CURRENT EVENTS XVI
How to Do Conference
How to Lead I
How to Lead II
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Palo Alto Tree Walk I
Palo Alto Tree Walk II
Cider House Rules
Tisch/ Vascellaro
Univ. Ave Walk
Palo Alto Walk
Ghost at the Hyatt?
Charley Wilson's War
Tombstone (1993)
Magic of Corvallis
E. J. Dionne
Search..Bobby Fischer
Widow of St. Pierre
Letter to My Son
DH Lawrence/Bible I
Lawrence/ Bible II
Lawrence/ Bible III
Lawrence/ Bible IV
Lawrence/ Bible V
Lawrence/ Bible VI
San Diego Walk
What do I Believe?
Obama's Victory
Life Lessons
Portrait of Artist I
Portrait Artist II
Artist III
Artist IV
Coming Home I
Coming Home II
Coming Home III
Don Eves
Thinking about Time I
Thinking re Time II
Loving Junior Mints
Lord of the Flies
Portnoy's Complaint I
Portnoy II
Portnoy III
Milk by Gus Van Sant
Stephen Johnson
Obama's Ed. Sec.
New Reality Show
Memory Scholarship
Ron Blagojevich
Woodburn Bombing I
Bombing II
Bombing III
Bombing IV
Bombing V
Bombing VI
Christ in Mouth
Learning Language
Great Gatsby Quotes
Christmas 2008
Un(der)appreciated
Complicated Grief
36 Hours in Austin TX
A Dream
Episcopal Worship
Emergency Baptism
Throwing People....
Judge Carol Jones
Salt in Our Blood I
Salt in Our Blood II
Turning 57: A Poem |
Total Humiliation!
Bill Long 12/6/08
A New Game Show Concept
Humiliation seems to be the order of the day in much of Reality TV. See how much shame a person can endure, as s/he tries to live in a miniature house. See who is willing to get pummeled by revolving bags as they fall into mucky water, all in view of the whole nation. Humiliation seems to be built into the concept of Reality TV. But what I refer to here is a sort of "intellectual's approach" to humiliation. It is a "Socratic" type of humiliation which will take a person from a seemingly impregnable and visible pedestal and plunge him into the deepest pit of abject absement. In short, my basic idea is to take people from various visible venues in life (mostly men) who live as if the world exists to cater to their every whim and then, gradually, undo them and end up with their complete and abject degradation. The types of man I am thinking of are five: (1) celebrities/professional athletes; (2) academic/medical or legal "experts"; (3) religious leaders; (4) powerful business leaders; (5) politicians. Each episode will follow a certain "template," though there will be ample time to develop themes and facts unique to the person under consideration.
The basic notion is that the "untouchable" male would first be presented in his glory, perhaps showing him at the top of his game. Then we would see him encounter a person of lower status and power, perhaps a student, a young person wanting to learn about the profession, a fan, a person with junior status in the company, and show the powerful person abusing the lower-status person. Physical abuse isn't in view; it is just the "pulling of rank" because the powerful person is either more beautiful, rich, powerful or knowledgeable than the questioner/person met. In any case, the upshot of this encounter is that the "little person" will "lose" and have to go away biting his/her tongue. Then, as the show develops, we will show other encounters between the big person and this same little person but, surprisingly, things would begin to change. Perhaps the little person would ask a question that could quickly be brushed off by the powerful person, but then asks another which allows a slight opening or indication that the omnipotent person isn't quite so omnipotent. We will have the little person "pull on this thread" as the show goes on, gradually allowing the "star" to unravel right in front of them, so that at the end of the show, the "star" or "leader" is wondering whether suicide or accepting a "reversal of roles" is a more desirable alternative. It is Socrates exposing an interlocutor, but in a much broader way. We would not simply be asking the "priest" what piety is, for example, but we would be probing a lawyer's knowledge, until s/he is forced to admit ignorance or a business leader's values until s/he is confronted with a complete contradiction between those values and the affairs of his/her company or a religious leader's commitment to certain "Biblical" or ethical principles while, at the same time, showing them either to be quite ignorant of what the Bible teaches or what those principles really mean. As with most encounters with people of this stripe, these encounters will follow a rather predictable course: the "big guy" will first ignore the question, then perhaps smile at the questioner's ignorance. Then, when things get "hot," the authority will fight back with strength, then will insult the person and finally, when the "authority" sees that s/he has no ground to stand on, will adopt the interlocutor's position with the offhand statement, "Well, this is what I have believed all along." But then, each episode will devise a method of bringing the arrogant person face to face with him/herself, so that they would see his/her utter hypocrisy and ignorance. We would visit them with the camera at the exact moment when it dawns on the "expert" that s/he is nothing but a fraud. What will happen? That is the unknown part of the issue...
An Example
Let us take an example of a celebrity we might want to "undo" in the show. Let's take him from the biggest media market in the US (New York) and make him a member of one of the New York professional sports teams. I am just making this up, but let's say that he was at the top of his form a few months ago. We will call him Plexiglass Burrow just to give him a name. After showing him at the top of his form in his game, let's show him taking advantage of his celebrity status perhaps by doing something that celebs love to do--hang out at a "celeb-friendly" nightclub but enter into the club by cutting in line--by just walking in and being ushered to the biggest, baddest VIP room. He is just so cool that he can walk around metal detectors and all those devices that sense for illegal weapons, such as knives and firearms. Let's make sure that we pan the line of people who see Plexiglass get in, a few of whom marvel at his "stardom," but many of whom are resentful at the "dissing" they receive for being such "little people."
But we have to come up with a scenario that would "undo" Plexiglass. Let's just say, for a hypothesis, that he was intending to circumvent the security system of the club all along because he wanted to tape a loaded gun to his leg so he could come in with maximum "protection." Never know who might attack you, you know. The top guy, in the top of his form, able to violate the rules with impunity. But, we want to bring the guy down. So, how do we do it? Let's say that while he is drinking with his friends, stretched out and just enjoying the night, that his leg suddenly begins to itch. At first he just tries to ignore the scratch, but sooner or later his leg, as it were, requires an itching.
So, he scratches. But the itch continues. By now he is a little tipsy and is bound and determined to eliminate the itch. So, he reaches to stop the itch again, but this time inadvertently discharges the guy and it grazes his thigh. He begins to bleed profusely but, because everyone knowns that no guns can be permitted in such a high-class establishement, everyone ignores the noise. Plexiglass gets very uncomfortable because no one knows his predicament but, in fact, he is losing a lot of blood. Finally, he has to ask a guy he came with, who is only slightly less cool than he, to help him out a side door and whisk him away to hospital in the middle of the night.
The rest of the episode will be taken up with a hilarious scenario of trying to explain this "accident" to the fans, the media, the police, the team, etc. By the end of it all, the man, who had been a "star" just a little bit before, will be plunged into abject humliation.
How do you like the idea?
3975
|