I wasn’t going to write a blog on The Traitors, it seemed too bandwagon-y and obvious, but then I kept thinking about this particular element of the dynamics (and morals?) of the game play of the series and thought writing something might help me figure out why it kept coming up for me.
Spoiler warning: past and current seasons of The Traitors UK and game play dynamics on The Traitors US/Australia
A couple of years ago my parter and I got really into watching The Traitors. After going back and watching the past UK season, we watched the US and Australian versions too. It was fun, addictive and felt like it had a psychological element which elevated it above other reality TV. However, a creeping sense of discomfort finally dawned into a realisation about the gameplay. The (only?) way for a traitor to win the game was to take a faithful who unquestionably believed in them with them to the final. In practice this often ended up being someone who was in some way vulnerable and also generally seemed like a kind, trusting person whom I had (parasocial) respect for. Molly is the most obvious example of this, but it felt like a pattern that kept occurring.
It was a dynamic I really struggled with and for that reason I decided to stop watching the show.
Except then I didn’t, because, you know, it’s just a game! The Celebrity version, where all the money went to charity, changed the dynamic positively for me and the celebrities were generally more robust and resourced. It felt like all the good elements of the series, without the bits I found uncomfortable. I got drawn back into the collective experience, the drama and… because I wanted things to end differently.
Freud might call this repetition compulsion, repeating painful situations from the past with the hope of gaining mastery over the situation. Look, there’s a lot I disagree with Freud on, but he was undeniably impactful and often bang on the money. As a therapist (and human) I see repetition compulsion a lot, in the pull to form relationships people who unconsciously remind you of difficult experiences from the past, with the hope things will end up differently. I’ve wondered if this might be part of what’s happening with Nick Shymansky, who went from managing Amy Winehouse to managing Lola Young.
*Major spoiler warning again at this point folks!*
But the Traitors season four has shown a departure from the pattern outlined above. As we come to the end of the series, the smart move, the way for Rachel and Stephen to win, would have been to take Roxy to the final and murder Faraaz. Faraaz was on to Rachel and didn’t show any indications that he could be swayed, and it was very unlikely that he was going to get banished at this point as he had absolutely no heat on him. But the traitors murdered Roxy instead of Faraaz. When they discussed this in the turret they agreed ‘we’re not going to string her along to the end’.
Ha! In your face Freud! Things ended differently this time.
This decision was a show of humanity which made me much more comfortable with this series of The Traitors. The other scenario, where Roxy was kept to the end would have felt undeniably grim to watch. Honestly, I think I would have walked away from the series at that point (though, to be fair, I said that last time).
I presume this decision will mean that Rachel loses. Although, maybe there was so much heat on her at this point that was inevitable. But maybe there are other ways to win The Traitors, without *winning* The Traitors.
Post-final update: Well that aged quickly! Who knew that Faraaz *could* be swayed by Rachel (clearly not me!) or that you could make it to the finish line when the only other player who really (kind of?!) trusts you is another traitor. So interesting how the gameplay on this season departed from anything that’s been before!
Image credit: BBC/CM2
Recent Comments