Situational Comedy and Drama - Essay Example

Situational Comedy and Drama: The Success of Will and Grace and The L Word Introduction The success of network television’s Will and Grace and The L Word, when other programmers have been less successful in bringing to the public shows that center around gay and lesbians has more to do with the entertainment value of those shows, and less to do with the fact that they are have gay and lesbian characters. It is the entertainment value that attracts the public, and serves to make gay and lesbian people and lifestyles more acceptable in the minds of the public. To this extent, the individual genres of situational comedy, in the case of Will and Grace, and day-soap romantic drama in the case of The L Word, has a lot to do with the success of these shows and helping to make the lifestyles of gays and lesbians less suspicious, less mysterious, less threatening and have served to increase the gay and lesbian community’s base of heterosexual support for individual choice in same-sex relationships. Will and Grace follow on the success of shows like Mad About You, where the relationships were situational and the public at large, across gender identities, could relate to the events on a comedic level. More importantly, Will and Grace captured the “formula” for good humor. With its characters, like Karen (played by Megan Mullolly) the show is able to create a balance with peripheral characters so that the focus and expectation is not constantly on Will and Grace (Debra Messing) as characters in the show. There are the lives of the people in their lives going on about them, and this is important so that the show does not over-focus on the dating aspect of a single gay man and a heterosexual woman living in New York City. Researcher V. Ulea (2002), describes a successful comedy this way: “A type of dramatic comedy that portrays main characters endowed with limited and powerless potential (p. 4).” Drama, like comedy, requires a strength in the actor to the extent that the actor can successfully carry the character (Ulea, 2002, p. 3). Researcher V. Ulea describes drama this way: “A type of dramatic drama that represents main protagonists with average or above average and strong potential (2002, p. 4): The dramatic character is responsible for connecting with the viewer in a way that draws the viewer into the character’s space, and to react to the circumstances of the situation in a way that most of the viewing audience would react, or in a way with which the viewing audience can be understanding of or sympathetic of. According to Ulea, there can be cross-over between the genres, and it might yield something called “dramedy (2002, p. 5). This is when the ending is “assigned for cheerful, sad, or drama. Accordingly, the combination of powerful potential combined with different types of endings creates three branches of dramedy . . . (2002, p. 5).” Ulea goes on to identify the types of drama and comedy as being: Succedy – Powerful potential and successful outcome Tragedy – Powerful potential and unsuccessful outcome Open Dramedy – Powerful potential and ambiguous ending Happy Drama – Normal potential and successful outcome Unhappy Drama – Normal potential and unsuccessful outcome Open Drama – Normal potential and ambiguous outcome Happy Comedy – Limited potential and happy ending Unhappy Comedy – Limited potential and unhappy ending Open Comedy – Limited potential and ambiguous ending Thinking of Will and Grace, we can see how these different techniques are employed in the various episodes. Drama and Situational Comedy As television evolved and television audiences became more sophisticated, and so did television programming. Keeping up with the times, television has both presented situational comedy and drama to reflect the current and changing social norms. One such show was the situational comedy Soap (1977-1981), which was a parody of daytime soap television. However, the sitcom introduced a character, played by actor Billy Crystal, whose name was Jodie Dallas, and Jodie Dallas was gay. Crystal performed the character in an outstanding way, and while the show was hugely successful for the length of its run, it really did not go into great detail about Crystal’s character’s life. It did, however, introduce one of the first gay sitcom characters to television audiences, even though the portrayal of the character’s lifestyle was peripheral, with only glimpses, and was, for the most part parody of common perceptions and misconceptions of gay men. Audiences responded more in favor of Crystal’s comedic acting abilities and less towards what might have been an offensive and controversial television excursion into taboo subject matter. What made Crystal’s character less objectionable to television audiences, perhaps, was the fact that Crystal’s sexuality had come only after having failed in a heterosexual relationship during which he was married and fathered a child, and was, adding drama to his character’s life, involved in a custody battle for the child (Epstein, 1999, p. 103). Still, Crystal’s character oriented audiences to the alternative lifestyle choice of gay men, and was situational in that the run of the show, 1977-1981, was a period of “coming out” in the gay community, as evidenced by the fact that prior to this period there were very few references to gay lifestyles in television programming. This show served to open the door for gay and lesbian characters that would follow it, but the survival of the characters that were created by writers and followed in later years would reveal interesting information and insights about viewing audiences. By 1997, there were no less than 22 gay and lesbian characters appearing as recurring characters on prime-time television (Frutkin, 1997, p. 30). Nonetheless, it was in 1997, too, that ABC retired the character of Ellen Morgan, played by Ellen DeGeneres, after she “came out,” announcing she was gay, so that her television character could be in keeping with who DeGeneres is in real life. The media blitz that followed and the public interest surrounding how Ellen DeGeneres would announce her “coming out,” was a phenomenal. However, as the “outed” Ellen progressed and the show moved forward with Ellen as a lesbian, the public support and interest in the show seemed to wane. “. . . many believe Ellen was cancelled in 1998 because the show became “too gay (Harrington, 2003, p. 216, para. 8).” That the character was “too gay,” presumably means that the focus of the show on Ellen’s character as a lesbian, fore-fronting lesbian interests, relationships, and concerns was more than the heterosexual public found interesting. Singling out the heterosexual public interest as opposed to the gay and lesbian interest, because those sectors of the television watching public are not, at this point in time, strong enough in number to attract the advertising dollars that support network television. Network programming, according to Grant Tinker, who is quoted by Leslie Jackson Turner (2000), works this way: “(Well). . .to oversimplify it, the program department selects and buys the programs, and the standards people are concerned with the content of those programs, in terms of standard and taste and morality and so on (House of Representatives Subcommittee Hearing 1976, p. 88) (Turner, 2000, p. 110).” However, Ellen Morgan, in the show Ellen, marked the introduction of a full-time lesbian character to network television (Turner, 2000, p. 110). The waters were untested until that time as to whether or not a sitcom revolving around the life of a lesbian (or gay) character could sustain itself with network ratings and episodes that would hold a predominantly heterosexual viewing audience. A gay and lesbian audience would not be strong enough to support the advertising dollars that the show needed to attract to be financially viable – or, as has been alleged, Ellen was too gay to maintain the interest and support of the heterosexual community. Either way, the show would have to appeal to the larger heterosexual community would have to be successful; and in 1998, Ellen was cancelled. How, then, the question had to be asked could the public’s initial interest as expressed by the interest in DeGeneres coming out on the show, be tweaked and catered to in order to sustain a gay or lesbian character in a comedy sitcom without losing the heterosexual viewing audience? The answer came in the form of Will and Grace (1998-2006), a situational comedy about a young and handsome gay bachelor and his best friend, Grace, who was a heterosexual. Airing in the same year that Ellen was cancelled, Will and Grace introduced audiences to a male/female platonic relationship – because, of course, he was gay and she was straight – that found a balance between the homosexuality of the character Will, his good friend Jack, and the heterosexual Grace, her secretary Karen, and the guest stars who flowed in and out of the program on either side of the sexual identity spectrum. What did the Will and Grace writers achieve that the Ellen writers did not? First, the writers of Will and Grace were not challenged with their main character “coming out” from a straight character role to a gay role. Second, the Will and Grace writers were not challenged with redefining the main character, or the main character’s relationship with the supporting cast. Third, the writers of Will and Grace parodied gay life, providing a level and entertainment value that the heterosexual viewing audience needed to stay interested and to attract advertisers. Whether or not the sitcom informed the viewing public in a way as to the issues facing the gay and lesbian communities is unlikely, because the sitcom was far less serious when it came to political issues, same-sex unions and marriages than it was as related to the commonalities shared by young, attractive dating singles living in New York City. The gay character played by Sean Hayes, Jack, was of such high laugh quality, especially when acting in unison with the straight character played by Megan Mullally as the character of Karen; that the entertainment value was measured in terms of the laugh meter, which was no doubt strong since the two had timing between them reminiscent of the early vaudeville entertainers. While the show did little to “inform” the heterosexual public as to the issues facing the gay and lesbian communities, it nonetheless “exposed” the public to the notion of same-sex orientation, and helped create a greater public acceptance of same-sex orientation. One episode featured Will sharing an on-air kiss with his boyfriend, James (The Daily Mail (London, England), 2006, p. 6). Guest appearances by A-list celebrities like Madonna, Matt Damon, Jennifer Lopez, and Michael Douglas served both the show and the gay community well as an indication of the A-lister’s support for freedom of choice and expression in sexual orientation. Will and Grace wrapped in 2006, after an eight year run and has now gone into re-runs and still enjoys a strong audience (The Daily Mail (London, England), 2006, p. 6). Another show, The L Word, which is more sexually graphic than network programming, since it is pay television and viewers are not censored in the same way as are network viewers (Sedgwick, DATE, PUBLICATION). Airing on the cable network Showtime, the show focuses on the lives of lesbians, and not in the same way as did Will and Grace, meaning that there is little need for the peripheral storylines to attract advertisers. There is, however, a need to attract viewers, since cable television relies upon viewer subscriptions to remain financially viable. So what does the new program offer viewers? Following the format of the historically long running and successful daytime soap programs, The L Word is a romantic drama, featuring the lives of lesbians (Sedgwick, DATE, PUBLICATION) Like daytime soaps, it plays up the fantastical thinking and imagination of the viewers – who are heterosexual (Sedgwick, DATE, PUBLICATION). This is evidenced by the first episode where, after watching her lesbian neighbors in a sexually explicit romp, the heterosexual neighbor/housewife becomes sexually aroused and treats her husband to a re-enactment, of sorts of the erotic scene she observed (Sedgwick, DATE, PUBLICATION). This introduces the balance in the show, in intriguing heterosexuals with the aspect of voyeurism as an erotic aphrodisiac. In this way, the show may actually accomplish a longer life since it is increasing its minority gay and lesbian audiences with curious heterosexuals seeking a more erotic level of entertainment. This is not Showtime’s first venture into alternative lifestyle programming. In 2000, the cable network aired Queer as Folk, a drama about gay men and lifestyle. The show enjoyed a run of five years, then, in 2005, the show was cancelled. The show, really the first of its kind since Ellen, as one devoted to the life of gays and lesbians actually enjoyed a good run; but it really takes more than complete focus on gay and lesbian life style to hold an audience the size of the viewing audience needed to increase subscriptions and create a foundation of financial viability, especially on cable. However, Showtime is quickly becoming “the” cable network of alternative lifestyle programming, while HBO, Showtime’s primary competitor for subscription dollars, appeals to viewers with a largely heterosexual theme and audience, but is inclusive of alternative lifestyle portrayals in its series like Sex and the City, Six Feet Under, and Taxi Cab Confessions. Also, HBO has done any number of documentaries and specials on alternative lifestyles. Still, HBO has not gone with a completely alternative life style focused series as has Showtime, which has really pushed the envelope to the edge and opened up alternative lifestyles in a way that has answered the questions lingering in the minds of heterosexuals as to alternative lifestyles and same-sex relationships. However, with a five year run, Queer as Folk falls short of capturing the audience that Will and Grace sustained for eight years of network programming. Showtime’s hope, of course, is that The L Word will be the answer to the next installment of long-living alternative lifestyle programming. “In short, if The L Word is as bold and daring as claimed, its novelty does not lie in either a demographic coup or a startling use of the medium. I anticipate that its long-term audience will not be male porn hounds but the range of viewers, predominantly though not only female, who enjoy smart, well-made domestic drama (Sedgwick, DATE, PUBLICATION). The show, its producers claim, has the drama and well developed characters – albeit lesbian and gay for the most part – as did the popular Hill Street Blues in 1981 (Sedgwick, DATE, Publication). This could indeed be the success key to the show’s longevity beyond that of Queer as Folk. Like Will and Grace, or other shows with a large heterosexual audience, if the show provides soap opera drama with unfolding storylines that go beyond center-piecing alternative lifestyles, and piques the curiosity and yearning for drama on the same level as Hill Street Blues, or other successful drama program; then they might have a chance to match the success of Will and Grace’s eight year run. A dram show in which the legal angle is the focus of the show, while still successfully weaving the alternative lifestyles not as the center of the show, but that around which the plot of murder, investigation, motive and court room lawyering dominate the screen could well be the vehicle for a new and long-lived series whose main characters just happen to pursue alternative lifestyles. Daytime soap opera drama has much to teach the creators of new drama series producers and programmers. That is, the elements of unrequited love, unexpected love, love expressed and commitment, mitigating circumstances, all going on in a “community” style setting; makes for long-term programming. The question is: can this be achieved chiefly from the perspective of alternative lifestyle characters? Will these characters sustain the curiosity of viewers by meeting their sense of curiosity, providing voyeuristic opportunity for women who have, until of late, been subjected to the inhibitions of the heterosexual world in which they live? These questions have yet to be answered, and can only be guessed as to the answers until the series has been subjected to at least two years viewing audience tests and scrutiny. Conclusion Whether or not The L Word runs two or five years is socially significant because of the potential influence it can have on society socially and politically with respect to gaining greater heterosexual support for accepting alternative lifestyles. Only by increasing their base of heterosexual support can gays and lesbians hope to bring about significant social and political changes in their own lives; such as same-sex unions or marriages. While the preference would be a long-running program, if The L Word runs one, two, three or eight years will provide far greater insight as to how the general public perceive gay and lesbians in society. The more that the general public becomes accustomed to moving around public places in the company of and presence of gays and lesbians, the more accepting the general public becomes of people who pursue alternative lifestyles. “Television has high impact and rapid message delivery (Anderson, 1995) (Gibleman, 2004, p. 331).” Even though the gay and lesbian communities have a minority viewing audience, they can, with clever and theme oriented programming, attract and maintain a viable market share of the viewing audience across genres and, more importantly, across the lifestyle divide as has been proven by the success of Will and Grace. The goals of programmers in situational comedies like Will and Grace and dramas like The L Word, are different in that Will and Grace is probably not intended to bring about an awareness amongst the viewing audience as to the important social and political issues facing the gay and lesbian communities. However, Will and Grace are no less socially advancing for those communities, in that they help bring about a sense of ease and acceptance for those communities from the heterosexual community. In this way, shows like Will and Grace are increasing the potential for support of the gay and lesbian communities on important issues that come to the attention of the heterosexual public. A significant indicator of the progress made as a result of bringing the gay and lesbian communities to television is evidenced by television programming in general. Even those shows where the plot does not revolve around a gay or lesbian usually have a character who is gay or lesbian. Even daytime soaps have embraced the potential increase of viewers amongst gays and lesbians by introducing gay or lesbian characters. One long running soap opera, All My Children, whose character Erica Cain (and whatever other multiple names the character has had over the years), and which character has at periods throughout the history of the show since the time when actress Susan Lucci began portraying the character been the subject of phenomenal view interest; now has a daughter who has confessed to Erica that she is in fact a lesbian (Harrington, C L 2003). This establishes a lesbian in a permanent and recurring role on the soap. Now, it can be expected that timely issues will be brought to the viewer’s attention, as well as the standard relationship issues for which daytime soaps are famous for. All of this signifies that television has served as a tool to the gay and lesbian communities in helping to bring about social acceptance and to move the notion of same-sex relationships from the realm of the abnormal, to the norm. References BUSHELL ON THE BOX: Theres Nowt So Queer as TV Folk. (2004). 40. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006848921 Ellen: Round 2. (2004, September 6). The Washington Times, p. B05. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006940098 EYE SPY; Queer Eye for the Straight Guy Exposes Its Victims Dirty Secrets - but What Do We Know of the Shows Stars?. (2004). 34. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5005778524 Frutkin, A. (1997, February 18). Televisions 23 Gay Characters. The Advocate 30+. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002235183 Harrington, C. L. (2003). Homosexuality on All My Children: Transforming the Daytime Landscape. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 216+. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001978718 HBOs Six Feet Under Enjoys a Creative Rebirth. (2004). 4. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5006061066 Ulea, V. (2002). A Concept of Dramatic Genre and the Comedy of a New Type: Chess, Literature, and Film. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Retrieved October 18, 2007, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=105244288 Read More