Sitcom: What It Is, How It Works
by
Richard F. Taflinger, PhD
This
page has been accessed since
28 May 1996.
This is a neoAristotelian
analysis of the television situation comedy since 1947. Included are my own
theory of comedy, the business of television, action, character, thought,
diction, music and spectacle as applied to the sitcom, and a listing of all the
sitcoms that have been on American primetime television since 1947.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- A Theory of Comedy
- NeoAristotelian
Theory
- The Business of
Television
- Landmark
Forms of Comedy on Television
- A
History of Comedy on Television
- General Comments on
the Situation Comedy
- The Actcom:
Action Based Sitcoms
- The Domcom:
Character Based Sitcoms
- The Dramedy: Thought Based Sitcoms
- The Theory of Comedy
Applied to Sitcoms
- Conclusion
- A Listing of Situation
Comedies since 1947: A - M
- A Listing of Situation
Comedies since 1947: N - Z
Return to Richard Taflinger's Home Page
INTRODUCTION
The invariable question
people ask me when I say I'm writing about television is "For or against?". Before I can even draw breath to answer
"Neither", their eyes blaze and they proceed to give me their
opinions of the terrible muck that TV foists upon an unsuspecting public under
the guise of entertainment. Had I instead said that I was writing about theatre
attendance at Gold Rush mining camps in the 1850s, or the existence (or lack
thereof) of a stage in the Attic Greek theatre, their eyes would glaze, they
would murmur a polite "That's nice", and go on their way, shaking
their heads and muttering something about esoteric eggheads and Ivory Towers.
Well, in a way they might be right. Gold Rush
theatre and Greek stages are not something that impinges upon the life of
virtually every person in the
Television is the major form of entertainment
in the world today. By 1986 there were about 150,000,000 television receivers
in the
Of course, television as an entertainment
medium is very much different from any other performing art. The differences
are manifold, but I'll just point up some of the major ones. First, of course,
are commercials. One doesn't see that many commercials at a play or the movies
(except perhaps at drive-in movies at which the management is trying to get the
patrons out of the back seat and into the refreshment counter).
Second, you have a whole different attitude
when approaching commercial television than when approaching the theatre. In
the latter case you go and sit in a darkened room with the idea of
concentrating on that one thing: the play or movie. In addition, you are
surrounded by other people with the same idea. Occasionally a station shows a
movie (or you rent one) and you invite friends over to watch it with you in
silence and absorption. This is not, however, how television is usually
watched.
Television is in your home, a very basic
fact. Rarely do you sit in a darkened room, surrounded by others intent on
watching the tube. On the contrary, there are constant interruptions: the phone
rings, it's time to cook dinner, a visitor at the door, housework, any number of things diabolically fighting for your
attention.
Third, television is a private enterprise on
public property, or, more correctly, carried on through public airwaves. It is
therefore subject to Federal intervention. Comparatively speaking, the theatre
and movies can do just about as they damn well please, but television must
answer to just about anybody.
Fourth, theatre is considered an art;
television is considered, particularly by those who run it, an industry, more
interested in gold than in the Golden Age.
The last point notwithstanding, television is
indeed an art just as much as drama or movies; it's just harder to tell because
of all the other things with which it must contend. It is to an examination of
television as an art that this book dedicates itself.
WHY THE SITUATION COMEDY?
This book, although it discusses television
in general to a great extent, concentrates on the situation comedy. The art
form that is television is an extensive subject. For this reason I decided to
survey and analyze only one form, the situation comedy.
The sitcom is the most numerous form of
program on television. A conservative estimate of the number of scripts written
and produced for this form in the last fifty years is 27,000. However, such
scripts as a source of data and examination are effectively nonexistent.
Inquiries to the Library of Congress, the National Association of Broadcasters,
and the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences yielded nothing. I
therefore decided to approach the subject of the sitcom from a different point
of view.
Even if there are few scripts available,
there is no dearth of productions to watch on television every day and night,
including many reruns of programs from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, either in
syndication or on television festivals. Therefore, this study is from the point
of view of the observer, the person who sits in a chair or lounges on the couch
and watches television.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
The vernacular of television is filled with
expressions, idioms, and abbreviations that have crept into everyday language
of American Life. Few people don't know the meanings of such words as zoom,
rerun, suds, soap opera, ratings, Neilson, and spinoff, and of course, sitcom.
However, to make this book a little easier on the reader (and myself) I decided
it would help to coin some new terms. There are two reasons for this. First, for the sake of brevity. Second, to allow instant
identification of the types of situation comedy I discuss. This should help in
avoiding possible confusion as I discuss aspects of different types of sitcoms.
Following the example set by the industry itself, I use contractions to label
the various types of situation comedies I, and you, dear reader, will
encounter.
The situation comedy, in television
vernacular, is called the sitcom. However, this term applies to all types of
situation comedy, and, as I will show, there are three distinct types of
sitcom. For clarity, I will substitute terms for each type: actcom
for the action comedy, domcom for the domestic
comedy, and dramedy for the dramatic comedy.
The actcom is the
most numerous type of sitcom on television, and can be based on a variety of
themes: the family (I LOVE LUCY, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, THE GOLDEN GIRLS),
gimmicks (BEWITCHED, I DREAM OF JEANNIE, ALF), places (GILLIGAN'S
The domcom is more
expansive than the actcom, having a wider variety of
events and a greater sense of seriousness. It involves more people, both in the
regular cast and in transient actors brought into individual episodes. Examples
of the domcom include FATHER KNOWS BEST, THE ANDY
GRIFFITH SHOW, MY THREE SONS, THE BRADY BUNCH, THE DONNA REED SHOW, ROSEANNE
and THE COSBY SHOW.
The greatest emphasis in a domcom is on the characters and their growth and
development as human beings. This type of sitcom is called a domestic comedy
because it is almost invariably set in and around a family unit: a mother
and/or father, and most definitely, children. A major factor in motion picture
and theatrical drama is that the events portray the most important thing to
happen in the protagonist's life. However, in an episodic television series,
the event must not be the most important event in the protagonist's life. If it
is, subsequent episodes will be anticlimactic. The domcom
neatly circumvents this problem. Children are incomplete adults, the physical
and mental and emotional facets of their characters unknown, or at least not
fully understood. Thus, the event can be the most important thing in their
lives at that time, without it being the most important in their entire lives.
They may go through a major crisis without it affecting their future beyond
increasing their growth and maturity. (For a more complete discussion of this
important aspect of drama, see DOMCOM.)
The problems encountered are more serious and
related more to human nature than those in an actcom.
The problems, complications, and solutions in an actcom
are physical in nature, while in a domcom they are
mental and/or emotional. In addition, the resolutions in a domcom
are a learning experience for all involved rather than a simple clearing up of
a misunderstanding. Concepts of peace, love and laughter are emphasized, as are
concepts of family unity.
A dramedy is the
rarest and most serious type of sitcom; its entire being is not devoted to
evoking laughter from the audience. Its emphasis is on thought, often
presenting themes that are not humorous: war, death, crime, aging,
unemployment, racism, sexism, etc. The humor is more comic intensification than
an end in itself.
The themes are personified, showing the
regular characters in conflict with the themes as they affect individuals, not
as impersonal labels for intangible concepts. Often two factions are
represented, either with two characters in direct conflict with each other,
each representing a point of view on the theme, or characters in conflict with
the intangible by observing the effects of it on others and attempting to aid
them. ALL IN THE FAMILY and MAUDE are examples of the first, M*A*S*H, BARNEY
MILLER and NIGHT COURT of the second.
SUMMARY
Television is an important part of American
life, and, although a great amount has been said and written about its
significance and impact on politics, sociology, communications, technology, and
the American life style, almost no attention has been paid to the programs
themselves as an art form. No one has actually described what appears on the
home screen without moralizing or philosophizing about its effects on the world
outside the program. It is my purpose to fill this lack for the television
situation comedy, to describe what appears on the screen, to find what kinds of
plots, what kinds of characters, what kinds of themes or lack thereof are used.
It was not my intention to do a finely
detailed examination of scripts or authors' styles. Such a study would take a
lifetime, involving as it would what I estimate at some 27,000 individual
scripts. My technique was to observe and examine a random sample of programs
over the period from 1950 to 1993. This involved watching at least one episode
of each of the 680 sitcoms that have been on the air, and between 50 and 200
episodes of many. (Before wondering what sane person would watch 6,000 hours of
sitcoms, examine your assumption. What makes you think I'm sane, at least now?)
From this study I derived a set of
classifications and criteria for each type of sitcom that may be used in future
studies as a guide, as an aid to the present or future creator or writer of
comedy and TV shows, or for casual TV viewers who enjoy amazing their friends
and confounding their enemies with their incredible insight into television.
To accomplish my purpose I first had to
determine what a situation comedy is. To do this I relied on two sources: what
other authors called situation comedies, particularly Vincent Terrace, Tim
Brooks and Earle Marsh, and Alex McNeil, and television itself, by watching the
shows and comparing them with the six criteria for comedy.
The second step was to examine the situation
comedy according to the neo-Aristotelian principles of drama: plot, character,
thought, spectacle, diction, and music. During this examination I looked for
various things that would help me in classifying and developing criteria for
the situation comedy. From this examination I was able to formulate the
findings enumerated in the following chapters.
Return to Richard Taflinger's Home Page
You can reach me by e-mail at: richt@turbonet.com
This page was created by Richard F. Taflinger. Thus, all errors, bad links, and even worse
style are entirely his fault.
Copyright © 1996 Richard F. Taflinger.
This and all other pages created by and containing the original work of Richard
F. Taflinger are copyrighted, and are thus subject to
fair use policies, and may not be copied, in whole or in part, without express
written permission of the author richt@turbonet.com.
Disclaimers
The information provided on this and other pages by
me, Richard F. Taflinger (richt@turbonet.com), is under my own
personal responsibility and not that of
In addition,
I, Richard F. Taflinger, accept no responsibility for
WSU or ERMCC material or policies. Statements issued on behalf of