### Step 1: Literal Narrative
The article “Five Ways of Seeing Five Minutes of ‘Real People’ at the Oscars” by The Atlantic discusses a segment during the 2017 Academy Awards hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. In this segment, a group of tourists, presented as “real people,” were brought into the Dolby Theatre during the live broadcast. They were under the impression they were visiting a museum exhibit about the Oscars, only to discover they were in the midst of the actual ceremony. Host Jimmy Kimmel informed them of their situation, and the event was captured and shared on social media by Kimmel himself.
The segment is described as both amusing and awkward, serving as a microcosm of various relationships: Hollywood’s connection to America, America’s relationship with the media, and Kimmel’s tendency to introduce awkwardness. The article highlights “Gary from Chicago” as a breakout star of the moment, noting his casual attire contrasting with the formal setting and his confident interactions with celebrities. His popularity on social media is linked to a broader cultural craving for relatable, symbolic “everymen,” similar to figures like Ken Bone or Joe the Plumber, and also to marketing interests.
A significant observation is the tourists’ collective reliance on their phones, even when informed they were on television. They continued to film and take selfies with celebrities, with Kimmel noting their desire to document the experience. The article points out the prevalence of phone accessories, such as jeweled cases and selfie sticks, and how the tourists used their devices to bridge the gap between themselves and the stars, even having Mahershala Ali pose with Gary’s phone.
The segment is interpreted as an attempt at cultural exchange between “workaday citizens” and the cultural elite, particularly in an era of perceived societal fragmentation. Celebrities are noted to have interacted warmly with the tourists, with instances like Ryan Gosling offering a gift and Jennifer Aniston giving her sunglasses. Denzel Washington even officiated a mock wedding for Gary and his fiancée.
However, an alternative reading suggests the segment could be seen as patronizing, with the tourists potentially being expected to display overt gratitude and awe. Kimmel’s perceived insistence on their being “wowed” and Gary’s hand-kissing of actresses are cited as potentially awkward moments, with one observer calling it “condescending.”
The article also addresses the issue of race and representation. While the tourists were diverse, Kimmel’s humor regarding names, such as reacting with mock relief to a white participant named Patrick after a woman of Asian descent shared a name rhyming with “jewelry,” is characterized as tone-deaf, especially given the Oscars’ recent “So White” controversy. Gary’s interjection, pointing out Kimmel was ignoring white celebrities, is presented as a moment that diffused this particular awkwardness.
Finally, the segment is framed as an example of the “insanity of live TV.” The author describes experiencing stress reflexes while watching, suggesting a shared sentiment of discomfort among viewers based on Twitter reactions. The possibility that the tourists were actors or coached is raised, but the inherent spectacle of chaos within the highly controlled and culturally significant environment of the Oscars is deemed riveting, highlighting the electrifying nature of live television and its potential for both disaster and miracles.
### Step 2: Alternative Narrative
This retelling focuses on the underlying dynamics and potential unspoken motivations behind the “real people” segment at the 2017 Oscars, interpreting the events through a lens of performance, commodification, and the construction of authenticity.
The introduction of the “real people” onto the Oscar stage, orchestrated by Jimmy Kimmel, can be viewed not merely as a spontaneous cultural exchange, but as a carefully curated performance designed to generate specific emotional responses and reinforce certain cultural narratives. The premise of unsuspecting tourists, bussed in for a fabricated museum tour, serves as a narrative device to create an illusion of genuine surprise and unscripted interaction. This setup allows for the manufactured discovery of “authenticity” within the highly artificial environment of Hollywood.
The emergence of “Gary from Chicago” as a focal point exemplifies the media’s and public’s hunger for easily digestible archetypes. His attire—basketball shorts, baseball cap, and a casual sweatshirt—functions as a visual signifier of the “everyman,” a deliberate contrast to the opulent surroundings. This contrast is not accidental; it is designed to highlight a perceived gap between Hollywood and “real America,” a gap that the segment aims to bridge, or at least acknowledge, in a performative manner. Gary’s immediate embrace of the situation and his confident interactions can be interpreted as a successful embodiment of the desired persona, a willing participant in the construction of his own meme-worthy moment.
The pervasive use of smartphones by the tourists, despite being on live television, speaks volumes about the contemporary relationship with media and celebrity. The phones act as both shields and conduits, allowing individuals to maintain a degree of separation from the overwhelming experience while simultaneously attempting to capture and possess it. The act of filming and taking selfies with celebrities, even handing a phone to Mahershala Ali, can be seen as an attempt to translate the intangible experience of celebrity into a tangible, shareable commodity. The phone becomes a tool for personal branding and social currency, a way to prove one’s proximity to fame.
From this perspective, the segment’s portrayal of cultural exchange might be seen as a superficial gesture. While stars offered gifts and greetings, the underlying power dynamic remains. The “workaday citizens” are, in essence, props in a larger spectacle, their presence designed to humanize and validate the elite. The article’s mention of Denzel Washington’s hasty return to his seat, or the interpretation of Gary’s hand-kissing as supplicant behavior, hints at the inherent asymmetry of these interactions. The “cultural exchange” is less a genuine dialogue and more a controlled demonstration of Hollywood’s perceived magnanimity.
The critique of Kimmel’s humor regarding names, particularly in relation to racial diversity, suggests that the segment, despite its intentions, may have inadvertently reinforced existing biases. The framing of certain names as inherently “funny” or requiring mock relief when a “normal” name is spoken reveals a subtle, perhaps unconscious, privileging of certain cultural norms. Gary’s intervention, while seemingly spontaneous, could also be interpreted as a performance of allyship, further complicating the authenticity of the moment.
Ultimately, the segment’s success lies in its ability to generate a sense of relatable chaos within a highly controlled environment. The “insanity of live TV” is not just about potential mishaps; it’s about the calculated disruption of predictability to create compelling television. The tourists, whether actors or genuinely surprised individuals, become instruments in this performance, their reactions amplified and interpreted to serve the larger narrative of the Oscars as a reflection, however distorted, of the nation’s cultural landscape. The segment, therefore, can be understood as a meta-commentary on authenticity, celebrity, and the mediated experience of reality in the digital age.
### Step 3: Meta-Analysis
The two narratives, “Literal Narrative” and “Alternative Narrative,” diverge significantly in their framing, emphasis, and the underlying assumptions they bring to the source material.
**Framing:** The Literal Narrative adopts a descriptive and objective frame, aiming to present the information from the article as directly as possible. It focuses on reporting what the article states, including the events, the observations made by the author, and the various interpretations offered within the original text. In contrast, the Alternative Narrative frames the events through a lens of critical interpretation, focusing on underlying dynamics, potential unspoken motivations, and symbolic meanings. It moves beyond reporting to analyzing the segment as a constructed performance rather than a spontaneous occurrence.
**Emphasis:** The Literal Narrative emphasizes the factual recounting of the segment’s events and the author’s explicit commentary on them. It highlights the key figures (Kimmel, Gary), the core actions (tourists entering, interactions), and the explicit themes discussed (awkwardness, phone addiction, cultural exchange, race). The Alternative Narrative, however, shifts emphasis towards the *implications* of these events. It prioritizes the interpretation of actions as performances, the commodification of celebrity encounters, and the construction of authenticity. The focus is less on *what happened* and more on *what it signifies* in a broader cultural context. For instance, while the Literal Narrative notes the use of phones, the Alternative Narrative emphasizes the *meaning* behind this use—as tools for personal branding and commodification.
**Omissions and Inclusions:** The Literal Narrative, by its nature, aims to be comprehensive in its reporting of the article’s content. It includes the author’s direct quotes and explicit analyses. The Alternative Narrative, while drawing from the same source material, selectively emphasizes certain aspects and reinterprets others. It might downplay or reframe elements that the Literal Narrative presents as straightforward observations. For example, the Alternative Narrative might treat the “cultural exchange” as a more performative or superficial act than the Literal Narrative might imply, by focusing on the power dynamics. It also introduces interpretive language (“can be viewed not merely as,” “functions as a visual signifier,” “can be seen as an attempt”) that is absent in the more descriptive Literal Narrative. The Alternative Narrative also implicitly omits the author’s own voice as the primary interpreter, instead adopting a more generalized analytical stance.
In essence, the Literal Narrative acts as a faithful summary of the article’s explicit content, while the Alternative Narrative engages in a deeper, more interpretive reading, seeking to uncover potential subtexts and broader cultural commentary that might be implied but not directly stated. The difference lies in the move from reporting to analysis, from description to interpretation.
### Step 4: Background Note
The 2017 Academy Awards segment involving “real people” took place in a specific cultural and political climate that informs its reception and interpretation. The United States was, at that time, experiencing significant societal divisions, often discussed in terms of urban versus rural divides, coastal versus heartland populations, and differing political ideologies. The term “real America” was frequently invoked in political discourse, often to represent a segment of the population perceived as distinct from, and sometimes in opposition to, perceived liberal elites in cultural centers like Hollywood.
The “Oscars So White” controversy, mentioned in the article, refers to a period where the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences faced widespread criticism for a lack of diversity among its nominees and, by extension, its membership. This led to discussions about representation in Hollywood, the types of stories being told, and who gets to tell them. The segment’s inclusion of a diverse group of tourists, therefore, could be seen as an attempt to address or acknowledge this broader conversation about inclusivity, though the article notes the humor around names as potentially undermining this.
Furthermore, the rise of social media and the concept of “viral moments” were highly influential. Figures like “Ken Bone” and “Joe the Plumber” from previous years had become internet sensations precisely because they were perceived as ordinary individuals thrust into extraordinary public attention, often embodying relatable or symbolic qualities that resonated with a broad audience. The segment’s focus on “Gary from Chicago” taps into this cultural phenomenon, highlighting the public’s fascination with unexpected celebrity and the media’s ability to create and amplify such moments. The ubiquity of smartphones and selfie culture also reflects a broader societal trend of documenting and sharing personal experiences, often in relation to aspirational or aspirational-adjacent content, including celebrity encounters.
