[mysterious music fades in]
Alex Horne and Greg Davies deserve a place alongside the greats of Existentialist Philosophy, for their television show Taskmaster.
GREG: Hey, explore this a bit more
According to Camus, “Judging whether life is or is not worth living is the fundamental question of Philosophy”.
“Erm, can I call you back in like five minutes?”
Five years and many episodes ago, Taskmaster, intentionally or not, began tackling Sartre and Kierkegaard, and giving a practical guide to confronting Camus’ fundamental question.
“I don’t get it”
Taskmaster offers something incredibly powerful and useful. A practical demonstration of how to live your own answer in the face of an existential crisis, in the face of the absurd
GREG: We’ve learnt that life can be cruel
“I’m ready for the party”
Each series of Taskmaster features 5 comedians being given tasks to complete by the Taskmaster. Most attempts are recorded separately so each contestant doesn’t know how or what the others did
“oh man oh man you’re kidding me”
Their efforts are judged by the Taskmaster
GREG: Really well done, last place so far
and given points that go towards winning an episode and ultimately the series
GREG: The overall winner will lift it high above their head
If the tasks were simply “throw a ball the furthest” then the task would be clear, the judging would be more or less objective and making the contestants wear an inflatable sumo costume might add comedy
GREG: is it what taskmaster’s about?
but a masterpiece of existentialist philosophy it would not be.
[music fades out]
ALEX: Ok, fine [applause]
GREG: Ok, great, next task ALEX: Ok here is the first main task
Tasks, even with simple instructions, are rarely simple.
“Move the water from bucket A to bucket B”
Tools and items provided to help complete tasks are often far from helpful
GREG: a wonderful collection of rubbish to help them move the water
“What have I got? A sieve…”
ALEX: Yup, wooly hat, colander, bag of peas with holes, a tray, a string bag, cellotape and a coconut
“what’re the peas for?”
and many contestants are slow to realise that they aren’t the only things that they could use. Watching the tasks back it suddenly becomes clear and obvious what mistakes have been made.
GREG: loads of things that are clearly useless for moving water, these are intelligent people they won’t try and use them right? [laughter]
Breaking the rules is not a great idea
GREG: Have you cheated? “might have done” [laughter]
ALEX: We did, err, film it [laughter]
Then again sometimes the rules on the task aren’t that important to the taskmaster
“Why is the commentary that he was doing no longer a necessary part of the task although it was written on the card?” [laughter]
GREG: It’s not point worthy, so, f?!&ing leave it [laughter]
GREG: Is Richard Osman a genius, or, should that not be allowed?
And quite often bending the rules actually pays off
GREG: and Richard Osman used his imagination so as far as I’m concerned he wins that task!
And although all the rules are written on the task they have occasionally not been written on the front of the task.
[groans] [laughter] [applause]
But more than just an emergent property of a task, this painful desire for hindsight is sometimes built in.
“Make the most exotic sandwich” “Maybe fillings that have never been seen in a sandwich before”
Compound tasks, where the contestants' efforts for a first task, are then fed into a surprise second task leaving the contestants wishing they had made very different choices back at the start.
ALEX: Can I give you this as well Mel? To say thank you? “Is that for me? Thank you.”
“Eat your exotic sandwich Fastest wins” [laughter] [applause]
As Kierkegaard put it “life can only be understood backwards but has to be lived forwards”.
On more than one occasion a contestant has been asked to do a task contestants other contestant were not asked to do. They didn’t know that at the time though.
“Was I the only one that had to do this?” GREG & ALEX: Ohhh Yesss [laughter]
And these tasks weren’t particularly small ones either.
“Nobody else was doing it?” ALEX: Nope
“This task, this task, has overshadowed five months of my life!” [laugher]
But at least they get some points for them, right?
ALEX: Are you going to give him a point? You asked him to do 150 he did 148
GREG: Oh, then I can give him no points [groans] [laughter]
Seeing Mark here, we cannot help but empathise with his sheer disbelief that so much effort can count for nothing.
“If I look back on this calendar year, it’s one of the major things I’ve done with it” [laughter]
Borrowing from Kierkegaard, complete a task with strict adherence to the rules and you will regret it, complete a task while bending or breaking the rules and you will regret it, don’t complete a task and you will regret it, complete a task and you will regret it.
As such, the only thing to do with a task is whatever you want to do.
GREG: What a terrible waste of time [laughter] GREG: That is awful (sarcastic tone)
Contestants are free. Not just free to complete the task however they wish within its rules.
We have seen they are free to bend the rules, think laterally, break and even ignore the rules; though nothing is a guarantee of points.
“again ambition did not quite match result”
Contestants are also free to choose from task to task, if they care most points, or enjoying themselves, or being entertaining or something completely different.
ALEX: She did say before she started ‘I want to blow the Taskmaster’s tiny mind’, here we go… [laughter]
But, I don’t think these freedoms alone are enough to give them the freedom Sartre spoke of. They are still playing the part of contestants on a game show.
Their essential natures as contestants, doing the tasks asked of them, poorly or not, is their preordained path. No? But contestants on Taskmaster are free to refuse to do the task at all.
“I’m not going to eat the egg, bad sportsmanship but I’m not going to eat the egg” ALEX: thats fair enough
A contestant on a game show, could refuse to take part in a game in any shape or form, and would still continue to be on the show, to exist on the show. It is a genuine choice.
“Alright… Bye… I might just not come back but I’ll have a look” ALEX: Ok then
Even on the level of “contestant”, as Sartre said, existence precedes essence.
GREG: Right, let’s press on
ALEX: Today we’ve asked them to bring in their most surprising picture of themselves GREG: Surprising
ALEX: Whoever wins the whole show will win five surprising pictures to take home, so that’s brilliant!
GREG: Yeah, that’s, that’s motivation isn’t it? (sarcastic tone)
The prizes for winning an episode are perhaps not the most compelling raison d’être.
GREG: Go up and collect your documents [applause]
And though some prizes are better than others, contestants take on most Tasks without even knowing what the prizes will be. Then again, they do know the prize for winning a whole series.
GREG: Before too long, one of them will take home the whole reason for being here. Me! In Head Form!
Because I’m a little scared of Greg Davies, I’ll let you judge if a contestant would see Greg’s golden head as a compelling reason for being.
Perhaps winning the show will further a contestant’s career which would place meaning in a sort of post-show afterlife. But last place may get just as much attention as first.
GREG: Really well done, last place so far
Surely winning is the objective meaning of life as a contestant? But we have already seen that contestants don’t have to even compete. And completing a task does not necessarily mean you get any points.
GREG: I was gonna put Jon in first place, until he started looking at me like that.
The Taskmaster doesn’t have to obey any rules in judging.
GREG: It doesn’t work like that, this isn’t the good samaritan.
We make the rules Sausage Gloves!” [laughter]
A social contract of sorts means Greg generally applies vaguely coherent criteria to awarding points, but it is still totally subjective.
GREG: How many minutes do we add for him insulting the Taskmaster’s assistant?
Rulings are harsh
“Please don’t take it away from me” [laughter]
Sometimes very harsh
GREG: and that’s a really impassioned and eloquent argument, but it makes me more inclined to take it off him”
and if he wanted to he could award no points to all 5 contestants for a task.
GREG: If you want to ALEX: If you want to GREG: Yeah yeah, and we do want to [laughter]
Yes, contestants presumably get paid to appear on the show, so perhaps the meaning of life as a contestant simply comes down to that. But that doesn’t explain hometasking.
Shortly after lockdown for Covid-19 started in the UK, Alex Horne announced the start of…
And the results were spectacular. [dramatic music fades in and builds]
It was not long before the minute video entries were cut down to 20s max because of the sheer volume of entries.
Putting together the Montages had been predicted to take a few hours, but that was extended to overnight, then to a couple of days.
Participants created their own meaning, enjoying each other’s efforts and forming friendship groups to the point of international collaborations between different families to complete tasks.
And this lasted for months.
20 official tasks in total and a charity bonus task, and you can claim that the points, or Greg judging your videos was a reason for joining in
but for so many participants including myself, despite being given no points and never having got onto the montage [music fades]
We kept on going. We loved it.
[howling wind noise]
[muffled screams]
GREG: Revel in the glory of being brilliant at a completely pointless activity
GREG: And what have we learnt today? Well, we’ve learnt that life can be cruel
In the Myth of Sysiphus, Camus calls on the story of the King condemned by the Ancient Greek Gods.
to push a rock to the top of a mountain, but each time it rolls back down before he can reach the peak.
[uplifting music fades in]
Camus said that when one thinks of Sysiphus pushing his boulder up the mountain only to see it roll back down, “The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart.”
When we remember Mel trying to push a gigantic beach ball over a concrete wall, we must imagine her “happy”.
In Taskmaster, Alex Horne shows us how, in the face of points without any point to them, tasks that may or may not be tasks, and rules that are only illusions of rules
How we can keep going. And more than that, demonstrates clearly and wonderfully how it can still be joyous, exciting and beautiful.
All the information is on the task.
“What’re the peas for?
[music fades out]
GREG: Look how pleased he is with himself [laughs] ALEX: I did a thing, and he liked it. GREG: He did a thing.