|
Contrivance and Authenticity on Survivor Holly Forsythe |
|
After Princess Diana’s death-by-paparazzi and the Lewinsky affair, it seemed that the media had declared “open season” on celebrities with the public’s blessing. As the last century drew to a close, the apparent consensus was that anyone who pursued a public career had forfeited his or her privacy. Then, in the summer of 2000, journalists suddenly faced the prospect of covering “real” people as the remarkable success of Survivor drew mass attention to its contestants. In this context, the rise of “reality television” made for some curious compromises and re-evaluations on the part of the press. Now, during the second season of Survivor, that brief moment has passed. Curiously, as its contestants are assimilated into the celebrity system, the show’s status as “reality tv” is compromised. There are two separate agendas in the editing of Survivor: on one hand, there is some discretion about the contestants’ behaviour between challenges; on the other, there is full disclosure of each gesture leading to the game’s outcome. Granted, the results of each “challenge” and “tribal council” are protected by unprecedented and seemingly impenetrable secrecy until they are broadcast;indeed, the show follows a disinformation policy to protect its results. But no material relevant to the outcome of the game is withheld. As television critic Ken Tucker has remarked, audience engagement with the series depends on an impression that the producers have provided enough information to allow a fair chance of predicting results: The first season’s episodes were, in a sense, edited backward: [k]nowing who was going to be voted off, each show’s footage was cut in a way that demonstrated why the expulsion was inevitable. The tribes’ motives were made clear, which ensured satisfying drama. (Tucker 148)Once Richard Hatch was revealed as Survivor’s first winner, analysis of the season revealed how “fair” the producers had, in fact, been. Indeed, many people failed to predict Hatch’s win because they were better informed about his plans than the contestants were. They assumed that the other members of his tribe would find him as unappealing as viewers did—when it was the camera’s privileged access to his strategy which formed the basis of that distaste. However, Survivor pursues a policy of discretion regarding material not relevant to the game. As opposed to some other reality shows, like CBS’s Big Brother, which provided complete surveillance of contestants via the internet, Survivor feeds its audience’s pruriency by omission. For instance, the relationship between Greg Buis and Colleen Haskell titillated (and fed ratings) because it remained undefined. The contestants themselves fed the speculation. Colleen later admitted that “we kind of played into the cameras” (Elias para 10). In a series of intercut clips from separate interviews, Greg and Colleen played “He Said She Said,” with opposing stances of denial and admission: Colleen: When we go off, it’s all about sex. It’s all that is happening. It’s a really passionate affair right now. Things are going great.Colleen’s comments were surprising (and refreshing), because they seemed so truthful. They did align with everyday experience, highlighting the hypocrisy that characterises the mass-media treatment of celebrity sexuality: no celebrity could safely admit to actions that are commonplace amongst “real” people, like having sex with a recent acquaintance. Colleen’s remarks were, however, uttered so flippantly that it was impossible to know whether she was being sincere or ironic. Greg’s remarks were equally inscrutable. It seemed possible to discredit his denials because they fit the never-kiss-and-tell conventions of chivalry.1 However, his protests (in the eighth episode’s “kitten analogy”) that he had no obligation to Colleen confounded such an interpretation. In his “confessional” after being voted out of the game, Greg’s parting gesture was to perpetuate the indeterminacy: “Did Colleen and I have sex? I just can’t answer that for you. It seems that your cameras should know better than I know myself. Did we?” (Survivor Season One, 1:03:36 to 1:03:49). The cameras should have “known,” since the contestants were filmed continuously.2 The nature of the game demands that participants forfeit their privacy for its duration, as the eligibility guidelines explicitly state: “Contestants will be filmed up to 24 hours a day by television camera crews to be broadcast on national television. This is reality television” (“Application” 2). Since success or failure is socially determined, the camera must be able to scrutinise the contestants’ behaviour in order to trace emerging strategies. Yet the televised footage of Greg and Colleen was either equivocal in content or too obscured in form to resolve the question: daylight clips of hand-holding in rough terrain did not establish a romantic relationship and the fifth episode’s shadowy “night vision” images of the pair were too blurry and too brief to be interpreted. After her expulsion was aired, Colleen denied any sexual aspect to the relationship; the timing suggests anxiety about media exposure. Starting with the “Town Hall Meeting” reunion that aired live after the season finale, she claimed that nothing (sexual) had happened and offered a new story: she was “covering up” for another relationship at Pulau Tiga. CBS denied that any relationship had been established: “Colleen likes to say things with a note of sarcasm,” says a CBS source. “There really weren't any [romantic] relationships between any of the contestants—including Greg and Colleen.” Though in interviews since [he left] the island, Rudy has said Jenna and a cameraman made an alliance off-island. “It’s nothing we’re aware of,” says a CBS spokesman. (Hochman para 5)No one could have predicted the show’s phenomenal success; Colleen and Greg could never have anticipated just how “public” a story this would become. It is more than understandable that Colleen wanted to kill the story she had co-created in the relative isolation of Pulau Tiga. By mid-September, she claimed that she was “doing this whole media circuit,” because she “need[ed] to clear [her] name” (Elias para 9). It seems that her fears were unwarranted. The media passively accepted her denial. In a departure from every precedent established by the tabloids and “entertainment news,” no professional reporter pursued the story from the moment of this denial.3 It would be hard to imagine such discretion on behalf of a celebrity. When Colleen accepted an endorsement contract and a movie role, she anticipated a shift in media coverage: Now that Colleen Haskell is swimming with real sharks [. . .] life on Pulau Tiga doesn’t seem so bad. “‘Survivor’ was just a game,” says the Blistex pitchwoman, 24. “But Hollywood is very cutthroat.” (Hart, para 1)That shift never happened for Colleen. 4 When she attended the Los Angeles premiere of Charlie’s Angels with Greg, it was mentioned on the evening broadcast of Entertainment Tonight, but the only accompanying comment was a reiteration of their denials of a romance.5 The internet, which had played such an important role in Survivor’s success, revealed a split along professional lines in its dealings with gossip. Fan sites continued to pursue and discuss the question, suggesting that media coverage of the story would have an “audience,” but the press left the speculation to the amateurs (Yahoo!). It did not swerve from this course—even when Greg accepted a contract with Donald Trump’s modeling agency (“Empress’,” para 5).6 The media has deemed them “off-limits,” apparently because they will always be considered “real” people—even if they pursue mass-media careers. The coverage of Survivor II: the Outback could not differ more markedly. Jerri Manthey is the most promising contestant in this respect. Not only has she invited tabloid coverage of her sexual behaviour by appearing on Blind Date, but her SAG membership removes any claim on media delicacy that a “private” person could exact. As a result, stories about her sexual past are beginning to emerge (Glynn and Nelson). Less predictably, all of these contestants are being treated far more aggressively—like celebrities, in fact. The tabloids have scrutinised their backgrounds.7 Early on, reports surfaced that Debb Eaton was involved in an incestuous relationship; the story died because her admission (that she was engaged to her stepson) was less sensational than the original rumour and because she was eliminated from competition in the first episode (Hoffman and Daily Telegraph). Jeff Varner has explicitly encouraged the ongoing media speculation about his sexuality (Hatch para 10). Arguably the most colourful character on the show, Michael Skupin has generated conflicting reports about violent behaviour in his everyday life; the National Enquirer cannot seem to decide whether he is a maniac or a hero (Gentile “Survivor Star”; “‘Survivor 2’ Star”). In direct contrast with the coverage of season one, accredited, mainstream news sources have published reports about on-location sexual behaviour omitted from the broadcast.8 During the first season, the contestants were perceived to be “real” people playing for the one-million dollar prize; now all of the contestants seem eligible for the rewards (and costs) of celebrity. Fame has become the primary reason for participating. Not coincidentally, now that the “real” person status of the contestants has been lost, the show’s claim to authenticity is questioned. Consider the reaction to Stacy Stillman’s lawsuit against the show: when Stillman alleged that the game was “rigged,” the tabloids dismissed her claim as a case of “sour grapes,” suggesting an unwaverable faith in the show’s credibility (“Rigged” para 1). Now that the contestants have the distancing status of celebrities, that trust has vanished. Fan-site doubts about the severity of Michael’s burns are echoed by professional journalists (Grundy “Burning Man” and “Conspiracy Theory”; Weiner 11). Although the second season’s earlier time-slot accounts sufficiently for the show’s milder depictions of violence, Survivor is now criticised for editing graphic scenes—even those which do not affect the game’s outcome directly. PETA has charged that Michael’s piglet slaughter was orchestrated by the show's producers (Kaplan). In response to these claims, executive producer Mark Burnett has conceded the obvious: “‘Whether it’s not giving them enough food or causing a moral dilemma by giving them chickens, it’s contrived’” (Weiner 12). In effect his acknowledgement that the environment is manipulated amounts to admitting that his adventure game show is an adventure game show. But Survivor has become more than that: now it’s also a star vehicle. The media demand fuller disclosure of all of the show’s elements because the contestants have celebrity status. That distancing change of status licenses the media to feed the speculative appetite of an audience addicted to the familiar pleasures of Schadenfreude. |
| Notes
1. In light of his eagerness to test reactions to suggestions of an incestuous relationship with his sister, any interpretation of Greg’s opinions about sexuality according to conventional codes would be highly dubious (episode 8). 2. Indeed, as the application to participate reveals, such openness to exposure begins well before the game begins. All applicants must sign a “name and likeness release” that forfeits ownership of audition materials to the CBS network and the show’s producers (“Application” 10). The scrutiny deepens during the audition process. Semi-finalists “agree to authorize [Survivor’s] Producers to conduct background checks” (“Application” 4). The safety of the other contestants and the security of the show from liability actions would seem to make such rules an inevitability. Indeed, the reaction to the Fox network’s laxness in casting both Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire? and, more recently, Tempation Island, reveals that performing such “checks” on contestants is not only necessary for legal reasons, but demanded by the viewing public (“Empress',” para 4). 3. For instance, the National Enquirer’s only gossip about Colleen involved some flirtation in a nightclub with Ben Affleck; his celebrity status seemed to authorise the story (“Ben”). 4. Since her rejection of an offer to pose for Playboy has generally been mentioned alongside such reports, that decision seems to be related to the media’s goodwill (Reese para 1,and Armstrong para 11). 5.There is no record of the couple’s appearance at the Angels premiere at ET Online. 6. I have only been able to find a single notice of the pair “snuggling at a screening of Bruce Willis’[s] flick, Unbreakable,” shortly after this (Casablanca, para 2). 7.The two gossip items about the first season’s contestants were too contentious to pursue: both the allegations of child abuse against Richard Hatch and Kelly Wiglesworth’s fraud charges required careful handling for official media, because misreporting could result in libel charges. 8. When Kel Gleason was eliminated in episode two because his tribe was suspicious about his loner behaviour, word spread across the internet that he had spent much of his time alone masturbating (para 7 of “A Dingo,”). This story made its way to mainstream publications like TV Guide (“Survivor’s Kel to Jerri”; see also Brioux, Buckman, Christie). The New York Post’s “page six” gossip column is purportedly the source of this story, but I have not been able to locate the article in question. References
“Charlie’s Angels Premiere” (segment). Entertainment Tonight. (syndicated). Oct. 23, 2000. “The Empress' New Movie.” (News Summary: Pop Culture report.) Oct. 1, 2000. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001. “More ‘Survivor’: Richard Hatch Case Dismissed.” March 2, 2001. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. “Rigged.” Feb. 6, 2001. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. Survivor application. Feb. 23, 2001. CBS online. Feb. 25, 2001. Survivor Colleen Haskell Fan Site. Oct. 26, 2000. Feb. 25, 2001. “Survivor creators sue contestant.” Feb. 21, 2001. BBC Online. March 10, 2001. Survivor: Season One: The Greatest and Most Outrageous Moments. Prod. Mark Burnett. 2000. Videocassette. Paramount Pictures, 2000. “Survivor Special.” Blind Date. (syndicated). Feb. 28, 2001. “Survivor II contestant to marry son.” Jan. 17, 2001. Daily Telegraph. March 10, 2001. “Survivor’s Kel to Jerri: What’ Your Beef?” Feb. 5, 2001. TV Guide: News & Gossip: Insider. Feb. 25, 2001. “Town Hall Meeting.” (Survivor Cast Reunion). CBS. Aug. 23, 2000. “Yahoo! Club ‘Colleen Haskell.’” March 10, 2001. Colleen Haskell Fan Club. March 11, 2001. Armstrong, Mark. “Goodbye, Dearest Pixie, Hello ‘Survivor’ Record.” Aug. 10, 2000. E! Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Blosser, John. “More Americans Know ‘Survivor’ Winner Than Our VP Candidates.” September 25, 2000. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. Brioux, Bill. “Non-Survivor airs his beef.” Sat. Feb. 17/01. Toronto Sun. Feb. 25, 2001. Buckman, Adam. “‘Survivor’ of Fittest.” Feb. 2, 2001. NY Post Online. March 10, 2001. Casablanca, Ted. "The Awful Truth: dish, dirt & juicy bits.” (column.) Dec. 14, 2000. E! Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Christie, Mary Ann. “Kel Gleason - Where's the Beef?” Feb. 7, 2001. Themestream. March 10, 2001. Elias, Justine. “Final Answer: Colleen heads back to school, clothed.” (Television report, interview.) Aug. 15, 2000. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Feahith. “Episode 2: Butch Cassidy and the Beef Jerkey Kid: A Dingo Ate My Tortilla.” SurvivorSucks. Feb. 25, 2001. Gentile, Don. “Hot New TV Show Rocked By Scandal.” Sept. 1, 2000. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. ---. “Survivor Star Attacks His Ex-Wife: His Violent Secret.” Feb. 20, 2001. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. ---. “‘Survivor 2’ Star in Battle with Killer.” Feb. 5, 2001. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. Glynn, Michael and Jim Nelson. “‘Survivor’ Jerri’s Wild Sex Romp with Lou Diamond Phillips.” Feb. 26, 2001. AMI National Enquirer Online. March 10, 2001. Grundy. “Survivor: Burning Man - What Really Happened?” March 4, 2001. RealityTVfans.com. March 10, 2001. ---. “Survivor: Conspiracy Theory.” March 4, 2001. RealityTVfans.com. March 10, 2001. Hart, Marion. “‘Animal’ Lover.” (Movie report.) Jan. 29, 2001. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Hatch, Richard. “ Richard Hatch Interviews Ousted Survivor Jeff Varner.” (Interview.) March 9, 2001. ET Online. March 10, 2001. Hochman, David. “Isle of Light: EW answers ‘Survivor’s’ Burning Questions.” (Television report.) Sept. 1, 2000. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Hoffman, Bill. “Oy! ‘Survivor’ Mom to Wed Stepson.” Jan. 15, 2001. New York Post online. March 10, 2001. Kaplan, Don. “PETA Rips ‘Survivor’ for Hammed-Up Pig Slay.” Feb. 17, 2001. New York Post Online. March 10, 2001. Konrad, Rachel. “Web spills ‘Survivor’ secrets.” March 2, 2001. CNET News.com. March 10, 2001. Reese, Lori. “‘Animal’ Magnetism.” (Movie report.) Sept. 28, 2000. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001. Tucker, Ken. “The Wizard of Oz.” (Television review). Entertainment Weekly. #583/584 (Feb. 23, 2001): 145, 148. Weiner, Alison Hope. “Reality Bites Back.” (News and Notes.) Entertainment Weekly. #587. (March 16, 2001): 10-12. Wolk, Josh. “Consolation ‘Byes: the ‘Survivor’ Awards You Missed.” (Television Report). Aug. 23, 2000. Entertainment Weekly Online. Feb. 25, 2001 |
