Since its inception in 2015, “Love Island” has become a juggernaut within the sphere of reality TV. For those unfamiliar with the concept, “Love Island” sees 12 stereotypically attractive men and women enter a villa in an exotic location for 8 weeks. There, they must couple up with a partner of the opposite sex with the hopes of finding true love. There is also a monetary dimension, with the winning couple earning a 50k cash prize. In the villa, islanders participate in raunchy games, experience dramatic dumpings, and are privy to explosive arguments, which are often over exploited by the show’s producers to drum up the drama.
As simple as the concept sounds, the show has been subject to heavy criticisms in its almost decade-long run. From former contestants slamming ITV for poor psychological care, complaints to OfCom about continued misogyny within the show, a lack of diversity when it comes to contestants and of course the inherent overconsumption the show promotes, to name a few, many question its place within today’s society.
Love Island’s original appeal lay within its ability to capture the real world dynamics of the dating world, with the villa acting as a microcosm of wider society. Nightly viewers of the programme procured pleasure from observing ordinary people struggle through the turbulence of modern romance. The allure of self insertion into the villa is quickly eliminated when you realise your favourite islander is already a semi established micro influencer, making them not in fact ‘just like you’.
This disconnect felt by fans of the show was only amplified in the wake of “Love Island All Stars”, which featured former contestants from previous series. Viewers can only suspend their disbelief for so long, and it is incredibly difficult to believe that the cast of “Love Island All Stars” re-entered the villa to find true love. It seems, rather, that “All Stars” was a last ditch attempt by islanders to reacquire the short lived and unsustainable fame they received in the wake of their respective seasons. “Love Island” has become less about finding love and more about acquiring “Pretty Little Thing” and “BooHoo Man” brand deals – lest we forget the show’s ties to the vast overconsumption of fast fashion.
Whether or not the show ever truly centred around finding love is also up for debate. Considering the central role reality television plays in society’s consciousness, “Love Island” has been central in curating the blasé and clausal approach towards dating which plagues modern romantic entanglements. Contestants, regardless of sex, have partaken in tactical mind games in order to absolve themselves of responsibility and commitment.
Phrases such as “locked in,” “shut off,” “my heads scrambled” and “I’m keeping my options open” have been deployed by islanders across all seasons, which by default has normalised such indifferent and apathetic exchanges within wider society. I’m sure many have been privy to these or similar expressions while exploring the college dating scene. The general consensus on why these terms are used lies in the desire of one to omit responsibility during the talking stage. Deploying such terms provides the islanders with plausible deniability if, and usually when, “someone else enters the villa whose more my type.”
They absolve themselves from absolute commitment while also leaving the door ajar with their previous partner. People subconsciously replicate what they are exposed to in media facilitating such behaviours to appear as the new normal. While I am not naive enough to place the complete blame on “Love Island” for propagating what is essentially emotional breadcrumbing, it is also not blameless.
“Love Island All Stars” was also a shallow attempt by the show’s producers to boost their ever drooping viewership. Reusing the same repetitive challenges we have seen each season, cutting the fan-favourite “Casa Amore” segment, and failing to listen to the disillusionment felt by viewers made the season feel disingenuous. So why do people, such as myself, continue to consume this unethical mind numbing media?
There is a somewhat ritualistic nature that comes with the consumption of “Love Island”. Between its nightly 9pm air time and the hoarders of viewers who take to Twitter to air their opinions in real time, it’s easy to become invested.
In my humble opinion, the manner in which Twitter users comment on the series is the closest we will get to a real life Hunger Games. As entertaining as it may seem, this has major implications on the mental health of contestants. Viewers comfortably forget they are discussing real people who can easily access and read the vulgar, lude, and inappropriate comments made about them online.
Following the conclusion of “All Stars”, islander Georgia Steele spoke to the Sun revealing the intense trolling she was subject to as a result of her actions within the villa: “I felt like the most hated woman in the country. I had no clue it would be that bad.” As someone who both watched the show and kept up with the Twitter discourse, I can confirm first-hand that Steele was by far subject to the highest levels of criticism for her actions within the villa. It was impossible to scroll through the “Love Island” hashtag without seeing something negative about her.
Many called on the cancellation of the show following the deaths of former constants Sophie Gradon and Mike Thalassitis, alongside former host Caroline Flack, by suicide a few years ago. In the wake of Thalassitis’ passing, former islander and friend Dom Lever took to Twitter saying, “you get a psychological evaluation before and after you go on the show but hands down once you are done on the show you don’t get any support unless you’re number one.”
Former islanders such as Amber Rose Gill, Jack Fincham and Paige Turley have also spoken out, criticising the show for the lack of psychological support contestants receive upon leaving the villa.
Despite ITV2 updating their statement of care, many believe further provisions are needed to protect the primarily young contestants with navigating their newly acquired platforms upon exiting the villa. However far these psychological supports extend there is really little that can be done to stop viewers taking to social media to air their grievances with islanders they dislike. The advent of social media has completely altered how we interact with reality television and there is still a long way to go to protect participants of such shows.
Some actually argue the enhanced welfare protocols are, in fact, responsible for recent seasons of “Love Island” being utterly devoid of the usual debauchery associated with reality television. At its core, reality television is exploitative and thrives on the humiliation of its contestants.
Shows such as “Big Brother”, “Jersey Shore” and, of course, “Love Island” have acquired some of their most memorable and profitable material through exploiting emotional outbursts of contestants for the sake of dramatisation and views.This leaves one to question whether reality television in its rawest, most authentic, and unregulated form is even ethical to consume.
It seems “Love Island”’s once ironclad grip on society has come to an end with the “All Stars”finale drawing in a mere 1 million viewers. The show’s fall from a once beloved dating show drawing in millions, to a sanitised, shallow, inauthentic display of self-commodification and promotion of damaging dating ideals has been slow but steady. To put it simply, we have outgrown the villa, with it becoming a beacon of light which illuminates society’s darker, more superficial and sinister side.
WORDS: Aoibhinn Clancy
