![[backpages]](../images/backpages/atalison3.gif)
the backpages: game show rants
the front page browsing the backpages: Game Show Rants « « You old Softie! ------------  [home] |
May 19, 2001
Game Show Rants
![[Survivor]](../images/backpages/survivor-logo.gif){kind=logo} It's just a game...As the official critic of this web site I feel the need to present some sort of rebuttal to the disturbing moral theories presented to the American people during the supposed game show, Survivor. Rather than being a traditional game show, Survivor is more of a show claiming to be a game. But its definition of a game is a bit worrisome. For example, we were all told to accept the fact that in the first season the biggest asshole contestant won the million dollars - not despite the fact that he was shallow and purely selfish, but because of these traits - because (and here's why it's OK) it is "just a game". Now, I play a lot of games (see the game room) and the point of playing games is not to be selfish and treat others like crap. Games are a form of pleasant social activity, which offer the opportunity to interact positively with others and enjoy their company. This is why we encourage children in game-playing (not because we want them to turn into Richard!). Competitive games certainly require that one focus on individual goals, but often one's individual goals are best accomplished when two or more work together (perhaps against another adversary). Games also have rules and are generally accepted to be better when they are fair. So there doesn't seem to me to be any justification for arbitrary, unabashed mistreatment of others on the basis that something is "just a game" (we wouldn't let our kids get away with brutalizing others just because they're on a playground). What a game does is it turns competition into successful interaction; it is a way of sublimating (expressing and yet overcoming) aggressive instincts towards others. It provides a space where we can break what would be considered moral rules, but only because we find ourselves in a virtual context (a world depicted on a gameboard, as pawns in a race, as figures while role-playing), which includes its own internal goals (gain the most points, finish first, kill opponents). If you find yourself in "the real world" engaged in some sort of struggle for survival and there are no rules, is no fairness and everyone is purely out for him/herself, then what you've got there is a war, not a game! BUT, what really bothers me is the way in which the show has ended up encouraging these war-like attitudes amongst its "players" and the viewers (offering "the game" up as an excuse), when in actuality it is just a game. The challeges always have rules and Jeff Probst always explains how these are fair. Tribal council is its own sort of world with an inherent structure that must be followed (no one refuses to leave after Jeff says "The tribe has spoken"). The whole is truly a game, perhaps one with very few rules - people don't have to uphold promises or allegiances and they don't have to have legitimate reasons to vote someone off - but rules nonetheless. And, as a game that bases itself on human reality, it manages to do one peculiar thing that a pretending game doesn't often do: it re-establishes the very traditional ethics it purports to destroy with its rule-lessness and ruthlessness. While every game, through its goals and rules, suggests an ethics (what it would be good to do or not to do), this game/show, although encouraging lying and deception, actually proves that the opposites of these are the only way to "win". No one gets to the last group without being a part of a loyal alliance. And the idea of having a jury vote determine the final winner - and not some objective score or final competition - again emphasizes fairness (this is the basis of our legal system for goodness sakes!!!!!). So, remember, Survivor is just a game, but that doesn't mean it's all about being unethical, although in a game that might be the most prudent thing to do in a specific situation, and it isn't all about being shallow, although that might make it easier to play the hard parts of the game well. It is not supposed to be unfair, although you might not like the eventual winner. Games are like that sometimes - since they have their own rules, the person we want to win, doesn't always succeed (but we don't for that reason just take the last few World Series championships away from the Yankees!). Most importantly Survivor is a reality game, and, for that very reason, it cannot but re-emphasize the reality of human goodness and fairness. Sorry Mark Burnett! How to talk like a millionaire Have you noticed how contestants on shows like Who Wants to Be a Millionaire can't seem to speak properly? People get easy questions and feel the need to explain how they know the answer. They are probably encouraged in this by the show's contestant coordinators. So, they blather on, but still they don't want to talk too long; perhaps they receive this request also from the show's organizers. Well, they end up saying everything in one totally grammatically nonsensical sentence. For example: "I just saw this movie last week, Regis, so the answer must be...." or "Well, I did take that class in high school, so the answer is...." Ex-squeeze me? Because you saw the movie, the answer has to be something. How does that logic work?? You took the class, therefore the answer is.... Forget that those phrases behind the commas are supposed to be relevant to the word that follows/precedes them?? I've seen this one before, in student papers. When asked about their interests, students wrote stuff like: "Being a history major, the Holocaust is very interesting." Oh, the Holocaust is a history major? Really? You know what, sometimes it just takes more than one sentence. It's OK.
How much do you hate the woman from The Weakest Link? Is this woman terrible or what? Amazing how I can hear Regis pass out the same pleasantries and praises on Millionaire four times a week, but can't stand to hear this woman's panned insults repeated over and over again in just one half-hour show. I can't believe that anyone finds this stuff amusing. She's a total bitch. Is this some sort of trick by the Brits to overcome the old John Steed, John Cleese stereotypes?? We're supposed to hate her, right? But she doesn't even have any character like an evil soap opera queen, who is fun to hate. Ok, maybe we're supposed to identify with her as the smug know-it-all above all the other contestants. But aren't we supposed to want to become contestants? It seems to me that wanting to become a contestant on this game show should be some sort of sign of a mental disorder. And what kind of a game is that anyway - give people an almost impossible task (make a chain of 10 correct answers to questions of varying difficulty posed to different players) and then insult them when they don't succeed. What's that about?? It seems like a freaky alien world the Star Trek crew might have run into, where evil beings have taken prisoners from other alien races and use them for their own amusement. Kirk would be outraged! Why aren't we?
What can I say, I'm just a woman in search of a soap box. Thank God Al Gore invented the internet! |