Sitcom: The 22 Minute Menace

Greetings readers! I’m back, this time with a less documented example of structuralism. In my previous two posts I have used some academia to validate my claims. As literature is low on structuralism within pop culture in the manner I’m discussing it, it’s time for some of my own criticism and issues. I’ll return to academia later with Joseph Campbell’s A Hero With A Thousand Faces and it’s application to Star Wars and other hero journey’s like Lord of the Rings and O’Brother Where Art Thou (all great movies and if you haven’t seen them, get off your chair and rent now, actually no, just buy them, you’ll thank me later!)

So who’s the culprit? The offender, the perpetrator, the guilty party, the criminal, the wrongdoer, the villain? (ßLike my use of the synonym tool!) Well, today it’s a plague that has been sucking our lifeblood for my whole life, and many of yours. Today we tackle SITCOMS!!!!!!! Yes, that’s right, you thought you loved these families because they are cute and comedic, but in reality, it’s only because the first ever sitcom and one being developed right now are the same! And these show are insanely popular. Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory are some of the highest rated shows on T.V. (not sure why) and shows form the past like I Love Lucy, The Honeymooners, Cheers, Fraiser, Roseanne, Fresh Prince of BelAir, Family Matters and many others were all incredible popular at their time. While many of the above titles are finding newfound revival in the TV DVD boom!

Well, let’s lead with this video. Two random people, well not random, I’m sure there important writers, I’ve just never heard of them talking about a sitcom….what do they have to say first? The second speaker, Russ says there is no definition. I think he’s jaded and wrong. But I’ll refute him later



Ok so what’s wrong with the sitcom you’re asking? I mean, their funny, family shows that almost anyone can watch. There is little kid humour (fart jokes, kids doing stupid things, and slapstick style “oops I hurt myself” style jokes), there is sophisticated humour (a la Frasier), there are funny full cast family moments and even an occasional “appeal to the heart” style episode where you have that warm fuzzy feeling leftover. And that’s all fine and dandy. I also find there are always the same sets….living room, kitchen, school, parent’s work, bathroom maybe and then a few different depending on the program.

But what bothers me most is that I found this book, (yea I know I promised no books but I found one!) called The Eight Characters of Comedy: A Guide To Sitcome Acting and Writing and I had to complain about it. Now first, it’s crazy to me that the book has both acting AND writing help. Are they not two different things entirely? I guess they relate, fine, moving on. But in the book Scott Sedita talks about 8 stock characters in Sitcoms. (Note: I didn’t get or read the book but found some snipits on the all-mighty Internet, the site I used was http://www.sitcomacting.com) To me it was bothersome that an entire genre can be broken down into only 8 archetypal characters, to me that’s, for lack of a better word, uncool. Here are the 8 characters and while you read them think of any sitcom, there is a character that is everyone of these people. In fact, IDEA! After every one I’m going to list some examples, for no other reason than it seems fun! Let’s use…..Friends, (a show I was not always fond of, but has grown on me recently…)

1. The Logical Smart One: Ross Geller
2. The Loveable Loser: Chandler or Ross
3. The Neurotic: Monic
4. The Dumb One: Joey
5. Bitches and Bastards: Rachel
6. The Materialistic One: Rachel
7. The Womanizer/Manizer: Joey
8. The In Their Own Universe One: Phoebee & Chandler

As you can see, even though there are some repeats and cross over types, the archetypes fit. I think you can extrapolate on your own for other examples in sitcoms. Now I guess you’re wondering, “Max (if that is your real name), who cares. I like these shows, isn’t that the point?” And on the one hand it is. But on the other, how great is it when a show breaks down these archetypes and formulas and does something entirely new with the genre? Like when a new movie breaks old molds and does something we’ve never seen before? For Example, when Quentin Tarantino made non-linear movies like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. New thing, very popular, the only downside is now that formula of non-linearity has been copied ad nauseum, to a point where at times it’s just silly when movies do it.
For a sitcom example I would use Arrested Development, a show that was not popular, didn’t draw the right advertising demographic,
was cancelled but has received a lot of DVD and online support leading to rumors of a possible movie. I guess this is a plea to media creativity and the commons. Please continue to come up with new ideas, new ways to entertain and I promise we will watch and support you. I also think media companies need to help here. I know profits and audiences are an important aspect, if not THE most important but how can we put aside a profit of 2 million for a better show that only makes 1.5 million? I don’t know if this will ever happen, but it’s a plea that would lead to better shows. Maybe a show can do both? I would cite ABC’s Lost as one of these. It’s new, innovative, interesting, provocative, challenges drama borders while also making tons of money. I don’t know what the balance is but if others can mimic it please do so. Do you have any suggestions out there Internet? Lemme know…..

News and Notes: So, the YouTube awards are over. Here’s is the site. (www.youtube.com/ytawards) All the videos command a watch without question! I’ve posted what I think is the best one below. But also check out the winner in the adorable category.