The reality token has not yet come down to viewers who are disappointed with the contestants • How can this romantic gaggle be taken seriously? • Opinion

• Reality is meant to entertain only. Hagar and Nir at "Wedding at First Sight"

  Photo: 

  From the program

Opens with great discernment: I am not a devout spectator of "wedding at first sight". The first time I watched the program was of no choice, as I was hospitalized and confined to a bed of sand, and the alternative to Rainbow Reality 12 was an interview with a colonoscopy specialist. Therefore, I will not call Ethimer (the keyword of the entire column before you) to visit the series itself, but I will not hesitate to visit you, hundreds of thousands of viewers every week, already in season three. Not that there is anything wrong with it, on the contrary, you will watch, enjoy, but from here to take this pretentious matchmaking program (# 2) seriously and have heady discussions about it - going through a whole river of delusional innocence.

Like many reality shows, "Wedding at First Sight" is first and foremost intended to entertain viewers, and what is more entertaining than forcing people to spend time with each other and interpret their relationship. As if the minute-by-hour time we watched them on television reflects reality in some way, or reveals something about the complex nature and personality of the people behind the characters. It worked fine with Big Brother, so why not work here too? The fireplace also compresses beautiful and innocent people in order to fall in love and fight and explode in front of the cameras, and in this case, only one (and a half) couple of real life outside the house, because love does not buy in the grocery store, nor in reality shows.

So far, common sense. People are attracted to people for reasons no human mind can explain, and falling in love with the reality of a televised laboratory is likely destined for failure. But even at the end of the third season of the show, there is an impression that the reality token has not yet dropped to enthusiastic reality viewers. In talkbacks and reactions, serious columnists and weighty discussions, the voices that marvel at the inappropriate pairings return, disappointed by the "cold" women, angry at the degree of the contestants' commitment and format, even question the expertise of the cast - sorry, the "experts" - regarding the correctness.

Don't get it wrong, "Wedding at First Sight" is meticulously entertaining, just as it was designed to do, and so, presumably, has a high rating as well. But take it seriously to take this romantic gag, to rummage through the characters as if you know even half a percent, and accuse them of completely devoting themselves to a ridiculous format whose success is, in fact, a matter of no avail.

The paraphrase that the program puts on the concept of "love at first sight" (which, by the way, is a real thing and exists even if it has no rational explanation), gives this silly reality a pseudo-logical touch, but in fact the only logic behind this format is how to make you, the viewers At home, analyze the happenings on screen with enthusiasm that will keep you alert until the next episode. It turns out that even during a rampant epidemic, it works.

• Want to participate in a "friends" union?

• What happened to Michael Jordan?

• Dozens of free content to watch

• Nature series that must be seen

• Alkali Asif is being attacked on the network