Revisiting Survivor: Australia
by Scott Hardie on August 1, 2006
Since I'm a fan of Survivor and I missed the first halves of early seasons when they aired, lately I've rented them on DVD to see what I missed. And it's given me an opportunity to reflect on how the show has changed over twelve seasons.
The first two seasons had a special quality that has largely been missing every since, which is the genuineness of the cast. Nearly everyone in Australia seemed to show their real selves instead of playing a role like an actor; these days it's so rare that when someone genuine like Rupert or Cirie makes it on the show, they win a groundswell of adoration from the audience. This has slightly weakened the series, but the power of it is still evident. As much as I and other fans enjoy playing armchair survivor about player strategy – I was thrilled when I calculated a 12-point plan for how Amber could have still won when she seemed doomed with her only ally voted out – the real core of the series is human values.
When the show is merely good, it transcends the silly label of "reality television" and isn't about a bunch of liars and cheats, but about people discovering strengths and values they didn't know they had (or didn't have). When the show is at its very best, it's a meditation on civilization itself. There are principled people mixed in with liars and backstabbers, and sometimes one kind wins and sometimes the other, but the point isn't who wins or which strategy is best; it's that there are so many different kinds of people and you're one yourself, and life can be rewarding or punishing depending on how you choose to live it. It's about the human social experience, and that's a mighty accomplishment for a show that could just be about people in swimwear bickering on a beach.
As a fan, I also gained appreciation for something they've done in almost every season since, which is swap the tribes. It always bugs me that just when real relationships are forming, the producers yank the rug out from under the players for a cheap shock, but now I get it. Without a tribal swap in the first half, you get Australia, where the two tribes merged with absolutely zero possibility of integration because loyalty to the original group was ironclad by then. It's boring, and it's repeated itself in the limited tries it has been given ever since. Here's to more tribal swaps in the future, and more of Survivor in general. I thought my interest in the series was waning, but now it's stronger than ever.
One Reply to Revisiting Survivor: Australia
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
Garfunkel and Oates
Kelly and I had a good time last night taking out two old friends for their birthdays to see Garfunkel and Oates in Tampa. I'm only familiar with the duo's songs, so it was refreshing that only maybe a third of the show consisted of music. The rest was stand up comedy, storytelling, audience interaction, and a weird extended commercial for their sponsor Monster Energy Drink, tall boys of which were being handed out for free, because that's just what my heart needs at ten o'clock at night. Go »You Won't See This in the Goo Game
Jeopardy! history was made yesterday: (link) Go »Scary Mary
New horror film? Thanks, Jon. Go »Free-Fallin'
I enjoy safe hobbies like making websites, but there's something to be said for the dangerous ones: (link) Go »Blog Entry Post
Pet peeve: Why do people redundantly call it "tuna fish?" You never hear "parrot bird" or "Cocker spaniel dog." Go »
Steve Dunn | August 1, 2006
To me the most startling thing about the first season is how long it took for the concept of "alliance" to take hold. Week after week, it seemed as though the players really didn't know that Richard was leading a group of four. Week after week, people kept voting based on "merit" and so on.
Now, the players try to settle into groups of four almost as soon as they hit the beach on the first day. The players' experience of watching the game has dramatically affected their strategy.