Fienberg:
"Survivor" producer Mark Burnett has been responsible for more than a few casting decisions that reenforced and reaffirmed certain stereotypes about opinionated African-Americans. Mark Burnett likes drama and one of the ways he's most reliably found to yield good drama is by exploiting and perpetuating racial assumptions. If Burnett had his way, every one of his shows would feature a Phillip or an Omarosa or a NaOnka every season, since he's discovered that African-Americans with opinions make for tremendous villains. You can almost sense his disappointment when an opinionated minority contestant like Francesca either comes across as rational or is eliminated early. Because the diversity on these shows is spotty -- sometimes "Survivor" does a great job with rainbow casting, other times dreadful -- those become the most repeated representations of race on one of the post popular shows on television. But "Big Brother" perpetuates the same stereotype. "America's Next Top Model" thrives on it. And even "American Idol" does it, substituting "diva" for "crazy," where "diva" becomes a pejorative almost always applied to African-American contestants with opinions. So Mark Burnett perpetuates a phenomenon of media representation and then, in the case of tonight's episode, gets a provocative episode of television out of the climate he's stoked.Also, according to Probst: 8 Survivors make it to the final episode. In other words, we'll get a trio challenge at Redemption, and three Immunity Challege/Tribal Councils to get it from 6 down to 3, then Final Tribal? Doesn't leave a lot of time for the March of the Fallen.
First of all, hooray on "seems like no time for March of the Fallen." I think most here will agree.
ReplyDeleteAs for last night's episode, totally agree that Probst handled that tribal incredibly well. For all of the times I get annoyed at his propping up stronger physical contestants over mental ones and all of the other annoying Probst habits he's got, I was very impressed. That said, the rest of the episode was fairly boring, and I was confused about the choice to oust Julie over a bigger immunity threat like Steve. Thoughts?
Re Steve over Julie, perhaps rob believes sending "strong" men to redemption will likely remove matt faster than a woman. The longer matt stays in the game the more likely he is to have a strong ultimate survivor argument come the final three at tribal council. Who knew that survivor would be so intriguing this season!
ReplyDeleteBut that's what I'm saying - he sent Julie to redemption, not Steve!
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched Survivor in ages, but two thoughts on strategy:
ReplyDelete1. Does the Redemption Island situation change how you vote people out, since a person who's an Immunity Challenge threat is also likely to put together a string of Redemption wins? Maybe you'd rather have them still in the game and potentially alienating people than off on Redemption Island.
2. We're at the jury stage--I believe the jury isn't sequestered and can talk to one another once they're out. You may not want a strong player to go to the jury too soon for that reason--they can sway the jury as a member.
Re Steve over Julie, perhaps rob believes sending "strong" men to redemption will likely remove matt faster than a woman. The longer matt stays in the game the more likely he is to have a strong ultimate survivor argument come the final three at tribal council. Who knew that survivor would be so intriguing this season!
ReplyDeleteMatt - your comment re: the jury is interesting - you're 100% right that a strong player/opinionated player could sway the jury if they're there longer, but no one ever brings up this rationale in-game. (In 22 seasons, never!) Weird.
ReplyDelete