Every season I consider doing recap/discussion posts for Survivor and every season I never quite get around to it, mostly because most seasons start out slow with a bunch of people you don’t really know mostly playing blind – which is amusing, but the real meat in watching a season of Survivor arises in the midgame once you know who the serious players are this time around, and who are the requisite bunch of bored housewives/wannabe actors who just wanted the experience and think that the “one in (whatever) chance at a million dollars” rhetoric is a literal chance rather than it having to do with playskill.
Which is a shame, because watching the interplay on Survivor is fascinating, not least because you basically get an omniscient watcher’s perspective on people’s attempts to discern what other people are doing/planning, and it gives the viewer a sense of superiority that’s often unwarranted. After all, at this point most people who go on Survivor are fans of the show1 and you have to know that every single one of them thought things along the lines of “well why didn’t X see that coming? It was so obvious!” Which it only is when you’ve got the overhead view, of course.
Thinking in those terms made it clear that Parvati is probably the best player in the game’s history – no offense to Sandra, who’s definitely got skills and whose second win wasn’t entirely unjustified, but the sheer number of times that Parvati accurately guessed what her opponents were doing before she could have gotten it confirmed that they were doing things was just amazing this time around, and she did it while basically being marked as a threat from the start of the game. More than once this season I saw her suss out a particularly clever move (my favorite was when she guessed that Rupert was bluffing about finding a hidden immunity idol – which Russell bought whole hog, incidentally).
And Russell’s play this season was much worse than his first time out. He basically only survived out of the early rounds due to a massive stroke of luck (IE, Tyson deciding to abandon an otherwise rock-solid plan to eliminate both Russell and Parvati for reasons that still remain incredibly dense) and then a second one which he barely had to work to achieve (JT throwing him an immunity idol on blind faith). And if in his first run Russell merely seemed blind to the necessity of social play, this time he deliberately ignored it – his rant at the reunion about how “America should decide” made that clear enough.
Of course, what Russell also illustrates is that Survivor players often fall into a pack mentality, looking for an alpha dog to lead their strategic alliance. Someone like Coach, for example, eagerly signs on to anybody who looks “strong” to him, which makes him little more than a useful tool.2 Even in this all-star season, a lot of players largely fell into pack mentality, with the villains signing into either Boston Rob’s alliance or Russell’s, and the heroes following either Tom or the dual-headed alliance of James and Amanda – and when James was too injured to continue JT stepped into the leader role largely by force of assumption. One of the reasons Sandra won, I think, is that she was clearly not just a Russell follower but instead clearly playing her own game, as her attempts to sabotage Russell were well-known to the jury, which won her a measure of independence.
So more than ever, it seems that the path to winning Survivor is a trickier and trickier balancing game: you need to be independent enough to be considered strategic, but not so strategic that you become seen as weaselly; you need to be friendly, but not ingratiating; you need to vote people off without making it personal to them; and above all you need to be smart, or at least smarter than most everybody else.3
Really, I understand that people can sometimes have antipathy towards reality TV, but Survivor is one of the ones I’ve never understood hating; it’s a fascinating peek into how people can become Machiavellian plotters, skillful or otherwise, and how various people react to perceived betrayal.
- If Canadians were eligible to go on it I would do it in a second; I can’t see how it wouldn’t be immensely fun and memorable, even considering the misery contestants have to suffer. [↩]
- Of course Coach is a really obvious example and most people don’t explicitly tell the camera they want a strong leader to follow, but the trend mostly holds. [↩]
- Exception: Todd Herzog of Survivor: China, who managed to win without playing very smartly at all, mostly by using a basic alliance strategy which, inexplicably, nobody bothered to challenge. [↩]
Related Articles
14 users responded in this post
Oh, well. I can’t stand Sandra, but it was worth it just for the look on Rob’s face when Tyson cut his own throat. I do think that Russel should get full credit for that one.
“If Canadians were eligible to go on it I would do it in a second”
Why aren’t Canadians eligible? It cause you burned Washington isn’t it.
“…understand that people can sometimes have antipathy towards reality TV, but Survivor is one of the ones I’ve never understood hating…”
Your reasons for enjoying Survivor are the same reasons I dislike both Survivor and DC Comics. See, I have this thing called a “job” where I deal with “Machiavellian plotters, skillful or otherwise, and how various people react to perceived betrayal” as part of my daily life. When I get home and turn on the TV, unlike you apparently, I enjoy escaping my daily hell and deluding myself into thinking people can be better than they are.
To be fair to Russell, when he played this time, he still didn’t know he hadn’t won last time. So he had no reason to take a more diplomatic approach. He expected to be rewarded for his skill at manipulating people into doing things that weren’t good for them. And he seems to honestly not understand why people might take it personally, which is a huge blind spot in a man who’s otherwise good at reading people, especially for a guy who himself takes things very personally.
This season’s Survivor was the first I’ve watched since Australia or something and I’m so glad I returned to it because this season was the bomb.
Parvati seems like someone I’d hate in real life, but I am completely in awe of her playing. She really was the best player, and it’s unfortunate that it wasn’t rewarded with $100,000.
I am totally perplexed by Russell’s complete disregard for the social game. When it came out at the final elimination that Russell voted Jerri out because he thought he had her jury vote locked down, and Parvati and Sandra set her straight in like two seconds? That had to be the moment when Russell was like, “Maybe I fucked this up a bit?! Nawwww”
I have to ask, actually… are you familiar with Liar Game at all? I often wonder while reading it what would happen if they were to put real people into those games. The results would certainly not be as clever as they are in the story obviously, but they would still be very entertaining, I feel.
People continue to talk about how Russel failed at the social game, but I’m more in awe that people rewarded Sandra for failing to play any of the game. She was basically carried along in an alliance she constantly attempted, and failed, to betray. She is useless at challanges (and calling that strategy is akin to calling yourself big boned). Ultimately Sandra won not because she played the best game, but because she managed to get to the final without pissing anyone off. She did that by ultimately not playing the game worth a damn.
Then again, maybe it’s just me.
@Candlejack: “And he seems to honestly not understand why people might take it personally, which is a huge blind spot in a man who’s otherwise good at reading people”
Huh? Good at reading people? Russell had no idea, in either season, just how despised he was in certain quarters. His basic expectations was “Folks will vote for me because I believe they will.”
How’d that work out for him?
(And to be fair to Russell, at the time the H vs V season was filmed ha may not have known that his methods didn’t win in the previous season. But similarly ALL the other players had no idea who Russell was or how he worked, so he got away with a lot that I don’t see he could have managed if his first season had been broadcast before HvV was filmed. Dense as he was, I doubt JT would have turned over an idol if he’d seen Russell in action before.)
@WilsonR: “She did that by ultimately not playing the game worth a damn.”
I agree Sandra failed at her attempts at making a significant move, particularly to get Russell off earlier. But I don’t disregard her approach as a legitimate way to play the game.
Russell, for example, seems pretty successful at getting to the final tribal council. I’d even argue that his entire play is geared toward doing that. The problem for him is: That’s not the end of the game.
It’s like making your entire game plan to get to the one yard line. Damn, you may be great at moving the ball down field, but it’s getting it across this line here that gets you points.
Sandra, through decidedly different means, managed to get to Final Council also. And once there she had it all over Russell. Because out of something like 180 votes cast at Final Councils, less than a handful have ever voted for the person who “played the best game”.
It’s a MILLION DOLLARS. And nobody is going to give that to someone they don’t like over someone they do like no matter how “well” they played.
I’d argue you have to be pretty good at reading people in order to successfully manipulate them. Which Russell does. But, meh, variable mileage.
My antipathy towards Survivor is largely rooted in the same things that I dislike about other reality shows: I just don’t enjoy watching footage of terrible people doing things that aren’t very interesting, edited and repackaged into something that I’m positive is nothing like what actually happened anyway. It’s just a matter of taste, really.
I’m willing to believe that Survivor is better than the rest of reality TV, but to me that’s a bit like being the least smelly garbage bag in the dumpster.
That said, I do enjoy reading your summaries and analysis of the show. You often make it sound interesting (even though watching the show itself is anything but).
My antipathy towards Survivor is largely rooted in the same things that I dislike about other reality shows: I just don’t enjoy watching footage of terrible people doing things that aren’t very interesting, edited and repackaged into something that I’m positive is nothing like what actually happened anyway.
Except that this antipathy relies on several false assumptions:
1.) That the people are terrible. Most of the people on Survivor are just regular people; the famewhoring ended after the third or fourth season when said people realized, hey, this involves a lot of starving and physical pain and there are easier ways to get a chance at a million dollars. Yes, occasionally these average people behave terribly, but it’s almost always for reasons that, in context, make sense. (Russell is an extreme outlier.)
2.) That it’s not interesting. This is a value judgement at best.
3.) That what you’re seeing’s bearing upon what “actually happened” really matters in the long run. This happens in every single documentary ever made: it’s impossible to edit without having a story arc in mind as you do so.
I still can’t believe people are hyping on the idea that Russell ‘deserved’ to win. Just because he’s the loudest player doesn’t make him the best, and much like last season, the people he was browbeating into assuming his inevitable win were letting him run at the mouth, because they knew how to play him perfectly. To think you can play to get to the finals and that’s all you need to shows that he fundamentally misunderstands the game, and that he said the game should change rather than his gameplay is the exact flaw in how he approaches Survivor.
Instead of Sandra, a Parvati win would have been equally great (never thought I’d say that when I watched Cook Islands), but I have a great deal of respect for Sandra’s game and am happy she won. People who say she had no strategy forget that you can play the game subtly and without camera time. Plus, they clearly forgot that she expertly bought herself and Courtney more time when she told Russell Coach was gunning for him, because she knew exactly who Russell was and how to manipulate him. She might not have accomplished getting Russell out, but she stayed in the game as the minor part of a bigger alliance, made herself look harmless enough to take to the end, and had the perfect jury narrative – ‘I tried to help you, but you didn’t listen, which is why I’m still here.’ Seriously, one of the best ways to get jury votes from people you voted out, ever.
I’ve seen people say she wasted her idol. What? She played it the last time it could be played and it won her big points with the jury. The belief that making Russell mad at you was a bad move in the game forgets that Russell still is a pretty good player, and knows well enough to not abandon his side that close to the end.
People would continue to take Russell, or go with him, to the end as long as he doesn’t see that there’s an end-game that involves people, not some objective measurement of how well the game is played. (Not ‘let him take them’ – an argument that forgets that everyone has one vote, which is the point of alliances.) He doesn’t want to acknowledge that getting to the end is, in some ways, the easy part compared to getting to the end but then being voted for.
And as tribemates have pointed out both seasons, he only ever got that far by playing idols. Considering they’ve been practically raining from the sky these past two seasons, they’ve spent a lot of time saving him, rather than pure gameplay.
Parvati was masterful, but Sandra was equally adept, just in her quieter, more no-nonsense manner. Anyone who still believes Russell deserves to win should go back and listen to his petulance at the reunion, trying to claim that he’s still the best player after losing twice (and also, Amanda, James, Rupert, Stephenie and Bobby Jon have all played two seasons back-to-back, and Amanda did the twice to the end with no win first). If you know the game rules, you can’t complain they should be changed just because they don’t let you win. Even Probst can see that Russell is full of shit now.
And seriously, America should get a vote? Even aside from the fact that editing would make the game completely different and biased, and that America would need all the votes to make Russell win the game, America almost gave Rupert player of the season. Rupert. America is stupid.
Just re-read the post and all the comments, and I didn’t see anybody saying Russell deserved to win this time out, Gadge. Probably because he didn’t. And, yeah, his comments at the reuinion come off like someone whining that baseball is flawed because the ball is too small and fast for him to hit it.
On the other hand, dismissing him because hidden idols kept him in the game is ridiculous. Those, also, are part of the game. And last season, when he consistently found them before they were even announced to be there…that was good gameplay.
I was sorry to see Sandra win, because the only successful move she made was in getting Russell to get rid of Coach. That’s it. That’s her big moment. She failed at every attempt to get rid of Russell–unless she never intended to get rid of him at all, and only kept saying it because she knew it would win her the jury while she continued to vote with the Villains. Which really would be fucking brilliant, but there’s no indication that’s what happened.
Any player that faced off against Russell and Parvati this time would have won. Any player. Because Russell was that hated, and Parvati was too close to him for her own good.