Let's Talk Sitcom I: Unfinished business

When it comes to television my go to genre is definitely sitcoms. These comedic shows arrive in various formats and in different styles of comedy, but if sitcoms would be distilled into something they all have in common I would say it is to be a show centered around a group of people, following a distinct segment of their lives. We enter at one stage of it and exit at another, and during that time we have seen a certain development taking place where the characters may have grown into mature adults, entering parenthood or moved from the region they started in. It varies greatly in practice, but in essence a sitcom is not meant to have any greater plot than the events of life in general. It's Sims as a TV-version, but with providing laughter to the viewer as an aim instead of an interactive experience for the player. 

*

As with every genre you can be a fan of it and still dislike certain elements or defining parts of it - but with comedy this is especially relevant to point out. A comedic show, a sitcom can be near flawless in every possible metric but it is still an unavoidable fact that huge parts of its supposed audience will not care for it. They simply won't find it funny. If the show is decently produced, neutral viewers will have no problem admitting those kind of qualities for the show they found themselves not liking, but comedy, the fun part in a sitcom, is not a neutral quality. It hits you and drags you into its fictional universe, or it doesn't. If it is the former the humor can make you withstand flaws in other areas of the production but if it is the latter, non-fans of the genre will frequently claim that a show is "objectively bad" when what actually is the case is that the humor wasn't suited for them - for whatever reason. I find it fascinating how humor can be such an elusive quality that a joke or a gag can be of the absolutely highest imaginable standard and it can still completely "bomb" if the setting or the target audience is off in some way. I can't imagine many other art forms which have to deal with this phenomena. In most other areas everyone can agree that a master piece is a master piece and even if something wouldn't be in your particular wheelhouse one can neutrally appreciate the mastery, but with humor not so. A masterpiece in humor one doesn't find funny is borderline garbage. 

*

Quite a rough situation to be in for sitcoms as a genre, but obviously series and shows can still be produced despite it being so. I mention all of this because even if I see myself as a self-proclaimed sitcom enthusiast and have made a conscious effort in consuming so many of the classics and the staples of the genre as I have been able to, I still find some of them simply.. boring. And I'm self aware enough to realize that in many of those cases it's not any issues with the shows themselves making it so, I can notice that they are doing what they are trying to do and if it fells flat with me in contrast to all the millions liking or loving the show the issue at hand is clearly primarily with me. 

Still. I like to in further instances of this blog series talk about single shows in their entirety and I will limit this scope to shows that I've also seen in their entirety. Those series where I have to struggle to keep engaged in don't pass this criteria and so, this series of blog posts is dedicated to those who pass it. I think it's unfair to review a particular sitcom without having seen it from start to finish, the point of enjoying a sitcom in contrast to generic comedy shows is to get the story of life from the point of view of some chosen characters and if one didn't get that in its completion one haven't really seen the sitcom for what it actually is, I would argue.

This is by the way why I have to say I date my interest in the genre to somewhere in the 90's, when this way of writing the shows were starting to become prevalent. Earlier than that the sit-coms were more "static", you as a viewer were invited to a setting; a bar, a living room that always worked in a predictable way and then events occurred around it. No real evolution in the stories or the arcs of the characters would to be expected. It could still happen of course, but then inconsistencies and plot holes were plenty and not a real problem. The viewers weren't expected to follow a show season by season without missing a single episode. No, the audience were supposed to pop in and out with different regularities and for that to work the setting itself was the main character the viewer were meant to relate to and like. The rest was just, albeit funny, fillers. 

In the 90's this changed mainly due to the insane successes of Friends and Seinfeld. Friends will get their own post, but Seinfeld - the defining comedy show of my parents generation, is simply not my cup of tea. I have seen plenty of episodes, I remember that watching them in early high school was a defining moment in my learning curve within mastering the language of English. I remember that I suddenly watched the show without having turned on the Swedish subtitles and I understood what they said without trouble, I didn't even reflect on it until halfway in! So I've seen Seinfeld, I like Seinfeld - I just haven't bothered seeing all of it, haven't followed the show season by season until the finale at any time after it was wrapped up. (My parents have undergone this act all too many times over the years). 

I think this is because even if the show is funny - Kramer is a hoot and a master in physical comedy, Constanza is an excellent embodiment of all the various neurosis's floating around in the modern life, Elaine is a sharp contrast to all the male buffooneries displayed and Jerry... is also there - it still has a leg left in the old style of writing sitcoms. 

Let's put it this way. Seinfeld, a show about nothing, is not really a parody of sitcoms of its older era but it was a self aware attempt to do something different than what was on TV at the time. In Seinfeld the characters are indeed more important than any given setting of the show, but the characters are still meant to not evolve or change. Seinfeld doesn't want their characters to learn anything and the show wasn't supposed to be "feel good" or sentimental in any way. No hugs were an actual ambition and guiding line for the writers if I'm not misremembering. This leads effectively to a comedy style that functions as a study in weird behaviors. The main characters can't behave as real humans, the set up of the show won't allow for it, and as the show progresses they become more and more absurd. This is funny, but to me it's not hitting the sweet spot. I'm more often annoyed than amused with these light sociopaths running around spreading social terror in New York. It's okay now and then, but I prefer watching a sitcom where I'm allowed to be emotionally engaged in characters and arcs that at least tries to mean something. Seinfeld does not try with these things. Their primary aim was to be funny and ditch all other values in the art of writing sitcoms. Noble and understandable in a sense, but it misses me. Seinfeld is "unfinished business" with me.    

*

Another example worthy of mentioning particularly is It's always Sunny in Philadelphia, a show noteworthy due to its longevity - most sitcoms defined in my way above lasts around 10 seasons or so. That's roughly the amount of energy the writers can muster to engagingly involve themselves and the viewers in the lives of the characters. For must shows even that many seasons is a bit much since the Flanderization effect starts to kill off the humanity of the characters already past season five or six in most of the shows. 

"Flanderization" is a phenomenon in the genre, the name is inspired by a character from the Simpsons, which highlights that in the purpose of comedy a fully fleshed character in the early stage of a long series will be reduced to its comedic traits not seldom turned up to eleven. Flanders was in the first few seasons of Simpsons Homers gentle minded neighbor which happened to be a born again Christian. Later on this latter aspect, his refusal to use profanities and in general odd behavior due to his faith was the only thing Flanders was about. He wasn't a human anymore, he was a walking parody of odd evangelical traits. That's quite forgivable when it comes to a cartoon (no one in the show is expected to be a "real human" after all) but when it comes to live action the effect is rather jarring. Friends will be talked about elsewhere but the most prominent example of this is the handling of the character Joey. In the beginning he was indeed a bit thick as a person, but also street smart and knew his way in various crafts such as cooking and carpentry. He wasn't smart perhaps, but neither dumb as a brick. In the later seasons he was reduced to a bumbling fool, not being able to repeat back phrases in french - despite being a successful actor - spelled out to him. When the flanderization goes this far it's hurtful to the show, the immersion threatens to break entirely at this stage. Some flanderization can't be avoided I would assume, every character needs a few comedic traits the writers can rely on playing with for some easy laughs and when the low hanging fruits have been picked one needs to up the stakes and thus the effect is active - as said, I would guess the effect is unavoidable, but as a show grows older it's still one of the defining tells that a particular show won't have too many seasons left on the air

Oh, such a tangent, but I actually don't have too much to say about "IASIP". Once I talked with an older sitcom- fan and he pushed hard for this show, basically saying that everything I and the mainstream liked is so beige compared to this gem of real humor. So when I, much later, got an opportunity to binge the show I was pumped. I expected mastery of the genre in its highest form and what I got... was Seinfeld on steroids. Quite literally. 

IASIP follows the same format as Seinfeld. We follow a few characters that won't grow too much, won't learn and if they are human all of them are glaring sociopaths. Indeed, compared to Seinfeld everything is upped to max. Where the gang in Seinfeld is generally unpleasant, the group in IASIP is outright criminal in their behavior. You are not supposed to like any of them, you are supposed to borderline hate them and when they ultimately lose and fail in their schemes you are supposed to laugh at them, never with them.  

As with Seinfeld, IASIP is a parody of sorts, both of the sitcom genre in general but also society at large. Parody is its own comedy form, often vulgar to a degree that simply doesn't fit everyone. I can see the comedic brilliance sometimes (their spoof of Million Dollar Baby was indeed quite amusing) but in general I just don't find it funny. So I stopped my binge, IASIP may be one of the more special sitcoms there is (at a whopping 16 seasons they must be doing something right) but I stood no chance of finishing it. 

*

There are many more sitcoms I liked to some degree or could see the production value of but I don't see too much reason in talking all too much about stuff I in the end find subpar compared to my favorites in the genre so I will just leave shows like The 70's show, Fresh prince of Bel Air, The Office, Big Bang Theory and Brooklyn 99 with an appreciative mention. Maybe I'll come back to them and give them a proper chance to reach my above mentioned criteria once more sometime in the future, who knows, but for the time being I will focus on shows that captured me fully directly from the start to their very end. 

See you then.