Textual Analysis of Sit-com

How do the following help to construct or reinforce our ideas of gender?

 

Camerawork: TV sit-coms have short shooting schedules, small budgets and a limited, repeatable set. Live mixes often are put together with exterior footage, significant close-ups and reaction shots. There is a tendency to conventional framing of shots, mostly mid-shots and medium close-ups plus continuity editing creates a ‘transparent’ style, thus the audience are allowed to understand the action without the process of construction being too obvious. (This is the notion of ‘realism.’)

How are particular angles used to show e.g. Jim Royle as a slob – by using a low angle-shot to emphasise his size and sloth, whereas Cliff Huxtable in The Cosby Show has many close ups to show the audience his mugging to camera! Look at who gets in the shots with these characters and where they are positioned or how. What does this suggest to the audience?

Another way the camera is used is to generate comedy – in Only Fools the bar shot… we see him fall through the bar but only hear him hit the ground because the camera, in a two-shot focuses on Trigger’s face who doesn’t even notice his friend’s misfortune.

Malcolm in the Middle adopts a more filmic style and uses the piece to camera, video diary like for effect.

    

Editing: How and why are different shots juxtaposed with one another? Studio based sit-coms favour simple cuts to maintain continuity editing rules. But cuts in general are used to: control time / distribute narrative information / privilege or marginalise characters / create comedy from the actions or dialogue on screen. Thus: Cut is used to suggest some sort of relationship between juxtaposed shots; Dissovle is used to suggest a strong relationship between juxtaposed shots particularly those separated in space or time; Wipe is often used to suggest a transition from one sequence or section to another.

Watch short extracts with the sound down to see how visual meaning is built up, count the number of edits and cameras used.

 

Mise en scene: including such aspects as: sets and location, costume and make up, props, lighting, use of colour.

Sets often appear cheap to film, but they communicate specific ideas about the characters who live there. (Monica‘s alphabetical labelling of everything on her shelves in the kitchen area / Frasier‘s minimalist apartment but his dad’s chair stands out like a sore thumb!)

Costume and make-up – what do the characters wear? (Patsy in AB Fab is always overdressed, hugely made-up and ends up looking like a pantomime dame! / George in Drop the Dead Donkey wears a cardigan – loser!)

Props – look to see what characters hold in their hands, or what they are physically seen to do. (Will does the cooking in Will and Grace / Mary-Ann in Cybill has drink in her hand!)

Lighting – look at how hybrid sit-coms adopt the style of lighting for the genre. (Red Dwarf, often quite dark in corridors, red flashing lights in emergencies / Ambient or natural lighting played a huge role in M*A*S*H, because high key lighting wouldn’t have been realistic.)

The use of colour is perhaps most obvious in Blackadder Goes Forth where the iconography is from the First World War trenches and the low key lighting when they go over the top creates a threatening battlefield – definitely not for laughs.

 

Sound: The dialogue is uninterrupted as far as possible despite ‘ambient’ sounds to ensure the viewer gets the joke. Is there a laughter track? Or is the programme filmed in front of a live audience? Why? Why is laughter put on the sound track? To guide the reactions of the home audience, to provide a community response, laughter is easier when experienced as a group, it also masks the processes of construction such as cuts and edits, preserving the ‘transparency.’

 

Intertextuality: To make reference to other TV programmes, films, literature etc gives the audience a sense of shared culture. They gain pleasure from identifying the references and in particular if those references are subverted or adapted. Think here of The Simpsons and their fondness for allusions to other programmes or films and in using it to make an entire programme out of. (The Young Ones were asked to represent Scumbag College on University Challenge.)

Compare how gender is represented in the (appearance and) dialogue of your two chosen television programmes

Episodes used ‘Autoerotica’ from My Family and ‘The Anniversary’ from Roseanne

 

‘My Family’ is a situation comedy in the great British tradition, following in the footsteps of such classics as Steptoe and Son, Hancock’s Half Hour and On the Buses. Each of these programmes were built around the premise of the central character being a failing male. In their respective situations each failed either to gain social acceptance, or to overcome the inadequacies of upbringing or to break out of the rut into which they’d got in their lives. The comedy each week derived from seeing them try and watching them fail, time and time again.

In the US, situation comedy, as a TV genre, began with Lucille Ball, a well-known comedienne, and her real life husband Desi Arnaz. He played a famous bandleader and she played the wife that was always trying to muscle in on his act. She brought to this new genre a variety of comedy that was very physical. She played to the camera, indeed mugged to it, and the comedy centred on her and her antics. Since then US sit-coms have almost exclusively been the province of women. (In general apart from soap opera, sit-com is the only public arena in which women ritually humiliate men and get away with it and in which men are seen to fail and it is accepted.)

My Family has at its heart a family: Ben Harper a dentist, Susan Harper a tour guide, Nick twenty something oldest son, sometimes still living at home, Janey older daughter, single parent with baby (also sometimes living at home depending on plot needs!), Mikey youngest boy mid-teens and Abi, cousin of some sort, brought into the family ostensibly so she could go to college from their house.

Ben has a decent respectable job with obviously no money problems but significant problems with his family! He, having provided for his children during their formative years, now feels very strongly that they ought to be leaving home to let him renew his marital ties. Instead of the archetypal, avuncular father figure, generous and indulgent – Ben is constructed as a jealous, possessive child himself; at times he is no more grown up than his children with his obsessions about sex and in this particular episode a car, which comes into his life like a ghost from the past, conjuring up strong memories of his courting days and particularly childfree days!

Susan, who should by rights be a motherly, maternal, caring and nurturing sort of person, is constructed as a manipulative, competitive, poor cook and disinterested housewife. Interestingly we rarely hear of her work, though we are sometimes treated to shots of Ben in his dental surgery, to emphasise his importance, though this is often in direct contrast to the narrative or themes of the episode since he is so often subjected to failure or humiliation at the hands of his wife and children.

Nick is a dysfunctional young man who cannot grow up – an eternal Peter Pan – whose sole aim seems to be to get his father to acknowledge his well hidden feelings of affection for him! In this episode as usual he demands money from his father for being allowed to work on Nick’s car but what he really wants is a hug; ‘Please Nick darling, can I work on the car,’ he demands his dad say, and Ben, finally forced, spits it out between clenched teeth. Yet at other times he is quite happy to exploit his father’s desire to get rid of him by demanding money for various nefarious schemes which might or might not enable him to lead an independent life.

This episode has begun with Susan writing ‘DORSET?’ on lipstick on Ben’s forehead. We get the feeling that this is common practice for these two – communicating by writing notes to each other so they cannot be ignored; and predictably ends after the anniversary debacle with him writing ‘SEX?‘ On hers and her writing ‘NO!‘ on his. These two are constructed as children in the way they compete with each other and the elements of physical contact in the form of roughhousing. Ben always seems to have sex on his mind – typical male! And Susan always seems determined to thwart him – typical female! This can best be seen when he comes to bed after having worked on the car till late at night; she comments ‘you’ve got oil on your collar’ clearly indicating that she sees the, battered wreck of a, car as a rival, and so when he makes overtures to her she responds to ensure the primacy of her place in her husband’s affections; he makes ‘brrrming‘ noises as if driving a sports car and other comments more suited to driving than sexual activity, she comments on the softness of his hands under the bed clothes, until she abruptly realises he’s still wearing driving gloves and then the game’s up and he’s lost!! The whole thing is a game to them and games have winners and losers and in the British sit-com it is the male who always loses and the female who always wins.

The US sit-com Roseanne has a completely different ethos and ideological viewpoint to promote. American sit-coms are very keen to perpetuate the ideals of the American nuclear family, the possibility of the attainment of the American Dream for all citizens and the rules and values of law and morality. As such this programme is a particularly good example. Here we have a working class family, Dan does a manual job, Roseanne rarely seems to have an actual job, they have lots of kids and relatives, live in a poorly furnished and appointed house and yet everybody is happy!! These parents are role models, they have fun in their relationship, fun with their kids and yet have very strong moral standards and they stand together against any problems without undermining or competing with each other. Roseanne is not a great cook and Dan is not a great handyman but in joining forces to overcome the family’s problems this is a true sit-com of the ‘dom-com’ variety as identified by Taflinger. Even when the adult characters have their disagreements as in this episode where Roseanne wants a holiday in Florida in a hotel, like the honeymoon they never had, and Dan wants to go camping and fishing, Todorov’s narrative theory of equilibrium, disruption, disequilibrium and resolution is fulfilled in the end as they agree amicably…..

Viewers are encouraged to feel satisfied with the life that they lead and not dissatisfied with what they haven’t got like some programmes do and thus society’s dominant ideological viewpoint is perpetuated and the status quo is maintained.

The choice of the actors was also important in defining these characters and their gender roles – Roseanne Barr is a large woman with a great sense of humour. John Goodman is quite a large man but often seems larger because the camera angle used on him is often a low angle one making him seem even bigger and more slob like than he is. This particular American programme continued the grand tradition of naming itself after the main female character which can lead to problems if ever an actor wants to get out of the role.