Retour à l'instinct primaire

I never watched this program until this year (2015) and I found myself "binge watching" most of the episodes over a couple of weekends. The show is like eating potato chips. You can't watch just one, so if you are DVR-ing, you will probably do what I did and watch perhaps four in a sitting. But I'm a skeptic, and when you watch a bunch of these in one sitting, certain patterns emerge. There's more to this show than meets the eye. In three of the episodes that I watched this weekend, someone conveniently finds an old metal pot, which is interesting because it doesn't make sense that a pot would just magically appear, like the holy grail, in the snake-infested muck of a Louisiana bayou, or in an alligator-infested river in Botswana? If you don't have access to potable water, you're not going to make it to 21 days and this is an expensive production. "Look at that! A pot! I can't believe it! Now we can boil water!" Also, it seems each person can only bring one tool for the trip, which in most cases is a knife and a fire starter. (Lol, how odd that they NEVER each bring the same thing, like, "Darn, I brought a fire starter too!! Now what are we going to do?") And while it is fun to see the scary animals lurking in the bushes, you will never see a shot of a lion or hyena in the same frame as the people. Hyenas are opportunistic feeders who select the easiest and most attractive food. Are you telling me that these two naked and unarmed humans would not be a tasty snack? How dangerous are these places, for real? Is there actually a resort a few yards away that you can't see? I mean, really, would the producers spend all that money on one episode, only to leave the participants in their little shelters at night, with no protection, and go back to their cozy campsite, only to return in the morning to find that they'd been devoured by a lion? I don't think so. I could pull off a version of this show in my own back yard, sit naked in a patch of trees between my house and my neighbor's for 21 days, digging a hole for water and catching termites, grasshoppers and squirrels to eat. You would never know my house was 20 feet in front of me. But I do like this show. In fact, I am giving it a 6 out of 10. In addition to being entertaining, it is educational and actually a fascinating concept. You can learn a lot about survival techniques from this show, and the scenery is beautiful. I just think you have to keep an open mind and take it for what it is, or isn't.

If you're looking for a show with a tight focus on bushcraft, and on the grittier details of what it takes to survive inhospitable conditions, Naked and Afraid may not be for you.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a bombastic gameshow about pretty people politicking to outlast one another on a deserted island, again, not for you.

Naked and Afraid lies somewhere in the middle of these concepts. There's quite a bit of social drama and some "gameshow" like feel, while survivalism methods are there, but given short shrift. Disclaimer: I've only watched the first season at this point.

It's probably true that in order to find a large enough mainstream audience, a show like this has to appeal to the "everyday person" who's more likely to respond to the social drama than the finer points of wilderness survival. Even on a channel such as Discovery. I don't mind the social drama, but I'd love just a little more on the latter.

I'm also curious about the making of the show itself. What sort of rules are there, filming in territories like these? How is waste dealt with? Can the survivalists just poop and pee anywhere? Are they doing any sort of bathing? What kind of hygiene practices are possible? To what extent are the survivalists tasked with their own photography? What's it like to have a camera crew show up each day and put a camera in your face? Does it make the experience feel surreal?

The editing of the footage seems to shape the social tension. The couple isn't getting along at first? But later there's a moment of reconciliation? Story arc!

It also manufactures environmental drama where it doesn't really exist. The tide is starting to come in while the group is on the beach? Quick -- intensify the music, insert a sound clip of someone's *censored* curse word, and cut to commercial!

What -- the wild boars the couple were afraid of never show up? How about the thorn in the bottom of that guy's foot -- can we see it again and again and again?

I know, it's a TV show, and you need to get people to stick around through the commercial breaks. But still.

One last gripe: the "PSR" -- Personal Survival Rating -- is half interesting concept, half obvious gimmick to give the viewer some simple concept to grasp. An overly simple metric. "Experience," "Skill," and "Mental." Wait -- Mental?? The first two words are nouns, but mental is an adjective. Anyway...

These pedantic criticisms aside, I've kept watching, and will continue to do so. Seeing people naked in these situations is especially engrossing. And while some of the social drama feels contrived, and while certain items mysterious appear that will help the contestants meet their needs (a battered sauce pot appears in a swamp perfect for boiling water; a long rod of bamboo washes up on a beach, perfect for constructing the raft needed to reach an extraction point on an island), it's nevertheless enthralling to watch people go through this. Part schadenfreude, maybe, but part compassion. Something is driving these individuals, something that seems less like exhibition or competitiveness, but some unresolved trauma.

Not all of them are there processing their demons, no. But Shane, from the first episode, clearly has unresolved trauma from being a foster child. He's acerbic and angry almost the entire time.

Forrest, on the other hand, from the "double jeopardy" episode (currently IMDb lists it as the final episode of season one, while on Prime it's the first of season two; at any rate, the most recent one I've watched) -- he seems like a genuine survival enthusiast eager to ply his skills.

In fact, Forrest wins, in my humble opinion, as one of the most capable survivalists. Joined perhaps by Billy, from the Louisiana episode.

For the women, that distinction has to go to Manu ("double jeopardy") and Ky Furneaux ("beware the bayou").

Oh, one last thing -- not all of the environments seem as inhospitable. The Maldives are hot and that dude gets braised like a chicken, but it's the Louisiana bayou, or maybe Panama, that feel like a whole other league. (Manu, I hope wherever you are, you've fully recovered...)

7/10.

My rating is generous but I would like to encourage the producers to improve the show.

The participants are generally under-prepared and easily overwhelmed. Many claim to have survival skills but these amount to no more than camping skills.

Some claim to be hunters but take away the weaponry and they go hungry.

Most are also overweight the wrong way, that is, they didn't pile up the fat to endure hunger. They are overeaters that collapse when their poor diet changes.

The producers also feel the need to create a degree of controversy and the participants are pushed (in some case, possibly eager) to share their social theories of gender. Needless to say, these are infantile and in no way explain anyone's actions, not even their very own.

To add insult to injury, the producers are selecting people with a high need for approval and acceptance. Some are good folk, true, but that's really besides the point.

This does not make for good TV.

I gave this series 6 / 10 stars because the basic premise is fascinating ; "Let's see if modern humans can survive under precisely the same conditions that our prehistoric ancestors faced" - and also - because I really do think that it is useful in educating others on the importance of learning how to survive and make it in the absence of a grocery store or an iphone. After watching nearly all of the episodes in the series (because it clearly "seems" to have more redeeming social and academic value than CBS television's "Survivor" reality game show, and because a certain measure of voyeurism is completely natural) - I have noticed a rather statistically unacceptable trend in this exercise. Of all of the "Adams and Eves" that they have released nude into harshness, so far - ALL of the men have been failures at this exercise - as well as occasionally behaving in ways reminiscent of wimps, cry babies, klutzes, pompous braggers, and dullards - where - despite supposedly having extensive survival training and experience - they have nonetheless been totally faced, owned, out survived, and left behind by their female counterparts.

Although obviously there are vast numbers of strong, powerful women out there who could probably survive in a jungle as successfully as Donald Trump can turn over real estate - I find it hard to believe - given human history, that they (men) could come out looking this pathetic - this often - in comparison to their female counterparts. Don't get me wrong - I am, in fact, NOT a Neanderthal - but with apologies to all radical, militant, man hating, ultrafeminist, penis envying neurotics out there - history didn't turn out this way. Sorry to some of you ladies (and some of you gentlemen as well - sadly) if I have offended you personally by being a tad bit factual.

This seems to me to be yet another male bashing campaign, like the animated works of Seth Mcfarlane and Matt Groenig (who are ironically men - go figure - their shows are still funny though), and almost every situation comedy made after the close of the Norman Lear era of Television. This "experiment" seems so totally rigged and stacked - that it feels like loaded dice in a back alley craps game. As a male - I can't help but feel like I'm watching my gender get slammed yet again.

This program seems like militant feminist propaganda. It reinforces a viewpoint that we men are all childish idiots - or at least weaker and less capable, therefore inferior. Either that - or casting must be getting their male participants from areas where no one's ever heard of a football, or the ground water is seriously tainted.

Maybe future episodes will be more even keeled and balanced - but in a way - I seriously doubt it.

This show is about survival in the wild. Two unrelated contestants--one male, one female--are deposited in a natural setting where they try to survive for 21 days. Each person is permitted to bring one item with him (e.g. a machete), so it is not a truly unaided survival, but it is very close. There is little interference from the crew of the show.

I have watched three episodes so far. In each case, the environments were harsh. The hazards ranged from biting insects or wild boar to days of rain or shark-infested waters. So far, no one has had an easy time of it.

As you watch the show, it is impossible not to project yourself into the situation. This is a real, human drama that anyone could relate to.

Some viewers see gender politics in the show. It is natural to make comparisons between the partners, but it is more satisfying to view the contestants as individuals. Each is given a Primitive Survival Rating at the beginning of the show--based upon skills, experience and mental makeup--and their is no component for gender. At the end of the show, their ratings are updated, based upon new skills learned and the strengths and weaknesses revealed.

As we watch the show, we learn. Time (daylight) is a resource many do not measure. It must be used effectively. Other primary values are water, food and fire. The primitive environment is hostile. Even the sun can be an enemy. Each environment has its own set of threats--and that is one reason this show is interesting. Each team must evaluate its distinctive environment and quickly react to its threats and resources. In the early hours of each adventure, the smart survivalist benefits from a healthy dose of fear.