Big Brother 19: Finale Review, and Thoughts on Competition Reality Juries

After spending the entire season appearing to be the uncontested eventual winner of Big Brother 19 Paul came up one vote short for the second season in a row. Some thoughts on where it all went wrong, and the humanity of competition reality juries to follow:

Paul Had It Won:
Watching this season of Big Brother, there were two things that were completely obvious: Paul was using his experience as a BB Vet to run the house, and Cody hated everyone but Jessica. With the exception of the aforementioned Jessica and Cody, Paul had everyone on his side in the game, at least until it was too late for any given houseguest to save their game from his control of the house (See: Domnique, Elena, Mark, Kevin, Jason, Alex, Matt, and Raven). Nothing happened in that house that Paul didn't want, except the occasional push back from someone like Jason who didn't nominate Kevin when he was told to. Strategically Paul was virtually uncontested as the greatest player of the season. Paul won enough competitions to be seen as a strong competitor, orchestrated every vote, and was never nominated for eviction. Comparisons between Paul and former winners/puppetmasters Dan Gheesling and Derrick Levasseur were often thrown around, but unfortunately for Paul, he was much more of a Dan than a Derrick.

Where It Went Wrong For Paul:
Some, including many on the jury, would argue that the root of Paul's failure to win can be traced back to the way he played the game from the beginning. The accusation is that Paul lied more than necessary and used (or at least encouraged) bullying tactics to single out targets in the house each week. There's a decent amount of evidence to support both claims, but neither claim necessarily negates the fact that Paul played a good game to get to the final two.

I would argue that Paul's real trouble came in the final few weeks of the game. Paul overestimated the how likable the jury would find players like Raven, Matt, Kevin, Christmas, and even himself. I think he probably could have beaten any of these players in the final two, even if it would have been a close 5 to 4 vote in his favor. Instead he singled out Josh as the person he thought the jury would hate the most. This was no coincidence. Paul spent much of the game encouraging Josh to start conflicts with other players, and making insincere attempts to blame Josh every time Paul blindsided one of his allies. Unfortunately for Paul, his attempts to make Josh the villain, actually helped Josh create a resume to present to the jury on finale night.

How Josh Won:
Josh played a good game of Big Brother, albeit a flawed one. Most people wouldn't have been able to get away with openly attacking majority of the jury, and still win the game. In an odd way, that kind of gameplay was exactly how he was able to secure the vote over expected winner Paul. For weeks as Paul had been telling each evicted houseguest that it wasn't his fault they went home (via the video farewell each player gets to leave the evicted houseguests), Josh was using those very same farewell videos to not only own up to his part in each jury member's eviction, but also to expose Paul's part as well.

Unfortunately for Paul, both he and Josh continued these strategies when they were questioned and given a final chance to plead their case to the jury. The jury Q&A, and final arguments are arguably the most important part of any competition reality show that relies on a jury to decide the winner. This is a player's chance to set the narrative of their game straight, and to show the jury that they are not just a player worth rewarding, but a person too.

In every answer he gave, Paul maintained his ruse that he hadn't gotten the jury's blood on his hands, despite knowing full well that he had been behind each of their evictions. When accused of bullying, Paul simply denied the accusation, despite knowing that if the question was being asked, someone(perhaps a pivotal vote) on the jury must have believed it was true. Then in his final speech Paul reversed course and claimed to have complete control over every move made in the game, and listed his many achievements in the game. It would have been a sound logical argument, if only Paul hadn't spent the whole game avoid getting blood on his hands.

Josh also faced some serious accusations from the jury. When questioned about what big moves he made in the game, he pointed to his direct hand in eliminating Alex, thus stroking the ego of a jury member Paul desperately needed to win over. In response to complaints about his confrontational nature in the house, he owned his actions, presented them as a strategic move to put targets on the backs of other players, and said he felt bad about them, but was willing to do anything to win the game. In his final speech, Josh presented the narrative that he was a long time fan of the show (something he successfully kept secret from everyone) who came into the game to play hard and make it to the end. He wasn't a flashy choice for a winner, but if any jury members were looking for a reason not to reward Paul, Josh's open style of game play presented an appealing alternative.

Bitter Jury/Human Jury:
Any time a puppet master loses a reality show like this, the usual claim gets thrown around: it was a bitter jury. To be fair, maybe this jury really was so bitter toward Paul that he never could have convinced the five jurors who voted for Josh to vote for him instead. Paul only fell one vote short of winning though. If he had been able to read that jury with any success, then his final arguments would have been much different. Paul spent much of the season ostracizing Cody, Mark, and Elena, so it would have been reasonable to assume he was never getting those three votes. Raven, Keven, Matt, and Christmas on the other hand spent most of the game being unquestioningly devoted to Paul. So it would have been safe for him to assume he didn't need to work too hard for those votes. The really puzzling aspect of Paul's finale night performance was that he made no attempt to play to the egos of either Jason or Alex (notably Josh did). To win this game he should have assumed he needed one of those two votes, and he definitely shouldn't have assumed he already had them. Alex wore a hate all season with the word "petty" on it for crying out loud. Ultimately Paul lost cause he read this jury completely wrong. He made a logical argument to a jury that was very much looking for an emotional one.

This is why I think the "bitter jury" argument is cop out. Yes, jury's are going to be bitter. That's the nature of any game where people get stabbed in the back. But there's no criteria that says a jury can't be bitter when they vote. Each juror votes with their own personal criteria in mind. That's why getting to the end of a game isn't enough. The way a player treats the jury along the way matters, and more importantly the case a player makes to the jury matters. There's no rule that says the most logical player has to win a reality show. On no show has that been more clear than Big Brother. Dr. Will Kirby, the original puppet master of Big Brother has the same track record in his two seasons as Jordan Llyod, a player who actively said she wasn't trying to win the game on both of her seasons, and who mostly made it through the game by being the least threatening member of her alliances. There's no difference between the money or title they won, and neither player's strategy was less than the other's. Simply put; juries can vote any way they see fit, and there's no "right" way to win Big Brother.

The Good Place: "Chapters 14 & 15" Review

The Good Place came back as strong as ever this week with a one hour premiere, that had a lot of new plot to establish after last season's twist ending. Some brief thoughts on the premiere and the show moving ahead:

Beginning Again:

When last we saw Eleanor Shellstrop, she had just received the note that she had left in Janet's mouth before Michael reset his fake-"Good Place" scenario, instructing her to find Chidi. As the events of the episode played out, she indeed did find Chidi and the rest of her human cohorts and once again they were able to figure out that they were not in the "Good Place." Perhaps the more important development, however, is that Michael is on thin ice with Sean, who believes his experiment is doomed to fail again. 

Sean of course is right. Eleanor proves to be too skeptical to be duped into falling for a Michael's scheme a second time, while Chidi, Tahani, and Jason are all able to figure out pretty quickly that their new afterlives are way too miserable to actually be paradise. Ultimately though, its the mistakes made by Michael and the other inhabitants of the "Bad Place" that make it obvious to Eleanor and Co. that things aren't right. Michael fails to understand that his plan is inherently flawed, and that's where the show finds its most interesting material. 

"Out of many, one":

Michael's main failure, is where The Good Place finds its meaning. Despite what Michael thinks of these four people, none of them are completely bad, and all of them are capable of incredible good. By sticking these characters in a scenario where the whole point is judging them, the show allows us to see the complicated mixture of good and bad that makes up any person. Season one posited that when four very different and, more often than not bad, people are put together in a situation where they are challenged to make each other better, they can become better people. 

When Michael resets his fake-"Good Place" scenario, he assumes that all four of these people will behave as they would have at the beginning of the first scenario. Eleanor foregoes getting drunk at the party the first night in order to have a clear head for her speech, which allows her to find Chidi. Chidi puts aside his relationship triangle drama to help Eleanor. Tahani tries to make amends with Eleanor after drunkenly ruining her speech, and Jason and Janet reform a connection despite having their memories wiped. 

Watching these two episodes I couldn't help but think of the movie Run, Lola, Run. Each time the story resets, Lola remembers certain skills that she learned on her previous runs (for example: how to use a gun). The Good Place resets our heroes' circumstances, but also establishes that their experiences together have changed them in ways they don't even remember. At the core of the show is the idea that together we can grow, despite our worst instincts. It's a beautiful sentiment in a year that has been as bleak as 2017. For that reason, The Good Place might just be the most important show on TV right now. 

Looking Ahead:

The main concern about a show like The Good Place is that the premise wears out pretty quickly. In season one alone the premise when from being about Eleanor learning to be a better person, to Eleanor outing herself and the whole group coming to her defense, to Eleanor figuring out that they are already in the "Bad Place." By the end of the first two episodes of season two, Eleanor and her friends had already figured out pretty much everything they had forgotten from the first season, and Michael had reset their memories and started over another time. 

Obviously like the show's original premise, we can only watch Michael reset this afterlife scenario so many times before it becomes a stale plot point. Michael Schur is arguably the greatest working sitcom creator, and so far he had done an excellent job of not allowing the show to run in any one direction longer than it should. He's earned the trust of viewers, and I have no doubt he has a well crafted plan for the future of the show. What that plan entails, remains to be seen. 

Other Thoughts:

• The cast did a lot of great work in the first season, but in season two everyone feels much more comfortable in their roles. 
• The entire cast is amazing and you've got comedy veterans like Kristen Bell and Ted Danson around elevating everything, but D'Arcy Carden remains this show's secret weapon.