"Poor Ben!"

Jackie O

PLEASE NOTE: IT HAS NOW BEEN REVEALED THAT THE TRAVIS INCIDENT DID NOT ACTUALLY INVOLVE "SHOWER GEL", AS SUCH (AS THE SHOW INFERRED), BUT SHOWER MOULD REMOVER.

It’s hypocritical, Big Brother – and always has been – because, on the one hand, it likes to flaunt that it creates a controlled environment, where the authority of Big Brother is used to direct what goes on in those four walls. It does. But, then, it’s always been very clever at wiping its hands clean, when the moment – or the criticism, more to the point – suits it to, pointing the finger at (but, of course!) the uncontrollable nature of "reality". Three years ago, I first landed on the BB (and media) radar, because I put forward what was, at the end of the day, a rather logical proposition. If you control an environment, to that extent, you are effectively responsible for what goes on within it, as a result. What happens is a product of the ethos of that environment, and, in an environment that had actively promoted the sexual victimisation of women as entertainment, the Turkeyslap was a train we should have all seen coming. I actually did. But, in fairness, I always found it so hilarious that it was considered shocking that I did. Guess I had the last laugh (as unfortunate as that was for Camilla, and the thousands of women who watch Big Brother).

This curent situation may not have the gravity of that infamous “slap”, but it does share a similar dynamic. For weeks, now, we have seen the bullying behaviour of this group heighten; centering, in recent episodes, around the far too easy targeting and exploitation of Travis. Travis has found acceptance with the group who share the various cues of the men who stand on the top of the social hierarchy, by being functional to their sadistic pleasures of victimising the minority. That is, after all, what the relationship “is” – all it is. Travis gives them a kick, and it’s a kick completely at his expense. And the thing about this kind of group behaviour, is that it has an element of desensitisation, in regards to the “pranks”. It’s really about showing off to each other; and so, each act (or prank) must push that barrier further. Where does it end?

Nobbi’s haircut certainly pushed that boundary further along, but, last night, the bar was pushed, once more – this time, by Ben, when he (his two amigos, giggling, on either side) sprung Travis in the shower, and squirted him in the eyes with shower gel, resulting in Travis' hospitalisation. You just knew I'd have something to say about this incident, didn't you?!

Now, the fist thing I want to say is that it’s important to think outside the editing and presentation, here. Not only does the show generate and create a kind of environment where such behaviour naturally manifests (in terms of what goes on inside the house); it also knows that this is where much of the interest is, outside the house. Ultimately, this is why they create this kind of environment – it’s for us, the viewers. The criticisms of the show, then, revolve around this – that the show not only legitimises bullying behaviour, but promotes it (controversial, most of all, because of the show’s popularity with teenagers and children). The show, of course, protests that it is not responsible, and that it simply offers the "reality" of what’s happening. This is the moment where it suddenly reconstructs itself, conveniently, and turns into such a hypocrite. And if there was anything to note, ironically, to illustrate how the show does very much actively promote and legitimise this kind of behaviour, it’s in its response to these moments where lines are finally crossed.

This is also similar to what we saw unfold with the Turkeyslap. One of the criticisms I made, at the time, was that the show happily spared the housemate it knew very well was keeping the show alive, Jamie, by not airing the actual planning of this incident, between the three boys involved (it extended beyond the two who ultimately carried out the act and took the fall), and deliberately softening the impact of the pair who fell. These things evolve – they are planned by the housemates involved – but on Big Brother, we only see the moment where it happens, and not what leads to it happening. This also heightens their abiity to control our perception of the event, and tonight’s incident was no exception. The only pretext we were given was a carefully penned voice-over from Mike Goldman;

“With little to do, the boys are in need of amusement…. Busting in and squirting Travis with shower gel seems like harmless fun.”

Straight away, we should have known the angle that would follow. Although Big Brother evicted the two boys at the centre of Turkeyslap (because, once the scandal reached the public domain, it “had” to), it went on to happily affirm every shocking idea about the sexual treatment of women that the critics protested against the incident communicating – mainly, that the act was justified (or excusable) because it was the result of men having “fun”. The amusement of men, it would seem, is justifiable over the problems that can arise for those being victimised in order to amuse the men. Charming. But that’s always been a core ethos of our society – one of its biggest problems – and has always been hapily perpetuated by Big Brother, who know very well how to cater to the mindset of its target audience. 

This mindset - let's just get this very clear, right now - is a sadistic one. If you think that it's "fun" to torment or victimise someone, to flaunt their defenselessness as enabling your power to exploit it for the amusement of yourself and others, this, my good friend, is sadism. It's sadism, by the very definition of the word. Anyone who has ever gone through adolescence being the odd one out (the reject, etc) will know what it's like to hear, "Oh, they're just boys having a bit of fun." I can't tell you how many times I've heard victimised, traumatised and damaged young teenagers, struggle with a society that seems to okay their victimisation on the basis that the boys doing it are having "fun". I actually remember it, very clealy, when this was my own story, as a teenager. Big Brother would hardly be any comfort to such teens. It has this fundamental problem of our patriarchal society (for it's an almost exclusively male phenomenon) as one of its core messages and vehicles for entertainment, every year.

And here we were, again, with Goldman clearly setting the agenda for our perception of what we were about to see. We weren't going to see them plan it (which they had), because this would only serve to make it harder for us to paint it all in the frivolous light we were supposed to, and would have implicated all three star male housemates (in the same way that we were not allowed to see John, Ashley and Jamie plotting the slap). The three lovable Aussie lads get bored and, oops, their amusement backfires and ends up not being as “harmless” as it was intended. Poor little lads!

And that's no understatement, because just as Turkeyslap eventually saw the public - and the other housemates, at the time - feeling sorry for the boys who had been doing the victimising (and not - hello - the victim), by the end of tonight, we saw the exact same dynamic at play. As soon as the housemates realised the severity of the situation, Ben broke down, faced with the consequences of his actions. 

Good! I'm sorry, but at this point, yes, what they did had consequences - funnily enough - and what's wrong with someone having a good, long think about those? If I do something wrong, and realise it has resulted in something bad, shouldn't I actually be feeling that guilt, as a healthy part of my assessment of my own actions towards others? Isn't that how I "learn"? There's no way anyone can reconstruct the behaviour of those three boys as anything other than exploitative and bullying. The show began, before the shower incident, with the three amigos telling Travis that Alice was betraying him and "hated" him - a lie, a blatant manipulation of Travis, by those three morons. And again, this paints a picture only in hindsight (which is way beyond the impulsive judgements of the BB audience, who never rethink initial reactions) - a hindsight carefully controlled by the show, via what it chooses to present.

If there is a conversation which rests on the word of a housemate against another, isn't it logical that we get to see the reality of the two moments, so that we know what is a lie and what isn't? Isn't that the point of our position, as viewers of reality television? But this wasn't the case. The show knew they were lying, but it didn't want to paint them too badly, only moments before we would see the next stage of their torment of Travis (where he would be eventually sent to hospital, as a result). Only later, long after this moment, and after the show had bombarded us with its deliberate slant (and after voting lines had closed) did the show then show us the real conversation which revealed the boys to be manipulating Travis. By this time, it didn't matter, because we'd spent an hour feeling sorry for poor Ben and the boys, after their joke had gone sour - after they'd even stuck up for their good buddy; "Just looking out for you, Bro," smiled Rory, patting Travis on the back - and warned him about those who really do intend to harm him (which was, iornically, those three boys doing the warning). It turned out that this whole conversation was a complete lie - Alice had never said such a thing, and had, in fact, put forward that she felt even her own enjoyment of Travis to be morally wrong. Gee, Big Brother, thanks for telling us, after you'd made sure you'd protected your show's biggest investments (without the public affection for the alphas, the show fails) and softened the blow for potential Big Brother critics who love sighting these moments in arguments against the show (for good reason, mind you). 

We were, it goes without saying, allowed to watch Ben mope around the house, tears swelling up in his eyes. Nobody said to him, "Well, maybe now you'll think twice about picking on others for your amusement". Nobody even struck a compromise, and said, "Well, look, it's okay - but if you do harass others, then things like this will happen. You did plan to squirt a chemical at someone's face - you aimed it at his head - so maybe you should apologise to him, and maybe treat him a little better in future, yeah?" Well, perhaps somebody did - if not to his face, then as a discussion amongst themselves. If they did, we weren't going to see it, after all. We would only see Nobbi and the others consoling Ben, as poor little Benny Boo Boo freaked out.

"If he goes, I'm going," he said.

And I couldn't help but wonder, what did Ben mean by this? It's to be presumed that he was trying to counter out his moral conscience, to make a statement of acceptance that he did something grossly unfair. But was it? Or was his realisation simply that an incident like this could easily see his time end in the Big Brother house, thanks to a not so happy public backlash? They're young, savvy kids of BB, after all; they know very well how these things can go, on the outside.

What was telling was that Rory's response to this statement, was to give Ben advice to "not make a big deal out of it... just let it slide, and it'll blow over." Rory had the distinct facial expression of someone politely saying, "Read between the lines, here", and considering Ben's response - he certainly didn't say, "No, it's not about that" - it does suggest an underlying meaning, behind what most would have taken it as. How could they be talking about the morality of the situation? If the issue was the authentic moral concern, then "don't make a big thing out of it" is actually quite an inappropriate thing to say. No, rather, this was in reference to the "game", and to the impact of this situation upon the public. So, perhaps, Ben's tears weren't quite as selfless as we could think. We'd seen how badly Ben reacted to being nominated, in the first week - winning is everything to this boy. The thought that he will lose flips this kid right out, and he's always been very careful to not let his manipulations play into any direct conflicts (the kind that makes or breaks a BB housemate). I find it very difficult to believe that this wasn't crossing his mind, and the conversations between him and his two amigos seemed to support this.

Even when Nobbi consoled Ben, seeming to be referencing a more authentic moral concern for Travis, assuring him that "He'll be fine about it, he'll understand", we glimpsed the darker potential of Ben's reality, again.

"No, it's not that," he shook his head. "Of course, Travis will understand - he understands everything."

So, this isn't about Travis, then? Who is this about?

"If he goes, that's it," he repeated. "I'm gone."

The content, at this point, finally veered away from this incident, but we were eventually given quite a startling contrast, through Nobbi's decision to break the "code" and venture inside the house. After he had retired to his van, Big Brother made it clear that he would be keeping to his word about breaking this code.

At the time of this rather firm lecture of Big Brother, where housemates were warned of the introduction of this code, there was quite a lot of fuss made about one point in particular - "unacceptable behaviour between the housemates to each other," BB put it - and this was all to counter-act the growing criticism against the show's portrayal of bullying. No, no, its not Big Brother's fault, silly critics! See? BB actually doesn't want this behaviour, and he's determined to do something about it!

"Big Brother will be speaking to you, in the morning," said the big man's voice, ominously, as Nobbi drifted to sleep, in tonight's episode.

Yes. About "breaking the code" and slipping into the house! Never mind the behaviour of housemates towards each other - you know, the kind of behaviour that results in housemates being hospitalised! No, no - bad Nobbi - you get a strike for breaking the rules of your hand grenade and not staying outside in your van. Reconcile that difference, if you can. Let's face it - it doesn't take a genius.