The Briefcase - General Discussion

[formerlyfreedom]

A place to discuss particular episodes, arcs and moments from The Briefcase.

[cooksdelight]

Last night, the show premiered with the Bergin family of Matthews, NC and the Bronsons of New Hampshire.

[cooksdelight]

The Bronsons of New Hampshire and the Bergins of NC. Who did you like more, and why?

[cooksdelight]

First article was out before the show aired:

http://www.people.com/article/briefcase-premiere-cbs

I expect a lot more media coverage to come.

[zxy556575]

I'll admit to skipping a lot, but how does any married couple in America (aside from the Duggars) function when one spouse knows absolutely nothing about their shared finances? Zero? The blond wife was so worried that her husband would screw things up due to never giving one single shit about money, apparently.

 

The premise reminded me of the parable of the bonfire -- every person in the world is able to throw all their troubles into a bonfire but they have to take one out to keep. Everyone then takes their own trouble back, because the devil you know. I assume the financial divisions will be slightly different in each episode, but in this one at least, both couples would rather maintain their own miserable status quo than think of themselves as being worse off than the other family.

[cooksdelight]

My first question in the beginning of the episode was why the Bergins were living in such a big house? Sell it and downsize, because they are close to Charlotte they'd probably get decent money from it. Then I saw the inside. The colors reminded me of PeeWee's playouse.

Noticed that both husbands were the ones willing to give all the money away when they started.

[msburg]

Noticed that about the husbands, as well.  I could sympathize with the wives, though.  They are the ones who have to go work! 

 

Am a little turned off by the premise of this show.  Struggling families who need to justify their situation (to the audience and unknowingly to another family) to be deserving of this?  And then I personally felt a little gross sitting on my couch judging their struggles and decisions.  I don't think I can watch this one again.

[cooksdelight]

I feel sorry for the families in that they were duped by production. They were told they were filming a documentary about families making ends meet, and whammo.... suddenly, that's not the story anymore. I wonder if some families backed out once they found out the truth? Or did the money keep them in the game?

[Gregg247]

I didn't realize Chris Christie was running ice cream trucks down in NC now!  j/k

 

I liked both couples, but thought it was interesting that the wives were in charge of the money in both families, and the guys seemed pretty clueless about anything financial.

[Gregg247]

I absolutely HATED this show!  

 

"Let's find some struggling American families, trot out all their problems nation-wide, and put them in a pressurized, emotional situation for our own amusement." is a terrible pitch for a TV show.  It's like if the most maudlin and embarassing parts of "Undercover Boss" were given their own spin-off series.

 

I thought it was obvious that everyone should always go 50/50 with the money.  That way, no one loses, and no one looks like a jerk on TV.  

 

I think the show is set up so that we viewers can sit in judgment of the decisions these families have made/are making.  I elect not to do that, simply because the show WANTS me to.

[cooksdelight]

I wonder if they paired them up for that reason, Gregg247?

[Whimsy]

This show is sort of like a car crash.  You WANT to look away but for reasons unknown you keep watching.  I'm not sure how much more I can watch this, but I may give it another episode.

 

In a way, it is interesting the process the families went through to make that final decision.  Initially, both of the main (or only) breadwinners and the one most responsible for the finances wanted to keep more than the other.  They both saw it as a way to ease their own stress and make life better.  The other family was unknown to them and weren't really "real" yet.  Then, as they learn more and more they just couldn't, in good conscience, keep the money for themselves.  I am surprised that both families decided to give ALL the money to the other family.  I may have kept a little bit to just keep the most pressing creditors off my back. 

 

At first, I could not stand the Bergin wife.  She just seemed very greedy.  Although, if you've been struggling with finances and someone offers you a life boat it's hard not to get giddy.  As I thought about it more, I gave her a lot more leeway and didn't judge so hard.  As soon as the other family started becoming actual real people in her mind I saw her wavering- and then when she saw the Bronson's home and that he was an injured vet, I think she felt really, really guilty for her initial greediness which is why she was crying.  I don't know if I am successful in wording what I'm trying to say, but as someone who is interested in psychology, I did find it really interesting to see the change in the wives' mind-sets as they learned more and more about the other family. 

 

I have so much respect for the Bronson husband's (I am totally blanking on first names here) outlook on life.  He was injured in war, has had tons of surgery, needs a home to accommodate his handicap and he still wanted to give away all of the money.  The only thing is that the Bronson family must have gotten some money prior to this from somewhere considering they were already building that home so I don't know if they were really as dire as the show made them seem.  But, by simple virtue of having very young children and the wartime injury, I think the Bronson's were a little more deserving of getting that money.  I think the Bergen's just made bad life choices to get themselves in their financial mess (which, I have done as well so I'm not really judging that hard), rather than having something HAPPEN to them. 

[cooksdelight]

I think it's a psychological study in watching people initially be thrilled to have all their problems solved, going to "Oh no....they are worse off than we are...."

I think the Bronsons said they got a grant from the VA for most of their house. There's also programs out there that help build homes for wounded vets at literally no charge. But the extras they were asking for were on them, it sounded like.

[Evagirl]

I always try new shows at least once.  I wasn't sure I could get behind this show.  And once I read this recap (http://www.vulture.com/2015/05/briefcase-plays-into-americas-class-anxiety.html), I knew I would not be watching it again.  The writer of the recap is spot on, and really gave some good points to ponder about this show.  A show that makes a person so torn that she has to pull over and throw up is just wrong.

 

If you want to make a good show about helping people, have folks write in and say what they would do with X-amount of dollars.  Then give the the money to the ones who "appear" to be the neediest, go back 2 months later and film what they actually did with the money.  Now THAT would be interesting.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Evagirl

[cooksdelight]

I totally agree. It's like how the Shark Tank people that get money, not all of them spend it wisely. Your idea seems like a much better way of doing this, instead of putting people through the emotional wringer.

[goodbyeglittergirl]

I watched this episode b/c one of the families is local, but I won't watch again. I thought it was really gross and exploitative. I am happy that both families got some cash, but I felt like I needed a shower after watching it. So no thanks.

[mbaywife123]

I liked this show and was crying at the end when they each gave the other 100k.

It will be interesting to see future shows when and if they don't give equally or nothing at all.

This show is interesting to me as a social experiment in need/greed/gratitude.

[rulesoftravel]

 

Instead of all the drama, I'd give each family the briefcase and 6 hours to decide what to do. After their final decision has been made, flip it around so they get to keep what they decided to give away. In other words, reward the generous, punish the greedy. None of this sleeping on it, constant texting with more info, and certainly not the awful visit to the other family's house while they are away. Of course, the show would then be 15 minutes long.  :)

 Win/win.

[OldMrGrace]

I was pretty worried that this show would actually be exploiting poor people. I was wrong.

Neither of these people were poor. More like average middle-middle class people. The average household income in the US is approximately 54k. The Bronsons made considerably more than that on one income! It's sad that he lost his leg in war, but they aren't a needy family at all!

The Bergins were worse off IMO, but still they made a decent amount of money, especially for Charlotte. I moved to the South several years ago because the COL vs. wages is the best in the country.

So these were just middle class people who were willing to lower themselves to be on a trashy reality TV show (they had to have known it was something like this).

So I will keep watching and I will NOT feel guilty.

[Bronzedog]

Because I have a cold, black heart, I was wondering why the New Hampshire couple would think it was a good idea to sink a lot of money into ice cream trucks. I would think there would a very small window, weather wise, where people in New Hampshire would flock to buy ice cream from a truck. I also knew, As soon as they learned the other guy lost his leg in war, that they'd give away all of the money.

[cooksdelight]

The ice cream trucks were with the family in Matthews, NC... near Charlotte.

[Bronzedog]

Well in that case, I guess my days of reading and comprehending what's going on on tv are over, because I totally screwed that up.

[Lebanna]

Apparently one of the families on this horrible show may not be what they seem. Oh no! Shock!

According to this http://tvline.com/2015/05/28/briefcase-family-controversy-expensive-kids-party/

[pennben]

 

Instead of all the drama, I'd give each family the briefcase and 6 hours to decide what to do. After their final decision has been made, flip it around so they get to keep what they decided to give away. In other words, reward the generous, punish the greedy

 

Can folks struggling actually be described as "greedy".  Ugh, this show. It is revolting.

[cooksdelight]

As pointed out by TVLine reader Helen (and seen in the video below), the Bergin family of Matthews, N.C., threw an ’80s-themed party for their three daughters back in 2011, spending at least $7,750 on flourishes such as an outdoor roller rink, a foam pool and cheerleaders. (The girls’ mom, Kim, is described in the TLC video as a “part-time event planner.”)

I just found the same article. I am waiting for the stories of future families to come.

Much like viewer opinions here, viewers across the country are split.

http://www.zap2it.com/blogs/fans_divided_on_the_value_of_the_briefcase-2015-05

[applecrisp]

Evagirl, I read the article and it has a point about  Les Moonves who heads up CBS, he makes $54 million a year.  Is anyone worth that much money per year?  To me it is obscene.  I remember the 80's and the japanese were our competitors.  There was a push to be like them especially in the car business.  Thing is the CEO's of their companies did not make nearly the amount our top guys did.  It was part of the problem.

 

Now in the US we have guys making an extreme amount of money with no end in sight.  We are in the new guilded age.  Only there are more Morgans and Rockefellers.  It seems we admire wealth and can laugh at the poor and struggling.  I actually watch some reality show so I can't really judge.  It really does seem we are like Rome bread and circuses.  If we are entertained we won't complain and slide deeper into wealth inequality.

[Branchop]

I'll admit to skipping a lot, but how does any married couple in America (aside from the Duggars) function when one spouse knows absolutely nothing about their shared finances? Zero?

*raises hand*

I've always said if I was to die, the only reason the utilities would not be turned off is because they are automatically drafted. My husband has no clue. I've set up online banking passwords for him, everything... He just doesn't worry about it. So he never spends money. The joke in the house is, if he wants to buy a rake he has to fill out forms in triplicate and wait two weeks for approval. It's not that bad, but I like to budget

[Diana Berry]

This show wears me out. Just do 50/50 which would alleviate most guilt.

[Empress1]

Can folks struggling actually be described as "greedy".  Ugh, this show. It is revolting.

I watched an ep tonight because NPR's pop culture podcast, Pop Culture Happy Hour (which Linda Holmes, formerly of TWoP, hosts) did a short episode about how much they loathed this show. And among the many, many things that bother me about it, this is one. The ep tonight featured a married couple, both of whom are little people, who were something like $220K in debt with an income of $70K. The only way they can have children is to adopt and they want to adopt a child who is also a little person.

 

The other couple was $130K in debt and had filed bankruptcy, and were living separately (him in FL, her in ... NC, I think) because of the husband's work as a fisherman. The wife homeschooled their autistic son. And she wanted to keep $3500 only and her husband wanted to keep ... $75K, I think, and the wife. Was. Furious. She said she hated him! She initially wanted to give it ALL away, and he was like "But we have bills!"

 

And ultimately the FL couple gave away $40K and the other couple gave away $20K (which the FL couple was happy with as it would settle their bankruptcy), and on Twitter people were calling the little people selfish (although of course they were calling them midgets, ugh), and I was thinking "They have a ton of debt and not much money, and they want to adopt a child which is prohibitively expensive for many ... why is it selfish to keep an amount that would allow them to do that?" Likewise, the FL husband kept stressing that they could finally reunite and the FL wife was just staunchly insisting that they give away everything, and I was like "But you have bills though!"

 

What I would probably do is think about exact amounts. Like I would keep exactly the amount that would fix whatever financial problem I was in and give the rest away, but if that amount were $95K - if $95K would legit solve all my financial problems, would that make me a bad person? (If the other couple opted to give me everything, I would totally write them a check after the fact.) If you have a problem and you're given the resources to fix it and you fix it, why should you feel guilty?

 

The other thing is that both families are deserving, so I hate that they were basically sent into their homes to play a version of the oppression olympics. Ugh. I won't watch again.

[Diana Berry]

So I figure the end game for this show is that one family will keep all the money and the other family will give all ( or a bunch ) of money away? Sigh

[Tabasco Cat]

This is an awful show. I could go on in detail about the reasons why but I feel as though I've already wasted too much time on it.

[cooksdelight]

I'm wondering if they are going to air all the episodes they've shot. There is sooooooo much negative reporting about the show out there.

[Fostersmom]

I just half assed watched the repeat of the first episode tonight while I was on the phone. Do these people know part of the deal is to let strangers in their homes to gawk at their shit and hardships? Cuz I would be pissed. 

[cooksdelight]

I just half assed watched the repeat of the first episode tonight while I was on the phone. Do these people know part of the deal is to let strangers in their homes to gawk at their shit and hardships? Cuz I would be pissed.

No, and that's what makes people so mad.....the fact the production people told the families they would be part of a documentary. It's no way even close to that. They were lied to, and went into it with good faith (from what I've seen) in allowing them to interview them in preparation for the "documentary."

[zxy556575]

If anyone wants to yammer at him on Twitter, the creator is David Broome, who also produces The Biggest Loser. He's still insisting the show is about "empathy and the human spirit" and not cynical. manipulative, and condescending at all.

 

If nothing else, the observer effect means that the participants (or experimental subjects, if we're being honest) are not following their natural instincts simply because they know they're being watched. How the hell is that uplifting in any capacity?

[nottopbravo]

Apparently one of the families on this horrible show may not be what they seem. Oh no! Shock!

According to this http://tvline.com/2015/05/28/briefcase-family-controversy-expensive-kids-party/

 

Another case of reality tv whoring.

[cooksdelight]

The second episode didn't bother me as much as the first. Maybe because I knew what was coming. Or maybe because these two families were more realistic about their own needs financially. Yet they still wanted to give something to another family. At first I thought the fisherman's wife was getting pissed off at only getting $20,000, but then she added it up in her head and smiled because she knew with what they kept and what they were getting they could pay off their bankruptcy.

Which, by the way.... how/why do you pay off bankruptcy? I thought when you filed, it wiped all of your debts away and you had a clean slate? Unless you've filed once before and you're filing for a second time?

[Bronzedog]

I think this show is too depressing for me.

[Pallida]

There are multiple types of bankruptcy. Some are more like debt reorganization and hurt your credit less. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_13,_Title_11,_United_States_Codemight be what they had.

[Diana Berry]

Ok TX family, pay it forward by writing a check to the other family.

[candall]

Well!!

 

I didn't watch the first two episodes, but based on the comments above, this whole ideology angle between the . . . hmm, labels, labels, labels. . . urban lesbians and the, mmm, conservative Texans gives the show a fascinating twist.

 

I loved that the Boston couple graciously concluded "we came out of this whole process being the kind of people we really wanted to be" while the Texas woman concluded that "the value of what's in the briefcase isn't about the money" and that the two families "are exactly alike."

 

No, sweetheart, not really.  I wouldn't even call it close.

Edited June 11, 2015 by candall

[Whimsy]

What bothered me was that the TX family tried to make it sound like they were being selfless with the money they were giving away, but it was all to family. Plus, the only one they were helping besides themselves, really, was the sister. The rest of the money was going to their children to pay for college, wedding and baby. It isn't the same thing as giving away pretty much all of the money to a unknown family.

[theredhead77]

I randomly tuned in and made it 20 minutes into the episode with the TX family. The TX conservative stereotypes were making me stabby. When the mom said she didn't even know where Boston was I rolled my eyes so hard it hurt. When they got to Boston and the mom is saying the girls would be terrified and ask dad if he had his gun... then dad said he wanted it I turned it off. Dude, grow a pair and learn how to function in society without your damn gun.

 

First of all - the area didn't look bad. Low income, sure. But like a gang fight was about to break out? Nope. Second - the production crew of a major network show would never put participants in that type of situation.

 

At least the daughter didn't see an issue with the couple having a kid. I want to know how it ends but can't seem to query a search. Would someone share either the end or a link once it ends? 

[Lemons]

I have no idea why the Boston family thought that the Texas family needed the money so badly.  They had a small mortgage and a middle class income.  No sick children, no elderly parents to take care of. 

 

I'm wondering if they regret their decision after seeing the Texas father utter the cliché about Adam and Steve and insinuating that maybe god didn't want them to have a baby.  And, not surprisingly, the religious, republican Texas family ended up being stingy, even when they found out that the Boston couple were taking care of 2 children.

[BusyOctober]

I don't like the premise of this show.  I only watched this one episode, but why do we need to see stereotypes so blatantly exploited? Red State vs. Blue State! Conservative vs.Liberals! No matter what the outcome, people watching on either side of these fences will end up justifying their biased beliefs. 

 If the Boston couple hadn't given the majority of cash away, people who dislike inter-racial couples or gay couples would have said "See! They have no heart!  They are cold, selfish and un-Christian!". They did give away the money & TX folks held most of their briefcase for themselves., so the more liberal supporters can say "See!  Evil gun-toting "Christians" don't really follow Jesus' teachings!"  Why allow people to continually label others? 

 

I think a better show would be to focus on 2 families who are even-Steven in all facets.  Same family structure (2 parent, same sex, single parent.etc), same amount of kids (or none), same level of debt, same type of living situation (rent vs. mortgage), same beliefs (Christian to Christian, Muslim to Muslim, etc).  That would be more interesting to me...what determines the decision when the other family is really "just like mine"?  Although, if I'm honest, audiences will always still judge and have reasons to like/dislike people on a reality show. 

 

BTW, I live in Boston and the neighborhood they showed is pretty good- Dorchester has a few areas that have become "gentrified". However, as stated in the text, 2 blocks in either direction could be potentially sketchy.  I'm pretty sure that's the case across America.  Even small  rural towns have a "wrong side of the tracks", so spare me the wide eyed big city jitters.

[Lemur]

"Massa-tu-setts" ... because apparently they don't teach you how to pronounce the names of states in Texas schools.

[Racj82]

I don't like the premise of this show.  I only watched this one episode, but why do we need to see stereotypes so blatantly exploited? Red State vs. Blue State! Conservative vs.Liberals! No matter what the outcome, people watching on either side of these fences will end up justifying their biased beliefs. 

 If the Boston couple hadn't given the majority of cash away, people who dislike inter-racial couples or gay couples would have said "See! They have no heart!  They are cold, selfish and un-Christian!". They did give away the money & TX folks held most of their briefcase for themselves., so the more liberal supporters can say "See!  Evil gun-toting "Christians" don't really follow Jesus' teachings!"  Why allow people to continually label others? 

 

I think a better show would be to focus on 2 families who are even-Steven in all facets.  Same family structure (2 parent, same sex, single parent.etc), same amount of kids (or none), same level of debt, same type of living situation (rent vs. mortgage), same beliefs (Christian to Christian, Muslim to Muslim, etc).  That would be more interesting to me...what determines the decision when the other family is really "just like mine"?  Although, if I'm honest, audiences will always still judge and have reasons to like/dislike people on a reality show. 

 

BTW, I live in Boston and the neighborhood they showed is pretty good- Dorchester has a few areas that have become "gentrified". However, as stated in the text, 2 blocks in either direction could be potentially sketchy.  I'm pretty sure that's the case across America.  Even small  rural towns have a "wrong side of the tracks", so spare me the wide eyed big city jitters.

 I don't find the even stevens thing interesting. It's more interesting watching people from different walks of life, values, etc react to chance to give back while making them confront their own views in the process. If they are even stevens. Just give each other half and call it a day. They should be doing that anyway but giving to people you might not agree with in many ways is way more difficult. Plus it's TV. I think people, as viewers, often push for the less dramatic option for shows (especially reality ones) because they don't want to see the ugly side of things or less drama but that leads to boring ass tv. It's on nice theory. Not saying this show in THRILLING television, but a  bunch of equal families that mirror each other seems even less interesting to me.

[BusyOctober]

I should have edited my post to include that I don't think EITHER formula (even-steven or diametrically opposed groups) is strong enough a format.  I won't be watching this again b/c I don't want to watch anyone's sad situation and feel judge-y.  I think it's exploitation and I'm not compelled to tune in again.  One family's crisis may be devastating to them but made to seem a pittance if compared to another family's.  It's not feel good TV for me to evaluate whether a couple trying to adopt/have a baby or pay off loans is any more or less worthy than a family struggling w/ illness or lost income etc.  Our hardships are our own and affect us as deeply as anyone else's weighs on them. 

[Racj82]

I should have edited my post to include that I don't think EITHER formula (even-steven or diametrically opposed groups) is strong enough a format. I won't be watching this again b/c I don't want to watch anyone's sad situation and feel judge-y. I think it's exploitation and I'm not compelled to tune in again. One family's crisis may be devastating to them but made to seem a pittance if compared to another family's. It's not feel good TV for me to evaluate whether a couple trying to adopt/have a baby or pay off loans is any more or less worthy than a family struggling w/ illness or lost income etc. Our hardships are our own and affect us as deeply as anyone else's weighs on them.

Totally understandable. I found myself not feeling bad for people who sign up for any tv show. Don't go on tv, you won't be exploited.

[cooksdelight]

Totally understandable. I found myself not feeling bad for people who sign up for any tv show. Don't go on tv, you won't be exploited.

I can agree with you, except they were brought onto TV under false circumstances. Each week, we're told that the families think they are part of a documentary. I'd go on TV for a documentary if I thought my story might help someone else. But these people are just as exploited as we, the viewers, are.