Post-Op

Yesterday, I watched Oprah's Big Give follow-up show on her daytime talk show. I have not done this all season, feeling that I should be able to take a television show as it is, and not have to watch a mired of other shows or videos to experience it. Alas, more and more, we are asked to take in a larger experience involving the web for each and every show on television. Personally, I couldn't keep up with it if I wanted to. In a sense, too, this blog is part of that larger experience, in an extended way. After all, I am not part of any "branding" television experience.

I am glad I watched this follow-up on the Oprah Winfrey show.

Oprah presented some great stories of people around the country who gave of themselves to help their communities. There was four-year old Drew who wanted to give away all his birthday presents to other kids who needed them more than he did. In another story, a community in Indiana raised money to build bike and walking paths in their city. These stories were far more moving than most of the episodes of the Big Give.

The Big Give's greatest success, and its greatest intention, was inspiring thousands of people who greated their own "big gives." Instead of a contestant elimination show, a second season of Big Give would do well to present these "home viewer" inspired stories.

Four year old Drew spoke one of the greatest truths I've heard yet:

If we give people what we really like, then they might give us something better, like the good feeling in our hearts.

Uh...okay...

Stephen being named the "Biggest Giver" seemed like a no-brainer. I'm glad Oprah (and what the heck happened to Nate?) called this show an experiment. As a television show, a game show, or a reality show, this final episode lacked any spark, any excitement, or any "Wow! I can't wait until next season." Again, we already knew money was to be given out at the end of the show. And Oprah being Oprah, we knew no contestant would go home empty-handed. Whoopie. An anti-climatic show.

The final challenge, taking place in Chicago, had the makings of a brilliant idea. It was called "the shirt off your back," and the contestants were not given any money or ideas to use. Then the producers sucked the challenge up by making it a team effort. For what purpose? That made for bad television. I would have loved to have seen what Brandi, Stephen, and Cameron would have come up with each on their own steam. That would have been a great episode, worthy of asking, "who is the biggest giver?"

Frankly, I was shocked by the behavior of Cameron and Brandi, who spent a couple of days of just sulking around the hotel room because they didn't like anything Stephen suggested. Stephen came up with helping a school founded by a friend of his. The school needed a playground, badly. Brandi suggested taking beauty queens into a Shriner's hospital. Cameron mumbled his support of Brandi. Huh? Cameron complained to Brandi that Stephen was on the wrong track, that the premise of the show was to "do good deeds" and help individuals. Huh? The two of them fell all over their egos.

Stephen has his flaws. He's human, after all. Yet, through out the season, he is depicted as staying centered about the challenges, being a team player, and, yes, helping in a big way, even when he disagreed with his teammates. 'Course, he's older and more mature than most of the contestants on the show. I am not predispositioned to rally for the older, white guy, yet I found myself easily rallying for Stephen.

Finally, Brandi got up out of her chair in order to pursue her idea of helping kids at the Shriner's Hospital. Cameron followed after her. Why? According to Brandi, Cameron can't do anything on his own. I guess he preferred working with someone closer to his own age.

Yet, the immature Brandi and Cameron made two critical points about giving in this episode. First, Cameron told the Blue Man Group, the school needed $100,000 for a playground. As he said, you need to give a number and ask for it. You can't be accepted or turned down unless you do. Cameron expected they would probably give something. The folks at Blue Man surprised him by giving him the whole $100,000, and more. (Blue Man did a lot work themselves, by providing a show, writing checks, and even obtaining donations of guitars and a piano for the school.)

Second, when Cameron belitted Brandi's idea to contact a chef to provide a cooking demonstration to kids at Shriner's, she responded perfectly. When he said she'd find chefs are too busy to help her out, she said, "Or, find someone who will just say 'yes.'" She did find a chef who not only said "yes" to a cooking class, he volunteered to do it again, if the hospital wanted, on a monthly basis. You cannot get what you do not ask for! YES! How many of us poo-poo ideas because we know how the world "works," or because we want prevent someone looking like a fool or getting hurt, or we think it's just a stupid idea? Such moments define us, I think. I want to be the person who knows nothing can happen if the ideas languish on the table without action. Stand up, do it, even when, maybe especially when, people say, "It can't be done."

The duo also unintentially provided another important message about working with people you ask things of: show up and give them respect. Brandi and Cameron proved too busy to be present for the student luncheon, or the start of the Blue Man Group show for the kids. Brandi wanted to work on the Shriner's stuff. Cameron, I don't know what his issue was, and he especially needed to show up for Blue Man. They wanted to meet the guy who invited them and talked them into giving up so much cash. As a donor myself, I don't want a lot of fuss, prizes, gifts, nonsense. I don't want a lot of mushy thanks or cow-towing. I just want a little respect, a little acknowledgement for what I've given. Please don't piss on it. Especially in front of me. (And yes, I've had that happen, more than once. Those organizations don't get a repeat donation from me.) When you disrespect donors, it gives me an idea you may not really respect the people you're ultimately helping. And, wow, if you don't get that donors need respect, I don't even know where to begin with that one. Oh dear.

No one gave the shirt off his or her back for this challenge. What would they have done on their own, not bound by the confines of "team?" Stephen would have raised some money for the school playground, and maybe done a couple of nice deeds for the kids. (As it was, he raised $60,000 on his own, and got Potbelly to donate a lunch feast.) Cameron...who has been impressive in the past...still, I don't know what he would have done. I know he would have done a good deed, and maybe raised some money. Brandi would have shined in providing a bigger event for the kids in the hospital. Brandi tends to escehw fundraising for special events and good deeds, and provides a great example of giving not being just about money.

A couple of years ago, I took an emergency response course taught by my local fire department. The fire guys knew that in an emergency, people want to help. They can do only what they know how to do. Often times, what we know to do is not enough. Thus, the idea behind the course was to teach people to do more. The same premise follows with giving. If you know how to get money from people or corporations, that's what you'll do. If you know how to organize beauty queens to put on a show, that's what you'll do. The intentions behind both kinds of actions are the same: to help or uplift where help and hope are needed.

This is where Oprah's television experiment could do more: helping people use what they know to do, and then learn more ways to give beyond that. My hope is that the producers, if they bring the show back, bring it back in a way that listens to their hearts, and not with the kitchen-sink-reality-show-formula of this first season. Remove the traveling by helicopters, remove the celebrity help factors, remove the team formations, remove the contestant eliminations, and even remove Nate if he's only going to be handing out tickets. Let people show us on their own what their creative responses can be.

How about theme challenges? "Okay, you're in Detroit, and here's $1,000, now go out and discover if you can make a difference in the lives of people who are jobless." Or, about to lose their homes, or can't pay their medical bills, or a shower, or an education, or...in need hope in some way. And yeah, an act of kindness is a worthy action.

Now that the money has been handed out, I'm not sure how, even with a serious revamping, this show survives a second season as a contest for a million dollars. How much more ruthless, ego driven will people become for the chance at all that cash? I'm not sure even I can watch that. My partner has already given notice to me that she won't.

What I do know, is I'm still pondering what would make me give the shirt off my back? For that pondering, for the show's focus on giving, for the debate and controversy the show's raised, the Big Give is a fantastic, audascious, if deeply-flawed, television experiment.

Coming up...

I'll be posting about the final episode of Oprah's Big Give on Mon. Apr 21, by noon EDT.

Beautiful Hometown Challenge!

Finally a great challenge was presented! Stephen, Brandi, and Cameron were each given $10,000, sent back to their hometowns, and told to give in a dramatic, impactful way. All within four days. This type of challenge presents a level playing field, and will depend upon each individual contestant's creativity and organizational skill.

From my armchair perspective, Cameron was the only one who met the challenge. His mother told him about a family struggling financially as they deal with a young daughter's cancer. Cameron not only eased the financial burden, for the next year at least, for Skyler's parents. He also created a wonderful makeover of the living room for the family, a special bedroom for Skyler, the young girl with bone cancer. He provided a new car to ensure Skyler could get to and from treatments. He also gave Skyler a laptop and a website so that she could write and inspire others if she wanted. The website was a lovely tie to Cameron, and how he made his fortune. He made an impersonal medium personal. He never spent a penny of the $10,000 he started with, so he was able to give all of that money to the family. He accomplished all of this because his army of family and friends helped him do so, eagerly, and enthusiastically. Brilliant. He embodied the best example of what an individual and a community can accomplish when they set about to do something.

I must say Jamie Oliver's nitpicking (as he himself called it) that Cameron's presentation went on too long, was ridiculous in the face of the lack of criticism for either Brandi or Stephen.

Stephen raised $43,000 for a battered women's shelter needing a security system upgrade. He didn't look like he worked too hard for it, though. He was just smart about it, in the sense of consolidating his efforts toward one cause. He raised the money in a personal way, opening his home up for a fundraiser, inviting friends and neighbors. We're not told if Stephen spent any of his $10,000, so presumably the $43,000 included all or some portion of his seed money. Stephen, the only contestant remaining who is married with small children, spent some needed time with his family.

Brandi didn't grow her $10,000 into much more, from what we were shown. She gave $3,000 to a mother with five austic kids so that she could send them to a special summer camp. She gave $1,000 to another family whose young child nearly drowned, and survived with brain damage. $1,000 to another family. And helped a young girl with brain tumors become an honorary Sierra Vista for a day. All lovely actions in and of themselves. Yet, I felt she missed an opportunity with each family to make a bigger contribution in some way. For instance, finding out from the young mother with her five autistic kids, what would help her and her family out on a day to day level? Left to her own devices, Brandi does not meet the challenges as well as she does when she is part of a team effort. She seems scattered and reactive, rushing out to pass out money to families. She didn't even really seem to consider the directive of the challenge: find a deserving individual to make a heartfelt, mindful, fun, and uplifting impact on their life. By that criteria, even Stephen didn't meet the challenge despite his big fundraising results.

Having been setup to believe one of these three were going to be sent home, and feeling it was probably going to be Brandi, we're told the judges thought everyone did a good job, and all three contestants were being sent on to the finale. What a cop out! Yeah, I know, I've been against the whole elimination thing anyway. Still, I felt the non-elimination was disingenuous. They didn't want to send the pretty girl home, and they didn't want to send home the guy who raised a ton of money for the shelter. This is television, after all.

Here's hoping the final episode contains a challenge as clear as this one!

Pondering the Contestant Elimination Scheme

I've noticed three distinct types of Give on the show:

• The act of kindness. Simple, straightforward, action which says "here, this is for you, no strings attached." Need by the receiver may be great or non-existent. Cameron's paying $69 worth of car tolls as he drove through a tollbooth. Sheg buying groceries for everyone shopping in the store.
• Providing assistance to an individual or family in need of help. Rachael and Angelo help get a homeless woman financial help, a car, and a home. Marlene and Kim helping an injured soldier with housing and financial relief for his family.
  
• Providing institutional relief for groups that provide service to many. Brandi and Cameron getting musical instruments and a larger facility for a nonprofit with much needed upgrades. Carlana, Sheg, Kim and Rachael securing a new playground for a school in great need of one.

Possibly because of the show's time constraints, and its efforts to highlight dramatic events, volunteerism, another important form of giving, has been underrated by the show. Although there are examples such as Stephen serving food and washing dishes in a soup kitchen.

One of the show's difficulties concerns pitting different types of giving against each other in an episode. In essence, helping a dying woman reach her dream of a Carnegie Hall concert seems much more an act of kindness, especially contrasted with a dying man's need to secure his home for his family. How can you rate who "gives big" when one task is a need, the other a dream? It is not the intent of the show, I'm sure, to say one is more deserving of another. Yet it is human to discern such a difference.
In designing the show as an elimination game type show, inherent opportunities to showcase giving in its various ways and venues are missed. While the show has inspired people to take on some giving challenges (search out YouTube for examples), the chance to inspire even more people, I feel, has been missed.

It's ridiculous to eliminate any of the "contestants" because they have all contributed to someone or some cause. I would hate to think someone watching the show felt discouraged because they might have put forth the same effort as someone who was eliminated. A more enlightening, though less provocative, structure would have been to not eliminate anyone, letting all "contestants" make it through to the end of the show. Then, one of them would be declared the winner for having stepped up in the biggest ways in the preceding episodes.

Something like that. Yeah.

Whose dream?

I assume if you're reading this blog, you're watching Oprah's Big Give...if you need a recap, Oprah's website is more informative than the official site on ABC.

And so, we know in Episode 6, Rachael managed to volunteer herself to sing as part of a dying woman's dream to play piano in Carnegie Hall. She denies this, and insists Emily and the family wanted her to perform. Yet, at the first meeting with Stephen, Rachael and Emily, we're shown Rachael asking if in Emily's dream she saw anyone on stage singing with her. I never saw Emily say, "yes." I saw one of her children talk about how Emily--a lovely, beautiful woman who has cancer by the way--always played at church and often she played with the choir singing. Rachael says, in what felt to me like a very manipulative moment, "I can do that." This is the problem with being on a reality show, we see what the camera captures. Or what the show's editors what us to see. Either way, there's no denying what was presented on television, which felt like an inappropriate insertion of self into someone else's dream.

Later on in the show, we're shown Rachael in a teary moment with the family, where presumably she tries to back out because she doesn't want to interfere. Of course, the family is going to say, "there, there, don't think that way, we want you." After all, Rachael is the angel who has come forth and booked Emily at Carnegie Hall. Of course, the family is embracing Rachael. Why shouldn't they? They see all that is good in Rachael. It's the viewing audience, and her teammates who see her often grumpy, self-important portrayal.

Frankly, this being a television show, I don't know how much I'm being manipulated by the editors into "taking sides." But what's presented is all I've got to go on.

Stephen expresses his outrage, that Rachael imposed herself into the "dream," to the camera and to Brandi. Did he pull Rachael aside, once they left the family, and tell her what he thought? Or did he let it simmer awhile and confront her in a group meeting? We never saw him do so. I can only assume, then, that he didn't. Or it didn't make good television.

My hope would be that Stephen did say something. This is what I would have done, quickly and quietly, so that we could move on. Or, if I had somehow been in Rachael's shoes, I would have let my momentary weakness slide by planning event at Carnegie Hall without me on the agenda, and not make any issue of my dropping off the program. Or just sing and be done with it, again, without making issue. How can I truly be giving to someone else, if I'm making a scene about me? Perhaps this is cosmic payback for Rachael's annoyance at having to deal with Carla's feelings in Episode 3.

Rachael has a beautiful voice, and great presence on-stage. She used her talent to good effect in an earlier Give helping to raise a lot of money and support. In this Give, Rachael missed an opportunity to let someone else have a solo moment, and to appreciate all of that from the audience.

As an artist, I empathize with Rachael. Volunteering can work wonders on a career. It's my personal belief, however, that any volunteer work I do must be given freely without expectation. Otherwise, it backfires on me in someway.

And so it did on Rachael. She was sent home.

Talking about the structure

After Episode 2, my partner declared Oprah's Big Give offensive to good people everywhere. Despite her feelings, I have roped her into watching each episode with me, in order to process my own feelings about the show. Ah, what we do for love.

Her two major issues with the show are:

1. Well, the basic premise of the show, which casts acts of giving as a competition. This surprises me, because my partner is ordinarily quite competitive. But here she feels everyone on the show is a winner, because they are touching the lives of others. In her playbook, it is just plain wrong to throw anyone off the show.
   
2. The lack of deliberation shown by the trio in charge of throwing people off the show.
   

She holds up Top Chef as an example of a clearly defined, and well-made reality show. She admits that while the show is edited to highlight personality flaws and conflicts, by the end of an episode she has a very good idea of why someone has been told to "pack their knives and go." She says the only problem with the show is that she is unable to taste the food herself.

In Top Chef, the judges are shown deliberating, sometimes easily, sometimes painfully, yet always thoughtfully. Okay, Big Give is not about food on the plate, which something we can quantify quite easily. Yet sometimes the taste palate is shown as a very personal thing; one person's liking is not always another's. That's true about perceptions of, or intentions behind, charitable acts as well.

Regarding my partner's first point, I still feel the show's heart is in the right place. I believe the intention of the show is to encourage people to give in their own ways.

Regarding her second point, we're in agreement. As I've previously written, my main beef with Big Give is the complete lack of "table discussion" by the three panelists, Tony Gonzalez, Jamie Oliver, and Malaak Compton-Rock.