"The producers of the show are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel."

 

 

Well, here we go. Just nine days left, kiddies. And because, let's face it, a mystery man blacked out of various photos - assurances that he will be the "voice" of this country, and will make the place "greener" - is a little... well... short on the suspense (can Ten please move beyond the "Who is David Tench?" dynamic?), we now have one of the first revelations in order to secure a crowd on the opening night of Big Brother 2007 (pitifully disguised as some unplanned scandal that all comes from an innocent slip of the tongue). And what is the drawcard?

A mental disorder. Oh, Ten, that's so... Original™.

Except, it's not. Firstly, the Big Brother die-hards (such as the BBBA community) have long noted the Australian show's uncanny ability to copy the previous English season. Last year's UK BB was the year of the mental disorder, and featured two somewhat antithetical uses of the concept. Firstly, we had Shabaz - a troubled manic-depressive who eventually threatened to commit suicide on live air, and became one of the most hated figures of the series (far from generating any compassion or understanding, the show exploited his behaviour to create an annoying villian). Alternatively, there was Pete, a downtrodden ex-ketamine addict who suffered from a severe case of Tourette's Syndrome, and who became a wonderful source of various spin-off specials and "discussions". His disorder was packaged as a quirky, lovable underdog, and he eventually won the series.

This would not be the first time we've had the mentally distressed on our Aussie screens, either. Rachel was a damaged girl who had yet to resolve her abuse, Victor suffered from anxiety attacks, and last year, Danielle had suffered from an eating disorder (and who ever so casually vomited for the cameras). Most notably there was Perry, who was convinced to give up her medication (for anxiety disorder  - of which OCD is a manifestation of) for her chance for fame. And at the end of the day, we all know that as far as I'm concerned, there's a psychological problem underlying most people's aspirations to go on the show. But regardless, this is the first time a mentally undermined housemate has been used as such a specific, pivotal marketing tool. It takes Big Brother Australia into potentially very dangerous waters, in a year where the response to the right-wing conservative brigade (who I despise, admittedly) - removing the gratuitous sexual elements from the show - may not exactly be smartly counter-acted by grabbing the attention of the mental health industry in a way that is tangible to the public (the mental health watchdogs are already on the case). Politics will see that the right-wingers make some ripples (however much it is merely for the affect), and that has certainly happened with Big Brother's new constraints (no more live feeding, and - though the show is falsely pretending it is its own decision - no more "adults only"), but the mental health industry can pull some serious punches if it decides enough is enough  -  particularly if the public are listening (which, thanks to Big Brother's own hand, they are). And the right-wing brigade will happily jump on board this, as well, because quite frankly, anything that can convince the powers that be that this show needs to be ripped from the screen will be merrily co-crusaded by God's little soldiers. 

 

Anyone who was there for my Eye On Big Brother blog knows that my concerns stemmed from the show's psychological exploitation of essentially damaged people, as well as its treatment of sensitive social issues that ran much deeper than kids watching tits and ass (I couldn't care less, quite frankly, if there is nudity or not), and in doing so, I endeavoured to start a public dialogue around the show that had never taken place in this country. My intent was to make this tangible - partly so difficult because the show exploited psychological factors in a way that was deliberately hidden and unconscious for the viewer. The psychological problems of the contestants and the manipulation of these by the show was never outwardly put on the table by the show itself - but this week, that changed. Big Brother 2007 made its first chess move in the ratings war, and is currently using psychology as the new car accident we are expected to run to the corner to watch, by "announcing" (through various wipe-the-hands-clean-once-needed techniques) that this upcoming series will feature someone suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.

Are the public buying this? I'm convinced it will work for many - people will flock to see the "crazy" housemate. But they continue to evidence the problem that has become Big Brother, now that the country has begun to turn against it, now that media have decided to drag it to its death, and now that politics and various industries with clout are moving in with potential laws that over-ride the clever marketing plans of Ten executives. If you compel an audience and repulse them, simultaneously, by holding up something we have not the strength to resist, but inside know very well is wrong, can this sustain an entire series as the viewer's compulsion battles their disregard for the show? And what does it mean in the long run, if viewers are put down at the end of each season, less inclined to jump on board the next, thanks to the show's increasingly damaged reputation (the turkey slap would have already assured there will be a portion missing from this year's opening night, no matter how intriguing the pre-hype is)? What if there isn't any OCD contestant to marvel at - won't that be a let down that makes the "real" show seem lifeless (however better, from a moral perspective)? It's an ultimately flawed PR this has all began this series with - and the more ominous fact is that so far, this has been the only concern the media has given any attention to, of what is supposed to be one of the biggest shows on TV with only nine days left to begin. Even if we were to go off the premise that this was not their intention, and has all been a horrible mistake (which it isn't; Kris Noble started it in a press conference where every word would be carefully placed - and if referencing a housemate in relation to a mental disorder was truly an innocent mistake, then the man has some explaining to do), then at very least, they've played the game by certainly letting the hype manifest for a reason - it's currently the only press they're receiving. It's not a very promising beginning.

The public are turning against this show, now (though, even worse for the show, many people simply no longer care) - something the media knows very well, and hence, why attitudes such as mine are becoming marketable. The show has now seemingly held up somebody suffering from a mental condition as a quirky house-cleaner we will have oodles of fun watching (probably evicting), and casually thrown the news into the media so that it will assure the ratings that will satisfy the sponsors who will flash advertising at every turn of the supposedly compelling freakshow. Gretel reportedly first denied the inclusion of the disorder, and then  - hence, implicitly confirming the news - declared it was because she had been kept in the dark (all rubbish, of course, and designed to create an ongoing media narrative, I suppose now realising they were onto the only pre-hype press that would stick). The difference in today's climate - and it now increases at a thankfully staggering rate - is that the consumer market are not only wising up to marketing strategy... they're rejecting it (the current Sunrise Anzac propaganda scandal is a perfect example of how this has finally become a tangible concern of the public). You can follow this story - the original denials, the assurances that this conveniently timed scandal has nothing to do with the show, the disclaimers that now counterbalance the concern (they've made the level of the housemate's condition unclear, and conveniently imply, as needed, that perhaps the disorder isn't strong enough to warrant any concern, at all - which also suggests maybe this entire thing is a bigger dud hype marketing tool than we may even realise, and may simply be a clever pull towards nothing but us sitting in front of the screen) - and you can see through it. Can't you? You get it. Don't you? How does it make you feel? How do you feel knowing that this multi-million dollar business has now dangled someone suffering from anxiety in front of your face (whether their disorder will ultimately be revealed as "real", or not) as a carrot to lead you into advertising waters?

It's a rhetorical question for you, for now; but feel free to post in the forums.

And if we presume that there is indeed an OCD sufferer in the house, and that this hasn't been some dodgy decoy which will end in the show claiming it was all a fantasy of the media (even though they started it, themselves), I'm prepared to give the show a chance, beyond what is a clear-cut marketing exercise. We could be idealistic and hope that the show will illuminate the disorder by using it to create an educational aspect (not a bad idea, considering that the gratuitous sexuality needs to be replaced with something). Killeen has, naturallement, come out and declared; "I guess it's to show diversity and try and represent society to some degree, because the house is a microcosm". Hmmmm, guess so. Certainly, there was some good to be found in an otherwise abominable marketing exercise in last year's English season, where Pete certainly raised an awareness (however brief) of his affliction. There could be some good, through default, in with the very bad. And I'm prepared to be a part of that, quite frankly, because even if the show is going to pull out such vile stunts for ratings, we might as well use them as productively as possible. 

So, if OCD is to become a facet of this series, we're going to have some discussions about this disorder, to be sure - particularly because one of the aspects that worries me is that already the show (and now, the press) have reduced the disorder to its most well-known cliche: obsessive cleanliness. This could be passed off as a quirky trait, and I'm quite sure there'll be a facet of that. But what we will need to understand is that this (alongside other cliches of the illness, such as obsessive grooming, etc) is merely a superficial manifestation (transferences, if we are to get technical - and we will - but we'll go into this on the next site) of what is much deeper (and darker) than merely someone who eccentrically likes to clean the house, all day long. And we must also remember that OCD is not considered a permanent condition - the goal should be to resolve it and eliminate it. I fear the nature of the show will hence legitimise it - something that counter-acts what is needed. Glorifying Tourette's Syndrome has a productive element, because most of these people are going to have this for their entire lives  - so acceptance is most welcome (for themselves, and for their society). OCD is not in this ballpark, and one of the problems with the recent glamorising of various conditions and communities of sufferers online in cyberspace, is that it creates a conceptual hole in which the sufferer actually maintains their condition because it becomes connected to their identity and legitimised as a permanent facet of themselves. OCD needs understanding and compassion amongst society, yes - but it should not be glorified to the point of reconstructing it as something there is no need to aim to eradicate.

But the ultimate fear for me is that if there truly is an OCD sufferer in the house (and one who, this time, will be squarely identified and conceptualised by the show "as" an OCD sufferer), then this all takes place in the gutter demograph of the core Big Brother audience. On the whole, they're not very compassionate people; and regardless of how Big Brother holds up their new housemates and redesigns the nature of the game, it's a little too late, in some respects. Big Brother is not a compassionate, illuminating game  - that's not why the BB kiddies turn up (and this is the show's fault, because this is how they fashioned and marketed the experience, themselves, over the years). They're not turning up to learn about a fascinating psychological affliction - they're going to roll up to the circus. And if the disorder is publicly received in a manner antithetical to glorification, but rather, as an annoying trait warranting crucifixion (which we saw in English BB's Shabaz  - and, to some extent, in our own Perry), then I don't need to tell you how that makes my stomach turn. This is the audience that evicted Rachel because she confessed her abuse and had the hide to break down and force people to deal with the "abormal". Admittedly, there was no context given to this issue (there has never really been a context of more intelligent discussion introduced to the format - I'm sorry, Killeen's little monologues on the couch don't count), and this could make the difference in the new set up of Big Brother 2007. Could. But time is going to tell.

Until then, people like me are going to give the show exactly what it wants, by writing endlessly about the show's new lows, etc, fucking etc. You're probably going to give it what it wants, too, and turn up on opening night.  Aren't you?