Naked and Afraid

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.

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.

I generally don't watch reality shows, but at the urging of a friend, tuned into this one with my wife, and got hooked. The premise is a man and a woman who don't know previously know each other are injected into a hostile or challenging environment with only a single tool of their choice each and with no clothes and must survive for 21 days. The challenges are (in the approximate order of criticality); get acquainted and establish a cooperative relationship; build a fire; acquire potable water; build a shelter; survive off native plants until you can acquire protein by fishing and hunting; avoid dangerous animals and exposure; be productive with your partner by emphasizing strengths and minimizing weaknesses. Then there is basically realizing that successful survivalism (i.e. surviving", means not making any mistakes (like letting your fire go out or burn down your shelter, or chopping your finger with a machete or drinking bad water and getting dysentery). Further, it helps to be lucky -- if possible avoid bad storms, flash floods, etc. If you like problem-solving; if you like the outdoors and have a respect for real nature; if you are fascinated by observing human nature under stress, you will probably enjoy this show. I've watched five programs to date, and quickly noticed the people selected are all "well-nourished" as coroners used to say -- not fat, but not thin. Every participant is faced with the huge challenge of trying to get enough calories to get by, and we quickly learn what a huge disadvantage most modern humans are at when they do not have tools or their culture to rely upon. The average weight loss among the ten people so far be roughly 30 lbs in 21 days, and it's easy to see the toll of stress and anxiety on the participants.

I liked this show for a couple of seasons. The blurred-out bodies are a little silly (America, the land of the prudes), but you get used to it, and there is something fascinating about people undergoing these remarkably grueling expeditions without even clothes. It makes you realize how important clothing is in a hostile environment, especially shoes.

But the main thing I think when I watched was, these people are out of their minds. I understand wanting to be on Survivor. It's tough, but you've got a chance at a ton of money and celebrityhood, you get interesting challenges and rewards, and it's scenic. But in N&A people are just suffering. Some of the shows are set where even ancient natives wouldn't have been willing to settle, like the Louisiana swamps. These people go out to terrible places, knowing they might not have food and water for days, knowing they'll have no protection from the elements, and I'm sure they don't get a million dollars or even get that famous, considering it's the Discovery channel. (Although those who teach survival skills might see it as a way to gain students.

Admittedly, some of these people clearly weren't prepared for how terrible it was going to be, and some are good enough at surviving that they actually seem to manage pretty well, but still, these people are insane. One guy even said he'd like to come back and do it again!

Also, admittedly it's probably all exaggerated. Reality TV is known for creating a false narrative and exaggerated drama. And the series is, unfortunately a little too focused on reality-show drama, with too many random shots of dangerous beasts and played-up drama.

Overall though, I found it entertaining for a couple of seasons. But after that it was just the same thing over and over. Still, it's worth checking out if you like reality shows.

There's something rotten in Denmark.

I'm guessing just like HGTV with their unemployed people with hundreds kf thousands in the bank to buy or renovate a huge house.

These are supposed to be survival experts yet they suffer horrendously while the camera man is like there it is a freaking antelope & you missed it.

Then there's youtube & the guy has shorts & nothing else & build a house with an indoor pool.

My theory is the producers think we all want to watch misery &suffering I'd rather see someone with skills & talent rock this without malnutrition. We aren't all psychopaths that only enjoy suffering.

Show us their skill for a change.