Swap with a relative success in the viewer market, and had thereby
prepared the Norwegian viewers and tested format’s appeal. This is a common strategy in adoption of international formats in Norway (such as Top Top Mode Model, l, the the Batc Batche helo lorr etc. etc.)) to give give the the audi audien ence ce a kind kind of prev previe iew w of the the orig origin inal al form format at in orde orderr to test test thei theirr inte intere rest st in a natio nationa nall versio version n befor before e mone money y is inves invested ted in domes domestic tic prod product uctio ion. n. British Wife Swap was seen by 116 000 viewers in Norway, while the Norwegian Norwegian version achieved the double (227 000 viewers) at the most. The success of the British format in its home market was used as a marketing strategy to promote the format in the Norwegian market: “When shown at British Channel 4, the series reached a new viewer record with 6.5. million viewers, only beat by the Big Brother final“ (Kampanje, (Kampanje, 18.08.04). The producers producers expected expected a considerably considerably higher higher rating for the Norwegian version of the format. Producing a Norwegian Wife Swap
The format Wife Swap is based on contrasts between different life style choices and ways of organizing daily life. In Norway, the TV-producers seem to have found the most prominent contrasts in the difference between the rural way of life in the outskirts, and the more urban
1
lifestyles in the city. In particular, the capital Oslo, which is also the largest city in Norway, is contrasted to places in the countryside. Interestingly,
the
TV-producers’
search
for
sharp
contrasts
in
Norwegian culture was found in the gap between people living in central areas and people living in more outer places. (I will conduct an interview with the producer, and will thus gather more data on the production process, and the reason for only producing two seasons of the series etc.) Producing contrasts: The rural versus the urban
The
dramaturgic
effect
of
contrasting
lifestyles
in
different
geographical parts of Norway is a general tendency in the ‘Konebytte’. In order to enlighten this tendency in depth, I have chosen to present a close analysis of one episode of the Norwegian version of the series (production number 203, find date). In an aim to describe the textual portrayals of contrasts, and for the purpose of analytical clarity, I will use the terms ‘the urban wife’ and ‘the rural wife’ in the following discussion. First, the casting of families underlines the differences between rural and urban ways of life. The first family lives in Oslo, and is a typical post-modern family with a couple, and their respective two children from previous relationships living with them part-time (what is this family model called?). In contrast, the second family lives in a farmhouse in the countryside, and is a traditional nuclear family (mother, father and children). Moreover, the two families were profoundly different in their values and lifestyle choices. The city-life couple were vegetarians, while the farmers regarded animals and meat production as a natural part of life. When reading the rural wife’s house manual, the urban wife exclaims sarcastically: “These people are
2
meat-eaters!”. And opposite, when cooking a vegetarian meal for her ‘new’ family, the rural wife characterizes the ‘fake’ (soya?) meat, on her oral dialect typical for the countryside: “This is meat which isn’t real meat”. The urban wife was portrayed as quite alternative and eccentric, and thus contrasting the traditional and pragmatic rural wife. For example the rural wife regarded the urban wife’s belief in reincarnation and UFOs, and her involvement in healing, meditation and rhythm therapy as strange and unfamiliar. In contrast, life at the farm did not leave any room for searching for deeper meaning or thinking about extraterritorial existence. The rural wife lived a simple life where everyday routines, such as feeding the animals, demanded hard-work and practical, down-to-earth responsibilities. A second dramaturgic effect is the storytelling of a ‘fish-on-land’-effect (perhaps an English phrase to describe a person in unfamiliar surroundings?). Especially the scenes where the farmer wife shops in the city creating this, quite comic, effect. For instance when she is confused in front of all the variety of different products and the difficult choices related in a post-modern consumer culture. Also, her meeting with the traffic in Oslo is portrayed like she is a clumsy stranger in town. She obviously does not know the rules of traffic, and walks straight across the street with busses and trams. The scene is shoot in the part of Oslo with the absolutely highest buildings, and the most urban look, so that she seems particularly small and lost, and ‘out-ofher-natural-elements’.
In
a
similar
‘fish-on-land’
(a
different
expression?) scene, the wife from the countryside was introduced to the world of alternative medicine in a therapy room. The healer defines the rural wife’s karma as purple, and insinuates that her life lacks excitements and that she needs healing. Being a non-believer in alternative medicine, the rural wife was rather provoked by this
3
diagnosis, and expressed irritation after the session. Third, the choices of location highlight the urban versus ruraldimension. The primary locations are the city apartment and the farmhouse,
including
their
respective
surroundings.
The
open
landscape and fresh air at the countryside is contrasted to the narrow apartment and in-doors lifestyle in Oslo. In the introductory scenes, the urban home is presented as a particularly small flat in an apartment building, and the wife complains about the limited space for a family which some week-ends includes six people. The rural wife expresses harsh scepticism towards the other family’s home when she arrives in the city: “This flat is very tiny and narrow. I would have become claustrophobic living like this”. In contrast, the rural wife idealises life in the countryside, and describes her home as situated on ‘the top of the world’. This statement refers to the advantages living in an open landscape suitable for outdoors-activities and a healthy lifestyle. The farmhouse is presented through overview pictures of nature and wildlife, and the indoor-setting is characteristically traditional with a large living room and old-fashioned interiors. Already during the car ride to the farmhouse, the urban wife expresses unfamiliarity with her new environment: ‘Oh, they are taking me out of….. civilisation!’. Her preference for urban life is furthermore shown in the ‘new rules’ she presents for the rural family, which includes going to a café in the nearest city with her ‘new’ husband. The rural husband agrees to come with her to the café, although very reluctantly (‘I’m not used to that’) and at the café he poses an ironic remark on the urban café latte trend. ‘Home,
Sweet
Home’
-
Status
quo
rather
than
life
transformations
4
The format includes a scene of closure when the two families meet and discuss their experiences with swapping wives for ten days. This closing part is located at one of the families’ houses of on a ‘neutral ground’, such as a restaurant or a café. In this particular episode, the two couples gather for a meeting in the large farmhouse. The four persons are seated in pairs, face-to-face, next to their original spouses, as if they are two teams evaluating a contest in everyday living. The couples seems to be relaxed in company with their original life-partner, and relieved to be able to return to their own home and original lifestyle. The conversation includes an evaluation of the entire ‘life experiment’, where both couples seem to conclude that they belong in their ‘natural environment’. None of the wives seems to have been through any transformation, their differences rather seems to have been segmented and the alliance between the original man and wife seems even stronger after the ‘intruder’ had challenged their daily life even tried to impose changes on their routines. Still, the couples seemed happy that they had gained new experiences and been through new challenges during the swap period. The rural wife was for example surprised that her husband had agreed to visit a café and commented: “You, at a café!”. In this final talk the couples exchanged experience in a friendly and light-minded manner, with funny remarks and lots of laughter. The urban wife for example commented to the rural husband: “Thank you for lending me your wife!”. The conclusion of the programme signalized that both couples would return to their homes, and continue their life as before the wife swap, perhaps with small adjustments after becoming an experience richer. Coming to terms with cultural differences
In sum, casting, location and storytelling are based on contrasts between the urban and the rural lifestyle. In order to achieve the
5
desired dramaturgical effect, the producers have exaggerated certain aspects of the rural character and certain aspects of the urban character. The portrayal of difference is to a certain degree based on stereotypes of life in the city and life on the countryside. Still, the contrasts, the exaggerations and the stereotypes comment on key aspects of Norwegian culture and society. The fact that Norway has transformed from an agricultural to a post-industrial society relatively fast has raised key questions related to values and life choices. Traditional
values
from
Norwegian
farmer
society
have
been
challenged by industrialization, globalization, urbanization and a change towards a post-modern lifestyle. These influences have, however, not impacted equally on the whole nation, and the main cultural and social distinction in Norway today is the probably the most prominent contrast between urban and rural lifestyle. Hence, the Norwegian version of Wife Swap illustrates an ongoing tension between traditional family values and the post-modern values. The program provides the participants with an opportunity to visit a different part of the Norwegian culture, and thus get a glimpse of how a family from a culturally ‘foreign Norway’ live their lives, and what challenges their have in their everyday life. This could be seen as a broadening of people’s cultural horizon, even though the result of the ‘life experiment’ is status quo.
6
