Day 36: Favorite Juror
Survivor 39-Day Challenge
Before David from Redemption Island (2011) and Spencer from Cagayan (2014), there’s Erik from Samoa (2009), my favorite juror from the series.
If my memory serves me right, Erik’s the first juror/non-finalist to actually address the jury in his final tribal speech. Minus, of course, the jurors from the 34th season up to now as the format since has been changed. Not sure about championing for a finalist, it might have been seen from earlier seasons.
Erik’s blindside was the by-product of the mean old Galu tribe betrayal and the magic of Natalie’s social acuity. He became the first member of the jury, or the Mayor of Ponderosa as what they usually call it in RHAP. Erik was able to see everything unfold, vote after vote, all throughout the merge. He was ecstatic that the Galu tribe was dismantled one after another.
Being able to witness the comeback of the Foa Foa foursome, he was able to make sense of that alliance’s narrative which everyone probably was privy of. Since Russell was in the forefront of that alliance making flashy moves left and right, he was the most visible of the foursome. However, Erik saw through this, and figured out there’s another layer to their story.
At the final tribal council, the narrative Erik already had fit perfectly to the narrative being presented by the Final 3 of Mick, Natalie, and Russell. It became easy for Erik to address the Final 3 and eloquently translate what should be the reality of the whole situation: Mick having delusional entitlement, Russell being arrogant, and Natalie being the silent assassin that she really was.
Natalie, people will call you weak. People will say that you’re undeserving. But you know what? Why are those characteristics any less “admirable” as lying, cheating, and stealing? […] You are sitting there and that makes you just as dangerous as any one of those guys there. You would say that you’re probably the least deserving of the title of Sole Survivor. But maybe, just maybe, in a world full of arrogance [and] delusional entitlement, maybe the person who thinks that she’s least deserving is probably the most.
What I loved the most about this speech was how he managed to dismantle Russell’s ego (and to some extent Mick’s), thinking or knowing he had the upper hand against Natalie. At the same time, he was able to address the jury and smashed their current perception of this Final 3. Perhaps, it was already in some of the jury’s minds and they’re going to vote for Natalie, but Erik’s monologue solidified such stance.
In retrospect anyway, Russell truly lacked that social acumen that would make him a contender for the win. I take offense on people saying Erik was just bitter and would vote for the person with whom he’s least insecure, meaning he would never vote for Russell nor Mick. But, people also often associate his blindside to Natalie’s social prowess, being able to read the Galu accurately and taking advantage of such crack aka Erik’s not that popular with the tribe. So, most probably, this is game recognizing game. And it’s a legit criterion for jurors especially in modern Survivor: whoever actually made the move to get me out gets my million-dollar vote.
Erik was able to succinctly tackle the subtlety of a quiet game (call it whatever like coattail riding, I don’t care), and how it is a legitimate winning game. But since most viewers still looks at Survivor as just a TV show, they expect spectacle, some flash, some show, and it often is mixed up with good gameplay. Erik just shut the door so hard on that perception.
Sadly, quiet gameplays are still often dismissed even by the people on the jury themselves, especially in modern Survivor where Big Movez™ are a must in order to win. So, having a juror like Erik is truly crucial.
Runner-up: Candice W. Cody, Survivor: Cook Islands & Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains
