Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Review

Showing posts with label sitcom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sitcom. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 28, 2018

Some Points I Wanted to Make...

Eddie Izzard
Eddie Izzard (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
 ... as I graded your sitcom reviews.

1) I did want you to tell me the names of the actors who played the various parts and possibly to tell me other shows they appeared in. The point of that in this case would be to make clear the key participants in this project were all vets of film and TV, suggesting (among other things) that money was probably invested in this project upfront. These people had records of previous success. As flops go, this was a big one.

2) Also, talking about the careers of the actors provides a natural transition either out of or into a discussion of the acting.

3) But how would you know what these actors did earlier in their careers? I did NOT intend to use Turnitin as a bludgeon to discourage you from doing *any* research. A quick Google to discover who is this Eddie Izzard is acceptable - and won't ruin your T score anymore than using Google to find out the hours of the restaurants you reviewed. What I *don't* want you to do is use the internet to read reviews by others and turn your own review into a compilation rather than a fresh take.

4) Take a look at this review from the Chronicle that I linked to on the class blog several years ago. It's not great, but you see how David Wiegand has a catchy little lead that makes clear his focus. This review has a good old-fashioned thesis!! And then he lets us know who in the cast does what and what there backgrounds are. I actually think he puts all this info too high in the review. But notice how about 2/3rds in, he gives rich detail about the excellence of the detail in the background animation. Most reviews are a mixture of supported and unsupported generalizations. If you richly and persuasively support *some* of your generalizations, readers are more likely to take your unsupported ones on faith.

https://www.sfgate.com/default/article/BoJack-Horseman-review-Saddled-with-mediocre-5698929.php


Sunday, February 4, 2018

The Sitcom Formula

Maggie Simpson
Maggie Simpson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An American in Croatia is asked to write a sitcom. He never has. He pursues the formula.

The Sitcom Code breaks down what needs to happen in each episode, by the minute. As Dan Richter of Demand Media notes, “Sitcoms, minus commercials, are typically 22 minutes long [with] a script of 25-40 pages. Every sitcom episode has a main plot (story A), as well as one or two subplots (stories B and C).”  There are three main acts, divided by two commercial breaks (in most American TV), with 3-5 scenes per act. One of the distinguishing characteristics of sitcoms, as opposed to other forms of television, is that the main protagonist(s) barely change from one episode to the next, let alone from season to season (Maggie Simpson has been sucking on a pacifier for nearly thirty years). Therefore whatever happens in the episode, the situation must end largely where it began. The Wise Sloth points out that 22 minutes is “not even really time enough to tell a full story.  The whole story has to be on fast-forward,” so simplification is key.


Poet Philip Larkin described all plots as “a beginning, a muddle, and an end,” which is as good a description as any. Each episode begins with the protagonist stating a goal or problem that must be solved, and which we understand will be solved by the end of the episode. If the problem is solved too quickly, then the episode won’t stretch out to 22 minutes, so the first attempt at reaching the goal or solving the problem must fail (“the muddle”), requiring a new approach, before the episode ends and the protagonist either does, or does not, achieve what they set out to do.  The goal might be Homer trying to make a fortune by selling recycled grease in The Simpsons, or Job Bluth setting out to sabotage the family’s banana stand in Arrested Development, or the Seinfeld crew looking for where they parked in a vast lot.  Another hallmark of sitcoms is that the protagonists frequently fail, and we often want them to, because we do not want our favorite characters to change too much.  If Leslie Knope ever left Pawnee for a career as a DC politician, we would be distraught.  If Kramer got married and moved to the suburbs—whoa, now!


Thursday, February 1, 2018

My Sitcom Bullet Points


Laughter (film)
Laughter (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
* I watch sitcoms as escapism. If I want to be a critic of the show or the genre, I need to start thinking.

* Okay, occasionally I'll watch a sitcom to see "what the young people are thinking." Does Master of None tell me what you're thinking?

* I think the Superiority Theory of comedy is useful in thinking about sitcoms. Laughter is judgment. I am better than you, sitcom character! But is this an individual superiority or a categorical superiority? Who or what is being judged? Am I rejecting a category of behavior  - let's say vanity - and thus being educated or improved. Or am I being encouraged to use laughter to exclude and demean - a gender, an ethnicity, a sexual preference? Laughter restores order. In emphasizes norms. It is a social corrective. Thus, sometimes laughter inevitably shades into bigotry, which happens most often when sitcoms lack diversity of all kinds, where there is structural exclusion in that a foolish "purple" character is not counterbalanced by a normal "purple" character. Here's a block quote from English professor James Kincaid:

     We must deal with "the degree to which laughter expresses (if it does at all) hostility, aggression, the vestiges of the jungle whoop of triumph after murder, and other unpleasant impulses. The corollary to this issue is the debate over whether laughter is incompatible with sympathy, geniality, or indeed with any emotion.... Nearly all the important writers on the subject have, for hundreds of years, noted "a component of malice, of debasement of the other fellow, and of aggressive-defensive self-assertion . . . in laughter -- a tendency diametrically opposed to sympathy, helpfulness, and identification of the self with others" I find this argument ... conclusive.

* An alternative theory to humor as contempt exists! That's the "genial laughter theory," that laughter sometimes is simply a matter of acknowledging the general foolishness and absurdity of human life, that laughter does not cause us to exclude but to accept others, to see us in them. It is certainly true that many sitcoms have what I call "soft landings"  for characters. The character we are invited to laugh at then does something "unfoolish." Or another character accepts and forgives the foolish character, modeling how we should behave. In other words, not all sitcoms are funny all the time, and we have to be attentive to how the serious moments soften the comic ones. Even if we are invited to feel contempt, we may be discouraged from feeling it all the time.

* Of course, some of the most interesting sitcoms are those where it seems we are never ask to sympathize with a character or characters. They are "dark." This may fit with the idea that a sitcom is a mirror not only reflecting society as a whole but us, the individual viewer. If "dark" comedy is designed to make us experience both laughter and discomfort at the same time, what does that tell us about us?  Here's a list of "wonderfully dark sitcoms."   Also, there is the category of black comedy, or gallows humor, which some would define as having the courage to laugh in the face of disaster to keep up our spirits. "Black humor, in literature, drama, and film, grotesque or morbid humor used to express the absurdity, insensitivity, paradox, and cruelty of the modern world." - Columbia Encyclopedia "And if I laugh at any mortal thing, 'tis that I may not weep." - George Noel Gordon, Lord Byron

* A simple way of looking at sitcom: Incongruity as the source of humor. That works no matter what your umbrella theory of the uses and effects of humor are. Absurdity, exaggeration, hyperbole, abrupt change. Often humor really does seem to be a simple matter of reversed expectations.

* The power of the unconscious. Laughter seems automatic. If you decide to **think** while watching, probably taking advantage of the ability to rewind and rewatch, not just episodes but single moments, such self scrutiny can be uncomfortable. Freud says - I oversimplify here - that in the service of living in civilization we mash down certain cruel and/or sexual and/or antisocial feelings into our unconscious. Laughter can be a way of releasing some of the tension such repression creates. Think about how taboo - sexual references, certain obscenities vigorously said - can produce laughter. It is as if humor suddenly gives us permission, particularly as a member of a crowd, to express that which we otherwise keep hidden.

* One final point from Kincaid because I like his examples. Comedy can leave us vulnerable. Have you ever stumbled across some obscure movie on Netflix - possibly foreign with subtitles! - that you watch with unease because context does not make clear what the genre is. Kincaid:

     Having released the energies ordinarily used to guard our hostilities, inhibitions, or fears, we are      especially unprotected if the promised safety which allowed us to laugh proves to be illusory.             Imagine the fat old man who slipped on the banana peel being suddenly identified as our brother,       now seriously hurt; the custard pie containing sulphuric acid; the train really hitting the funny car     and killing the Keystone Cops.

* All that said, it's possible some sitcoms make us better people. Effects research is always tricky.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Role of the Sitcom? Popular Culture and the Acceptance of Gay Marriage

English: Family Tree of the TV-Show "Mode...
English: Family Tree of the TV-Show "Modern Family" Deutsch: Stammbaum aus "Modern Family" (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
from the Atlantic

A 2012 Hollywood Reporter poll found that 27 percent of likely voters said that depictions of gay characters on TV made them more pro-gay marriage, and there are news accounts of people crediting their newfound sympathy toward gay people to Modern Family.

from Wired.com a chart

Thursday, September 4, 2014

The Anthropological View of the Sitcom

A work of art is an anthropological opportunity. It reflects in distilled form the laws, the traditions, the taboos, the aspirations, the fears, the history in general of a culture or sub-culture, if only we can decode it. A contemporary American TV sitcom is just such an artifact. If we wish to interpret such a cultural artifact, it is to our advantage we are at - or reasonably - near the center of the culture that produced it. It is popular culture. We are the people at which it is aimed. 

Sometimes that proximity to the assumptions that drive popular culture illuminates, and sometimes it blinds in the sense that we are so close to the culture that is being "windowed" we have never stopped to evaluate the forces that drive the creation of its art. We think: It just is. We don't stop to consider that it didn't have to have this shape, this emphasis. This the reason I like an anthropological POV when it comes to reviewing a television sitcom.

That said, we should look at the artifact as AN artifact. We need to take it on its own terms as a work of art. Aesthetically, does it work? Obviously, our aesthetic judgments are relative to our culture, but I think the aesthetic approach is useful  in our analysis in that it prompts us to ask: Why do I think this one thing is somehow superior to this other thing that would seem to be identical in terms of its take on life and its use of conventions and stereotypes. Is there - to borrow a term from our discussion of food - a "secret sauce" that makes it better?

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Some Beaver Background

Pinback, circa 1960
Pinback, circa 1960 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When we write a review, we count some things as common knowledge, and we state them without fear of contradiction: The Beatles are one of the most popular bands of all time. Depending on our audience, we expand or contract our list of The Obvious.

Sometimes, before I start generalizing about a particular TV show, I like to do a little research so that I can link to key facts supporting statements that I don't think are common knowledge. I choose to establish credibility by allowing readers who wonder just how reliable I am to confirm what I say for themselves. 

If I say "Leave it to Beaver" didn't crack the top 20 shows in its first year on TV, although five Westerns did, I might choose to link to that (see below), particularly if I don't have a track record - a public identity - as a reviewer. A link is enough. Usually, I don't cite a source by name.

Often that's enough. Too many links can make a page ugly and confuse or divert a reader. As in the case of The Three Bears, there's too hot, too cold and just right when it comes to porridge and to links.

 Also, when you check out your assumptions, sometimes you'll find you've assumed wrongly and will save yourself public embarrassment.


1957-1958 Season

Top 20 shows (ranked by total viewers)
  1. Gunsmoke CBS
  2. The Danny Thomas Show CBS
  3. Tales of Wells Fargo NBC
  4. Have Gun - Will Travel CBS
  5. I've Got a Secret CBS
  6. The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp CBS
  7. General Electric Theater CBS
  8. The Restless Gun NBC
  9. December Bride CBS
  10. You Bet Your Life NBC
  11. The Perry Como Show NBC
  12. Alfred Hitchcock Presents CBS
  13. Cheyenne ABC
  14. The Ford Show NBC
  15. The Red Skelton Show CBS
  16. The Gale Storm Show CBS
  17. The Millionaire CBS
  18. The Lineup CBS
  19. This Is Your Life NBC
  20. The $64,000 Question CBS

Primetime TV ratings 2013-2014

Ratings of most popular TV shows each season during the 20th Century.

Most popular shows in syndication 2012-2013

I include the following charts because they suggest "Leave it to Beaver" was in some ways a window onto the way Americans lived in the Fifties. 











TV S GREATEST SIITCOMS Copyright 2004 by Stephen
Winzenburg/Greatest TV Sitcoms (If you're impatient, jump to the boldface)

What is the greatest TV sitcom of all time? Seinfeld? I Love Lucy? The Simpsons? All in the
Family? Everyone seems to have his or her own opinion as to what were the great sitcoms, often
associating a particular show with a specific time of life that emotionally meant something to them. We
hum the theme songs, repeat the funny phrases, and even copy of the behavior of the characters that have
become our living room friends. Sitcoms are the most popular type of programming on the most influential
medium in history and have had a major impact on how we think and what we think about.
Television is a cultural reference point for most of us, a type of shorthand that makes it easy to
carry on a conversation. Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote that to those born since the baby boom of the late
‘40s, “All history begins with television.” We compare ourselves to those on TV, we change how we dress
and cut our hair and talk based on the latest television trend. Viewers pick up catch phrases and turn them
into sidesplitting party parodies that in turn become part of our culture. “Not,” as Jerry Seinfeld would say,
“that there’s anything wrong with that!”

Over time sitcoms acquire a kind of second life, where people who don’t even watch a show
perceive the program as being extremely influential. “Everyone watched Seinfeld” is a common
misconception when in reality only around 20 percent of the population was tuned in on any given week.
“Malcolm in the Middle is the hot new show,” people shouted in 2000, yet it finished its first season in 19th
place with less than 15 percent of America watching and soon lost almost half of those viewers. The media
reported that Sex and the City was “a huge hit,” but the ratings showed that only seven million people
watched out of a population of over 280 million people—that’s less than three percent!
The truth is few of the situation comedies in the history of television have had much long-term
cultural impact. While Frasier was a darling of the critics, was almost always near the top of the Nielsen
ratings in the mid-‘90s, and holds the record for winning the most Emmy Awards, only about 18 percent of
the people in America regularly watched the show at its peak and 25 years from now viewers may wonder
why it’s being rerun in the middle of the night on TV Land.

How can a critically acclaimed series like Frasier end up having less cultural impact than a show
like TGIF teen show Boy Meets World? The difference can be seen in examples from 1957: the highest rated sitcom on TV at that time was the #2-ranked Danny Thomas Show (also known at Make Room for Daddy) while the Emmy winner that year for Best Comedy was Phil Silvers’ You’ll Never Get Rich (which it would win three years in a row). Neither of these shows are familiar to viewers below the age of 50 today and on the rare occasions when the reruns air, modern audiences wonder why people watched in the first place—Danny Thomas comes across as a harsh caricature and Phil Silvers’ scheming Sgt. Bilko is based on a one-joke premise.

However, there is one series from 1957 that was cancelled by CBS in its first season, never
appeared in the top 25 of the ratings, was ridiculed by critics, and didn’t win any major awards—yet it continues to air successfully in reruns today. Leave it to Beaver was a flop when it first went on the air, though ABC picked up the cancelled show after its first season and ran it for another five years without any ratings success. Though it didn’t win an Emmy and didn’t make the top 30 of the ratings, Beaver is the only TV series from the late ‘50s that people still watch and even remember today. It was one of TV Land’s five highest rated shows in 2002 and modern pop culture writers make hundreds of references a year to the Cleavers as the quintessential ‘50s family.

Though some older critics may place You’ll Never Get Rich on their “best sitcom” lists, the series
had no serious long-term impact. Make Room for Daddy, the highest-rated comedy of the late ‘50s, is so
forgotten today that one web site devoted to television history failed to even list it among 2000 shows
because the site creator/TV expert had never heard of the show! Instead it’s the under-appreciated Beaver
that deserves a place on the list of sitcoms with the greatest impact due to the amount of cultural influence
it has acquired over the years.

There are similar examples from other years: Get Smart was highly rated in the mid-‘60s, won the
Best Comedy Emmy twice, and appears on many critics’ lists of greatest TV shows of all time. Yet few
under the age of 50 can recall anything from the series. Instead, a low-rated show from the same time
period has had long-term impact: Gilligan’s Island. Even CBS executives that aired the series about seven
stranded castaways hated the show and were embarrassed that it was on the top-ranked network. But today
most Americans can sing the theme song, name the characters, and theorize why it took them so long to get
off the island. The sitcom even spawned a new generation of island-themed shows, like the TV series
Survivor and the Tom Hanks movie Cast Away, 35 years after the original series was on the air.
It happened again in the early ‘70s. There is no doubt that All in the Family changed the course of
television, but similar groundbreaking, highly-rated, award-winning series such as Sanford & Son, Maude,
Chico & the Man and One Day at a Time have failed to be successful in reruns. Instead it is a corny little
series about a blended family that we still talk about it today. The Brady Bunch never won an Emmy, never
made a list of the greatest TV shows of all time, never even ranked in the top 30 of the ratings, and yet
almost every person in America can recall the personalities and plots of this family series that has
continued to influence generations.

Influential sitcoms are those that either made a major contribution to the genre when they initially
aired, such as when All in the Family contemporized the format, or shows that years later hold long-term
appeal generation after generation, such as The Brady Bunch gaining new viewers on Nick at Nite’s TV
Land.

Do not mistake innovation for influence. Many innovative sitcoms have had little or no long-term
impact on the situation comedy genre. The groundbreaking, highly-rated Maude was critically praised but
has had little long-term impact. Shows such as Days and Nights of Molly Dodd, Ellen, and Ally McBeal
were innovative but not influential. The most recent examples are Sex and the City and Will and Grace,
which critics point to as introducing previously taboo subject matter. But the cultural influence of such
shows has so far been limited to a small number of faithful viewers. The real test of time will be whether
these programs attract a large audience in syndication, if they inspire copycat series, and if their characters
or phrases hold a place in American culture decades from now.



!

Followers