life is a bingo

One prize-only lottery stirs only hope, while another fears. In Borges’ story, the penalties were at first fines, but later moral penalties were introduced: imprisonment for the player (or whoever determined: it was a reward), mutilation of a member, or even death. Enthusiasm grew: it came for its own reward as well as for the punishment of others. The success was so great that the poor complained, because not having the currency that allowed them to participate excluded them from this promise of pleasure or the threat of evil. The lottery thus became secret, free and public.

Each citizen automatically participated, and the Company (Babylon “State Lotteries and Gambling”) carried out the results of the lottery on time. No one knew when they were celebrated, there was no publicity about lucky or unlucky: their impact was felt only in a surprising but relentless way. Someone found a bag of coins in the amphora he had just bought, or his horse died. In order for luck not to be morally counterproductive (let’s imagine a masochist being punished with a whip or a fierce recluse being given a golden goblet), Company citizens must spy on them, tailoring rewards and punishments to their hopes and special fears.

And so, since it was no longer possible to distinguish natural chance from this condensed chance, or “interpolated” as Borges called it, the Company became a secret and omnipotent entity identifying itself first with the State and then with the gods. inside the other. As in Marisol’s song, life is a lottery and we don’t know who or how many people are holding the balls and drums and what is written on them.

a jolt

What a great idea for a reality show, Big Brother style. Now that the original model and her blood brothers seem to be rotting after two decades of success, they need a shakeup. The mats are already there: we have contenders competing, we have a watchful eye and some makers in the shadows, but we only have one prize (only one left) and only one negative fate (ejection). In addition, the participation of chance is zero: everything depends on the “merit” of the contestant and the “democracy” of television. Loss of opportunity.

Instead of the stereotypical confessional room in which one wanted to endear oneself to the audience, sulking or pitying, making fun of rivals, one had to have a set of rewards and torments suited to one’s own or one’s will, peculiarities of life. contestant. The dramatic and narrative suspense will raise many integers, including a mix of Dogville, The Purge, and The Squid Game. This damn chance can punish the most fit (clever, supportive, honest) person who exposes him to worthless assignments or overt mockery, and it is exercised by the smug idiot who takes advantage of the work of others as a reward. What courage for the people.

It would be a sociological experiment in laboratory conditions (in its first edition, Mercedes Milá said it was Big Brother): the “house” of old. Although, over time, there were those who claimed that it was society that resembled the experiment, and that it was the society, not the experiment, that projected society onto that native glass of the screen. As Woody Allen’s character in Husbands and Wives says, life imitates bad television, not art.

Reality shows are nothing more than updates to television competitions: The first person whose name is not known on foot, and the competitor who gained television attention, was discovered to be an inexhaustible—and inexpensive—source of television stories. It was enough to place it in different places (for example: a house, but also an island, a forest, an academy, a stage, a kitchen, a sewing workshop, a company) outside of the set and the usual competition environments. interacts with other contestants and extends the follow-up time by weeks or months, so that the contest is not limited to specific, specific tests, but makes a judgment about their personality and behavior even in intimate situations.

At first, an attempt was made to have it broadcast live and directly, but it was soon discovered that the rhythm of life was as tiring as the story required, so it was decided to be edited. From all these raw materials, memorable passages had to be extracted to form a narrative. This narrative had to be articulated around well-known themes: coexistence, friendship, conflict, rituals of falling in love, courtship, separation, reconciliation, but also self-development and competition with others, practical or artistic skills. It is the management of one’s own emotions in the face of failure, success, surprise, disappointment, jealousy. There were also moments of purification: deportations. But how about including more than just tense shots?

The combinatorial possibilities of the Big Brother model and all other reality shows and even talent shows seem to have run out. There have been attempts at radical regeneration that weren’t even built along a social commitment, an awareness (who would have thought). In May 2007, Dutch public broadcaster BNN announced The Big Donor Show. In it, a middle-aged woman afflicted with a terminal brain tumor agrees to donate her kidney to a recipient among three candidates who must compete with each other. The donor can evaluate his qualifications, listen to testimonies of his family and friends, etc. had to. and in turn, viewers can help make decisions based on votes sent via SMS.

The case sparked a fierce political debate over the ethical limits of television, but audiences rallied around the premiere. At the end of the broadcast, the chain was informed that the patient was indeed a healthy actress and that the kidney-afflicted contestants really needed a transplant, but were informed that the donor was fake. The purpose of the program was to raise awareness about the drama of the donor shortage. In the days that followed, thousands of new donors filled out forms, and six of them offered to donate a living organ.

It is a controversial and extreme example of fake reality television (English parody or hoax reality show) where the viewers are deceived. Participants can also be misled. Candid camera shows are an extreme precedent in a famous fiction film (The Truman Show), even though there are no contestants or awards. On the other hand, North American television shows The Joe Schmo Show (Spike), My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance (FOX) and The Assistant (MTV) are examples of this deception. It’s part of the whole story that they don’t realize they’ve been exposed to a TV prank.

In the first season of The Joe Schmo Show in 2003, there was only one innocent who actually thought he was competing for prize money on a show called The Lap of Luxury, Matt Kennedy Gould. The rest of the contestants, no more than ten, were actors, and each followed a script that responded to a human archetype that had been hammered into reality television shows for years. In programmers’ jargon, there would be something like Asshole, Colegui, Gay Boy, the Veteran, the Charlatan Celestina, the Virgin, the Pija Cabrona, and Schemer, in addition to the Flattering Host as the representative. production in competition.

While the idea was to expose the linen to heavy pranks or compromising situations, it turned out that Gould greatly empathized with his fake rivals in the competition: after one of them was expelled, he cried inconsolably, wondering if it was worth it in front of the cameras. to nominate one’s own teammates to prison for a financial reward, or to give away winnings from a test (sumo match) to another competitor who was accidentally injured by himself. Fate and character.

chance

Let’s imagine a new reality: the lottery in Babylon. An ego war filled with greed, confusion, noise and anger, victims and victims, but resolved in a completely haphazard and therefore morally blind manner: a wheel of fortune that does not just hand out divine rewards. Let’s imagine the current of sympathy or dislike, and the moral cracks that will arise in the drawing audience, adapted to what we know most delights or infuriates each player. Let’s imagine that the votes do not directly determine the fate of the competitor, as in the issuance now, when the coin (i.e. the list of possible chances) is rotated, as if it were reversed. the fingers of thousands of people shaking the keys of their cell phones. Let’s imagine what emotional abyss the contestants will plunge into, and what abyss of ecstasy or disgust will lead us to the spectators: the heights. So much for the body.

Raúl Rodríguez Ferrándiz is a professor in the Department of Communication and Social Psychology at the University of Alicante.