03-10-2015, 04:27 PM
I've tweaked it, you bastards. Still not done. The order is all fucked up atm so just ignore that for the time being
A narrative medium in television I feel has its wisdom overlooked is American sitcoms. Staples like past-it The Big Bang Theory - particularly in those declining later seasons - are only casual viewing for some, so many assume that comedy isn't difficult, and therefore disposable. There is a general consensus that the American sitcom must be placed into two categories; According to (will find his name), Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is basic and gag-driven. Example, Two Broke Girls, a light-hearted comedy reliant on toilet humour, cultural stereotypes, double entendre and physical humour. Filming in front of a studio audience or adding audience laughter in the edit is common in this category. There is nothing wrong with this. The intentions are clear. Type 1 sitcoms are for light, forgettable entertainment. Then there is Type 2, which is the striking polar opposite. These shows often run for less than four seasons due to low ratings despite critical acclaim or an avid fandom. They inspire just as much love as a Type 1 sitcom, but in a different way, and deliberately lack the transparency required in Type 1 used to ensure nobody missed the joke. Example, Arrested Development, which subverts the inaccurately bandied about “dysfunctional family” trope by having bizarre characters who actually are dysfunctional, managing to be a bit vile and strangely adorable at the same time, with obsessive background gags, clever foreshadowing and sharp wordplay which give the show longevity, so you can re-watch again and again. And again. This tends to alienate an audience accustomed to broad comedy and characters with black-and-white morals. The creator of a Type 2 is an auteur and has a very specific universe to bring to the audience. Largely the lack of commercial ubiquity of Type 2 is down to the creator's refusal to be slave to a wide audience, but this can result in a more personal connection with people who genuinely care about the characters and get the thought process of the writers, directors and creator. Cult American comedies don't age because their identity does not slot in perfectly with the time they were created.
However. I feel that there is space for another type of American sitcom, Type 3, the iconic sitcom. The cultural text I will use to argue this is The Simpsons. The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening who started out drawing a cartoon called Life In Hell in regional newspapers. They featured a rabbit called Binky, and most of the humour was derived from the dark side of life. James L Brooks, now co-producer of The Simpsons, saw Groening's cartoons and proposed he do some “buffers” – approximately 20 second skits before and after ad-breaks – for The Tracey Ullman Show. Groening created a jaundiced family named after his own, apart from Bart, the anagram of “brat”. The yellow skin is such a simple but clever touch; not only does it add an oddness to the signature look of the show, but, as Groening put it, makes the show easy to spot by someone flicking through channels. Ironically they were created because Groening didn't want to spoil his “good” characters. They became very popular and in 1989 Fox commissioned a season of 13 full-length episodes. Initially, Bart was geared to be the favourite and the main character, as many early episodes were centred around him; “Bart The General”, “Bart the Daredevil”, and his face dominated the merchandise, but well-meaning dad Homer was more popular. To be honest I did not enjoy the early Simpsons episodes because it hadn't “arrived” yet. There was a divide between those who got it and those who didn't, and, like with many of my and other people's favourite shows, the writers needed to settle, because this is when “breakout” characters emerge. The Simpsons, in its early days, knew how to balance crudity and intelligence in a way that did not pander to anyone in particular. It occupies a rare grey area where broad physical comedy and toilet humour adds to the layered writing, rather than being the only way into the “situation”. In the first nine seasons, the show had an inarguable appeal to practically everyone with a television. Satire, sight-gags, subversion of cultural stereotypes, self-awareness and surreal absurd humour were all inter-weaved with a variety of offbeat characters who were familiar, relatable and gradually became multidimensional as the series went on.
Part of what I think has given the show a longevity that many divisive shows never quite gain is its sympathetic and natural portrayal of the modern family. Many shows before it focused on a unit of family or friends, like The Waltons, The Partridge Family or The Cosby Show, but they were, by default, unquestionably well-meaning and deeply preachy. There was always a happy ending, and lessons were learned at the end of every episode. Schmaltz has never been my cup of tea. Ernest cold parents and rigid morals generally don't have a place now, and this could well be partly down to The Simpsons changing what it meant to be a “sitcom family”.What set The Simpsons apart, and what I believe gave it an edge of more specific and relatable poignancy, was its darkness and crudeness veering on controversial,which struck a chord with everyone. In fact, George Bush
Snr. said something that annoyed me - “We need a nation closer to The Waltons than The Simpsons.” this is very short-sighted and misses the whole point of the show. By saying this, Bush Snr. in a way exposed himself more to the shows' wry satirical sensibilities. He was exactly the sort of person that would be lampooned by the show. Humour is a powerful tool, and The Simpsons' insistence on poking generally harmless fun at every aspect or society or pop culture transcends The Waltons' well-meaning (albeit blankly self-righteous) story and characters. As the world's population scatters and expands, bringing about natural changes to how people think, there does need to be a cathartic TV show that reminds us that it is okay to laugh. I've always thought that people are inclined toward laughing at crude or black comedy because it takes the edge off tragedy, but does not desensitise us to it. Possibly the cartoon genre helps with this, but unusually the show had an emotional gravitas that worked surprisingly well within a slightly unhinged cartoon universe. It is difficult and a little unsettling to think of The Simpsons' characters as what they are; animated drawings. The nice cartoon coating allows flexible and off-kilter narrative techniques to be palatable to a wide audience that may see the same genre-twisting in a live-action show like Community and be put off. I do not think this is fair, because Community is one of the best shows I have seen, and shares The Simpsons' knack for underpinning strangeness and black comedy with sweetness. But that is the power of the cartoon.
My point is that anything is possible in any genre, particularly cartoons, but The Simpsons was arguably the first cartoon to extend this point to mean multi-layered characters narratives. The turning point, where The Simpsons surpassed Type 1 and headed nearer to Type 2 territory, can be pinpointed in the episode “Bart Gets An F”. Yet again it was Bart underachieving at school, which had been the sole aspect of Bart's character, but the key difference in this episode was that the character was fleshing out. In this episode Bart has had enough with all these F-grades and genuinely tries to study and get better. He doesn't have the attention span and briefly hates himself for it before going out to play with Milhouse, but, through a previously one-dimensional character taking a step forward and altering the previous narrative default, the show grows a heart and starts to become self aware and emotionally intelligent.
A narrative medium in television I feel has its wisdom overlooked is American sitcoms. Staples like past-it The Big Bang Theory - particularly in those declining later seasons - are only casual viewing for some, so many assume that comedy isn't difficult, and therefore disposable. There is a general consensus that the American sitcom must be placed into two categories; According to (will find his name), Type 1 and Type 2. Type 1 is basic and gag-driven. Example, Two Broke Girls, a light-hearted comedy reliant on toilet humour, cultural stereotypes, double entendre and physical humour. Filming in front of a studio audience or adding audience laughter in the edit is common in this category. There is nothing wrong with this. The intentions are clear. Type 1 sitcoms are for light, forgettable entertainment. Then there is Type 2, which is the striking polar opposite. These shows often run for less than four seasons due to low ratings despite critical acclaim or an avid fandom. They inspire just as much love as a Type 1 sitcom, but in a different way, and deliberately lack the transparency required in Type 1 used to ensure nobody missed the joke. Example, Arrested Development, which subverts the inaccurately bandied about “dysfunctional family” trope by having bizarre characters who actually are dysfunctional, managing to be a bit vile and strangely adorable at the same time, with obsessive background gags, clever foreshadowing and sharp wordplay which give the show longevity, so you can re-watch again and again. And again. This tends to alienate an audience accustomed to broad comedy and characters with black-and-white morals. The creator of a Type 2 is an auteur and has a very specific universe to bring to the audience. Largely the lack of commercial ubiquity of Type 2 is down to the creator's refusal to be slave to a wide audience, but this can result in a more personal connection with people who genuinely care about the characters and get the thought process of the writers, directors and creator. Cult American comedies don't age because their identity does not slot in perfectly with the time they were created.
However. I feel that there is space for another type of American sitcom, Type 3, the iconic sitcom. The cultural text I will use to argue this is The Simpsons. The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening who started out drawing a cartoon called Life In Hell in regional newspapers. They featured a rabbit called Binky, and most of the humour was derived from the dark side of life. James L Brooks, now co-producer of The Simpsons, saw Groening's cartoons and proposed he do some “buffers” – approximately 20 second skits before and after ad-breaks – for The Tracey Ullman Show. Groening created a jaundiced family named after his own, apart from Bart, the anagram of “brat”. The yellow skin is such a simple but clever touch; not only does it add an oddness to the signature look of the show, but, as Groening put it, makes the show easy to spot by someone flicking through channels. Ironically they were created because Groening didn't want to spoil his “good” characters. They became very popular and in 1989 Fox commissioned a season of 13 full-length episodes. Initially, Bart was geared to be the favourite and the main character, as many early episodes were centred around him; “Bart The General”, “Bart the Daredevil”, and his face dominated the merchandise, but well-meaning dad Homer was more popular. To be honest I did not enjoy the early Simpsons episodes because it hadn't “arrived” yet. There was a divide between those who got it and those who didn't, and, like with many of my and other people's favourite shows, the writers needed to settle, because this is when “breakout” characters emerge. The Simpsons, in its early days, knew how to balance crudity and intelligence in a way that did not pander to anyone in particular. It occupies a rare grey area where broad physical comedy and toilet humour adds to the layered writing, rather than being the only way into the “situation”. In the first nine seasons, the show had an inarguable appeal to practically everyone with a television. Satire, sight-gags, subversion of cultural stereotypes, self-awareness and surreal absurd humour were all inter-weaved with a variety of offbeat characters who were familiar, relatable and gradually became multidimensional as the series went on.
Part of what I think has given the show a longevity that many divisive shows never quite gain is its sympathetic and natural portrayal of the modern family. Many shows before it focused on a unit of family or friends, like The Waltons, The Partridge Family or The Cosby Show, but they were, by default, unquestionably well-meaning and deeply preachy. There was always a happy ending, and lessons were learned at the end of every episode. Schmaltz has never been my cup of tea. Ernest cold parents and rigid morals generally don't have a place now, and this could well be partly down to The Simpsons changing what it meant to be a “sitcom family”.What set The Simpsons apart, and what I believe gave it an edge of more specific and relatable poignancy, was its darkness and crudeness veering on controversial,which struck a chord with everyone. In fact, George Bush
Snr. said something that annoyed me - “We need a nation closer to The Waltons than The Simpsons.” this is very short-sighted and misses the whole point of the show. By saying this, Bush Snr. in a way exposed himself more to the shows' wry satirical sensibilities. He was exactly the sort of person that would be lampooned by the show. Humour is a powerful tool, and The Simpsons' insistence on poking generally harmless fun at every aspect or society or pop culture transcends The Waltons' well-meaning (albeit blankly self-righteous) story and characters. As the world's population scatters and expands, bringing about natural changes to how people think, there does need to be a cathartic TV show that reminds us that it is okay to laugh. I've always thought that people are inclined toward laughing at crude or black comedy because it takes the edge off tragedy, but does not desensitise us to it. Possibly the cartoon genre helps with this, but unusually the show had an emotional gravitas that worked surprisingly well within a slightly unhinged cartoon universe. It is difficult and a little unsettling to think of The Simpsons' characters as what they are; animated drawings. The nice cartoon coating allows flexible and off-kilter narrative techniques to be palatable to a wide audience that may see the same genre-twisting in a live-action show like Community and be put off. I do not think this is fair, because Community is one of the best shows I have seen, and shares The Simpsons' knack for underpinning strangeness and black comedy with sweetness. But that is the power of the cartoon.
My point is that anything is possible in any genre, particularly cartoons, but The Simpsons was arguably the first cartoon to extend this point to mean multi-layered characters narratives. The turning point, where The Simpsons surpassed Type 1 and headed nearer to Type 2 territory, can be pinpointed in the episode “Bart Gets An F”. Yet again it was Bart underachieving at school, which had been the sole aspect of Bart's character, but the key difference in this episode was that the character was fleshing out. In this episode Bart has had enough with all these F-grades and genuinely tries to study and get better. He doesn't have the attention span and briefly hates himself for it before going out to play with Milhouse, but, through a previously one-dimensional character taking a step forward and altering the previous narrative default, the show grows a heart and starts to become self aware and emotionally intelligent.
HARRISON FORD IS IRRADIATING OUR TESTICLES WITH MICROWAVE SATELLITE TRANSMISSIONS
AND WHO THE FUCK STOLE MY BOILED EGGS?
AND WHO THE FUCK STOLE MY BOILED EGGS?