- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joel Berger is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Lord of the Million Dollar Prize
'Survivor' is back, closing in on William Golding's nightmare.
I'm a bit skeptical when a TV show begins a new season, because most don't have anywhere to go after the first one: those O.C. kids can't stay in high school forever, 24's Jack Bauer will eventually take a sick day and surely someone will find those Lost people on Google maps. So how do you treat the twelfth season of a show that pits hungry players against each other in fierce competition for a million bucks? Well, you could try to make them hungrier and fiercer.
With two new twists to the show's format, this version of Survivor (Panama) which premieres tomorrow night, is more mind game than game show. And for out of closet mind game fans like me, the show's new features like "Exile Island," take it back to what made it so appealing in the first place.
If you're like me, watching Survivor has never seemed like a guilty pleasure. In fact, I'll happily argue the opposite to anyone who'll listen: that the show is a brilliantly realized sociological experiment. What is Survivor if not the TV version of the William Golding Lord of the Flies novel you had to read in grade 10, hating your teacher for going over every single darned symbol until the juice was sucked out of it?
'Kill the pig'
But c'mon, it's not just me seeing this stuff. When Survivor: Palau winner Tom Westman killed a shark and impaled its head on a stick for all to see, he was making an all-out, hats off tribute to the book. Sure, Tom could have slaughtered a boar to make the connection even more direct, but you can't really fault a guy for killing a shark with his bare hands.
Granted, the show makes minor alterations from the book: it switches feral choirboys for female twenty-somethings and ditches the conch for an ice-cold glass of Mountain Dew. But above all, Survivor understands the primal dilemma that comes with its premise: will human beings, marooned on a deserted island, be base or civilized? What political system will naturally emerge as the most efficient? Is deserted island sex really as hot as it sounds?
If the latter two items aren't as thoroughly explored as you might hope, blame broadcasters' aversion to televised sex and common sense's aversion to televised politics.
But the first question about the struggle between civility and savagery is constantly at play on the new show, one that Golding himself would be proud of (not to say he wouldn't have an intellectual fascination with Skating with Celebrities)
Old men and Playboy models
Of Survivor's two new changes, I'm less excited about the first. Instead of being separated into two tribes, contestants will be separated into four - old men, old women, young men and future Playboy models. While it sounds like this would increase competitive behaviour, it's really just a calculated way to make sure the old-timers don't get the boot right off the bat. Survivor history has offered few examples of older contestants who display the requisite charming crustiness (Rudy) and gosh-darn huggability (also Rudy) to stay on the show.
Of course, no one's pretending that the new tribal divisions offer any more security. As Golding knew, no matter how you slice it -- men versus women, young versus old -- it always comes down to the Jacks versus the Ralphs (Jacks naturally argue that it does matter how you slice the Piggies). Contestants can either surrender to their instinctual savagery or fight to protect what innocence they have left. That is, before dispelling any such notion with a revealing magazine spread.
No, I prefer the second twist, decidedly more conniving in its intricacies: contestants can now banish their peers to "Exile Island." It's that idea of taking justice into your own hands (but not too much) that moves Survivor firmly into Flies territory. Typically, at tribal council you're voting out an obstacle to a chance at a million bucks. Now, you're just being plain nasty. What reasons will players now use to give each other the boot: bad performance at a challenge, or bad breath in the morning?
And that fascination, after all, was the original promise of reality programming: a glimpse at human motivation and desire. In its own way, Survivor says more about humanity than all three versions of Law & Order combined. (Of course, now that Dick Wolf's got a fourth legal drama on the way with Conviction, I may have to take that back).
Ryan Austin is a law student who watches too much TV and maintains the Lawyerlike blog. ![]()



7
Login or register to post comments
speedo
6 years ago
Comments on "Lord of the Million Dollar Prize"
I disagree that reality TV is a worthwhile diversion. On the contrary, I will happily argue that it’s a manufactured and artificial culture of conflict and cruelty. Not that that’s particularly unusual in human history. What is unusual is the pretense that anything that occurs is psychologically, anthropologically or politically interesting. It’s not news to me that squabbling adults are about as much fun to watch as squabbling toddlers.
Yammer
6 years ago
I used to watch Survivor but it got boring once they started stacking the casts with cuter, less eccentric people. The first show had the incredibly rude Sue Hawk and the incredibly nude Richard Hatch. That was quality TV, man.
To get the interest back, we did need to have more conflict. I propose Survivor: Liberal Party Leadership.
burner
6 years ago
shame on you ryan.
these shows are not reality.
they are not entertainment, nor are they remotely interesting.
the real experiment has to do with how gullable the viewers are.
the answer is 'so much more than we thought or hoped for!'
never mind golding. think orwell.
jim rome (yes, he's just a sports guy) said on his show "if you watch reality shows, then you're just not smart."
cto999
6 years ago
Reality shows aren't a hundred percent real, I have the presses on the phone, should I tell them to stop?
Despite the fact that Survivor isn't a scientifically controlled experiment, it does show how far certain attention-loving people are willing to go to have a chance at winning money and to be on television. How power hungry are you? Is your word worth more to you than the prize money? How important is the truth? How irrational are those who have had little sleep and little to eat? In short, it answers the question, what would you do for $1 million?
The best players learn from previous seasons, and tailor their behaviour to not repeat the mistakes of the past, and to exploit the formula of the show. Johnny Fairplay knew that he could hang out with his friend as long as the other contestants felt sorry for him, so he had his friend lie about grandma.
If you don't like reality shows, fine, don't watch them. Don't speak in absolutes, because while you may not find them entertaining, others do, and that is not a sign of intellectual superiority, it's just a matter of preference. No one expects that an episode of Survivor will reveal human truths that will change the course of history. But it is a game worth watching.
Thanks to the author for sparking a debate.
wiley
6 years ago
Canned Reality on TV can make up for lack of the fresh stuff in personal life, I suppose. Just as propaganda can substitute for critical thinking. Dumbing down the sheeple takes full-spectrum dominance, from womb to tomb.
dave49
6 years ago
I do not watch much television and have never seen 'Survivor'. The whole reality television trend is about the major US networks' desperate attempt to survive. It's a 500 channel universe and their advertising revenue is evaporating. Further, digital technologies like the Internet and videogaming are taking people away from television. I put no sociological significance in any of the content. The content is there to sell the advertising.
smeebs
6 years ago
There is no profound lifes lesson in this program the outcome still has enough chance attached to it to keep me watching. Better to see real people in a controled experiment for entainments sake than those people that live vicariously through soap opera characters. I think survivor should be taken for what it is,entertainment on some level.