The Big Brother narrative takes yet another snarky turn. As Eye on Big Brother notes, all the glee on the panel show tonight (Big Mouth or whatever) was directed at the hapless Brigitte. The evictee’s privilege of doing something really nasty, not very well justified by the not so redeemed Saxon, was to take away her wardrobe and her makeup for the week indefinitely. This from part of the loathsome “Spa Mafia” whose idea of fun was hiding “Princess Sparkles” - her toy unicorn - as the first of their japes. I can’t help wondering if Brigitte’s failure to fulfil the FHM dream girl role of flirting with the boys - she’s too obviously occupied just being Brigitte (it’s a bit like Being There) - led to this particular nastiness. But as Eye observes, she’s quickly (and predictably) earned the ire of the other women in the House as well. Now Big Brother, in the form of the almighty narrative, piles on too.
And there’s another ethical conundrum here.
Until now, we’ve followed - as we do, every year, here - the intial destruction of the weaker - and in this game, that simply means individual - women, Dixie and Bianca. However, it looks like Dixie, at least, may be going to get a break (Bianca won’t - she’s too close to the Corey bone; Dixie will fall perfectly into Carson’s ad). Saxon may have been the ultimate victim of this week’s eviction, and Big Mouth might have loved pointing out how “different” that is to usual years, when it is the “loud” women (don’t you just love it when having conviction and expression is reduced to the diplomatic slur that is “loud”?!) who go first. But the actual content of this show hasn’t differed in the slightest. As always, misogyny and sadism rule the day and the edit.How many of you, out there, who have not been enjoying the destruction of Dixie and Bianca (and even those who have been, I suppose), loved every second of tonight’s primetime “meltdown”? Aaaawwww, the pretty, dumb blonde thing with the fake tits has lost her make up and clothes! Look at her, without her unicorn, without her mummy! Look at those tears! Look at her pain!
Did that make you smile? Did you, perhaps, even laugh out loud?
Is that sadism, then? Were you not, in that moment, enjoying the pain of another human being? And isn’t that what we often criticise Big Brother for? Hasn’t Brigette, through a contrived element of the game, been singled out and victimised? The boys were, alongside their torture of Dixie, also wreaking havoc on Brigette. Was she victimised? Are we victimising her, by enjoying her meltdown?
Now obviously, and this is where the real Big Brother aspect of it all comes in, we’re all of us who watch the thing complicit in some degree with the more sadistic narrative turns! But, as I said in comments on the first BB08 post here, isn’t there a certain assumed (and class-inflected) superiority assumed by the BB haters who don’t even watch the thing but all have an opinion (and often have an opinion of those of us who do)?
And isn’t the princess with the plastic surgery the softest target for everyone’s scorn?
Reflect on that! She’s a human being. And a cat lover!
And because she’s 20, not 17, the Australian Family Association and other auto-authorised wowsers won’t be crying “child abuse!”. And nor will Tim Brunero be making his weirdo political defences of her. No, “Lefty Tim” is enjoying the “bimbo” bemoan her discomfort along with everyone else.
This show is a mirror to our society, but not in the way we think (or in the way it thinks).
Ps: As Eye on Big Brother knows, S is for subjectivity.
Good post!
Interesting that the Spa Mafia was founded on the symbolic threat to Brigitte’s ‘innocence’ - ie her toy - and that Saxon would make attacking her his last act in the house, (except that he acted against the signifiers of her adult ‘femininity’, something consonant with, but not quite the same as the attack on the unicorn). He also mentioned the absurdity of the unicorn a number of times while in the process of being evicted. I’m inclined to agree that a certain kind of masculinity reads Brigitte’s ‘naivete’ in relation to their preferred feminine scripts as a provocation.
It’s also interesting that several ‘members’ of the Spa Mafia group received the least support from those viewers who voted, and thus found themselves threatened with eviction. I wonder what the demographic make up of the subsection of viewers who actually vote is.
Also, what Mark said. Certainly food for thought.
I think it’s always been the view that it’s overwhelmingly teenage girls, Klaus!
With regard to Tim Brunero’s strange column - unless I’m very much mistaken, he’s paid for appearing on Big Mouth. Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for such a disclosure to be made when he’s offering his “independent” opinion in a column? The dynamic on Big Mouth - where they pose as “experts” but endlessly recite whatever the approved view of the current storyline is - also forms part of the circle they try to create. That is - more “controversial” narratives, therefore more media attention, which they denounce, and…. = bigger ratings for a now almost completely contrived and largely dull show lacking any of the spontaneity that once gave it some appeal.
That would be my assumption also. It would be lovely to actually have some stats and put them to work somehow, but I guess it’s impossible given the relatively anonymous form of voting. I’m sure the BB people have a better idea.
I think the change to the voting arrangements - from ‘negative’ to ‘positive’ - may make a bit of a difference to how these things play out.
I’m assuming because the BB people always make that assumption they have some research to back it up - it must also affect the way the narrative’s constructed.
Btw - one of my student’s friends has a writing gig on the show. Sworn to secrecy though!
The change to the voting I think enables BB to destabilise the housemates further - on one hand they have to play to whatever makes them “popular” outside the House, but on the other hand, the final decision is made by the other Housemates, and in a much more immediate way than nominations were.
I watched whatever the thing was with Tony Squires last night. (Thought he hated BB?) It wasn’t particularly revealing. In fact, it was mostly boring.
They showed a clip of Brigitte freaking out on it, but at that stage I had no idea why. Having read the various links and found out why, I’m apalled BB allowed this to happen. I’d even be appalled if something like this was done to the One Nation grandma. Sure, when I saw Brigette on - Sunday night was it? -the eviction night, anyway, I thought she was pretty thick, maybe even mindblowingly stupid - but so are a lot of people - that doesn’t mean you subject them to mental and psychological abuse.
Apart from the turkey-slapping incident in a previous series, is this a sign BB is teally going far too far this season? Maybe that’s why the ratings are down. Whatever warped view TV producers have of the Oz GP, we’re not really cruel at heart. We’re decent people, and what’s happening to this girl, regardless of her class, politics, racism, etc., is indecent.
After a number of series with declining ratings, Paul, I think they’ve taken the show to its logical conclusion - the trainwreck effect - so horrible you can’t look away.
There’s also an interesting tension in Tim Brunero’s claim that the show is a “teenage/kids’” show. He and the other “adults” meet at 9.30pm to adjudicate on the “issues” it raises, after the younger viewers have gone to bed. This also underlines the very transparent - by now - degree of manipulation and cruelty inherent in the scripting. It’s trying to work on two levels - attract viewers who are so young they still think it’s “real” and hook in everyone else to discuss the ethics of that manipulation, while feeling good about ourselves that we can see through the tricks. That’s also what Kim’s getting at with the post, I think.
What ethics? I probably will watch again, but that’s because of posts on LP more than anything else. I sort of like to have an idea of what i’m writing about. Trainwreck is right, but there are some catastrophes you just can’t bear to look at. I don’t like seeing young kids’ lives damaged (if not destroyed) even if they are a pack of f***wits. Which is what seems to be happening in this series.
“Ethics” is a neutral word in this context - that is to say, a discussion of the bad as well as the good.
The whole show feeds off loud denunciation, and then more nuanced judgement.
I thoroughly agree with Kim that it holds a mirror up to our society - in a much more complex way than most often discussed.
“Btw - one of my student’s friends has a writing gig on the show. Sworn to secrecy though!”
One of my friends is working in a production role - I’m not clear on the specifics - on the show this year, which is one reason why I started paying attention.
“It’s trying to work on two levels - attract viewers who are so young they still think it’s “real” and hook in everyone else to discuss the ethics of that manipulation, while feeling good about ourselves that we can see through the tricks.”
Whereas, it should be discussing ethics with the younger viewers I think. This is where the potential has always been for the show as a forum for discussion of issues that kids aren’t necessarily going to find elsewhere in the MSM. It’s never really succeeded in this way, even over the ‘turkey slapping’ incident where the network did make some overtures to people like Catharine Lumby and tried to push it in that direction, others working on the show undermined it, including the former host.
Yes, I agree - that’s always been the show’s own narrative of redemption and justification, but they’ve never pulled it off. I don’t think they’re trying any more.
I think the “interpret it for the adults” thing now resembles Corey himself and his media denunciation - it’s ended up being some sort of “this is what the kids are like” show - so “Nanna” Terri plays a very important symbolic role positioned inside the House.
It would be interesting to look at the different forces at work a little more closely. I mean, it’s a fairly complex collective process of production, guided by certain overarching imperatives (ie ratings, money), but without any necessary content (except that it not be too dissimilar to what people recognise as ‘Big Brother’ the TV show). I mean, the fact that it’s constructed and that there are certain interests at stake is obvious, but what’s not totally obvious is the mechanics of that construction or how those interests are mediated by the production process. I’m going to have to ask my friend about it when he’s back in town I think.
The other question is: what are Big Brother’s everyday cultures? How does it function in the everyday lives of its audience? What do they bring to the show, and how do they use it? A lot of comment doesn’t really go beyond media effects theories - largely implied, rather than explicit.
Yes, that’s a good point, Klaus. Its self understanding is also in terms of media effects theory - role models, etc. Oddly jarring for an “interactive” show.
On the construction - it’s worth reading the Eye on Big Brother blog - the anonymous writer clearly works (or has worked) in tv production - and has a very good insight into what’s presumably going on behind the scenes.
Yes, it is interesting the extent to which the show frames its activities in terms of media effects as well. It seems to be a framework out of which the MSM can rarely break.
Yes, I took a bit of a look after Kim put the link in, and I’ve added it to my RSS feed. It’s exactly the kind of commentary that we need, in the sense that it attempts to wrest interpretive control from the publicity machine without accepting the negative position that that machine has created for those who reject it.
Yes, it’s good stuff.
Anyway, I’d better get back to the PhD! Good to talk!
On Tim B, the political angle, and the “kids’ show” thing:
http://eyeonbigbrother.com/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=26
And on the manipulation angle - this is really interesting stuff!
http://eyeonbigbrother.com/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Itemid=26
Ok, I’m outa here for real this time!
I happened to come across the part where they were advertising the voting numbers. Without even knowing who was who, I thought it was fairly clear who i should be voting for based upon the photos chosen for each person.
Eye on Big Brother is written by Aaron Darc - his regular blog is here:
http://www.aarondarc.com/poppsychology/content/blogsection/8/32/V interesting!
You know I’m against bombing civillians but I think I could turn a blind eye to a couiple of well placed missiles. One for the BB House and the other for Kyle Sanderson. I don’t have a TV and he still gives me the shits.
Sandilands, Adrien! We wouldn’t want to have any Kyle Sandersons out there as collateral damage!
Meanwhile, I’m quite impressed with Brigitte’s tactics. And her point about her “material items” really did underline Eye’s point about subjectivity.
Brigitte “… earned the ire of the other women..”
What was the basis, and form, of their getting the irks?
They were saying she was a ditzy precious princess, etc.
That Queer Eye guy will have been in the house today, giving Brigitte some new clothes and a makeover, negating the effect of the nasty prank that BB made Saxon play on her.
Ah yes, of course! Well spotted, silkworm. It’s all cross promo for Carson’s show.
Ironically, AUssie gay website SameSame.com.au
http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/2421/Big-Brothers-New-Sister.htmhave a promo story about Carson's show and his stint on BB, where he is pictured wearing a shirt saying "Sorry girls, I only date models".
Irrespective of the gender of the 'models', sorta seems to undermine the premise of his show about 'self acceptance' don't ya think ?
Eye on big brother took a hit from a commenter this morning for being ‘class-ist’.
His reply is one of the best pieces of writing/analysis on the site, and its buried in the Your Say section.
Do Read it.
http://eyeonbigbrother.com/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=2&Itemid=2Though he doesn't mention it, his commentary ties in with one of last nights Budgets Cuts to Mental Health. The Mental Health practitioner scheme - Medicare subsidised GP referrals to psych's and social workers, OT's and Psych nurses - has been copping a bit of criticism about its subsidising of the middle class "Worried Well" (as they are affectionately known in the field) rather than than more acute or serious mentally ill patients.
Interesting comments!
And thanks, sublimecowgirl, for alerting us to Eye on Big Brother - he’s a real find!
Mark - thanks, though are tuthers in the double digit IQ range?
An adult who has a toy unicorn would seem to have something approaching an inner life.
From the promos I accidently/reluctantly see that can’t be said of the rest of the inmates.
I’m not sure assessing the Housemates’ (inmates’?) IQ is all that productive, amphibious. I suspect it just feeds the “can’t watch those bogans!” narrative. There are all sorts of intelligence. I find it an interesting show from a lot of angles - including but not limited to the sorts of critiques of media production Eye on Big Brother is doing, and for a real window on worlds I know nothing of. It’s sociologically rather fascinating, and I’d prefer not to make too many judgements about the Housemates as such.
Link to Ken Parish’s opinion on the watching of BB:
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2008/05/14/missing-link-daily-62/#comment-271334
Yeah, I saw that, and thought about responding, but life’s too short really.
Although JG is in furious agreement with the BB Haters, so we must be doing something right! Hang on - aren’t we meant to be the “luvvies”?
Eye on Big Brother on the Carson show:
http://eyeonbigbrother.com/2008/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=119&Itemid=26
I am sure JG (Hi if he’s reading) is using the term “luvvies” with such abandon that I think he’s forgetting who’s a luvvie and who’s not.
The best reality show ever was Australian Princess. I miss it.
Just sayin’.
I really enjoyed that Dance show!