I was just curious...if the Discovery Channel came to you and said you had to host one of these shows...which one would it be or is there one that you would like to do?
1. Cash Cab 2. Mythbusters 3. Going Tribal
Take care Mr. Mike! I'm looking forward to the new episodes!
Stay Dirty! Yours In A "Curious" Rowe World, Shari DJAC
can he drive and talk at the same time?(unlikely) would he blow himself up or in some other way hurt himslf busting myths? (probably) and I think mike would get way too into going tribal. (definitely) but wouldn't he look cute in his little (very little!) tribal outfits!
Hi Shari. Been a while since we chatted. Hope all is well.
If Discovery told me I "had to host" anything, two things would occur. Sierra Nevada would spray from my nose, and I would collapse in a paroxysm of uncontrolled giggles. But I like your question, and will attempt an honest answer.
If my career choices were limited to those shows you mention, I'd go with Cash Cab, hands down. Here's why.
Going Tribal is a good idea, and shares a theme with Dirty Jobs – an “immersed” personality who inserts himself into unusual situations, and attempts to make the best of it. I get that, and I like it. However, I would have no interest in hosting this program, for several reasons.
First of all, the host is deliberately positioned as an "expert." Bruce Perry is a former Royal Marine, trained in the art of extreme survival. This fact is made clear in the show’s open. I on the other hand, am not an expert in extreme survival. I am not an expert in anything. And if I were, I would never admit it, especially on television. Commercial TV has enough experts already, genuine and manufactured, and I'm neither inclined nor qualified to join their ranks.
Secondly, I am not earnest enough to host this program. Not even close. I lack the proper sentimentality, and do not subscribe to any notions of moral equivalency, anthropological or otherwise. In other words, I’m just not all that interested in getting to know and understand the daily routines of cannibals. No offense to cannibals, or any other meat-eater, but I don’t share the idea that the customs of indigenous peoples deserve to be categorically accepted and celebrated just because they are uncivilized. Cannibalism is, if nothing else, just bad manners, and I won’t condone it in any context. Going Tribal makes no judgments. Neither does Bruce. But I do. Sooner or later, I would make a sarcastic remark to some god-chieftain in Borneo and wind up on a spit. No thank you.
Thirdly, I hate the way standards and practices are constantly bent to accommodate this kind of grave and sober content. As some of you may recall, I puked my guts up on the first episode of Dirty Jobs. It was a monumental vomit that occurred on a research vessel in the middle of a standup. Remarkably, the actual vomit was blurred out for reasons of “decency.” Ten minutes later, on Going Tribal, Bruce Perry was seen on his hands and knees, vomiting like a frat house drunk. The barf in question was crystal clear. Why? Is the puke of an expert doing anthropological work somehow less offensive than my own? More disturbing was the insemination story on Dirty Jobs, where the male horses business was blurred out entirely, for reasons of decency. Again, ten minutes later on Going Tribal, we are treated to full-frontal male nudity. Homosapian, male nudity, ad nausem.
Isn’t it curious, that someone believes you and your children should not see the genitals of a horse, but makes no attempt to shield you from the genitals of a full-grown, naked man? Why? Surely, if I were to appear sans loincloth, my boys would be blurred from here to eternity. But not those of a naked tribesman. He is allowed to hang proudly in unblurred glory. Why? Is a tribesman less than a man? What makes his genitals less offensive than yours or mine? Or for that matter, than those of a horse?
It’s not that I want people to see me throw-up or see me naked. Trust me, neither would be a ratings grabber. But double-standards like this confirm that the content in Going Tribal is seen as “thoughtful,” and “scientific,” and Bruce is deemed to be doing “important work.” Please. The men and women, (and animals,) on Dirty Jobs are no less important than the cannibals on Going Tribal. We should all be held to the same standard.
Finally, while I admire Bruce’s courage, I question his overall mission. For example, I would be unwilling to manipulate my genitals in an unusual or painful manner for the express purpose of being “accepted by the tribe.” (Or for that matter, any other purpose.) Nor would I participate in stick fighting or ingest organic hallucinogens in order to “assimilate.” True, Dirty Jobs is full of risky behavior, and yes, I have been hurt more than once on the job. But the risks I assume on Dirty Jobs are those assumed daily, by people who work very hard to make civilized life possible for the rest of us. Those are risks I understand, and by assuming them myself, I hope to give people a better understanding of the routine sacrifices others make on our behalf. But what is the point of a grown man stuffing Big Jim and the Twins back inside his pelvic cavity? What exactly are we celebrating as we watch Bruce fall to his knees with tears streaming down his face, on the verge of passing out from self-inflicted pain? I mean, what is the point?
On Jackas$, Johnny Knoxville used to mutilate himself regularly. Not exactly high-minded, but he never suggested he was doing so for any reason other than ratings. On Fear Factor, people humiliate themselves regularly for celebrity and recognition. On Dirty Jobs, I endure a certain measure of suffering because I claim to believe it’s the only honest way to honor the people who actually work for a living. And Bruce Perry makes the same claim, in order to pay homage to cannibals and primitive cultures. I’ll take him at his word. I’m just not sure why cannibals and primitive cultures need to be honored at all.
Mythbusters on the other hand, is a really good idea. A great one, actually. I personally love the notion of debunking urban legends. I'm also friendly with Adam and Jamie, and congratulate them on a huge hit. Five successful seasons does not happen by accident.
But like Bruce Perry, Jamie and Adam are experts at what they do. They say so, right in the open. And is it just me, or is anyone else weary of shows that begin with “Don’t Try This at Home!” Aside from being dramatic, it’s kind of insulting. Mythbusters is also a very, very "produced" program. Lots of cameras, lots of personalities, lots of editing, lots of music, lots of effects, lots of graphics, and lots of v/o. There's an awful lot going on there. Don't get me wrong - it's very well-produced, but personally, and in general, I feel like there is too much production in the medium. Most shows nowadays are overproduced, in my opinion. Sometimes, I think Mythbusters is a little too anxious to entertain and inform. It often feels urgent. I believe it would still be a good show, maybe a better show, without the affectation. I prefer simple shows with simple premises that rely heavily on personality and point-of-view. In this genre, Penn and Teller's Bullsh!t is a good example of what I mean.
So is Cash Cab. A game show in a cab. Brilliant, simple, goofy, and unpretentious. No big claims, no overstatement, no over-reaching. Just a good-natured guy in a cab meeting real people, asking them questions, and handing out money. That’s a show I could host. It might not be "important," but it never tries to be something it isn't, and that's really, really rare. And best of all, it's only a half hour. There are very few one hour shows that I can think of that aren't 30 minutes too long, including Dirty Jobs. Of course, that will all change in Season 2. The show will become a hit. The cab will become a Stretch Hummer. The host will be replaced with Ryan Seacrest. And every four blocks, a contestant will be voted out of the cab, and thrown to the curb.
I lack the proper sentimentality, and do not subscribe to any notions of moral equivalency, anthropological or otherwise. In other words, I’m just not all that interested in getting to know and understand the daily routines of cannibals. No offense to cannibals, or any other meat-eater, but I don’t share the idea that the customs of indigenous peoples deserve to be categorically accepted and celebrated just because they are uncivilized.
As always, Mike, an excellent answer.
My only comment here, coming from a background in cultural Anthropology, is that the "customs of indigenous peoples" do not necessarily have to be accepted but they do need to be considered. Everything you referred to goes against virtually all sensibilities we westerners share. But for whatever reason, it makes sense in the culture it is particular to. Does it need to honored? Probably not; but certainly not dismissed.
As diverse as your background is, you've probably read the satirical article about the Nacirema. If you haven't, I recommend it. It's an example of how the right presentation can make any culture seem exotic or weird as sh*t.
Originally posted by mikerowe: Thirdly, I hate the way standards and practices are constantly bent to accommodate this kind of grave and sober content.[Snip]
More disturbing was the insemination story on Dirty Jobs, where the male horses business was blurred out entirely, for reasons of decency. Again, ten minutes later on Going Tribal, we are treated to full-frontal male nudity. Homosapian, male nudity, ad nausem.
Isn’t it curious, that someone believes you and your children should not see the genitals of a horse, but makes no attempt to shield you from the genitals of a full-grown, naked man? Why? Surely, if I were to appear sans loincloth, my boys would be blurred from here to eternity. But not those of a naked tribesman. He is allowed to hang proudly in unblurred glory. Why? Is a tribesman less than a man? What makes his genitals less offensive than yours or mine? Or for that matter, than those of a horse?
[Snip]But double-standards like this confirm that the content in Going Tribal is seen as “thoughtful,” and “scientific,” and Bruce is deemed to be doing “important work.”
I wonder if that's all there is to it. I think that this double standard is due partly to the fact that Perry's work is seen as "important" and "scientific" and therefore above censure. But to me the fact that the network would blur over the genitalia of a "civilized" person or a horse but not those of someone who is "tribal" smacks of an older, not entirely dead, "civilized" atittude.
In the late 19th and early 20th century, "Savages" were not considered human and therefore it was okay for civilized people to look at them in the altogether, as it were. Previous generations of civilized people would stare at uncensored photos and read with horrified fascination the accounts of primitive rituals and behaviour.
Photos and accounts of similar civilized activities were glossed over or censored.
Thus what you've articulated is the subtle, but persistent, continuation of that attitude.
Mike made some very good points there, and I would have to agree with him. If I could see him on any other show besides Dirty Jobs, I would want to see him on Cash Cab. I honeslty can't stand to watch Going Tribal, I can only take so much vomiting in an hour. And most of the episodes last season consisted of like a 10 min segment of just that after Bruce consumed somthing that is supposeded to be an initiation for him. or somthing like that. I respect that people like Bruce are willing to do what he does, but there is only so much stuff I can take per episode. Dirty Jobs is a great show, and it is in my opinion the best show on Discovery right now, the only thing that is keeping me from going nuts now watching Mike is Deadliest Catch. But I can't wait for DJ to come back. Please tell us it is coming back soon Mike. Anyway keep up the good work, and if you are ever in Minnesota, stop on by the Monticello or Becker Area, I would love to treat ya to a beer and talk to ya about anything and everything. discoverychik21
It looks to me like you are one of those people who others should avoid ticking off.
One shouldn't get on your bad side or not see things the way you see it. Not only do you have very good arguments for why you hold a certain position, but simply put if you argue against intelligence - intelligence will win.
One shouldn't get on your bad side or not see things the way you see it. Not only do you have very good arguments for why you hold a certain position, but simply put if you argue against intelligence - intelligence will win.
I'm hoping that tenor of this board is not moving to agreeing with Mike in order to remain on his good side. From everything I have seen and read, Mike has always been tolerant of differences of opinion and attitude. A lot of intelligent conversations on this board have been the result of this.
I might be mistaken but I think he has more respect for original thoughts and creativity than he does for parrotheads.
I guess I didn't explain myself. Sorry 'bout that. But what you say was kinda my point. If you do have arguments make sure you can defend them and defend them well.
If I haven’t said so lately, thanks being such a smart and thoughtful and diverse crowd. Dirty Jobs is lucky to have smart viewers.
I’m familiar with Miner’s essays on the Nacirema, and still enjoy them. The one about the Elibomotua is a favorite.
Anyway, I agree with you, and didn’t mean to suggest that societies with different moral standards than ours should be dismissed or ignored on that basis. We should absolutely study them, by all means, and consider the context of their practices. But I worry that we have developed a guilty conscience about condemning bad behavior just because it takes place outside the context of our own time or our own society. (For that matter, we seem to have a hard time calling it what it is in our own time.)
I realize that it’s not politically correct to judge such things in hindsight, and understand how arrogant doing so seems, but I no longer care. Analyzing a person’s behavior only in the scope of his particular place in time and culture, requires us to ignore years of enlightenment. In my opinion, that’s an unnecessary restriction. It’s feels like the Prime Directive in Star Trek, which I personally find to be a silly notion.
Consider for instance, the institution of slavery. Many great thinkers, including most of our founding fathers owned slaves. That does not necessarily mean their ideas and notions of freedom and self-determination are irrelevant today. But it would be wrong to ignore the fact that they were practitioners of a despicable institution by glossing over that unfortunate fact, and excusing it because it was common for the time. All past cultures embraced horrific customs that we can now see for what they were – wanton acts of cruelty rooted in bigotry and superstitious nonsense. From human sacrifice, to The Inquisition – the list is long.
When Bruce Perry encounters such behavior in a primitive tribe, what should he do? From what I’ve seen of the show, he would accept it as a “natural,” and marvel at the wonder of it all.
Going Tribal posses a unique opportunity. A first hand look at primitive societies, still in existence today, through the eyes of a 21st century enlightened observer. Bruce Perry can bring whatever sensibility he wishes to the show. His chooses to behave like a guest, and attempts to “fit in.” He leaves behind his own opinions and judgments and biases. He shows no interest in changing or improving the lives of the people he encounters. He honors The Prime Directive. I wouldn’t.
I fully expect to be judged harshly by our descendants on a vast number of social and human issues, for I expect them to be smarter and more enlightened than us.
While we are on the "what other show would you host?" topic, may I suggest that you take over "No Reservations" or "Taste of America" should anything happen to Anthony Bourdain or Mark DeCarlo. I think the No Reservations show is more like you. He goes to some places most of us will never see and eats the local delicacies. I also like the fact that he has said things like "this is the worst cr@p I have ever put in my mouth." Mr. Bourdain has paved the way!
He leaves behind his own opinions and judgments and biases.
Don't we all, Mike?
quote:
He shows no interest in changing or improving the lives of the people he encounters. He honors The Prime Directive. I wouldn’t.
First, how would you change or improve the lives of the people you encounter in the same situation? Secondly, are you certain the people Bruce Perry encounters would want their lives to be improved? Perhaps their lives are satisfactory the way they live them. Why for instance, do the Bushmen of the Kalihari need John Deere tractors and a Wal-Mart nearby for them? (Okay, I'm taking a liberty with the tractor and store line, but I think you get my point.)
And I gotta tell you, the way you talk about men's 'units' do tickle ole Arlene's butt.
In our household, we obviously adore your show and Lily does watch Mythbusters, and alot of the Animal Planet. All that other stuff to me was jibberish, no disrespect because we don't watch it. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Fear Factor people eating pig t e s t i c l e s and laying in what-ever who know's what creepy crawly critters to win money??? Serious issues if you ask me.
When Dirty Jobs starts their new season, our household will be looking forward to it, we love seeing you depict jobs from all over from hard working people in this country and you are a total joy to watch.
Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful reply! I just got home from an exhausting trip and you put a smile on my face. I also enjoyed your reply to Puppet (said with French Accent.) Fascinating stuff...
Starting out with you with the giggles collapsing in a heap! Great visuals! Then... 2. The double standards of naked tribesmen opposed to the blurring the genitals of a horse. 3. Big Jim & The Twins...aka one's 3-piece suite being stuffed where no one's Big Jim & Twins should ever be put...all for sacrifices for the tribe (I think I would be a rebel and decline!) 4. Bruce Perry is in danger of being asked to a tribal dinner...as the main course. I agree with Mike...one can respect one's culture without feeling the need to honor all aspects of it. 5. I like Mythbuster's too and I also agree that sometimes less is more...more about the myths and less "flash." Jamie & Adam are great! 6. I think Cash Cab is simply just fun and I hope the tv "suits" don't ruin it by futzing with a good thing. I am always in fear they will mess with Our Dirty Jobs!
Interesting reading everyone's take...thanks Mr. Mike for taking the time and as always ~ please stay safe and dirty!
Yours In A "Fascinating" Rowe World, Shari DJAC VEEP POOPED!
Originally posted by nigeltm: First, how would you change or improve the lives of the people you encounter in the same situation? Secondly, are you certain the people Bruce Perry encounters would want their lives to be improved? Perhaps their lives are satisfactory the way they live them.
This is where I think we sometimes think of ourselves with too much self-importance. Who are we to determine that products from our lifestyle are an improvment? Simplistically, look at the damage done to native Americans with the introduction of guns and alcohol. Tools and processes still have to be culturally relevant in order for change to be successful. I'm not suggesting that change cannot be made but a certain amount of evolution is necessary for it to become meaningful to the population.
Mike -- thanks for the reference to the Elibomotua Cult. I wasn't familiar with that one.
When I say that Bruce leaves his opinions and biases behind, I mean that he doesn't share them with the viewer - he abdicates, and does so out of "respect" for the tribe and their particular "way of life." He does not pass judgment. I don't care for that kind of objectivity in someone who isn't a reporter. And clearly, Bruce is not a reporter; Bruce is the story. As such, I want to know what an immersed host really thinks about the people he's interacting with.
I'm not suggesting that Bruce or anyone else introduce farm machinery and convenience stores or guns and firewater - I'm talking about criticising questionable behavior when you see it, and not handing out a free pass just because that behavior is occurring in a primitive culture. This is the issue I take with the show - if I were to encounter slavery, or indentured servitude, or forced marriage, or torture, or cannibilism, or cruelty in the context of Dirty Jobs (hey, anything's possible,) I would immediately, at a minimum, share my feelings with the audience. Then, I would challenge someone in charge to explain what the hell was going on. I would not say, "Well, slavery is just the way things are done here, and that's really none of my business." Slavery is bad. Always has been. No matter where or when it occurs.
You may point out that the context of these two shows is different, and that a tribal culture is not the same as a factory floor. Fair enough. But my answer to Shari's question is based on the fact that I would be uncomfortable hosting any program that excused this kind of behavior under any circumstance.
I think you know it was not my intention to imply that I in any way condone the behaviors and systems we've been talking about. My comments have referred to the abstract. Human rights violations are an entirely different matter. You are right to speak so forcibly and I most certainly agree with you. Thanks for a good discussion. -- amy
