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.
No comments:
Post a Comment