Aaron
Tuesday 14th March 2023 3:54pm [Edited]
Royal Berkshire
69,934 posts
Right. My pet subject. I've been wondering whether, and to what extent, to throw my oar in. I've spent many, many hours debating the subject with writers, producers, fans and commissioners, and have a lot of thoughts and insight. There are many, many issues at play in the loss of the traditional studio audience sitcom, which have played differently at different times and at different broadcasters. I'll hold back from sharing a full thesis/rant and just make a number of salient points in relation to some things that've already been raised.
There is definitely a certain political element at work in the changes in narrative comedy style, but I agree with gappy that the way Alfred is approaching it as a left-right divide isn't entirely accurate - it's more social. I would argue it far more appropriate to look at the style of comedy itself than whether a character might tick some diversity box. Particularly, there has been a wider cultural shift that has seen anything mainstream - not just in comedy - increasingly decried, and a concerted deconstruction of working class tastes and opinions. Pertinent examples at the top of society: Emily Thornberry's flag-waving van drivers and Gordon Brown's "bigoted woman".
Comments about the differing costs of comedy formats are interesting, but often miss the mark slightly. At all broadcasters, but particularly in the case of the BBC, it's not a simple choice of "oh panel shows are cheap so I'll commission Would I Lie To You? rather than X", as they come from different teams. The comedy commissioners deal solely with scripted titles: that is, sitcoms, comedy dramas and sketch shows. Panel shows, variety, stand-up and other formats are commissioned by the entertainment department. It would be accurate to then go a level up above those departments and criticise the channel bosses, who determine the budgets and number of slots available to each team.
The massive uptick in writer-performers, and associated decline in writer-writers, has also been noted. This is ultimately down to money. There's too much of it. Television is expensive to make - it's filmic-quality look and style, but without the means to fund it (i.e. hefty international box office takings etc). Amongst the knock-on effects of this are a tendency to avoid any form of risk and opt for known quantities (despite all the evidence that these known quantities are in other fields and don't necessarily translate to TV/narrative comedy). If someone has X-million followers on TikTok or sells out X-thousand tickets on a stand-up tour, there's seen to be an established audience for them and thus lower risk to put them on screen - often as the leading, driving talent, not just a face.
These and many other factors all lead to devaluing and undermining the idea of entertainment. This is the ultimate crux. Narrative comedy is no longer seen as a means of entertainment first and foremost, but of art, telling a specific message, conveying a story or a meaning.
We can begin to see this just thinking back over some of the titles cited in the last few pages. Porridge, Fawlty Towers, etc - yes, they were telling stories, but they were heavily character driven, putting those characters in different situations each week and exploring their adventures for the entertainment of the viewer. There were shows featuring women prominently (Birds Of A Feather), or the middle class (Bless This House), older people (One Foot In The Grave), the working class (Love Thy Neighbour), the upper class (To The Manor Born), or ethnic minorities (The Fosters), left-wing (Citizen Smith), right-wing (err... Terry & June?), northerners (The Dustbinmen), Londoners (Only Fools And Horses) or young people (Man About The House) - a real diversity of character backgrounds and settings that is far greater than offered by contemporary television - but all focused on characters very squarely.
By contrast, there is a tendency today for sitcom to be more about telling a specific story, or portraying a specific viewpoint (and this is how they fast become more comedy drama). How many times have we read about a stand-up being commissioned to write and star in a "semi-autobiographical" new show?
Think about the classics. The shows that are still celebrated as iconic and still-watched, 40+ years since they were made. With a few outliers, they almost all portray and explore archetypes. Broad characterisations that we recognise part of, to a greater or lesser extent, in ourselves or in our families, colleagues and friends. Flaws that feel particularly British traits. Now think to modern comedy. No matter how much or little you may have enjoyed them or laughed to them, to what extent can you point at that sort of level of identification? I love Rose Matafeo's Starstruck, for example. It's a lovely, warm world. But it rarely makes me laugh, and I certainly can't identify particularly closely to any of the characters or situations. I feel more connected to The Liver Birds.
Both types of show are valid and should exist - not one at the expense of the other.
Remember, if Shakespeare were alive today he'd be writing something akin to Mrs. Brown's Boys, and if Chaucer were he'd be writing some new Carry On films. The origins and legacy of British culture and entertainment are in the broad mainstream: broadcast comedy has totally forgotten its heritage, and eschews its (potential) audience accordingly.
ie. story based, filmic and expensive to make (have you ever seen that many extras in a TV sitcom before?) cancelled after one series. That's the definition of a flop, yet another to add to growing list, a phenomenon I'd say only began this century.