This is an instalment of a regular commentary on Big Brother from Dr Toni Johnson-Woods, Lecturer in Contemporary Studies, The University of Queensland.
As Bart Simpson once said, 'I didn't think a show could suck and blow at the same time'. Well, neither did I.
Big Brother has passed the halfway mark and nothing much has happened. The premise had promise. Confine strangers to a house and let's watch what happens. In Germany politicians thought the show should be banned; protestors in France sought to liberate the contestants; the American contestants planned a mass walkout. What would happen in the Australia? Sure, there's been some full frontal nudity, lots of swearing, a 'greyhound race' and 'doona dancing' but none of these could really claim to be 'exciting'.
The producers lack the casting gene. Although some contestants were clearly chosen with an eye to controversy-a Brazilian dominatrix, an opinionated Kiwi, and a stripper manager-the most outrageous ones were soon ousted. Even Todd's dreads had to go. I agree with Billie Brown, they should have stayed, man. The remaining contestants seem to have had personality bypasses.
In the early stages, producers tried to inject some excitement by providing additional alcohol. Instead of loosening their tongues and providing unguarded insights, we watched the same people in evening dress or red body paint being polite to each other. Producers encouraged the production of a Big Brother song, which even the kindest critics would call amateurish and embarrassing.
When the show was reaching its boredom nadir, the producers decided to add two intruders. For a number of days the show was exciting. Viewers heatedly debated the fairness issue, the potential identity of the intruders, the reaction of the contestants. When told, the contestants reacted like stunned mullets. One brave soul voiced his protest. But this was buried in an avalanche of lets-make-them-welcome. Blah! Neither George Orwell nor Stanley Milgram would have been surprised. (Milgram devised an obedience experiment in which people were directed to give 'lethal doses of electric shocks' to other people-few, very few refused to follow orders.) Unfortunately, the newbies only promised controversy. For this to have worked properly, the newbies should have been encouraged to discuss how the contestants were perceived in the Real World (multiple versions of Anita and Johnnie's conversation). Or should have been equipped with a rumour--one of the other contestants is a mole, someone is bearing their soul in the Diary Room, to the detriment of the others. The result is more dullness than the average viewer can bear.
Even the host fails to create tension. The clever quipping and much rehearsed Gretel delivers her lines well and tries to look like she cares but one feels that she is as disengaged as the rest of the viewers.
Each week viewers and contestants are subjected to the most mundane of challenges. So far we have watched them babysitting fire, dancing, performing circus acts, completing an obstacle course. These tasks may provide the contestants with an energy outlet but watching them is pitifully boring. This week they have to make a film. It appears that the cast are, well, playing themselves. Maybe the producers should have provided a script in which the contestants were playing parodies of each other-that might have provoked some interesting conversations about themselves as others see them.
Fail the challenge and contestants will have less money in their budget. Big deal! More wine, less wine-who really cares? There should be more at stake, such as a week's hot water.
Big Brother is more about itself than the contestants-how the show works, what the audience feels. If you hoped to witness some piercing truths about Australians, you'd be disappointed. Does anyone else feel as if they are watching a dentist's waiting room?
Dr Toni Johnson-Woods
The complete set of commentaries is available at https://www.uq.edu.au/news/bigbrother
