Bit
1 | |
A cultural tradition to which RTV owes a great debt is the literary form of autobiography. Autobiographies have become an increasing hot commodity in the same era as RTV.2 Many RTV programs have distinctly ‘autobiographical moments’ within their narrative structures. In particular, I am referring to the use of direct addresses to the camera which are often described as ‘confessionals’ or ‘testimonies’. These terms are commonly associated with the autobiographical form. Another important link to autobiographical discourse in RTV is the presence of autobiographical disclosure. This occurs when the ‘players’ reveal information concerning their relationship with the game or with another player in the game to the camera (and thus the audience) without the knowledge of the other players. In such a moment, the viewer (like the autobiographical reader) becomes a privileged witness to ‘secrets’, and is thus implicated in events and involved in the game as a consequence of his or her knowledge.
|
Bit
2 | |
Many critics doubted that a television program like Survivor would endure because of this dependency on a tolerant, involved viewer. Of the original series, Michael Speier suggested that “viewers may give up after being stranded with tired, scared and lonely whiners” (27). Apparently this fear was unfounded. The recent success of autobiographical narratives, in whatever form, seems to suggest that popular culture consumers like to watch apparently ‘real’ people, whether it be surviving, triumphing, suffering (or even whining!). How does Survivor take advantage of these viewer tendencies?
|
Bit
3 | |
“I love you dearly, but…”: ‘Tribal’ elimination
“The tribe has spoken”; with these words, Survivor players are “voted out” from the competitive group. The process of elimination is crucial to the allure of Survivor, not merely because of its obvious appeal to some viewers’ competitive, even sadistic tendencies,3 but because of the closure or a sense of finality it offers the viewer. When a player (who is to some degree, like a character in a literary story or television drama) is eliminated, the viewer is given a logical end to their narrative. In this way each episode is balanced in a method common to most conventional narratives: with a beginning, a developed middle and a climactic ending which resolves the conflict advanced during the program. It is the endings of Survivor episodes which is of primary interest in this paper, particularly, what are the functions and implications of the “elimination confessionals” which conclude the program?
|
Bit
4 | |
Elimination confessionals
In Survivor prior to each ejection, host Jeff Probst announces “the decision is final the person will be asked to leave the tribal council area immediately”. There is no time or space for the eliminated player to speak to their fellow tribe members, they are however instructed to go to what Probst describes as a “confessional”, a separate location where they say their parting words to a camera. This confession is played over the closing credits of each episode of Survivor intercut with vision of each tribal member holding up the vote they cast.
|
Bit
5 | |
This confessional is a key element and highly anticipated moment in the program. As in autobiographical discourse, confessionals are important because they claim to provide a rightful opportunity for a person to speak openly and truthfully, in the first person, about their experience. According to Survivor host Jeff Probst, this is the design of Survivor confessionals.
|
Bit
6 | |
However the savvy television viewer knows that this ‘true confessional’ is a subterfuge. These confessionals are heavily edited for certain effect, and most importantly, are located within the structures and demands of the show and the genre. I suggest the function of these confessionals is to further enforce the values of the program itself.4 I argue that these confessionals are edited to provide two notable effects: (1) They tend to confirm rather than challenge the image that has been constructed for the ejected person and their tribal community (the confessional is not at all confessional, rather it is confirmation of a ‘truth’ firmly established in this episode or previous episodes) (2)The confessionals work to substantiate the common popular image of the show i.e. that it is the enviable challenge of a lifetime.
| | | | |
Bit
7 | |
My paper focuses primarily on these two issues and how each relates to construct a ‘knowing’ viewer who is called on to witness the confessional and to authenticate it, thus perpetuating Survivor’s success.
| | | | |
Bit
8 | |
1. “Good luck, you are all winners to me”
Survivor “places ‘ordinary’ non-actors in extraordinary situations that are rich with the potential for drama” (Miller 6), and ideally (for the ratings) conflict. In Survivor II Kel was the second member voted out of the competition. Interestingly, despite being mistreated by his team, 5 Kel departs graciously praising his ‘tribe’,
I knew right from the day one that it was going to be hard for me to fit in. I’m a military guy and the people I’m working with are a very special type of people, but I don’t think a couple of days were going to be enough to overcome our differences. Good luck, you are all winners to me. (Episode 2)
| | | | |
Bit
9 | |
Kel’s confessional constructs him as a ‘no hard feelings’ type of character. Conceivably, he has a reason to feel hard done by and yet maintains his strong silent “military guy” persona through to his final confessional. Kel’s confessional reflects grace in defeat, traditionally an important quality in sporting contests, as he speaks positively about his fellow contestants (this trend continues through future ejections, 6). Furthermore, a language begins to develop within these confessionals which works to describe and excuse certain ‘betrayal behaviours’ in the spirit of positive experiences and game playing. Consider the ejection confessional of Mitchell,
That definitely took me by surprise . . . I feel betrayed by some of them by at the same time I want to shake their hands and congratulate them for pulling the wool over my eyes because they definitely got me. (Episode 4)
| | | | |
Bit
10 | |
Considering the quibbling and backstabbing that is portrayed during episodes, it is interesting that the final image depicted at the end of each episode is a positive semblance of ‘Survivor-culture’. For instance, consider how the openly provocative Jerri’s instant response to being eliminated is similar to Mitchell’s,
check-mate, you guys got me. (Episode 9)
apparently referring to her not being aware that her own tribe members were planning on voting against her. Jerri’s confessional is highly significant in the established ‘game culture’ of Survivor. Jerri has been constructed as the “bitch” of the group throughout the contest.7 Just prior to being voted out, Jerri apologises to the tribe for the things that she might have said that were “just not like her”, “not who she is”. It seems that where Jerri is happy to play “the game” Jerri does not want to be voted out on the basis of people making judgements of her character. Jerri is voted out regardless of her plea and in her confessional, again seeks to remove any negative perceptions of her character that may have been formed (by her tribe-members and by the television viewers) and frames her ejection firmly within the context of the game and its dynamics,
you know it’s funny because I absolutely knew this was coming it must have been my remark about how this game isn’t fair. I’m pretty sure that’s what set them off. (Episode 9)
| | | | |
Bit
11 | |
Jerri explains the reason for her ejection is not that she is a disagreeable person, but because she made a mistake playing the game. Ex-Survivor Stacey Stillman (series 1) was similarly quick to tell the public that she was not as bad as she seemed on the show (Time). Jerri is determined to correct the perception that she is a venomous or malicious individual in saying,
I’ve had a great time and I’m still up for sitting around with everybody and having a beer and laughing about the whole thing. (Episode 9)
It is illuminating to consider the extent to which the program sets players up to have their characters judged, where the players seem determined to stay with the spirit of the constructed game until the end.8
| | | | |
Bit
12 | |
So far in season two, the only confessionals which stray from these parameters are those of the two ‘outsiders’ of Kucha, Deb (Episode 1) and Kimmi (Episode 5), who do seem to take the ‘game’ personally in her final confessions:
I was strong, keen-spirited from the time I got up until the time I went to bed, and it all boiled down to this: one person who’s a free spirit, and speaks her mind about anything and everything,8 couldn’t respect that I hold things very personal and private . . . (Deb: Episode 1)
I knew for a long time that my head was on the chopping block. It doesn’t surprise me at all, I’m glad that I stayed true to myself and my morals. (Kimmi: Episode 5)
| | | | |
Bit
13 | |
Yet again the emphasis is on justifying their ‘right behaviour’. Both Deb and Kimmi believed in their roles in the game because they played it right. Like Kel both Deb and Kimmi attribute their elimination to the fact they were not fitting in, but each asserts that this should not detract from the way they played the game. However the viewer is aware that each of the three were voted out by a massive majority by their tribe members precisely because they were not considered team players. Interesting, in a seemingly enforced, possibly ironic fashion, Kimmi finally says,
If that’s what they felt they had to do, power to the team. (Episode 5).
As though she has to ultimately appear to be a team player, Kimmi makes a statement professing the sorts of team values that result in player survival (which she has struggled to exhibit).
| | | | |
Bit
14 | |
Jeff’s elimination confessional was the first to directly ‘point the finger’ at another tribe member (albeit an ex-member Kimmi) who he blamed for his ejection. She remains unnamed (as in Deb’s confessional, perhaps part of Jeff’s wanting to appear a fair sportsperson) but viewers have already been informed of Kimmi’s indiscretion 10 earlier in the episode,
I knew this was going to happen because of a very large mouth of a former tribe member at Kucha. Ogakor knew I had that vote against me. I knew there was nothing I could do about it” (my emphasis; Episode 7).
By pointing the finger elsewhere, and overtly suggesting that he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, 'poor' Jeff is constructed as a team player who would never have made a mistake such as that made by Kimmi.
| | | | |
Bit
15 | |
Similarly, the ejected Alicia is constructed as unfairly dismissed (she is considered a “threat”) and like Jeff, remains a team player until the end,
I have to say that I was expecting this we knew that I was a threat and I hope that someone from Kucha can take this thing out and break Ogakor’s spirit. Its all good though: now I get to sit on the jury and watch everything that happens (my emphasis; Episode 8).
Consider how she and Jeff both stay in their tribe roles; their language constructs people not as individuals but as “tribe” members, and important aspect of “Survivor-speak”, part of the culture of team game playing.
| | | | |
Bit
16 | |
2. “The most amazing experience I’ve ever had in my life”
As I previously suggested, these final confessionals work to substantiate the popular image of the show: that it is the widely desirable challenge of a lifetime. This is continually affirmed in the confessionals. Consider the confessional of Maralyn “Mad Dog”, who was voted out by two of the people she singled out as feeling the closest to Colby “the cowboy” and Tina who she described as being “conjoined with”,
I cannot thank you enough for selecting me. This experience has meant so much to me. At 52 I could feel myself really coming alive . . . Did this all really happen? Did I really do this. (Episode 3)
| | | | |
Bit
17 | |
Rather than focus on what she has lost or how she was betrayed, Mad Dog is shown to speak only of how wonderful an experience she has had. Like Kel who was eliminated before her, she was gracious and respectful of her fellow contestants, which confirms their apparent sadness in voting her out. Further to this, Mad Dog’s confessional marks the beginning of a trend where contestants construct the events and experiences in “Survivor-world” as superior to anything available in the “real world”. Jeff’s confessional concurs with this idea
I’ve had an awesome time. This has just been the most amazing experience of my life. (Episode 7)
| | | | |
Bit
18 | |
As Edward Miller suggests, “What participants repeat in confessions . . . is that they have learned about themselves and have grown from the experience” (6). Both Nick and Amber had similar issues to ‘confess’ regarding their personal development following Survivor,
The last few days have taught me a lot about not only my strengths but more importantly my weaknesses. I kind of feel invincible at times and Survivor has been a big reality check for me. It’s been a ride, it’s definitely been a ride. (Nick: Episode 10)
I’m very proud of myself for making it this far. I feel really good about myself . . . Thank you for this wonderful experience! I will never, ever, ever, regret anything that has happened here. I have learned so much and I’m a completely different person because of it. I’m so glad that I had this opportunity. That’s all - thanks!”. (Amber: Episode 11)
Celia Wren writes, “The Club Med exoticism of Survivor, though, does seem a projection of our longing, on some level, to escape the openness of the modern era” (18). The gratitude of the players is a crucial factor in positioning the viewer as envious of this experience, and craving more Survivor.
| | | | |
Bit
19 | |
Others players have deeply personalised their Survivor experience, encouraging viewers to interpret their portrayed experiences, at least in part, as autobiographical narratives.11 Breast cancer Survivor, Sonja Christopher of Survivor (series 1) takes this position “I had been through a lot in the past two years . . . doing this crazy thing was a way to try and heal myself. It was a survival instinct” (Time). Seemingly, the desire of viewers to see the post-Survivor effects on viewers is considerable. The ratings of shows carrying ex-Survivor participants is consistently high.12 “As the players have expired, the audience has exploded.” (B.J. Sigesmund, Suzanne Smalley and Devin Gordon 52) There is a demand for post-elimination confessional confessionals! Why? Because these people are not actors, and viewers can conceive a life outside of a television program for these familiar people, and thus are thus interested in their lives.
| | | | |
Bit
20 | |
In a similar way to the talk show phenomena, viewers who enjoy Survivor and other reality tv programs respond well to ‘ordinary people’ informing us of how this experience has changed their life. As P. J. Bednarski rightly suggests, “Modern television has given Americans a way to experience hardship. CBS made deprivation part of the game” (15). In her discussion of talk shows, Mimi White suggests that confessional television creates a sense of intimacy between confessor and audience and is “premised on the existence of an empathic other who validates and recognises the speaker’s self-narrative” (qtd in Peck 136). At least on one level, the attraction of Survivor is its promoting a confessional/witness relationship between the ‘real person’ player and viewer.
| | | | |
Bit
21 | |
Conclusion
In Survivor, as in many RTV programs the direct address confessions are crucial to the program’s currency. The viewer is positioned in a seemingly favoured position in relation to knowledge of the players and the action. Confession is a privileged discourse of the contemporary era, and thus Survivor employs this device as part of its strategy to constitute a relationship between player and viewer. However this privilege belies its manipulative functions. Consistently embedded in these vested confessional (and of course edited) narratives are the values crucial to the continued success of the program as entertaining, credible television: 1. they confirm a positive, sincere (and sporting) image for the eliminated player and their tribe that is consistent with that which has been constructed throughout the program and 2. the confessionals work to validate the prevalent image of the show as the desirable and profitable challenge outside the realms of ordinary life. These factors combine to demonstrate how astutely structured a television program Survivor is and how well it enacts socially sanctioned discourses of self-representation for its own ends.
| | | | |
Bit
22 | | Notes
1. At the time of submission of this article the Survivor II season was still being broadcast. This article takes into consideration, episodes one to eleven.
2. Perhaps most notably characterised by the phenomenal success of Frank McCourt’s Angela’s Ashes from the mid to late 1990s. What flowed from this was not only a rush of best-selling Irish autobiographies, but an general increase in the autobiographical form in many parts of the world. For example, according to Australian Bookseller and Publisher 1999 and 2000 witnessed a trend in auto/biographies of “marginalised, everyday people, and tales of struggle against adversity . . . As ever, and perhaps even more than before, the sheer volume of auto/biography titles being published is astounding” (35). The appeal of Reality TV is explained in much the same way: “TV voyeurism also means that millions of ordinary folks are making other ordinary folks, without benefit of surgical augmentation, into stars for being themselves. Can that be so wrong?” (Time). Time refers to the success of autobiography and of Reality TV as a collective trend: the “First Person Era”.
3. Elimination is most commonly explained in terms of “the suffering, the mean-spiritedness, the humiliation” (Time).
4. The position of these confessionals at the very end of the program each week give them valuable currency as ‘the last word’.
5. Now playfully know as “jerky-gate”, this incident began with tribe-mate Jerri’s suspicion that Kel had smuggled food into the tribe. Jerri told other members of Ogakor that she had seen Kel chewing on “beef jerky”, a claim which Kel denied. Despite this, some of the tribe searched Kel’s bag when he was away from the camp. Even having no proof of his deception, he became the first member of Ogakor to be voted out.
6. Consider Amber’s confessional “I just wanted to say that I don’t hold anything against anybody. You guys were the best five people I could have spent my last couple of nights with . . . I’m going to be thinking about you guys a lot . . . and I just hope you guys stay warm and keep your spirits up” (Episode 11).
7. Keith (a chef by profession) has openly disliked Jerri from the moment when she usurped his place as tribal cook. When the tribes merged, Elisabeth and Alicia spoke candidly of their dislike for Jerri. Colby and Tina ‘played both sides’ to use Jerri and then eliminate her.
8. It is worth considering that this is one of the possible ways that Survivor distinguishes itself from other reality tv programs. On the surface at least, its players act with gratitude and grace in defeat. Consider the ‘Reunion’ show aired live following the final episode of series 1. All players (including those constructed as bitter enemies during the program: Sue and Kelly, Rudy and Stacey) behave in a relaxed, friendly and forgiving way towards each other.
9. I am presuming that here she is referring to Kimmi.
10. Prior to the merger, apparently Kimmi had revealed to Ogakor members that Jeff had received votes against him at earlier Kucha tribal councils. This would prove to be valuable information to the ex-Ogakor members of the new Barramundi tribe considering that votes gained against players at previous tribal councils would count in the event of a tied vote. In the tribal council of Episode 7, Colby and Jeff receive an equal number of elimination votes, meaning that Jeff is voted out (as Colby had no previous votes cast against him). It was Kimmi’s indiscretion that allowed ex-Ogakor tribe to direct their votes to Jeff.
11. See the above elimination confessionals of Nick and Amber who assert how their Survivor experience has affected their personal development.
12. During season one, CBS’s “Early Show” interviewed each eliminated survivor the morning after his or her exile was broadcast on air (Wren 18). According to Carol Morgan in series one, most of the voted off survivors have done many paid post-elimination television interviews. Joel Klug did approximately 250 interviews (Abele, Alexander and Lasswell 62 qtd in Morgan).
| | | | |
Bit
23 | | References
Australian Bookseller and Publisher 80.4 (October 2000).
Bednarski, P.J. “Hardship for the hell of it”. Broadcasting & Cable 130.37 (2000):
15.
Miller, Edward D. “Fantasies of Reality: Surviving Reality-Based Programming”.
Social Policy 31.1 (2000): 6.
Morgan, Carol. “Capitalistic Ideology as an ‘Interpersonal Game’: The Case of
Survivor.” M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 3.5 (2000). 18/10/00 http://www.api-network.com/mc/0010/survivor.html
Peck, Janice. “The Mediated Talking Cure: Therapeutic Framing of Autobiography
in TV Talk Shows.” Getting a Life - Everyday Uses of Autobiography. Ed. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Podhoretz, John. “’Survivor’ and the End of Television”. Commentary 110.4
(2000): 50.
Sigesmund, B.J., Suzanne Smalley and Devin Gordon. “’Survivor Tsunami”.
Newsweek August 28 (2000): 52.
Speier, Michael. Rev. of Survivor. CBS May 31. Variety 379.3 (2000): 27.
“We Like to Watch”. Time 155.26 (2000): 56.
Wren, Celia. “Get Real. Eat Maggots”. Commonweal 127.14 (2000): 18.
| | | | |
Bit
24 | | Details
Survivor II, originally aired January 28, 2001 on CBS
Survivor II airs in Australia on Channel 9, 8.30pm on Wednesdays.
The first episode of Survivor ii aired on 14th Feb, 2001; the final episodes will air 4th May 2001.
| | | | |
Bit
25 | | Citation reference for this article
MLA style:
Kate Douglas. "“I cannot thank you enough for selecting me” (and rejecting me?): Survivor II and its ‘elimination confessionals’ " M/C Reviews 04 May 2001. [your date of access] <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/confessional.html>.
Chicago style:
Kate Douglas, "“I cannot thank you enough for selecting me” (and rejecting me?): Survivor II and its ‘elimination confessionals’ ," M/C Reviews 04 May 2001, <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/confessional.html> ([your date of access]).
APA style:
Kate Douglas. (2000) “I cannot thank you enough for selecting me” (and rejecting me?): Survivor II and its ‘elimination confessionals’ . M/C Reviews 04 May 2001. <http://www.api-network.com/mc/reviews/features/realitytv/confessional.html> ([your date of access]). | |
|
![[image]](http://a1732.g.akamai.net/7/1732/121/58419dda921cef/cbsimages.cbsig.net/primetime/survivor2/images/show/episode08/alicia_amber221.jpg)