Some of the biggest moments this week on Big Brother 19 were when things didn’t go to plan. Houseguests ignored the Tree of Temptation twist, Matthew left us wondering what he was even doing there, and then when it came to being a Have-Not, Matthew demonstrated that’s really more of an optional part of the game.
We got the chance again this week to ask Big Brother’s executive producer, Allison Grodner about those aspects of last week’s game and she willingly admitted some of the behavior she saw was just as surprising to her. Read on for what she had to say.
Big Brother Network: No one touched the Tree of Temptation! I can’t remember a twist ever being shunned like that. Are there any potential extra incentives or bait for this twist in its final week should things look like a repeat of last week?
Allison Grodner: The unique thing about the temptation twist is that a houseguest could choose to be tempted or they could choose not to be tempted. We always knew that there was a chance a temptation would not be taken and that the story around that could be just as interesting. The dynamic of the house at this point is that no one wants to take the apple for fear of getting a bad apple or even worse becoming the next target.
Matthew Clines came, he sat, he ate some cereal, he frustrated fans, and he eventually left. He never seemed too interested in playing or acting like he even had a shot at winning despite not being in any real danger until this week. With your insight to his character and game, what do you think he was doing in the house this season?
Grodner: I honestly don’t know. As he talked about in his exit interview with Julie, he became invested in Raven early in the game and his loyalty to her and her winning became far greater than his own desire to win. We have never had a houseguest do this before and we are still trying to figure him out.
Matthew broke practically every rule of being a Have-Not this week. He ate regular food, took hot showers, and slept in a regular bed on a daily routine. Even after receiving a penalty vote he persisted in breaking all the rules.
Big Brother continued to remind him of the rules and he continued to break them and even mouth-off in response. Are there any additional consequences a Houseguest can experience for multiple rule violations like we saw with Matthew this week?
Grodner: Matt broke the Have Not rule in order to make sure he was the one evicted instead of Raven. It was his strategy to use this specific rule violation to further Raven in the game. He was actually hoping to have more penalty votes against him. He followed all other rules of the house and Big Brother during the week so it was determined the vote was appropriate. As is, the penalties for breaking the Have Not rules could cost you the game, especially if you are not on the block and receive a penalty nomination. Matt’s goal of sacrificing himself for Raven is unique and, I would predict, a rare occurrence.
Between the time we submitted our questions and had the response the Tree of Temptation returned and closed shop again with a second week of no involvement by the Houseguests. That’s a shame too since a little added spice to the week isn’t always such a bad thing.
As for Matthew’s gameplay, I don’t think the house or the Feeds will miss him at all. In a separate interview I read Matthew claim he was just trying to make sure Raven stayed and he didn’t mean to be a poor sportsman, but that guy turned his joke of a summer into a bad joke by the end.