Survivor: Samoa, Finale Extra Commentary – The Russell Problem
Let's get one thing straight: Russell Hantz was not the best Survivor player ever. In fact, his loss stems from several crucial mistakes. First off, he misread the jury badly, as he assumed that they would reward his strategic game over Natalie's social one. For that to happen, though, they would have to have had some strategic sense themselves. It takes only a cursory knowledge of this season to know that was not the case. If it had been, the finalists would almost certainly have all been Galu members, as they would have Pagonged Foa Foa.
Russell has shown several times before that he isn't always the best at reading people. How many times did he forge an alliance with somebody only to have that ally grow suspicious of him? Answer: Quite a few times. If he'd been as slick as he thought he was, he wouldn't have aroused people's suspicions. As we know, Russell dealt with such allies by getting rid of them. During the tribal phase of the game, he was able to do so simply because Foa Foa was so inept at challenges. After all, the losing tribe has to vote somebody off. Russell simply made sure that somebody was an ex-ally. So good on him for turning a bad situation to his advantage. But suppose Foa Foa had won an immunity challenge? Then Liz would have stayed and Galu would have probably sent Shambo or Monica packing-- and the game would have turned out quite differently.
Russell played an excellent game – at least as far as getting to the finals went. But as the game wound down, he made two critical, related mistakes: He got rid of Shambo, and he took Natalie with him to the finals. He didn't realize or acknowledge that Natalie's social game made her the one person who could beat him in front of the jury. Natalie did not, of course, make nearly as many moves as he did, but she was instrumental in ousting Eric and she at least held her own in many of the challenges. She did enough to make the jury pay attention to her, and not dismiss her as they did Mick.
Thus ends one of the weaker seasons of Survivor. My problem with it was named Russell; when I watch Survivor, I want to see Survivor, not the Russell Show. There have been other seasons in which a single player dominated their season, but never to this extreme. Pearl Islands had Rupert, but it also had Johnny Fairplay. Tom was an unstoppable force in Palau, but Ian and Stephanie were also worth watching. Samoa had Russell, and that was basically it.
The problem, of course, is casting. There were too many people on the show who had no business being there, as they did not know how to play the game. They did not know how to think strategically, and some of them weren't all that good at the social aspect, either. There is no excuse for this. Survivor has been around for roughly ten years, so it shouldn't be that hard to find people who know how to play the game.
Understand, this is not a rant against using recruits. Some recruits have done very well in this game, like Yau-Man. The problem lies in the fact that the producers tend to cast people because they are physically attractive and/or they are drama kings/queens. Okay, we do need a few of these for their entertainment value, but we need strategic players, too. We need more of them, in fact, simply because it's boring seeing just one person make all or nearly all the moves, while everybody else either sits around or runs around like a chicken with its head cut off. The best seasons have had two or more strategists in them. One of my favorite seasons was Micronesia, which was almost an embarrassment of riches as far as strategic players went: Yau-Man, Penner, Cerie, Amanda, and Parvati. Granted, the two guys ended up making early exits, but the three women all went deep into the game. Also, contrary to what Probst himself says, stupid people are not that interesting to watch. Ben from Samoa and Rocky from Fiji were exasperating, not entertaining.
So what should producers be looking for in a Survivor contestant, beyond good looks and a willingness to stir up drama? First off, physical and mental toughness. A player needs these to be able to withstand the game's often harsh conditions. The producers should have realized that Mike, being an older, overweight man, was a medical emergency waiting to happen. Similarly, they should have known better than to cast somebody as emotionally fragile as Kathy from Micronesia, who wound up quitting. Quirky can be entertaining, but a fragile person has no place on this show.
A knowledge of the game, though, is the most important attribute. We should not be seeing people like Yasmine who apparently didn't know they would be basically camping for a month. Shambo was amusing, but she didn't understand the social or strategic aspects to the game, and genuinely believed that survival skills were the most important factor. That notion died in the first season, and Shambo should have known that. Survival skills can help a person stay in the game, as people aren't likely to vote out the main provider until fairly late in the game, but they aren't enough by themselves to get somebody crowned Sole Survivor.
Intelligence is also a desirable attribute in a Survivor player, as that's needed to be able to craft successful strategies. A good amount of social intelligence is required in order to play a good social game. The very best Survivor players are able to combine strategic acumen with good social skills –and they need to be fairly bright to pull that off. Getting people you've backstabbed to give you the big money anyway takes some doing, and obviously, not everybody can make that happen.
In sum, we need fewer clueless doofuses and more likable strategists on this show. A season that produces at least two such players will have my undivided attention.
Don't miss a single recap of this show or others. Sign up for the RSS Feeds.
|
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
|
|
|
