| Tuesday - IS HE OR ISN'T HE? |
|
| Written by The Eye | |
| Tuesday, 20 May 2008 | |
|
"I'm not interested." Nathan
"Is Nathan Renee's leading man? Or is he leading her on?" This agenda-setting introduction by Goldman set the scene, off the bat, for what the dance task/cross-promotion is now being used to force: a love/heartbreak narrative. So, regardless of what truth it brings out, it's important to remember that we are watching something they are forced to do. It's fair to analyse Nathan's behaviour around this task, but wrong to be wound up by the deliberate implications of a forced routine that makes them "pretend" to be in love. While we're all worried about the question being put to us, "Is Nathan leading her on?", don't forget to ask, "Is Big Brother leading her on?" If you know someone is having difficulty with a crush, you can't really expect the dynamic to resolve itself, when you're forcing that person to look into the object of her affection's eyes, and dance the dance of love. In some ways, it's a bizarre metaphor for that blurred line of reality so integral to the Big Brother phenomenon. If you can fashion something to look a certain way, even though it is a manipulation, and not a natural occurrence, is it "real"? It's the judgement that the game stems around, where this becomes tricky. Could there be something in watching two people have their feelings and positions complicated by a contrived interference? Yes, I think there is. The problem, rather, is that it results in a judgement that I don't really think is fair on either of them. Admittedly, it's a little less fair on one, than it is on the other. It certainly isn't fair on Renee; but Renee will actually be served well, ultimately, by this narrative. She's tipped to win the series, and I think only an idiot would count her out of the race. Rather, it is Nathan who could become the victim of this. I think the public are much quicker to crucify the women, if the women belong to the harlot variety of the Big Brother archetypes. We saw Jamie outlive Katie, to go on and win the series. We saw Giana die a horrible death, while the Logans also went on to win the series. Leading women on, over all, doesn't necessarily mean death to the Big Brother male. Far from it. But Renee is not Giana or Katie. She's a Reggie. She's a winner, in other words. But it's interesting to pace Renee inside the gender constructs that are (agree with them, or not) part of the public perception and appeal. Renee's "thing" is that she's actually a girl who conforms to male constructs. In fact, she has openly admitted she "hates" girls (on many occasions),happily putting masculinity on a clear pedestal over women and "femininity"). I can't help but wonder of what this symbolises, that the only women who get a go card, and bypass the usual crucifixion of the Big Brother women, to even be considered a potential winner (in a game always dominated by men), says about society at large. Nathan isn't playing with a woman who the public could happily see as "getting what she deserves" (and if you think I'm overplaying that, you obviously have never really followed the show). I think Nathan could be the one seeing the public make a vengeful judgement, here. And Nathan certainly doesn't have clean hands, here. I imagine many would put forward that, to his credit, he does confess - on camera, after all - that he fears he is leading Renee on, and that he is concerned that in the heat of the moment, he slips up and creates a dilemma. He "flirts", as Nobbi puts it - a dangerous thing to do to a housemate so endeared to a protective public. The difficult thing to decipher, here, is to what extent Nathan is driven by his motives to manipulate his way through the game, utilising that understanding I talk so much of, here, about how the show "works". I certainly think he does have that understanding, and that it is at play, here - though maybe not in the simplistic way, many are now suggesting. He has repeatedly said that he "knows" Renee will be one of the finalists. So, the question is obvious: is he deliberately drawn to her, knowing he's putting himself in the public eye? Yes, he knows he's perhaps playing a dangerous game; but is he, then, concerned of his flirtation, because he actually knows it could lead to eviction? What's interesting is that Nathan's confession to Nobbi actually seems to suggest that Nathan is a bit of a player, and quite likes having his ego masturbated by eliciting affection and obsession that he can enjoy denying. I do think Nathan has some rather unpleasant traits, and I've seen subtle, yet vivid, evidence of a man who does enjoy power assertion over others. I saw this, when he upset Terri - something she was quite in the right about. "I love how she just assumes," he snickered to Alice. He happily wiped his hands clean, but Terri was right - that was a clear power assertion - it was rude, it was designed to belittle her, it was delivered with a great deal of condescension. And what's interesting about tonight's interplay with Renee is that he used the same line, contextually. He said to her, "I love the lack of eye contact, whenever you say something serious." This isn't really affectionate - he had the same sly grin he had with Terri. It's a way in which he flaunts his power - his power to understand the subject better than he or she understands themselves and the world around them. It's a power trip. It's subtle, but it's there. So, when Nathan suggested to Nobbi that he had an awareness that this kind of powerplay is something "you really can't do, in here", what this does suggest is this he is deliberately contriving himself, in various ways, because of the awareness of the context and the game. He's not free to be himself, because the public are judging him - so he gives us something that contrasts his usual behaviour, where, it would seem, he would enjoy leading a glassey-eyed woman on. I'm not too big a fan of that, it goes without saying. So, to me, this does ultimately cancel out that, in many ways, Big Brother is leading him on, too. If he's in a situation where he is honestly trying not to lead Renee on, the task is clearly going to make that very difficult. The show wants him to lead her on, of course, it knows there are ratings in it. In fairness to Nathan, perhaps you could argue that he did, after all, initially make it clear to her that it was a no-go. But the show didn't want a bar of that, and it's just going to assault them, and assault them, until hopefully something gives. He is, in this way, being judged on behaviour that, far from being natural, is largely the result of Big Brother's interference. However, since he has admitted that he already being contrived - especially considering that what he's hiding seems to be a nasty streak, when it comes to dealing with women - fair's fair, in my book. The irony is that the non-reality of BB is chipping away - effectively taking him on - at his own non-reality. Which false state will win out, in the end? Nathan, my dear boy, me thinks you're gonna lose. |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 26 May 2008 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
