Sitcom Hell

However, I can't think of who the victim wd be in Dharma and Greg, which is funnier than the Fresh Prince (marginally).

"Classic" UK sitcoms were its application seems somewhat strained and/or diluted: Dad's Army; Porridge

As Michael pointed out though, this doesn't seem to be the case with American sitcoms. I'm hard put to think of any of the ones currently on the air that would qualify as great except perhaps the Simpsons, which doesn't fit the theory at all. It really has too many characters to ever really be focused long enough on one particular character's torment.

It wasn't very funny either. Brilliant but completely nightmarish.

Fraiser Crane (from Fraiser) MIGHT qualify as a suffering soul, but he's the one that brings upon his own suffering, more often than not. Instead of being the victim of other people's inherent stupidity or sheer dumb luck (as he was while in Cheers), he just shoots himself in the foot time & time again.

The only character(s) I can think of in a sitcom that comes CLOSE to that sort of suffering are Lisa Simpson & Malcolm (from Malcolm in the Middle). Oddly enough, they're not too dissimilar - super- smart kids stuck with dopey siblings & dopey parents. And, even then, they usually just fall back in line instead of raging against the dying of their light.

The US heartily embraces the status quo. Not Status Quo, though.

Porridge - Barraclough. His essential decency continually compromised and made mock of by the venal rest-of-cast.

(Sorry, I just like doing that...)

The Good Life is far funnier if you actually grew up with socialist ex-hippie parents who decided that recreating the programme in suburban New York would somehow be A Good Idea. Sigh.

Aren't most sitcoms about people suffering, whether self-inflicted or not? That's why they're so-called funny.

You're making the assumption that people are actually watching it. ;-)

Seinfeld fits. Larry Sanders fits.

But no, one of my coworkers told me the last scene on the last Dharma & Greg as that they got into this car accident and then the screen goes black and Greg is all, "Dharma? Dharma? Dharma, are you okay?" blah blah blah. I hope she dies, because I can't stand that Jenna Elfman bitch.

"Forced" to watch We Got It Maid? The sad thing is, I am still haunted by the horrible theme song. The only nice thing I can think to say about it is that it wasn't as bad as Small Wonder.

I don't see how Seinfeld fits -- it's more about Jerry & co. making other people's lives hell, I think.

Seinfeld doesn't really count because they never seem too unhappy about anything, it's really just mild irritation blown out of proportion. How about Everybody Loves Raymond - his brother, his parents, his in-laws, even his wife sometimes. That's a great show anyhow.

"Cultural implications": I have idly (add S, T, U and P if you must) wondered what's going on that the Dharma's dad's character — who is after all a member of the Weather Undergound or similar — has just become so much domesticated sitcom material.

This theory is filed alongside my other cracker:: The Matrix = Hollywood's version of the Baader-Meinhoff story, WITH A HAPPY ENDING (happy for Baader and Meinhoff, anyway: it's unhappy for the world they're rescuing from techno-delusion...)

Galton & Simpson's earlier sitcom, 'Hancocks Half-Hour', was basicially the same thing - hapless dreamer has fanciful ideas which get shot down, thus at the end of each episode, our 'hero' found himself where he always was and would always remain - below the bottom rung in society and in despair. I think it's still the most watched comedy series in British TV history.

More up-to-date, probably 'The League of Gentlemen' carries on this bleak, none-more-black-comedy tradition. If you count that as a sitcom, that is.

"Ever Decreasing Circles".

Mind you, there's not such a paradox here, perhaps: since I feel much the same way about Whitehouse. Like: make it go away.

EDC fits Tom's theory, except – once again — it isn't funny.

Actually the mention of EDC in the copy of Papercuts which is current toilet reading at Casa Ewing is what prompted this thread, so everything comes full circle, sort of.

EDC is, I think, meant to be more neurotic than laugh-out-loud funny. I still love it, though. Any chance of going into more detail, Mike?

Tom's vision of hell theory rings true for EDC. In fact, it is a particularly complex example of this. The situation is hellish for Martin because of his perfect neighbour Paul (Peter Egan). Martin takes it to extremes ("Why do the moles make molehills my lawn and not Paul's?" he asks in frustration at the beginning of one episode). But also, it is hellish for both Paul and Martin's wife (Helen I think, played by Penelope Wilton) *because* of Martin's obsessive behaviour and tedious conversation. Martin gets on very well with the dull, far-too-couply Howard and Hilda, to Paul and Helen's chagrin.

Was EDC funny? Yes, but in a subtle way. It could almost be the origin of the term "gentle comedy", which would bring comments of "so gentle it's not funny" from lovers of more brash, in yer face material. My parents *loved* this show and I'm sure it is because they knew ppl who were just like the characters.

Good example: Father Ted obv., Only Fools & Horses obvx2, Steptoe & Hancock (which may in fairness have provided the kernel of the idea, now that I reread the thread above). US sitcoms are again a bad match.

Mind you, you can understand Paul's bemusement. How does someone as intelligent, witty and all round great as Penelope Wilton's character end up married to someone like this?

Green Wing is two thirds sitcom and one third sketchshow.

How on Earth is Frasier more of a cock than Brent?? His pompousness is the only bugbear surely?

I thought everyone was outraged and bitterly disappointed when she won the lottery? As again it seemed a betrayal of the show's 'ethos'? Although the show had already started to suck before that point...

Most recently, My Name is Earl. Also: Malcom in the Middle, where being poor was the damn centerpiece of the show. And Arrested Development, while not wildly successful, did feature main characters you were intended to not be sympathetic towards--the ONLY sympathetic character was George Michael, the son of the supposed "hero."

I remember the episode where the Dad buys a PORSCHE.

No way, I totally liked and sympathised with the main character.

Careful now, saying things like this apparently means you "don't get comedy" according to fans of the show. Agree with you here, but I think the general view of CYE is that it sticks to Stevem's description of "everyone else is dumb except me". Poor Larry David with all his money and success, he's just misunderstood. Imagine recasting his character as some top British TV exec - guffaws ensue? Perhaps not unless he is turned into a fat bungling fuckwit who twats up every job he does by being a genuine plonker.

Malcolm In The Middle is NOT supposed to be poor what the frig man!

-- Konal Doddz (stevem7...), May 30th, 2006 12:42 PM. (blueski) (later) (link)

Um, is that the only episode you watched? 'Cause the poor thing is pretty obvious. The mom works in a Rite-Aid clone, for Chrissakes.

And Michael was better than the rest of his family, but not by much. He was still stubborn and fairly arrogant and a pretty bad father.

Have you ever WATCHED the show? WTF

Um didn't you say upthread you've never watched Arrested Development?

Oh, doglatinpaws.

Much as you can't say "all British/American comedy is like this because I haven't seen lots of it, and will just mention the ones that fit into my argument and hope no-one notices", you also can't use "but it's *alternative* therefore it doesn't count anyway" as a get-out clause either.

I was being sarcastic with the "compare Time Gentlemen Please" to "Cheers". They bear no resemblence to each other bar (pardon the pun) their setting. Same goes with Scrubs and Green Wing.

the comedy does come from the fact he and his family are caricatures of a certain type of family - it's actually a very British thing to do in fact rather than relying on witty one-liners and comebacks for comedy.

Couple this with the "no sitcoms really about poor Americans (except the ones we've already told you about which don't count because you've never seen them)" and I'll just point out to you there's a whole thread on New Answers just now about Married With Children. (which, incidentally, was remade for a British audience and was shite, despite being one of your typical British sitcoms.

You are supposed to identify with Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld, but you're not supposed to like them. If you see the shows through the prism of class, you completely misunderstand them - they are morality plays.

Frasier's Dad is absolutely not the only characeter audience members are meant to identify with

dog latin is totally off the money as to the actual situation of characters in US vs UK coms, but he does somewhat accurately identify a difference in attitudes sold to the different national audiences - Americans more often want to give reality the promising sheen of upward mobility (thus the at least (but not complete) semi-fantasy of Friends), or a light treatment of the ironies of reality, while Britons more often reward a flatter, more malcontented, pessimistic vibe.

You could say that US comedy is about people making a pigs ear of a good situation while Brticom is about people trying earnestly to make the best out of a bad one.

perhaps, but I can easily think of Brit contra examples. As Time Goes By, in many respects. Even Fawlty Towers.

I've seen My Name Is Earl a few times, and I think he won the lottery but then got hit by a car and lost the winning ticket, so he never received the money. So he's not rich at all, just into karma. I might be wrong about this, though, as I don't pay much attention.

If you look at it that way, the Modern World is Archie Bunker's hell in "All in the Family." He's definitely the protagonist, even if he's neither a hero nor an anti-hero. He's clearly an unsympathetic character, usually wrong about everything, but it's clearly his hell.

That would also interestingly make "Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C." Sgt. Carter's hell, as well as making "Dennis the Menace" Mr. Mitchell's hell. "Mary Tyler Moore" is Lou Grant's hell. I'd prefer to look at it that way.

"Family Ties" would be Jennifer's (Tina Yothers) hell. Hippy parents, Reaganite brother, Valley-girl sister. Everything is so clear now. Not that it was particlarly funny as much as "endearing."

Best of all, "The Brady Bunch" is now re-situated as Alice's hell. Maybe it's her salvation, having a family (cf ep where she quits because of the kids), but as far as that goes it's pretty bleak. She's the only funny character in the show, so QED or whatever.

The inverse might be protagonists who are knowing-but-often-removed observers of other people's hell(s). "Seinfeld," for one, particularly that ep where Elaine and George switch fates, but Jerry remains "Even Steven." "The Andy Griffith Show," "The Cosby Show," probably most shows named after the lead actor fall into this category. Except "Newhart." It's his hell.

King of Queens, That 70s Show, American Dad...

and loads of brit ones about the upper middle class (Good life, EDC, Butteflies) and the wealthy (Yes Minister, To the manor born). this thread is ridiculous.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/Gimmeabreak.jpg

Answer, btw, to "where does...fit into this?" is "it doesn't". Doglatin is pretty much talking pish from a fairly uninformed standpoint.

No, he does have the money. What happened was, he got the winning ticket, then he got hit by the car and lost the ticket. Then, while he was in hospital, he saw Carson Daly on the telly talking about karma, so he made his list, and when he fixed the very first thing on his list (I forget what it was), he found the ticket and collected the money. And now he's using the money to fix all the bad things he did because if he doesn't, karma will take the money away from him again.

also Cheers.