Resolved: Punk'd is a fair measure of character

Lately I’ve had occasion to view a number of clips from the Ashton Kutcher show Punk’d. Like “Candid Camera,” back in the day, “Punk’d” creates humorous or stressful situations that are captured on hidden camera. Unlike CC, which targeted ordinary folks-on-the-street, Punk’d targets celebs, typically by enlisting a friend or trusted business associate of the celebrity to lure the unsuspecting target into the situation.

I find it interesting to watch how people respond, much as I found “Candid Camera” interesting. Because Punk’d targets recognizeable people, though, it gives rise to this proposition: it can be a reasonably good window into the character of the target.

I suppose Candid Camera might have been as well, but since the people were not anyone you knew or would encounter again, revelations about their character (or lack thereof) were not particularly important.

Example: Michelle Trachtenberg was on the show. The accomplice and she drove into a parking garage, and she was asked to hop out and make sure the SUV they were driving could fit under some pipes. There was plenty of clearance, so Michelle hopped back in and the car moved forward, at which point the rigged pipes fell onto the car’s roof and started spewing water, as though the car had broken them. Despite being visibly upset, Trachtenberg was apologetic and kept her cool even when the parking attendant and the security guard (both shills) screamed at her and tried to goad her into a reaction. She kept to the truth of what happened, acknowledging she must have made a mistake, and I thought she acquitted herself well.

Example: Michelle Rodriguez was with her friend/show accomplice in a convenience store when he manuevers her into playfully punching at him. He staggers backwards and hits a shelf, which instantly falls over and percipitates a chain reaction of shelves falling, pinning a “customer” under the last one. Rodriguez immediately tries to foist blame elsewhere, denying that she did anything whatsoever to cause the accident. Her heated denials in the face of what the audience had just seen moments ago made her look like… well, like quite a punk, I guess.

Example: Avril Lavgine parked in a commercial garage and left to shop. Moments later, the Punk’d crew put up a “Reserved For” sign and parked a car directly behind Lavigne’s. Her ire at the blocking car’s driver was deflated a bit when the driver returned and pointed out that Lavgine was in HER reserved spot, then left saying Lavigne would just have to wait for her to finish. After the angry driver leaves, a parking lot attendant suggests to Lavigne that they can simply roll the car out of the way. Tiny though she is, Lavigne puts her shoulder into the work, but is terrified to see the car roll out of control and down a slight slope and crash into an electric transformer, which showers sparks all over the car (and knocks over a motorcycle nearby). When the angry motorcycle and car owners show up to complain, Lavgine casts all the blame of the attendant, vehemently denying she had anything to do with the disaster. The show re-plays a clip of Lavigne pushing the car over her voice saying she had done nothing at all.

I think the willingness to tell the truth – or, if afraid of admitting liability when such admission could have financial consequences, simply remaining non-committal but not lying – in these situations is a mark of good character, and I think the instant willingness to lie to deflect blame away from yourself is a mark of poor character. I think these are fair inferences to draw from what we see on Punk’d.

Am I right?

As long as they show an equal proportion of redeeming characters to punks I think it’s pertty cool. I have a concern that a sorta similar show “Cheaters” tended to omit episodes in which the accused was not up to mischief. That sort of thing tends to make you sour on humanity…or something.

But, um…yeah. How someone reacts under pressure is a good indicator of their true character. And even they themselves might be surprised at what they do.

I recall the episode with Danny Masterson (Hyde from That 70’s Show) and the way he acts when they pull the pranks on him and I was remarkably impressed by his character. Until something happens to prove otherwise, my mind will always connect Danny Masterson-Stand Up Guy.

I always remember the line from The Magnificent Seven:

CHRIS ADAMS: You forget one thing. We took a contract.
VIN : It’s sure not the kind any court would enforce.
CHRIS: That’s just the kind you’ve got to keep.

How you behave under pressure is EXACTLY the sort of indicator of true character I’m talking about.

IF something approaching 90% of the footage shot of the victim’s reaction is actually aired, then I agree.

If, OTOH, it’s like most “reality” shows, then only about 2% of the reaction is shown, and editing can do a LOT of damage (or repair) to a reputation. I personally know one individual who was on a reality show, and she came off FAR worse behaved than I can ever fathom her being in person, and when she explained all the stuff they cut out, her actions made perfect sense. Not only cut out, but rearranged, so it seemed like some of her heated responses were to things that she wasn’t even aware of, or even hadn’t happened yet!

I’ll admit I’ve never seen the show, but a video clip of when they Punk’d Dirk Nowitzki made the rounds a year or so ago. If we’re using that show to judge character then Dirk came across as a pretty good guy there.

Of course Punk’D should not be considered trustworthy. How easy would it be for some of these people to be tipped off by the “insider” and then either go on a rampage(a la Avril) to get their names in the news again? It would also be easy to set up a “warm ‘n’ fuzzy” if you knew ahead of time what was really happening.

In short, like everything on TV, I don’t think Punk’D is inherently fair unless you believe everything they tell you about that the footage and setups being genuine. A long stretch IMHO.

Enjoy,
Steven

What does watching a show like “Punk’d” say about one’s character, I wonder?

I should have just turned around, walked out of the office, gone home and gone back to bed this morning when I sent the first fax of the day face-down so I transmitted the back(and therefore blank) sides of the pages. It’s just been that kind of Monday. Sorry about the mangled sentences in my prior post.

Enjoy,
Steven

Sorry, but in my book “Stand Up Guy” and “Scientologist” are mutually exclusive categories.

Is the target asked to sign a release before or after the event?

Guess i should also do the OP the courtesy of answering his question.

I think this is true.

I don’t think this necessarily follows, especially since there are occasions on Punk’d when the victim—quite rightly—might be convinced that he or she has done nothing wrong.

While the Avril Lavigne case described in the OP does demonstrate some lack of character on her part (and i reaaaally dislike Avril Lavigne, so i have no problem there), it is also possible that she reacted to a stressful situation in which she was convinced that there had, in fact, been no reserved sign in the parking space when she arrived.

Personally, i think that if the show tells us about anyone’s poor character, it’s that of Ashton Kutcher and the production team, who repeatedly lie to people and place them in stressful situations for their own amusement and profit.

I watched a couple of episodes during the first season or two of Punk’d and it absolutely sickened me. I avoid it like the plague now because of the way those silver spoon assholes acted on that show. I never saw the Avril or Michelle Rodriguez episodes but that’s pretty much how I remember almost everyone reacting.

The only person I remember acting like a real human being was Mandy Moore. She’s awesome in my book for standing out where so many of her peers failed.

I dunno I’d go that far, but it’s definitely not the type of practical joke humor I like; I far prefer the silliness of something like Trigger Happy. I agree that the show says more about Kutcher’s character than it does about its victims, inasmuch as the victims’ responses can be so heavily edited.

Daniel

There have been a couple of cases where filmed pranks could not be used because the target refused to sign a release.

Because the targets are celebs with their own access to media, I don’t accept the idea that heavy editing – editing that dramatically changes the scene to the detriment of the target – happens. If it did, we’d hear about it. This is different from the usual reality show fare, where the people have no independent access to publicity.

I hate shows like Punk’d.

Which one of us would volunteer to be “punk’d” and have our reactions broadcast to the world? Not me!

I know Michelle Rodriguez is well-known for being “bad”, but I can’t say–based on your description–that her reaction fully exemplifies that judgement. I mean, say I give you a playful, very gentle push–the kind that wouldn’t push a feather off a table–and you go flying backwards like I just head-butted you? Why would it be my fault if all the shelves went crashing down? Why would I need to apologize for chumming around with you, especially when it was YOU who initiated the punching game and YOU who decided to flail around like a no-balance-having muppet?

Also, I would feel that it was irresponsible for the store owner to allow such “weak” shelving. It’s not normal for shelves to just topple over so easily.

So while I would feel guilty and I would do my best to help the victim and clean up the mess, I would only admit partial responsibility. If people were like, “ooh, monstro, you’re in trou-bbbble!”, my response would be, “This was an unfortunate incident, but I can’t take all the blame.” That’s what I would say on a good day. If such a prank happened on a bad day, I’d probably be more like: “Hell to the naw! Ya’ll ain’t laying all the blame on me! Ya’ll saw that punch I threw! It wasn’t big enough to cause all this shit!”

And I would most certainly come out looking like a bad guy.

If Punk’d created less “over-the-top” scenarios–ones designed to elicit specific reactions–and more realistic ones (like the ethical quandries people encounter on a regular basis), then I would say the show is an accurate measure of character. But none of us are prepared for the shit they have on that show. We don’t know how we would really react.

Myself, I am just opposed out of principle to pranking anyone with staged accidents. Be that a celebrity or Joe Schmo. People have a right to assume they are living in reality. Were I a celeb, I’d be useless to this show for I’d refuse to sign the release regardless of how nobly I acquitted myself.

Let no one mistake my thesis for an admiration of the show’s premise – I agree it’s cruel and mean to do what they do.

But I stillo contend that the reactions they elicit ared valid evidence for the character of those people being tested…

I’m no particular fan of Lavigne myself, but I would tend to think celebrities such as herself have things to be concerned about in these kinds of situations that most of us don’t. Where you or I may admit culpability in similar, relatively harmless circumstances, celebrities have to be concerned about paparazzi, lawsuits, publicity, and the possible effect upon their careers that these kinds of situations can create. Further, even if no real harmful effect could reasonably be expected to result from that specific situation, they may well be so used to going through life in cover-your-ass mode that they just react that way automatically.

So while I still think it would be a sign of greater character to admit one’s culpability in these kinds of situations, I think that the motivation for celebrities to try to avoid harmful or troublesome repercussions that most of us would never be subjected to under the same circumstances mitigates their apparent lack of character somewhat.

Oh now come on.

The Scientologist authority structure is apparently very corrupt. But individual Scientology members/victims? Why should we say there’s anything morally deficient about them just because they’re Scientologists?

Anyway, I guess lets not hijack the thread, but still…

-FrL-