Kid Nation

Marisa LaScala

At the outset, it looked like there was no hope for a kid hamlet, let alone a nation.

Kid Nation

Airtime: Wednesdays, 8pm ET
Cast: Jonathan Karsh
MPAA rating: N/A
Subtitle: Series Premiere
Network: CBS
US release date: 2007-09-20

Kid Nation bills itself as a high-minded social experiment. Can a crowd of teens and preteens create a viable "society" in a New Mexican ghost town established and abandoned by pioneers years earlier? CBS rounded up a diverse mix of youngsters, aged eight to 15, then dropped them in the wilderness to fend for themselves and find out if kids could succeed where adults could not.

At the outset, it looked like there was no hope for a kid hamlet, let alone a nation. "I think I'm going to die out here," said moon-faced Jimmy, one of the show's youngest participants. When the players arrived at "Bonanza City," the place was chaos. Nobody knew where to go or what to do. There was only one outhouse for 40 kids. They had to cook for themselves, at which point they discovered you have to wait for water to boil before putting in the pasta. When they realized they have to sleep on dusty mattresses in dirty bunkhouses, a few started to cry and talked about going home. Mike, one of the four designated leaders, tried to organize a "town meeting." The kids were too tired and hungry, so they went to sleep instead.

When the sun rose the next day, it became clear that CBS stacked the deck against the kids that first night. After one night of total mayhem, host Jonathan Karsh rode in and became the new "sheriff in town." Using one loud bell, he called a meeting, his authority unquestioned. He explained the rules: the kids are divided into four teams to compete in a series of challenges for social standing. The first-place team becomes the upper class, earns a salary of one dollar, and has no specific chores; the last-place team becomes the laborers and has to haul water and clean outhouses for only two nickels.

Why would the kids of "Bonanza City" need nickels, anyway?

Karsh then unveiled shops full of treats, where the kids could buy candy, root beer, dark chocolate, Shakespearean plays, an old-fashioned bicycle. One shop even held tools that could help the kids in their day-to-day chores. It was a cruel trick, withholding these items when the kids were at their most confused, disorganized, and homesick. The revelation immediately changed the show's tone and apparent goal. Now we saw that it's not about kids working together to forge a "society." Instead, it's about kids being sorted into groups competing with each other over cash and social standing assigned by adults. That's not innovative. It's just like the public school system.

The kids embraced this familiar structure, taking on the roles of the upper class, merchants, cooks, and laborers. On the previous day, no one could figure out how to boil water, the youngest team suddenly learned how to whip up oatmeal, grits, and biscuits. Now everyone enjoyed the prize awarded to all teams completing the previous day's challenge in under an hour: seven new outhouses (the team leaders had a choice between the outhouses or a television set). Whereas lots of children contemplated quitting on that first, disorganized night, in the end, only one elected to go home. And so it appears that Kid Nation does not mean to find out whether kids can do what adults could not. It means instead to demonstrate that these kids really would die without the intervention of adults.

In case you doubted Kid Nation's capitalist basis -- even after seeing Sophia dance for nickels so she could buy the bicycle -- you're provided with another twist. In each episode, a hardworking player is awarded a solid gold star worth $20,000. To hell with nickel root beer! The gold star does not help the children with their labor and does not provide any more comforts for the community. It's just money for one individual. And training for future Survivor contestants.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.