The writer has a pitch. It's an idea for a half-hour comedy program centering on a small group of individuals, let's say 4 - 8, who either live or work or play together on a regular basis, and each week some sort of problem comes up that needs fixing, and in doing so, the characters interact with one another and try a bunch of solutions and most of those solutions fail until maybe one succeeds, or doesn't, and there's your show.
Hopefully the pitch has a little more meat on the bones than that, but you get the general idea. At that point, the writer often takes a deep breath and says this: "But it's not a sitcom."
"It's not a sitcom." It is a phrase perhaps second in popularity only to the old standby, "We know your show will be funny, but what else will it be?"
(Well, you don't know it'll be funny. A thousand things have to go right before that happens. My name could be Giggles McChucklepants and you'd still have no guarantee the show I'm pitching you will be funny. We should be so lucky. Comedy is hard.)
But I digress.
My little theory is that there are three reasons why the fear and loathing of the word "sitcom" tends to persist. The first, I've grown to suspect, is particularly unfortunate: The writer in question refuses to use the word "sitcom" because it gives them a sort of insurance policy just in case the show isn't actually funny. For some reason, calling their project a "half-hour comedy" or, God forbid, "half-hour dramedy," seems to ease the pressure, because that way, if the jokes are few and far between, it was done on purpose. It's not a sitcom.
This is an important point because it distinguishes the "sitcom versus half-hour comedy" issue from being purely one of semantics to an issue of actual quality. It could just be me, but I believe that a comedy, no matter what you call it, should be funny. Quite funny. Like, ideally, a-couple-of-chuckles-and-one-big-laugh-on-every-page funny. If you're writing a comedy pilot and there aren't a lot of actual laughs, it's a bit like writing a Die Hard movie where there isn't a lot of actual action. The audience comes through the door expecting something and when we don't deliver it we shoot ourselves in the foot.
Now, please note I say "laughs" here and not necessarily "jokes." Personally, I like jokes, and lots of them, but I will labour to make the distinction because it speaks to the second reason people are sitcom-phobic, which is that the word "sitcom" seems to conjur a certain creaky set-up/punchline/my boss-is-coming-to-dinner-and-all-I-have-to-serve-him-are-my-pot-brownies kind of show, like, say, Three's Company (which had its merits, but whatever).
Personally, I say enough. It's time to re-claim the stupid word. The old adage that a sitcom should have "three jokes a page" may sound hacky and tired, but keep in mind that it's not all sarcastic retorts. It's wordplay, it's pratfalls, it's cutaways, it's bad behaviour, it's reactions to that bad behaviour. Things that are not all necessarily "jokes" but things that are clearly, demonstrably funny. Comedy scripts should be chock full of them. That's not to say we can't have dramatic moments, or land an emotional punch here and there, but if we're doing comedy, we have to earn that stuff, not just cram it in because we ran out of gags.
Cheers, Taxi, Everybody Loves Raymond, Will and Grace, Two and a Half Men, and Happy Days are all sitcoms. But so are Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Office, Flight of the Conchords, 30 Rock, Extras and so forth.
Now: You might look at that list and note that none of those shows are Canadian, which brings me to the third and possibly most common objection to the use of the word sitcom, which is that we don't have that kind of history up here. Well, you're right, we don't, which is why any time I get into a discussion about sitcoms in Canada someone invariably brings up The Trouble With Tracy. Truth be told, that was a perfectly good argument twenty years ago. Maybe even ten.
But I think we should move on. The Trouble with Tracy was nearly forty fucking years ago, and the tide has, I believe, finally turned. If we accept that Corner Gas, Trailer Park Boys, Rent-a-Goalie, Little Mosque, Made in Canada, The Newsroom, etc. are, by definition, sitcoms, then we have to come to the conclusion that we have, in fact, rounded some kind of corner in this country, and that there is nobility in building on this new tradition. Television comedy isn't dead. People like to laugh. It's like some sort of weird thing with them, in fact.
What kinds of sitcom are we going to make, traditional or groundbreaking? I'm not sure. I recently had a conversation with a very talented Canadian television writer who argued that not only is sitcom a dirty word, but that comedy had "evolved" past shows like Cheers.
I like this guy, but I say that's bullshit. The traditional multi-cam show has run aground in recent years, no question, but I am convinced it is resting and not dead. Much has been made of the fact that CBC are currently looking to produce traditional, family-oriented, multi-cam sitcoms. Some people question the idea, but I happen to like it a lot. There is something to be said for zigging while everyone else zags, and I actually believe that the Ceeb, rather than dragging behind the curve on this one, are in fact out-front, anticipating a time in the near-future when frenetic, uber-ironic, 40 locations-and-65-scene comedies wear out their welcome. People like shows where they can drop in to a place they know and actually hang around a while. It was nice to go back to the WJM Newsroom, or Mary's apartment. It felt good. Shows like Arrested Development had no real home base, and I think suffered because of it. The show was hilarious, but the emotional connection wasn't there.
This is related to my "Friendly Giant" theory of television, which is that people like a certain amount of repetition in their TV because it's ingrained in us at an early age ("I'll close up the draw bridge when you leave...") But that's another post.
Similarly, it's been a while since I sat down with CTV, and they may not be as interested in doing the multi-cam thing, but I can't believe they wouldn't love to have another Corner Gas on their hands. Are they gonna back away from the next great idea or vehicle simply because the man or woman pitching it calls it a sitcom? I doubt it. (Though if I'm wrong, don't sue me).
So, that's my little rant. Be curious to find out if I'm alone on this one.
Oh, one other thing: Assuming we ever get over the sitcom thing, could we also possibly put a moratorium on saying things like "It's a comedy about a family, but it's not "Frasier." Or, "it's a show about young people, but it's not "Friends." Or, "it's quirky, but it's not Seinfeld."
Why do we always pick the most successful shows in television history as an example of what we don't want to do? I'm not saying we should set out to re-make a show that's already been done, but wouldn't it be nice to at least duplicate that kind of success?
It always seems to me like it would make more sense to say "It's a story about a guy on the radio, but it's not 'Hello, Larry.'"
Now there's a pitch I could get behind.
"Hello, Larry"? Anyone? As I say, I'm old.

21 rumbles:
on cg in the early days all our press releases from ctv described our show as a narrative com, or narrcom I guess.
I peronally think of it as a sitcom and describe it as such, albeit with the disclaimer, "but it's single camera
m
'Blackfly'?
"shudder"
Sitcom used to mean situational comedy in front of a live studio audience, didn't it? That's the picture I conjure up when I hear the term...but I too, am old.
Single camera comedy (or sitcom I suppose) seems to fit the present incarnation, as per mef
nice guest post
thanks wc... quite frankly i don't know how denis does this every day.
at some point while editing my post i accidentally deleted the part where I pointed out the obvious that, yes, indeed, "sitcom" literally means situation comedy, which to me covers a whole lot of ground. i'm sympathetic to the idea that it's traditionally applied to multi-cam shows, possibly because arugably the first one, "I Love Lucy" was also the show that invented the multi-cam process to begin with. but then, what are gilligan's island, bewitched, hogan's heroes, MASH, etc. (all single-camera, none filmed in front of an audience) if they're not sitcoms? it seems like a limiting definition to me. I guess people were more comfortable calling those shows sitcoms because of the laugh track. well, thankfully, the single-camera laugh track DOES seem to be dead, but there's no reason the word sitcom had to die alongside it.
I think over the past few years the broadcasters trained us avoid the "sitcom" word.
Hence "dramady", "half-hour comedy", "story with funny bits" were all used.
Even now, with the development personnel changing on a monthly basis, I worry about using the word, cause I don't know what their reference is.
"sketch comedy" is one that is still a pitch killer, no matter what the innovation is.
just my 2 cents
The point is arguing jargon is bullshit. What about "How I Met Your Mother?" A show that apes all the conventions of a three camera sitcom -- it "feels" like one -- but it's actually shot single camera and then PLAYED BACK for a live audience to catch laughter.
That's very different. But it's still a sitcom. As Matt pointed out, a lot of the early "sitcoms" did not share this divide of three cam single cam. The single cam isn't new. The three cam isn't restrictive.
Sitcom indicates a half hour. It indicates a situational type of comedy that is primarily a TV construct. It's a word with great history, which beats the hell out of the providence of any word that followed it -- be it dramedy, crama, single camera comedy or whatever.
Throwing up new words is just obsfucation that leads to the real peeve Mat expresses here:
the only thing that matters --
IS IT FUNNY?
Yeah...the laughing audience or laugh track is another association most have to the sitcom.
And Denis has monkeys...lots of monkeys type type typing - I'm sure of it.
I think you're over simplifying Denis...yes, all that really matters is 'is it funny?', but between the world of creators and world of broadcast and company execs there has always existed the need for shorthand clues to create a picture of the 'show' in the mind of the buyer, as it were.
It's X meets Y; it's like Friends but they're all girls; it's a standing set family sitcom in front of a live audience like Two And A Half Men; it's a single camera comedy about college life like Undeclared...all help nudge the buyer closer to an appropriate mindspace to understand and hopefully accept the material.
The first 'comedy' series I ever pitched and was involved with was sold as a half hour dramedy (back when saying dramedy was 'cool'). Why? Because when I just said sitcom or comedy, I'd get interupted and told 'we don't do sitcom's (meaning in front of a studio audience or with laughtrack). When I said it was a half hour comedy, I was told they didn't do 'jokey shows'. My point is that by finally arriving upon 'a half hour dramedy in the vein of Northern Exposure' seemed to be the path of least resistance to at least getting it heard, understood, and scripts read.
The jargon and terms are necessary, a necessary evil perhaps, but the way it is...and in all genres and formats.
Now, was it FUNNY? That's another issue/topic altogether.
The reason writers and execs shy away from the word "sitcom" anymore is because they are afraid that people won't think it's funny.
So they try to "explain away" the fact that people aren't laughing, or think that the whole thing is "weird."
As in all studio exec related matters - they're trying to cover their collective ass.
I admit to grimacing when I myself here the word "sitcom". In the last decade, in my opinion, the sitcom genre as changed A LOT. Back in the 90s when sitcoms like Home Improvement, Friends, The Nannie, Roseanne and Cheers were enjoying their hey-day, the genre revolved around character development over time and ongoing storylines, mixed with episodic situations.
The advent of Seinfeld spelled the end of traditional sitcoms. After Seinfeld, there was no longer an emphasis on values or life lessons. It used to be that in every episode there was a central theme in which one or more characters learned a lesson by the end of the episode. Characters would grow and change over time. It seemed to me, that after the 90s, sitcoms began featuring characters who usually remained rather static from season to season. There was very little growth in a sitcom. These type of sitcoms include Everyone Loves Raymond, King of Queens, The Office and Corner Gas, among several others.
That's why when I think sitcom now, I get a bad taste in my mouth. There's a real lack of character growth over time and ongoing storylines in modern-day sitcoms--two things I look at as markers of show I like. Of course that isn't everyone's opinion, but it's the opinion of many.
It's still a limiting word, even with this kind of definition.
Some episodes of 'The Newsroom' were funny, but some weren't ... and weren't supposed to be ... so the series as a whole can't really be called a sitcom.
I keep hearing 'Da Kink in My Hair' referred to as a sitcom, which just sets up folks--especially TV critics--to be disappointed by how unfunny it is. But if you go in expecting it to be slice-of-life, you're more likely to be very satisfied, as I am with it (well, two episodes in). It's not a funny show, but it is a good one that happens to be half an hour and set in a single venue.
Sometimes 'Little Mosque' isn't funny, yet punchlines are tacked on for the sake of the sitcom format. I'd just as soon see the show lose 'em. It'd be more enjoyable if it tried to be less of a comedy.
I do watch sitcoms too, as divergent as 'The Simpsons,' 'Spaced' and 'The Sarah Silverman Show.' They're consistently, intentionally funny. They're not trying to tell stories in the same way as 'Da Kink,' so why lump 'em all in together?
Lady Canuck: It's funny how your reference points demand when and where you jump on the wagon. You talk of Seinfeld as a demarcation point of when sitcom characters started to "not change."
But the reality is that these things are cyclical. A generation earlier, the character development you talk about was exclusively the providence of the half-hour -- Mary Tyler Moore,Taxi, Good Times, Maude, All in the Family -- all of these shows featured characters that did grow and change (Lou Grant near the end of MTM is very different from the guy in Season 1, and Archie Bunker, though extreme -- was tempered considerably by the ends of his series' run) This was at a time when hour long dramas mostly reset to zero with no consequences from week to week.
The rise of serialization in dramas may have dovetailed with a return to more standalone comedy shows -- but the truth is that there have always been both. Even in the height of the MTM/Norman Lear days there were the sitcoms where no one grew or changed, too.
Vok, your premise is utterly muddleheaded. Cunningham's way closer to the truth when he posits that fear of the word "sitcom" allows you to pre-emptively scurry to a corner when something wasn't funny.
Let's take the examples you cite.
The Newsroom. Was in fact sold as a comedy. Was very funny in its first and best season. Had the audience numbers to prove it. Lost audience and audience loyalty when it turned away from the comedy it was and strayed into the self-indulgent Fellini fantasies of its creator. Then trumped even that with a last episode that completely trashed the concept. It's all well and good to claim after the fact that "it was never intended to be," but that's bullshit. The show was sold and marketed as a comedy. Subsequent seasons went back to trying for the same comic tone as the early episodes. Was that reversal of course all planned all along, too? Or is it simply that discipline was thrown out and then returned to when the audience voted with their remotes?
Same thing with Da Kink. The show was sold to Global as a comedy. It is based on a comic play. It is shot like a comedy. It employs the rhythms and setups and cadences of a comedy. To turn around and claim that somehow the problem is that people are calling it a comedy when it's not is perverse. It's making excuses that should not be made. This is a crystal clear demonstration of Bill's point.
Again, about Little Mosque, it's wonderful that you feel that way -- but once more -- sold, marketed, produced and promoted as a sitcom. After taking a hit in the ratings this year, the show in the last two weeks has caught up almost to the level where it settled last year...and the tracking says that's because people think it's funnier.
Shows that are neither fish nor fowl will always have a harder time trying to get a toehold. Excusing yourself from having to deliver funny by saying, "it's not a sitcom" is simply craven. The people who say things like, "it's not jokey," show, at best, a rudimentary understanding of the comic idiom.
Let the weasels and fartcatchers call it whatever they want -- but if you're a writer or a creator, you have to be clear headed in vision and execution. You have to be consistent and deliver a product in the format you sign up for. And yeah, maybe down the road you experiment -- but you earn that by delivering something solid first. You don't start making excuses before you're even out of the gate.
You don't make a half hour show that's clearly supposed to be a comedy and then say it's not a sitcom when nobody laughs.
That's as ridiculous as the child who falls on their ass and then looks up at you and says, "I meant to do that."
Vok,
Sorry, I don't mean to tag-team you here alongside Denis but I just logged in to read the recent comments and saw yours.
I really don't understand what you're saying. How could any comedy be better if it tried to be LESS of a comedy? That's dumbfounding to me. Wouldn't the solution be to make any comedy show, you know... MORE funny, rather than ditch the sitcom label? This is exactly what I'm talking about, historically speaking. We scurry away from the word sitcom because making things funnier is too hard. Let's keep the word and ditch lazy comedy writing instead.
I think that CG could have been a three camera, certainly sensibility wise. I do think three cameras need to be funnier than the corresponding single camera. Once you have an audience laughing, then the material has to be actually funny imo. Cranking the laugh track doesn't work (all the many producers believe that it does)
I think you need a ton of writers to pull off a decent three camera. So much gets rewritten after the table read and even rehearsals. (from what I've read; I haven't worked on one) In the single camera format I think you can almost get away with the amount of writers we generally hire in Canada as long as the ep order isn't too huge and (not to sound too self serving) the writers are pretty decent.
If any of the Canadian networks try to 13 epsidoes of a three camera with five or less writers, I don't think it will work. How's that for a bold prediction?
I believe the CBC is trying it, in Vancouver.
are they trying a 13 or a pilot?
I also freely admit that I could be wrong. I haven't worked on a three camera or even tried to spec one. I know on a single camera you can get away with transitions and different locations, shorter scenes, so you can build a punchy rhythm (that world always looks wrong to me). Three camera, because they're relatively static, need to have great jokes and lots of them. Hence the need for lots of writers.
This is all conjecture on my part; I've staffed on single camera shows. I haven't on three camera ones.
Just another of many pilots as far as I know. I agree it is a format that requires abundant "jokes" and "buttons". It is great when it works, but you need a big room full of writers responding to the reads and the network notes.
As mentioned, I do enjoy comedy writing. But I really don't see comedy writing on 'Da Kink.'
It's shot more like a soap than a sitcom (check out all the closeups); it cuts away to melodramatic blue-toned flashbacks; all it retains from the sitcom format, really, is the general cadence of telling its tale within half an hour.
I don't see gags. I don't see jokes. I don't see punchlines.
Denis asks, is it funny? No, it isn't.
And that's okay. It's slice-of-life drama, not comedy at all.
I agree it was promoted as a comedy, but poorly so because the commercials gave us nothing to laugh about. I'm glad I gave the show a chance anyway; it has its own strengths and charms that have nothing to do with comedy.
No.
You are making an entirely post hoc argument, based on your conjecture, and zero evidence.
The problem is in its long development life, hundreds of people have had direct contact, knowledge, and interaction with the people who brought Da Kink to the screen. And what you are saying now, is not what they were saying through its development life. Not at any level. If they were to say it now, it would be entirely a reaction to people saying, "you know, the show's not really funny..." exactly the scenario delineated earlier. The idea that Da Kink as comedy started with marketing is categorically false. The premise of your argument is categorically false. Just because you state a thing with confidence does not make it true.
"Global Television is hoping the promotional muscle it has put behind 'da Kink in my Hair will pay off when the homegrown comedy premieres Sunday at 7:30 p.m., leading into The Simpsons." Playback, Oct 11
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2003-06-12/stage_theatrepreview.php
The abovepreview for the original stage show describes it as a "comedy drama" which is fine for the stage. In any case, I stated in my review that the drama part worked, just not the comedy part. But you say there is no comedy part. Which I guess gets it off the hook for being funny. Neat trick, that.
Anyone who's done any work in the comedy realm, for instance, will be shocked to hear that all those closeups in comedy are wrong, and should signify a soap opera.
Phil Rosenthal (Everybody Loves Raymond) wrote an interesting piece a few years ago about the "likeajoke" -- a construct that aped the cadence and rhythm of sitcom comedy without actually supplying a laugh. His thesis was that people had so internalized the sitcom format that the appearance of likeajokes triggered many of the same reactions in the audience. For awhile, this could be a boon because, of course, it's way easier to do likeajokes than to actually take the time to craft something that's funny.
I wrote, and I believe, that Da Kink has potential, and in fact does unspool stories that mostly work.
The missing comedy that you try to excuse is, in fact, the very thing that Matt's article is about. And an illustration of the danger of tacking away from the word "sitcom." You've demonstrated it more ably than he ever could -- but in perspective, the rush to make excuses and reframe (it's not really funny because it was never meant to be) is not the path to success or viewer engagement. It's nice that you like it, but you and the 300 000 other people are not going to be enough to keep the show afloat.
For that, you need attention to making the comedy work. Less excuses, and certainly less out and out flummery like the blue tone means it's not supposed to be a comedy, oh and it uses closeups.
No sale. The dog you posit here simply does not hunt.
The Denis likes to talk about making comedy, that he does.
Here's the standard dictionary definition:
"A humorous half-hour scripted radio or television series featuring the reactions of a regular cast of characters to unusual situations, such as misunderstandings or embarrassing coincidences; a situational comedy."
Twelve years ago, 80% of what I watched were sitcoms. Now it's only at about 5%. Currently, the only two sitcoms I watch are the new ones Samantha Who? and Aliens In America. Last year I also watched Reba (which was cancelled last season). When pilot developments are announced each season, I gravitate towards anything with the word "drama" in it moreso than something which says half-hour comedy (the current euphemism for sitcom it seems).
I don't think it's as important to define WHAT a sitcom is, but WHY people watch or do not watch sitcoms NOW. Humour is subjective--one person may have, for example, liked The Newsroom and found it utterly hilarius while another would have found it boring and laughless.
ladycanuck... you had me at "dictionary definition". really, that was my point all along. just about any half hour comedy meets that definition, which makes me think there are sometimes questionable motives behind avoiding the word "sitcom" that go beyond pure semantics.
at any rate, sorry to hear we've lost you to the drama gods but we shall labour to win you back.
Post a Comment