For some unknown reason, I’m here at work on a Saturday — all the more reason to kill some time uploading a message to my web site.I, like most of America, spent last Wednesday evening watching the final episode of Survivor. I have to admit, this was the first time I’d watched the show, but, since everyone else was talking about it, I pretty much knew everything I needed to know (and would ever want to know) about the people involved. Having watched an episode, I can see why people were so hooked on it — the omniscient, removed perspective of people under stress; the island scenery; the frequent shots of bikini’d bottoms — but I’m not sure I liked it. (The show, I mean.)
For one thing, I was very dissatisfied with the ending. For a show called Survivor, taking place on a remote island, I would’ve assumed the winner would have had to prove him or herself, to outlast the others, to show the skills needed to, in a word, survive. So…where did this “jury” thing come from?
The contestants, or originally the tribes, had to compete in challenges — I don’t see what that has to do with surviving on an island either, but, fair enough, I assume these challenges were supposed to test the contestants’ physical strength and endurance — so why wasn’t this continued to the end? Why weren’t the final two contestants forced to compete in some ultimate challenge, some triathlon incorporating physical or mental skills? Why did the outcome finally come down to the decision of a ragtag and rather biased jury? No wonder the “corporate trainer” won — he was dealing with a focus group. But, to me, this doesn’t make him a survivor. To be perfectly fair, CBS should have to rename the show to Finagler or Manipulator. Even Headhunter. But I guess CBS was more interested in Lord of the Flies than in Robinson Crusoe. But, to that end, they could’ve saved a lot of time by simply shooting the whole show in some office workplace. They’d get the same result. But, then again, the outfits wouldn’t be as skimpy.
