Watching as ‘Big Brother’ Watches Them

The Dutch were once known as great explorers, spreading their influence across the New World. If John de Mol has his way, they’re about to do so again.

As chairman of Endemol Entertainment, a sprawling production entity in the process of being acquired by Spanish telephone giant Telefonica for nearly $5 billion, De Mol, 45, takes a key step toward conquering the U.S. with the launch of “Big Brother.” Reminiscent of “The Truman Show,” only with fish who knowingly commit themselves to the fishbowl, the premise isolates 10 strangers in a house and allows us to observe their interaction--manipulated through various tasks the producers ask them to perform--for three months. Week by week, these “contestants” are gradually whittled down to a $500,000 winner.

Given the ratings success of “Survivor,” expectations regarding “Big Brother’s” commercial potential have been raised. CBS will introduce the program July 5, broadcasting it five nights a week through September. If successful, according to De Mol, a second version could be up and running six weeks after the first edition ends.

In Europe, “Big Brother’s” concept has prompted debate, including criticism from sociologists, journalists and politicians. A professor of television here was recently quoted as saying the concept is “sleazy.” Yet two CBS press conferences passed almost without comment regarding the propriety of prime-time entertainment that hinges on voyeurism and a fabricated “reality” using ordinary people as guinea pigs.

“The only rule,” CBS Television President Leslie Moonves told reporters, in a pronouncement that seems to bode ill for the notion of self-restraint, “is there are no rules.”

With that in mind, we decided to ask De Mol to delineate what ethical parameters guide this genre. Having produced high-rated versions of “Big Brother” in Holland, Germany and Spain, with more to come, he was ready with answers.

Question: The show has been controversial in other countries. Have you been surprised by the reaction here?

Answer: Yes and no. I was a little bit surprised that there was no reaction at all. On the other hand, a journalist who does his homework could find out what “Big Brother” is all about, and if you look at the Dutch version, the German version, the Spanish version, all those hostile questions are not necessary.

Q: The image you get is rats in a maze--in essence, you’re taking people and putting them in an experiment to see how they respond for our entertainment.

A: I don’t agree. It was an experiment at first in Holland. . . . While we were developing the idea for the format, we ran into so many issues where we thought, “Jesus, we have to be very careful, because if we do this the wrong way, we’re playing God.”

Every psychiatrist in Holland, asked or unasked, gave his opinion about how dangerous this could be for people. We [also] had a team of experienced psychologists advising us, telling us what to do and what not to do, talking to the people while we were casting them. . . . We took that very seriously, and we were even willing to stop the project if we felt we were doing something at any time that is going out of the limits.

Q: Would you do it?

A: If I had to participate in one of the 400 television shows we do, it would be without a second doubt “Big Brother.” . . . I would absolutely do it.

Q: Where do you see this going? There are those who see the continuum leading to public executions and gladiator fights.

A: I don’t understand that discussion. First of all, if you say that you underestimate the audience. Asking that question means you think that people who watch television are stupid, and I think they’re not. Secondly, there is an overall control system which will prevent that from happening. . . .

I am 100% sure if we would start looking for people to participate in a show where you would win $10 million, and the way to win it is we select 10 people, we put them on a plane, we give the plane 10 minutes’ fuel so you know the plane is going to crash, and there are nine parachutes aboard, I guarantee, we’ll get contestants to do it.

That’s not the issue. The issue is you won’t find a broadcaster who wants to broadcast it, and certainly Endemol is not the company that’s going to do it, because there you’re dealing with a certain responsibility which goes beyond what I think is acceptable. Our golden rule is that every person who is on a program should be able to walk on the street the next day without being ashamed.

Q: Was the first group of people even remotely prepared for the fame that followed?

A: No, but that was only the situation in Holland. They were in Germany, they were in Spain, and they will be in the United States.

Q: So it’s almost an audition for fame.

A: Yes. It is basically an audition for fame. That’s a good way of putting it. . . . The message of this new kind of genre is that normal, ordinary people turn out to be so interesting. Every person has different layers once you take the trouble to look at it.

Q: You say the audience wouldn’t be sucked into something where people were really hurt or killed. Do you have any sense it might be making viewers more numb to that?

A: If you want to go into that discussion, what about [auto racing]? Go talk to the boxing promoters. . . . I think compared to those things I just mentioned, “Big Brother” has no risk.

Q: If someone was voted out and they blew their brains out, would that make you reconsider?

A: I don’t think that would mean that the format is wrong. In [the Swedish version of] “Survivor,” that happened. . . . Two months later, when people investigated it, a number of psychiatrists [came forward] who had been treating this guy for four years. . . . He would have done it anyway, maybe six months later, because he would have found a reason to do it.

What we’re talking about is the biggest casting mistake that you can think of. [But] the same thing could happen tomorrow on “Wheel of Fortune” to a contestant [who loses] and kills himself when he walks out of the studio. Would you then stop every game show?

There’s a new generation that has grown up with television as a normal part of life. My parents and grandparents have always seen television as something from up there . . . and if you meet somebody who is on television he’s a big guy. These days, young people use television as a tool. They don’t have that respect for the medium other generations had, so they don’t have the problem revealing secrets or revealing certain feelings or things about themselves.

Q: You were criticized by politicians in Germany. How do you feel about the political discourse surrounding these shows?

A: In every democratic country that should be possible. The thing I don’t like is that politicians react mostly to [what they read in newspapers]. There is a small article in the newspaper . . . [and] based on that article, politicians start to react without knowing what’s happening.

Three politicians in the Bundestag [a house of Germany’s parliament] started talking about “Big Brother” and they didn’t know the show. They thought it was “The Jerry Springer Show,” and with all respect, I don’t think “Big Brother” has anything to do with “Jerry Springer.” . . . I don’t like “Jerry Springer,” but I repeat what Leslie Moonves said: “There are 500 channels. If you don’t like it, go away.”

Q: In terms of the dangerous examples we’ve discussed, if the answer is “If you don’t like it, go away,” isn’t there the likelihood then someone is going to do it elsewhere?

A: I can’t be responsible for what 10,000 producers all over the world will or will not do. I already see things which even to my standards--which are quite liberal--are far beyond my limits. If you look at Japanese television, I’ve seen shows physically hurting people. . . . I’ve seen people tied up in the forest for 24 hours with targets on them, and every mosquito bite they had was [worth] points. That’s really sick.

Q: Historically, American entertainment has led the world. In this trend, Europe is leading America.

A: I don’t want to be rude, but I think it’s even worse than that. Apart from the movie industry and drama series--on that you are really miles ahead, and the world will not catch up--give me one format in the last 20 years in entertainment television that has conquered the world coming from the United States. There’s not one.

Q: Why do you think that is?

A: The bigger the market, the less the responsible people in television are willing to take risks, because if the president of a network takes on a totally new program and that program is a failure, the results are [the executive gets fired].

I come from a country where we think exactly the other way around. We don’t have much to lose, so we are much more relaxed in trying new things and daring to take risks. . . .

We’ve been waiting for the right opportunity. I’ve always known there will come a moment when the American market will open--the viewers won’t take it much longer that the fall schedules are announced and you get talk show No. 289 and sitcom No. 374. People want to see something else.

*

Brian Lowry’s column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached by e-mail at brian.lowry@latimes.com.