The Aftermath of Survivor: Samoa – The Ultimate Inkblot Test?

Those familiar with psychology probably know something about the inkblot test, which records peoples’ reaction to a series of inkblot tests and then interprets the results. You look at an image, and you may see an old lady or a fashionable young woman. With another image, you may see a rabbit or an alligator.

The ending of Survivor: Samoa may have just provided such a test. Did you see a great strategic player get screwed by a bitter, immature jury, or did you see an evil man get his comeuppance? Did you see a southern belle who got a well-deserved win for playing a great social game, or did you see someone who got lucky because she rode the coattails of someone who far outplayed her? Did Natalie win or did Russell lose?

Let me state that going into the finale, I was completely impartial. That is, I wasn’t rooting for anyone in particular. Yes, I said in a previous column that it would probably be a shame if Russell lost, but I have learned firsthand the perils of having a vested emotional interest in the final vote.

Think back to the Amazon season. I was absolutely certain Matthew was going to smoke Jenna Morasca, whom I could not stand. I just knew it was going to be a rout, and indeed it was – in favor of Jenna, six votes to one. My friend Rachel (not to be confused with my girlfriend Rachel) told me she laughed when the vote was read, because she knew how much I disliked Jenna and how much the vote would get under my skin, and boy, did she ever have it pegged.

I just couldn’t understand it. What was this jury thinking anyway? Soon enough, we learned what went into the jury’s decision. It turned out that Jenna had pretty much been playing the game all along, while Matthew simply coasted much of the way and didn’t really start playing until later on. In any case, that taught me a valuable lesson: The final vote should be left to those who were there, not those of us watching at home.

I kept that in mind while watching the finale to the current season. While I thought Russell might win going away, I also knew I hadn’t been there, and the decision would be made by those who were; hence, I decided I’d be all right with whatever the jury decided. Granted, when Natalie was announced as the winner, I was as flabbergasted as anyone else, but I also knew there must be a reason they decided the way they did.

Make no mistake: I think Russell played a great strategic game. I also think that many, if not most, viewers agreed with my colleague and friend Eileen Witker that the jury was bitter. Even Jeff Probst said as much. But let me take you back to something else Probst said before the season debut: He said that Russell had either forgotten, or didn’t know, that this was a social game. He also said Russell might get second, but he sure wasn’t getting first. Well, Probst knows bost, er, best, because that’s exactly what happened.

Let me state this: While there’s no doubt Russell played a great game, no doubt the viewers’ perception of him was somewhat shaped by editing. The fact is, the way he played the game made for great television, while Natalie’s method of forming bonds with people really didn’t; that is, it didn’t cause too much conflict or drama. Great for the game, but bad for television; hence, she got so much less camera time than Russell, whom I feel was also playing to the cameras a lot of the time anyway. While the editors can’t show us things that didn’t happen, they can choose what to leave in and out, thus greatly altering perceptions. Again, the vote is best left to those who were there.

This brings me to a major pet peeve: All season, the Insider clips show us what each person says as he’s voting someone out. But when it comes to the final vote, where you vote FOR someone, we usually don’t get to see those same clips, even after the season is over. What is the deal? They’ve done this for several seasons now, and it grates on my nerves. If we saw the clips, no doubt we would have a lot more insight into the jury’s mindset, and of course, we’d have even more to talk about. Okay, I’ll get off my soapbox now.

Let’s take a look at the final Tribal Council. Like many, I thought Russell made a much better opening statement than either Natalie or Mick. However, as always, I have a question: Had he already lost by that point? We’ve learned that as a general rule, when players go to Tribal Council to vote someone out, they have their minds made up before their torches are even lighted. I can’t help but wonder if such was the case here.

That is, even before anyone made an opening statement, much of the jury knew they weren’t voting for Russell, and the question-and- answer part of final Tribal Council was merely a formality. It’s unfortunate we can’t interview the jury after the final vote. It would remove so much of the mystery from the game.

Now it was time for the jury to get their two cents in. Jaison brought up each player’s financial status, basically saying none of them was filing for Chapter 11 anytime soon, so the jury shouldn’t even go by need. Okay, I agree with him there.

Then it was the Shambo show. As she did throughout much of the season, Shambo made a complete fool of herself, and apparently didn’t much sway anyone in the jury. As was the case pretty much throughout the season, Shambo was out of the loop on this vote. She stated she was calling “major B.S.” on Natalie’s answers to her questions; well, I’m calling major B.S. on Shambo’s performance as a juror. I think she’d pretty much decided she was going to say that no matter what Natalie said.

But that wasn’t the only silliness from the jury. Let’s take a look at Erik’s comment that he went 39 days trying to figure out what Mick did to deserve being the leader of Foa Foa. In the first place, Mick never WANTED to be the leader, and when he was so named, he pretty much laid low so as not to be a target.