|
General Theatre Articles.
SCRIPT WRITING ARTICLES:-
ARTICLE NEMBER 1.
THE STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF WAITERS MIRROR REVIEW SAMUEL RAVENGAI IN THE MIRROR REVIEW OF 11 APRIL 2004 I MADE A BOLD CLAIM THAT "IT SHOULD GO IN THE HISTORY OF BROADCASTING THAT THE FIRST ZIMBABWEAN MADE SITUATION COMEDY (SITCOM) WAS WAITERS." I had looked at other programmes which claimed to be sitcoms, but found them wanting in most of the generic codes I outlined. However, the mere fact of qualifying to be a sitcom does not render Waiters sacrosanct. It has got its own limitations that need to be rectified before it qualifies to be an exportable media product. But let us first look at its strengths. The first strength stems from Creative Native's involvement of intellectuals in the creative process. It will be remembered that I have constantly bemoaned the undeclared animosity that exists between intellectuals and production houses in so far as both of them do not seem to be working together for the good of art. However, in this particular programme (which is a rare case in Zimbabwean art) Steven Chifunyise was engaged to create Waiters characters. All of the characters created by Steven Chifunyise are firmly rooted within parameters that define a situation comedy. Edgar Langeveldt, a University of Zimbabwe practical drama graduate is also one of the scriptwriters. A combination of writing skills from Leonard Matsa, a film writer and Edgar Langveldt, a theatre creator helps to catapult Waiters miles ahead of either Timmy na Bonzo or Chatsva. This marriage between artistes and artistic intellectuals is also evident on programmes that ZTV imports. On titles, portfolios like consultant script editor, consultant director or consultant so and so are often a common feature at the end of each of each programme. It goes on to support the view that people who are knowledgeable and action oriented should occupy creative portfolios. However, I must add that the mere fact of being an intellectual, but without passion and discipline does not guarantee a great work of art. I am informed that because of Edgar's failure to meet deadlines among other things, the task of scriptwriting has been taken back to the originator of the idea Steven Chifunyise. Waiters has got an experienced cast which makes it an erstwhile programme. Waiters director Marian Kunonga once described her performers as "an intimidating cast". Dylan, Ehyra, Tickeys, Simon and Jason have got a wealth of experience from the theatre. The bravura melodramatic style of acting, which they got from the stage, suits the sitcom genre, which does not normally rely on close-up shots. These performers are not chancers; they have a passion for art and most of them are trained. In Zimbabwe, some directors still think that performers are born and therefore can be picked from the street in the fashion of modelling schools. They will give their friends and relatives a chance to appear on television and get some little pocket money even if they have never seen an acting school in their lives. The results are obvious on our sets. We are not cursed. We have to kill the enemy of art within ourselves who believes that art is any fools' game. Art loving directors should repent from this sin against art. Waiters is very Zimbabwean in its tone, texture and flavour. The opening montage of each episode of Waiters is accompanied by some sweet African jazz theme music played by a Zimbabwean musician Willom Tight. It prepares the viewers to get into an African restaurant with those ethnic colours on the walls. The laugh track plays a typically Zimbabwean laughter. It gives the viewers the feeling that they are watching a Zimbabwean product. The final but not least strength of Waiters lies in the fact that it satisfies all generic codes of a sitcom- a four part narrative structure, humanoid characterisation, exploration of internal space and the inclusion of a laugh track. Let me expand on characterisation. There is a great deal of stereotyping in Waiters. It should be noted that whereas in other dramatic television genres it is a weakness to create stereotypical characters, it is a strength in sitcom characterisation. Much of the humour comes from this stereotypical depiction of characters. Take Marcelino, for instance as the "brandaya" house cook who is fussy and stupid. Get me right here. I am not insinuating that it is wrong to create a three dimensional character. In fact it is an extra bonus if a scriptwriter achieves that level. Some channels like BBC actually require three-dimensional characters as asserted by Matthew Carless "the characters that force us to reject scripts are often one dimensional or stereotypes". For those who want to create comedy characters, this is the realm of characterization that they should be operating in. While Davies Guzha and his Creative Native should be credited for producing Waiters, ZTV Quality Control Committee should be cracking the whip at Creative Native to mend the seams inherent in Waiters. A major shortcoming in Waiters is the absence of a recognisable main character. Everybody in Waiters seems to attract the same kind of attention. This does not help the entertainment value of the sitcom. The main character should carry the bulk of the action and is the one that viewers are supposed to watch for the better part of the episode. Because of the time limits of each episode (24 minutes) it is painstakingly difficult to give every character enough spotlight to make all of them main characters. This is the major dilemma of Waiters. When each character is equally important, each takes away from the others time that viewers can spend with other characters. Ideally, there should be one or two main characters and a sizeable number of supporting characters. Need should be the guide for the inclusion of supporting characters. They should be included to inspire or force the main character to act or react. The nearest Waiters have come to having a main character is when they bring "a guest star" like the MP, Brenna Msiska or Oliver Mtukudzi. In these episodes, the viewers spent more time with guest stars. Dishearteningly, not all guest stars lived up to the expectations of stardom. The result was that when viewers were supposed to have quality time with the so called guest stars, they had torrid times with novices who struggled with lines and the craft of acting. It was much better with Mtukudzi and Masuku as they are artistes by profession. Waiters is also limited in its scope of comedy creation. Essentially, the funny thing should come from the situation/story itself. The scriptwriters and the director seem to be doing well in that area, although they are not always successful in all the episodes. There are, however, other techniques of creating comedy over and above the "situation". One way of doing this is through dialogue. In American sitcoms, there is meant to be a laugh every thirteen seconds. Zimbabweans should decide at what intervals they want laughter. However, the bottom line is dialogue must also be funny. This is generated through juxtaposition of two contrasting modes of speech. Ambiguity is another technique. Here an utterance is made in all innocence but is suddenly seen to carry a second possible meaning which clashes with the first. Puns can also be employed. This is sheer pleasure in the perfidy of language (word play). "the forms of everyday speech are praised but transcended: copiousness of insult, fluency of repartee and inventiveness of word play go far beyond anything encountered in everyday world" (Nelson, 1990). Another source of comedy is visual comedy (Mr. Bean style). Here characters exploit parody, comedy of errors, comedy of manners and so on. It looks like Marcelino is the only character operating in this realm. The rest do not want to experiment with visual comedy. Sutherland (2000), a specialist in sitcom writing warns: "if you are not funny for any length of time, it had better be deliberate and you had better have a good reason". If all these techniques are employed, Waiters can be a better comedy than it is at the moment. Another worrying thing found in Waiters is that not all episodes follow the generic sitcom structure. I have watched a good number of them, but here let me single out the one in which Marcelino was dancing through out the episode. A drunkard later joined the dancing but the narrative remained on the same structural level. This did not precipitate further complications and confusion. The climax should not be taken out of the protagonist ‘s hands. If the events are going to be funny but without movement of the narrative, it will most likely put off the viewers. In his Ten Commandments of Writing, Robert Mckee explains how characters have to be manipulated: "thou shalt seek the end of the line, taking characters into the furthest reaches and depths of conflict imaginable within the story's own realm of predictability". Multiplying complications on one level surely does not help the story, as it also remains static. The same mistake was committed on the April 24 episode where Marcelino got drunk and the story remained at that level without venturing into further complications. The introduction of Willom Tight did not add any further confusion. Viewers cannot be hooked to the screen by stasis. In as much as I respect Steven Chifunyise, I have problems with his construction of sitcom characters. I appreciate the fact that the characters are unique. Apart from the Mariyawanda-Simon and Marcelino-and the rest-of-them relationships, the other combinations are not clear to me. A good script should make clear each character's relationship to other characters in the series. Each character must have a comic flaw which creates potential for comic clashes between personalities and that will make these relationships funny, an excellent attribute of a sitcom. A situation comedy should really be called "character comedy". We have seen from previous false sitcoms that a series of jokes strung together will not carry the day. Good writing is reliant on strong character outlines, which seem to be lacking in Waiters.
E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com
ARTICLE NUMBER 2.
ZIMBABWE'S SITUATION COMEDIES: NAMING CRISIS AT POCKETS HILL
ART TALK - SAMUEL RAVENGAI 11 APRIL 2004 Zimbabwe Television (ZTV) has so far produced two "situation comedies" (sitcoms) namely, Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva. ZTV called these programmes sitcoms and viewers were constantly reminded of the legitimacy of names by continuity presenters who signposted what was to come by referring to Timmy na Bonzo as a situation comedy. In 2003, Susan Makore, the then Kidznet and Television Services head announced a new television season by emphasizing that a new sitcom Chatsva would be part of the new menu. I waited with nudging anxiety to watch Chatsva as the previous so called sitcom Timmy na Bonzo, though sometimes funny, had failed to fit into a genre which it was being asked to belong. When the new season opened, I followed all Chatsva episodes with keen interest until ZTV itself decided to take it off the air. It was neither interesting nor did it belong to the situation comedy genre. At the present moment ZTV is screening a sitcom called Waiters produced by Creative Native, the production arm of Rooftop Promotions. The questions that come to mind are: Does ZTV have a naming crisis? What is there about a particular show that makes it fit into the situation comedy genre? Are Zimbabwean situation comedies on track or still groping in the darkness? We attempt to answer these questions and provoke others as well. The answer to the first question motivates shocking revelations at Pockets Hill. Yes ZTV has a naming crisis. In this Art Talk column, we have revealed time and again with concrete evidence, that some dramatic serials, which are being screened as soap operas, are in fact not soap operas. When the visuals of Amakorokoza are pointing to something far removed from a soap opera, ZTV news anchors, reporters and presenters are busy branding Amakorokoza a soap opera. The same naming crisis comes to light with regards to Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva. Who at Pockets Hill allows and endorses those erroneous names to programmes that do not belong to such genres? The Productions Strategic Business Unit sanctions these dramatic programmes. Sources privy to the issue reliably inform me that executive producers of this SBU meet every morning to check the quality of programmes that will be aired on a given day. One wonders why those naming inconsistencies are not dealt with at that level before the non-suspecting viewers are served with a dish that bears a wrong name. The drama unit executive producer Dorothy Chidzawo should voice those concerns to those who commission the programmes so as to protect her reputation. Failure to do so will persuade us to think that she does not make the grade. I believe that the commissioning team should be made up of people who are thoroughly grounded in television genres. I understand Norbert Ferro, Emma Shamuyarira and until recently Noel Sibanda comprised the Commissioning Team. I have great respect for these individuals as artisans. They operate broadcasting equipment with amazing dexterity. However, I doubt their ability to read works of art and pass unquestionable judgments on them. Looking at the magnitude of the naming crisis at Pockets Hill, it looks to me that they cannot distinguish chrome from mampara, gold from silver and lead from tin. All of these minerals, to them, are the same (metaphorically speaking). If a seller sells his silver as gold, they will buy it as gold without verification. This should not happen at a 21st century broadcasting centre. Some mechanism has to be put in place that will ensure that mediocre programmes are cast in the recycle bin before they are beamed to the viewers. And now to situation comedies. Because of the shortcomings of the commissioning team, such programmes as Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva were named situation comedies. Lawrence Simbarashe and Marjory Mugoronji could have gotten away with it had their programmes been interesting as I suspect Amakorokoza will be. Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva were a false start. The real start is Waiters. It should go in the history of broadcasting that the first Zimbabwean made sitcom was Waiters. What is there about a particular show that makes it fit into the sitcom genre? In situation comedy a special funny thing happens to a special set of characters. As opposed to other dramatic genres, this special set of characters will appear at the same time during the coming week in another funny situation which will be entirely nondependent on what happened in the previous episode. One is tempted at this stage to ask; wasn't Timmy na Bonzo like that? However, there is more to it than just this "funny thing". Hansen (1991) defines situation comedy as "lot centred and involving setting up new and interesting situations into which familiar characters move". Being "lot centred" is where the real crux of the matter is. The plot of a sitcom falls into four basic parts: exposition (teaser), complication, confusion and more confusion, and finally alleviation of confusion. Both Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva registered the first part in their stories but they seemed to end at that level without taking the story forward. In one episode of Chatsva, Mbanje falls hungry and conjures a plan to get a free meal from their workplace canteen by faking illness. The situation doesn't take off from this level as the rest of the characters ritualistically follow the same trick crafted by Mbanje. There is no confusion that ensues leading the story to remain flat and hypnotically dull. What should ideally happen is that when the situation has been established, it is the one which precipitates the complication that follows. Take Marcelino of Waiters for instance. He goes back to Mozambique, but mistakenly locks Mariyawanda and Adam in the restaurant. What are they going to do with no help in sight? This is the complication. The complication leads to confusion. At least Adam has a cell phone, so he can phone to solicit for help. But before he phones, the handset drops down and breaks into pieces. Confusion. There is power failure. More confusion. The more thorough the confusion, the more the audience is let in on a joke that will backfire on the characters, the more comic the episode. Nothing is done out of malice. Everything happens by mistake or out of good faith. When confusion has reached its peak there is the alleviation of the confusion and everybody is happy. The balance of power returns back to its original position; as it was at the beginning of the show. Timmy na Bonzo does not present a situation but a series of situations in one episode which are not given time to develop. Four or so situations cannot be fully developed in less than 24 minutes. However, as individual artistes, Tapfumaneyi, Lawrence and Arumenda have great potential. They have two options: either to look for a talented scriptwriter and director who will do what they cannot do better or revert back to their trade as standup comedians. We don't have many of them in Zimbabwe and that is a grey area! Like soap operas, the space of a sitcom is always internal. There is nothing of substance between houses and office blocks. Movement from one place to another is accomplished by means of fade-out or fade-in. It is only Waiters which passes this generic code. The other two programmes flirt around with all kinds of spaces. Chatsva would move to fuel stations while Timmy na Bonzo would go to grave yards, climb up trees, open spaces and so on. Waiters is, however, consistently internal as it should. The standard of living in these internal spaces is based on comfort and neatness. There is only shabbiness or disarray when called for by the script. At the centre of the situation comedy are the characters. Sitcom characters are not fully developed, as the plot formula does not allow real psychological development. They are very predictable, as they will behave the way they have always done and will continue to do within their stylistically individual manners. They are not fully human, but humanoid. Though they have the appearance of humanity certain qualities are exaggerated to the point of grotesque. Take Marcelino for instance. His more stupid side is emphasised more than any other quality. Sally is garrulous, soft minded and very fastidious. This is what she will play for the entire life of the sitcom. While there is great potential for Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva characters, they can only be more useful if all other generic features are present in the narrative. Situation comedies have types, namely action comedy (actcom), domestic comedy (domcom), pseudo domestic comedy (pseudo-domcom). Waiters is more on the actcom side while Timmy na Bonzo and Chatsva are not firmly located in a specific genre.
E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com
ARTICLE 3
AN OVERVIEW OF THE ARTS IN ZIMBABWE: ISSUE AND PROSPECTS.
SAMUEL RAVENGAI THE 21st CENTURY IN ZIMBABWE IS AS MUCH AN EPOCH OF AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION AS IT IS OF CULTURAL REVOLUTION. THE REACTION OF TWO STATESMEN, IN DIFFERENT TIMES OF HISTORY, TO THE PHENOMENON OF CULTURE IS VERY INTERESTING. When Goebbels, the brains behind Nazi propaganda, heard about the word 'culture', he reached for his pistol. Contrastingly, about 60 years later, when Professor Jonathan Moyo heard about the word 'culture' he opened his arms to embrace it. I guess he could have jumped into the cockpit of the nearest hawk fighter and fired missiles had control of culture been in the hands of the opposition. Although the divide between art and politics is virtually blurred, let me leave the more overt politics to political analysts and concentrate on art which is the tangible and intangible manifestation of culture. The embracing of culture by Moyo is supported by various acts of parliament which encourage and accentuate the production, packaging and dissemination of Zimbabwean art products by Zimbabweans. This cultural revolution is already bearing fruits as evidenced by an extraordinary national scramble for the arts in the form of established musicians, upcoming urban grooves musicians, the emergence of private and public art schools, and proliferation of various arts groups. National institutions now more than ever before recognise the work done by artistes through annual merit awards as those conferred by ZIMA and NAMA. The corporate world has also more than ever before come on board in supporting the arts. Non-governmental organisations have also added their weight behind this cultural revolution. They established the Zimbabwe Culture Fund this year some of whose objectives are to provide financial, material/human support for artistes in all sectors. The Fund also aims to facilitate capacity building at policy and administrative levels. The focus is on supporting new and innovative work from emerging mid-level and high level artistes. The juiciest part of their objectives is to help in the "commercialisation" and "professionalisation" of the arts. The immense power that the arts possess has forced the ruling Zanu PF party to retrace its footsteps and rediscover its old self in the face of a stubborn opposition. It has realised that creative arts are an important weapon in winning the hearts and minds of the masses. Those of you who are fortunate enough like me to have inhabited the frontline positions during the 1970s liberation war will remember how liberation movements exploited the arts to win the support of the masses. Their art genre was more on the side of agitprop. The guerrillas gave short speeches during pungwes punctuated by bursts of singing, slogans, ululations and dancing; the type that you see on the sendekera track. They performed mock battles and sketches during the shadowy and ghostly hours of twilight. On the other side of the political spectrum Ian Smith, in the fashion of Goebbels, banned art as a subject in schools when he realised its potential to be instrumentalised by those who were against his policies. Most of the traditional performing arts were banned as they qualified to be "means or devices used in the practice of sorcery" under the Witchcraft Suppression Act (1899). This is the power of the arts that the present government through its various ministries has realised. But one wonders why the same government did not create an enabling environment for the arts in the last 20 years as it has done recently. The government should not wait for political fortunes to dwindle, as they almost did at the turn of the last century, in order to negotiate a marriage of convenience with the arts. Artistes and politician-cum-artistes like Minister Elliot Manyika, Professor Jonathan Moyo and the soul of the late Border Gezi should examine their consciences and ask themselves if this "hypocrisy" is good. I think that artistes should refuse to be condomised. A situation where artistes are dumped and politicians dump art when political fortunes are high is deplorable. There must be a steadfast, Hosea-Gomer relationship between these two institutions for the betterment of both. However, if the present cultural courtship is genuine, steadfast and perennial, we say well done and I am ready to withdraw my word "hypocrisy". Given this overwhelming support from almost all corners, the question remains: what is the artiste on the ground doing in order to make sure that s/he uses this kind of support to improve his/her artefact? The question of training comes in. Most of the artistes whose works we see in streets, parks, community centres, shopping malls and galleries have trained themselves and have in turn trained others. As for theatre, community institutions have taken the lead in the process of training. Amakhosi takes the lead in Bulawayo, while ZACT and more recently ZAAED are taking the lead in Harare. These institutions being community based, most of their products join the community theatre movement. These community groups value animation of amateurs. Their work is owned by the community as opposed to ownership by the state or private institutions. Their artistic emphasis is on participation as opposed to individual genius. Their standards are more local as opposed to national/international taste. In South Africa, most of the performers we see on either e TV or SABC have gone through a university drama school. Achie Moroka of Generations is the external examiner of UCT Drama School. Katlego Danke of e TV's Backstage is an alumni of UCT Drama School, so is Omotoso of Generations. The list is endless. Where is the University of Zimbabwe's theatre arts department going wrong? It is not performing at full capacity as it is understaffed. Of the eight people in Zimbabwe trained up to at least a Masters degree in Theatre Arts, only three are at the UZ. The rest cannot be attracted by the meagre salaries. I feel sorry for Masvingo and Lupane State Universities who want to open mega-faculties of performing arts because they will never get personnel if the fundamentals are not addressed. The other problem is that UZ is too elitist. In order for a student to be enrolled in the theatre arts department, s/he needs to have scored at least 11 points at 'A' level. Isn't it disheartening to tell Tatenda Mavetere, Annie Nhire or Ben Mahaka that they cannot be actors, directors or scriptwriters because they don't have 11 points (not that I have evidence that they don't). At South African universities, entrance to a drama school is by audition or experience in the theatre and a basic minimal pass at matriculation. And they produce wonderful artistes! In a survey carried out in the Department of Theatre Arts last year, most of the students who enrolled for the course had never applied for it and a good number of them did not know that it even existed. Since most of the students enrolled are not artistes and they don't even have the passion for art, as soon as they graduate, they rush to go and teach and that is the end of the story. The other problem has to do with established artistes' attitude towards the UZ theatre arts graduates who have a genuine interest in art. There is an undeclared animosity that exists between the UZ and them. In the past few years we have not seen these groups working together for the good of art, let alone willing to take on board some of the theatre arts graduates. They want to maintain the status quo. Very few production houses have been willing to cast theatre arts graduates in their soap operas and dramas. They believe actors can be picked from the street. I wish it was that easy! Then how can artistes improve without proper training? All over the world where media arts have considerably developed, training is at the centre of that success. We will forever envy SABC if we don't put our act together.
E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com
ARTICLE NUMBER 4
WAITERS MUST STICK TO ITS TRUE IDENTITY AND GROW
SUNDAY MIRROR 13 JUNE 2004 MIRROR REVIEW BY SAMUEL RAVENGAI
In the April 2004 Mirror Review issue, I summed up the article by saying that "situation comedies have types, namely action comedy (actcom), domestic comedy (domcom), pseudo-domestic comedy (pseudo-domcom)".
I then classified Waiters as a situation comedy that is more on the action comedy side. In this issue we discuss Waiters in the context of an action comedy. We suggest steps that Creative Native needs to take to give Waiters its true identity. Lest somebody wants to take me on for forcing Waiters into the actcom genre, let me first of all prove that Waiters is not a domestic comedy. A domestic comedy (domcom) normally takes place within the home environment and bonds of blood closely tie its characters together. The standard domestic comedy has both parents living and staying together with their children as in My Wife and Kids and The Bill Cosby Show. Another variety is a single-parent domestic comedy. Here, a family is broken up for some reason such as death of one parent or divorce. A good example is Roc. A pseudo-domestic comedy shares certain commonalities with an action comedy and I will argue that it is possible for Waiters to graduate into a pseudo-domcom or oscillate between these two genres depending on the episode and situation. However, as can be seen from the above description, Waiters is nowhere near a domestic comedy as the characters are not in any way related. They just come to meet at a workplace (a restaurant). The setting is a restaurant and not a home as is the case with a domestic comedy. Since Waiters does not quite fit into the domcom variety, one can say that it is safely located in the actcom variety. The question is are the scriptwriters writing Waiters as an actcom? Is the director Steve Chigorimbo directing Waiters as an actcom? Let us begin with the plot of an actcom. In my previous articles, I have outlined characteristics of a situation comedy plot. I would be a bit redundant if I were to repeat the same information in this issue. What needs to be said, however, is that Waiters has a four part narrative structure, which satisfies one of the generic codes of a sitcom. Good. Where things do not seem to jelly together is the area of complications and confusion. The first part of an actcom should present a problem. The characters normally invent the problem. Human beings create problems for themselves and human beings should be seen frantically trying to solve problems they have helped to create. In trying to solve these problems, they cause other worse problems. This creates complications, which are described by Taflinger (1996) as "flaws in the plan to solve problems or natural outgrowths of the problem". The characters are led quite naturally to some type of action in which they do something to solve the complication. I don't want to be viewed as a theorist who cannot demonstrate practically what he is saying. Let me scribble a short outline which demonstrates what I mean basing the outline on the characters of Waiters: Marcelino enters the restaurant and finds Sally applying make up and other beauty paraphernalia in preparation for a date. Marcelino is nauseated by the idea of some strange guy coming to see Sally everyday and disturbing business. A Delivery van hoots. Next scene: Marcelino storms to the door, and meets Sally's date carrying flowers. He bumps into him and sends the flowers flying down to the ground. The ice cream he was holding for Sally soils his trousers. The scene shifts to the storeroom where Marcelino talks to the van driver who is delivering bread. The van driver is a neighbourhood gossip who supplies frightening details about Sally's date that he is a womaniser. As Sally comes to take Marcelino to task, Marcelino hurries into the restaurant to tell Simon about the promiscuity of Sally's date. Marcelino and Simon, out to protect Sally from this dangerous date, conjure a plan to throw a dinner party in the restaurant. Next scene: Dinner party. When Sally goes to the toilet, Simon tells Sally's date that Sally is older than he had been meant to believe and has a hearing impairment. The date will have to speak loudly to her, which he does as soon she is back. Confusion. Meanwhile, Marcelino has prepared a special meal spiked with great quantities of hot chilli and pepper. When the meal is served, Sally cannot resist the temptation to taste it, but Mariyawanda's restraining comes far too late. Sally has tasted the food and begins to pant for breath. The date, not quite sure what is going on, shovels one spoonful of food into his mouth and chokes. Everybody is now running around and bringing dozens of glasses of water amidst yelling, mugging, struggling, confusion and gulping ... and so on. As can be seen from this outline I have cooked up, an act of correcting a problem leads into further complications and confusion. What can also be seen is that the orientation of the actcom plot is toward action rather than character and thought, as is the case with a domcom. That is why it is called an actcom. Waiters is written and directed like a domestic comedy when in fact it is an actcom. This is probably because most of the sitcoms we have seen in the past on ZTV with the possible exception of Taina are domcoms: Fresh Prince of Belle, Roc, My Wife and Kids, Bill Cosby Show. Waiters scriptwriters are probably using these shows as role models and they are bad role models for an actcom albeit good ones for a domcom. Waiters characters need to move more towards action rather than thoughtful dialogue and the script should have recurrent details to help the performers towards that end. As it is now, the characters depend far too much on dialogue at the expense of action. Actcom characters rarely indulge in rational thought. Most of the time, they are busy devising schemes to solve problems they have helped to create. The characters' motivations are based, in most cases, on first impressions and decisions taken in a hurried atmosphere. Sometimes the plot may be devoid of any tangible theme as the show more often than not uses humour and action for their own sake. This is not to say there should be no lesson. Waiters scriptwriters should also take note of the character's use of language (diction). The language should be more simplified than it is at the moment. Emphasis should shift to physical action (visual comedy) as opposed to verbal wit, which is the hallmark of domestic comedy. The designers are doing a wonderful job for Waiters. The setting of Waiters is in conformity with the requirements of an actcom. Actcom settings are generally simple and functional. They do not serve as part of the action but simply as a background. I inspected the set at Pockets Hill and it is not anywhere near a real restaurant, but is serving its function very well - to be a background. There is, however, room to alter the set when the show becomes more sophisticated as we hope it will be. When it moves towards the realm of a pseudo-domcom, some spaces within the set may become more personalised to the characters. The director Steve Chigorimbo has got a lot of work to do in helping the performers to act their parts like actcom characters. Since physical action has got something to do with movement, Chigorimbo may want to experiment with connotative values of movement. The amount of movement executed in a scene can evoke the mood of the scene, the basic situation and character. Chigorimbo will recall that short movements are expressive of excitement, sharpness, irritability, impulsiveness and so on, while long movements convey impressions of composure, languor, lack of emotional strain and so on. Depending on the basic situation, the director can depend on the length of movement, strength of movement and amount of movement, among other things for effect. What is the true identity of Waiters? It is certainly an actcom, but as a way of concluding, I argue that it is possible for Waiters to graduate into a pseudo-domcom. It has got everything it needs. The place of work as a setting is common to both varieties of sitcoms. In a way, the work place can replace a home. Since all Waiters characters are adults, scriptwriters can create interesting relationships between them analogous to those in a regular domcom. The stereotypical characters, which populate the actcom world, can develop into three-dimensional characters. I heard Dylan Wilson Max say something to that effect at the launch of Waiters' second season. Depending on the episode, one or two characters can become more powerful than others, while the less powerful ones can take the role that is similar to that played by children in a domestic comedy. Waiters can either be an actcom or both an actcom and pseudo-domcom depending on the episode. Possibilities for growth are infinite.
E-mail this writer at rvnsam001@yahoo.com
|
|
SOAP OPERAS
Soap opera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The first TIME cover devoted to soap operas: Dated January 12, 1976, Bill Hayes and Susan Seaforth Hayes of Days of Our Lives are featured with the headline "Soap Operas: Sex and suffering in the afternoon".A soap opera is an ongoing, episodic work of fiction, usually broadcast on television or radio. This genre of TV and radio entertainment has been in existence long enough for audiences to recognize them simply by the term soap. What differentiates a soap from other television drama programs is their open-ended nature. Plots run concurrently, and lead into further developments: there is rarely a need to "wrap things up", although soaps that run in series for only part of the year tend to bring things to a dramatic cliffhanger.
The soap opera form first developed on American radio in the 1920s, and expanded into television starting in the 1940s, and is normally shown during the daytime, hence the alternative name, daytime serial. The first concerted effort to air continuing drama occurred in 1946 on the DuMont television series Faraway Hill. Soap operas, in their present format, were introduced to television in 1949. Two long-running soaps, Search for Tomorrow and Love of Life, first started broadcasts in 1951.
The term "soap opera" originated from the fact that when these serial dramas were aired on daytime radio, the commercials aired during the shows were largely aimed at housewives. Many of the products sold during these commercials were laundry and cleaning items. This specific type of radio drama came to be associated with these particular commercials, and this gave rise to the term "soap opera" — a melodramatic story that aired commercials for soap products. Though soap operas are still sponsored by companies such as Procter & Gamble, the diverse demographic groups that soap operas attract have caused other advertisements for such things as acne medication and birth control, appealing to a much younger audience.
Contents [showhide]
1 Soap opera characteristics
1.1 "Soap music"
1.2 Characteristics of American soaps today
2 Soaps in the United Kingdom
3 Soaps in the United States
3.1 The Golden Age of American television
3.2 American soaps: for the evening, too
3.3 Current American daytime television schedule
4 Soap parodies
5 See also
6 External links
[edit]
Soap opera characteristics
Most soaps follow the lives of a group of characters who live or work in a particular place. The storylines follow the day-to-day lives of these characters, who seem similar to ordinary people on the street — except that soap opera characters are usually more handsome, beautiful, seductive, and richer than the typical person watching the TV show. Soap operas take everyday, ordinary lives and exaggerate them to a degree where they are still believable, yet they are more dramatic.
Romances, secret relationships, extra-marital affairs, and genuine love has been the basis for the vast majority of soap operas. The most memorable soap opera characters, and the most compelling and popular storylines, have usually involved a romance between two characters, of the sort often presented in paperback romance novels. Soap opera storylines weave intricate, convoluted, sometimes confusing tales of characters who have affairs, meet mysterious strangers and fall in love, are swept off their feet by dashing (yet treacherous) lovers, sneak behind their lovers' backs, and engage in other forms of adultery that keep their audiences returning to find out who is sleeping with whom, who has betrayed whom, who is having a baby, who is related to each other, and so on.
Remarkable (sometimes unbelievable) coincidences are used to enhance the drama in most soap operas. For example, if a young woman in a soap secretly has a single sexual encounter with her boyfriend back in high school, this forbidden affair will certainly come back to haunt her several years later...usually at the very moment that it would cause the most harm (such as on the day of her wedding). Previously-unknown (and often evil) twins regularly emerge, and unexpected calamities disrupt weddings with unusual frequency. Much like comic books—another popular form of linear storytelling—a character's death is not guaranteed to be permanent without an on-camera corpse, and sometimes not even then.
[edit]
"Soap music"
In addition, the musical soundtrack used for a soap opera uses a style that instantly identifies it as belonging to soap operas. Soaps aired during the golden age of radio usually used organs to produce most of their music (because they were cheaper than full-blown orchestras). The organists from the radio serials moved over to television, and were heard on some serials as late as the 1970s.
Like the storylines themselves, soap opera soundtracks were overblown and melodramatic. An instantly recognizable characteristic of a soap (one that has been spoofed and imitated many times) consists of a scene where a lovely woman tells her husband or boyfriend that she no longer loves him, for she has been seeing someone else...and at that moment, a single, blaring organ chord resonates on the soundtrack, emphasizing this dramatic moment. Organ music has been abandoned on the serials for thirty years now and pre-recorded music has largely taken its place, with pianos and violins substituted for the blaring organ chord of yore.
[edit]
Characteristics of American soaps today
More recently, two American soap operas (Passions and Days of Our Lives) currently involve some supernatural or science fiction element in one of their ongoing storylines. This can include an alien character, or a vampire character (most infamously seen on Port Charles). Often, these characters are isolated in only one of the ongoing storyline "threads", which can seemingly allow a fan to ignore them if they do not like that element, a form of krypto-revisionism.
Martha Byrne from As the World Turns, exhibiting the effects of back lighting on one's hair.American soap operas since the 1980s have shared many common visual elements that set them apart dramatically from other shows:
Overhead spotlighting, or back lighting is often placed directly over the heads of all the actors in the forground, causing an unnatural shadowing of their features along with a highlighting of their hair. Back lighting was always a standard technique of film and television lighting; while most current productions now deemphasise this somewhat unnatural look, it persist in soap operas
Almost always the rooms in a house have heavy use of deep stained wood wall panels and furniture, along with many elements of brown leather furniture. This creates an overall "brown" look which is very noticeable, and is supposed to be associated with the wealth of the characters portrayed.
The video quality of a soap opera is usually lower then comparable prime time television shows of the time, due to the lower budgets and quicker production times involved. This is due to the fact that the shows are recorded on videotape and not on film like primetime productions.
[edit]
Soaps in the United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, soap operas are one of the most popular genres, most being broadcast during prime time. Unlike the rich, glamorous and good-looking characters typical of US soap operas, most UK soaps focus on working-class communities. The most popular is ITV's Coronation Street, which regularly attracts the highest viewing figures for any programme.
Coronation Street has been a popular soap opera in the United Kingdom since the show was first aired in 1960.As in the USA, soap operas began on radio and consequently were associated with the BBC. The BBC continues to broadcast one of the earlier radio "soap opera" programmes in Britain, the ever popular Archers, on Radio 4. It has been running since 1951 nationally. It continues to attract over five million listeners, or roughly 25% of the radio listening population of the UK at that time of the evening.
In the 1960s, Coronation Street set the trend and other popular soaps included Emergency - Ward 10 (ITV), Compact (about the staff of a women's magazine) and The Newcomers (about the upheaval caused by a large firm setting up a plant in a small town (both BBC). One of the most successful was Crossroads, put out by ITV at teatime, but none lasted as long as Corrie, until the arrival of ITV's Emmerdale Farm, later Emmerdale, which had a similar northern setting (but in Yorkshire instead of Lancashire). The only other competition, Crossroads, set in a Birmingham (England) motel, was discontinued, briefly revived, and discontinued again. When Channel 4 launched in 1982 it came complete with the Liverpool based Brookside that over the next decade re-defined the UK television soap. In 1985, the London based soap opera EastEnders debuted and was a near instant success with viewers and critics alike. Critics talked about the downfall of Coronation Street, but this was put to rest in 1994 when the two serials were scheduled opposite each other, with Corrie winning handily. For the better part of ten years, the show has shared the number one position with Coronation Street, but the ratings for EastEnders reached an all-time low as of late 2004, allowing Corrie to regain the top spot.
Daytime soaps were unknown until the 1970s because there was virtually no daytime television in the UK. ITV introduced General Hospital, which later transferred to a prime time slot, and Scottish Television had Take the High Road, which lasted for over twenty years. However, it was with the influx of Australian programmes such as The Young Doctors and eventually, Neighbours and Home and Away, that the soap boom really began.
Unlike US daytime soaps which have almost always been shown five episodes a week, Monday through Friday, the UK soaps usually only aired on two nights of the week (with the exception of Crossroads, which began as a five day a week soap opera, but was later reduced). In 1989, things started to change when Coronation Street began airing three times a week (later expanding further to four in 1996), a trend which was soon followed by rival EastEnders in 1994 and Emmerdale in 1997. 1991 saw the BBC launch the disasterous El Dorado to alternate with Eastenders but it only lasted a year. In 1997, the UK's first five-days-a-week soap, Family Affairs, debuted. Today, Coronation Street (which began screening two episodes on Monday nights in 2002), Family Affairs and Hollyoaks all produce five episodes a week, while EastEnders screens four. In 2004, Emmerdale began screening six episodes a week leading to the concern that soap operas in the UK were at saturation level.
[edit]
Soaps in the United States
The American soap opera The Guiding Light started as a radio drama in January 1937 and subsequently transferred to television. With the exception of several years in the late 1940s when Irna Phillips was in dispute with Procter & Gamble, The Guiding Light has been heard or seen every weekday since it started, making it the longest story ever told. Other American soaps that have been telecast for more than thirty years (and are still in rotation) include As the World Turns, General Hospital, Days of Our Lives, One Life to Live, All My Children, and The Young and the Restless. Due to the shows' longevities, it is not uncommon for multiple actors to play a single character over the span of many years. It is also not uncommon for a single actor to play several characters on other shows over the years. Actors such as Robin Mattson and Michael Sabatino have played no less than six soap roles.
In the USA, the shows purely known in the vernacular as soap operas are broadcast during daytime. In the beginning, the serials were broadcast as fifteen-minute installments each weekday. In 1956, the first half-hour soaps debuted, and all of the soaps broadcast half-hour episodes by the end of the 1960s. When the soap opera hit a fever pitch in the 1970s, popular demand had the shows, one by one, expanded to an hour in length (one show, Another World, even expanded to ninety minutes for a short time). More than half of the serials (and all of the hour-long serials on the air today) expanded to the new time format by 1980. Today, eight out of the nine American serials air sixty-minute episodes each weekday.
The USA soap opera Port Charles used the practice of running 13-week "story arcs", in which the main events of the arc are played out and wrapped up over the 13 weeks, although some storylines did continue over more than one arc.
[edit]
The Golden Age of American television
Many soaps, in the beginning of television, found their niches in telling stories in certain environments. The Doctors and General Hospital, in the beginning, told stories almost exclusively from inside the confines of a hospital. As the World Turns dealt heavily with Chris Hughes's law practice and the travails of his wife Nancy who, when she tired of being "the loyal housewife" in the 1970s, became one of the first older women on the serials to become a working woman. The Guiding Light dealt with Bert Bauer (Charita Bauer) and her endless marital troubles. When her status moved to that of the caring mother and town matriarch, her children's marital troubles were then put on display. Search for Tomorrow told the story, for the most part, through the eyes of one woman only: the heroine, Joanne (Mary Stuart). Even when stories revolved around other characters, she was almost always a main fixture in their storylines. Days of Our Lives first told the stories of Dr. Tom Horton and his steadfast wife Alice. In later years, the show branched out and told the stories of their five children.
[edit]
American soaps: for the evening, too
Prime time serials were just as popular as those in daytime. The first real prime time soap opera was Peyton Place (1964-1969), based in part on the original 1957 movie (which was itself taken from the 1956 novel). The structure of the series (its episodic plots and running story arcs) would set the mold for the prime time serials of the 1980s when the format reached its pinnacle.
The most successful prime time serials of the 1980s included Dallas, Dynasty, and Knots Landing. There were some shows in the decades that followed such as Beverly Hills 90210, Hill Street Blues, St. Elsewhere, E.R., and The West Wing that did not officially fit the category of prime time serials.
The soap opera's distinctive open plot structure and complex continuity was eventually adopted in major American prime time television programs. The first significant one was Hill Street Blues produced by Steven Bochco which featured many elements borrowed by soap operas such as an ensemble cast, multi-episode storylines and extensive character development over the course of the series. The success of this series soon gave rise to a variety of other serious drama and science fiction series which took much the same elements to structure their own storylines.
[edit]
Current American daytime television schedule
The daytime serials in America air five days a week, Monday through Friday. Local affiliates have the right to air the serials whenever they wish, but this is how the networks schedule them. All times are Eastern and Pacific local time* (subtract one hour for Central and Mountain time zones).
Guiding Light airs at 10 a.m. in some markets in the East, while some local affiliates do not air it at all.
12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM 3:00 PM 3:30 PM
ABC Local Programming All My Children One Life to Live General Hospital
CBS The Young and the Restless The Bold and the Beautiful As the World Turns Guiding Light
NBC Local Programming Days of Our Lives Passions Local Programming
[edit]
Soap parodies
A few soap opera spoofs have been made. Two of the most famous U.S. spoofs were Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman and Soap. On British television, comedian Victoria Wood had a long-running spoof soap entitled Acorn Antiques on her sketch show (loosely based on ITV's Crossroads). In the United States, Carol Burnett frequently ran a soap opera spoof on her show, called As the Stomach Turns, modeled in name after As the World Turns. Dramatic coincidences and missed cues (parodying a time in which soaps were broadcast live) were seen frequently, as well as the melodramatic welling of organ music, which was a staple on American serials until the 1970s. Futurama frequently features scenes from an almost all-robot soap, called All my Circuits. The robot Calculon is the show's
Domcom: Character-Based Situation Comedies
byRichard F. Taflingerhis page has been accessed times since 30 May 1996.
Characters
The characters in all types of domcom are more like human beings than those in actcoms. They are not so one-dimensional and stereotyped: no scatter-brained conniving wives; no perpetually confused and angry husbands; the neighbors are people, not s tooges or henchmen. They experience real emotions: grief, not wailing; love, not panting desire.
In addition, all characters are important, not just the star or main characters. The main character is not necessarily the pivot point of every plot: the supporting characters are central to the plot much more often than in an actcom. Also, soluti ons are not always provided by the main character: they are sometimes provided by supporting characters or even transients. For example, in an episode of THE BRADY BUNCH, Jan's aunt, a transient character, proves that Jan is not ugly. In an episode of EIGHT IS ENOUGH, David, a supporting character, pushes Mary into realizing that she is trying too hard in medical school and is making everyone miserable in the process.
Supporting characters are much more important in their own rights. They are not strictly underlings to the main character. They lead dramatic lives of their own away from the main character. They are often involved in plots of their own.
The supporting characters in a domcom are the children, neighbors, friends, and the parents' co-workers (In domcoms of the 50s and 60s the wife rarely had a job that took her out of the house. However, as women moved more and more into the workplace , so did the wife in domcoms.)
The children are the characters that have most of the problems, usually associated with learning about living in a social world. The relationship between parent and child, and the children themselves, is good and loving. Though there is sibling riv alry and hostility, there is even more love and support.
A major problem with television's series programming is solved by having the children as the characters with most of the problems. For a piece of drama to be gripping for the audience, it must take place during the major event in the life of the pro tagonist. For OEDIPUS REX to take place while Oedipus was on the road, rather than at the moment when he discovers the truth about himself and his life, might be interesting, but also might leave the audience asking, "So what?" For E.T., THE EXTRATERRES TRIAL to be about E.T.'s trip to Earth, rather than about his meeting and surviving his encounter with humans, would lack immediacy and tension. Hamlet's life at school could be fascinating, but is nothing compared to the dramatic impact of his desire to revenge his father's murder. Thus it is clear to see that whatever happens to the character, the piece should be about the most important thing to happen to him/her/it in his/her/its life.
What this means to series television is -- it's impossible. If what happens in this week's show is the most important thing that can happen in the character's life, then next week's show is an anticlimax, as is the next, and the next, and the next, if there is a next (if the audience loses interest, the show loses its contract).
However, what if the characters with the problems are children? Children are incomplete adults, still learning about the world around them. Therefore, every problem they have is potentially the most important event in their lives to that point. Ne xt week's problem can be even more important. This solves a major problem with the dramatic quality of series television. It is now possible to tell a story every week that is the most important thing in a character's life without having to change chara cters.
Other supporting characters in a domcom rarely have problems of their own for the family to resolve, but merely act as comic intensification and foils for the main characters. Though they rarely have problems of their own they are often instrumental in the solution by either providing a sounding-board for another character to discover the solution or by discovering the solution themselves. A prime example is Tim Allen's next door neighbor on HOME IMPROVEMENT. Although his face is never seen, he al ways has a perspective on Tim's problems that gives Tim a new approach.
Transients are most often the cause of a plot problem or complication, coming into the show for one episode to create a problem for one of the main characters or children. They play roles ranging from total stranger to rarely seen relative, and thei r problem, often the most important event in their lives, is resolved through their interaction with one or more members of the family.
The number of transients is kept to a minimum: the interest is in the family's reactions to the problems, not the transient's problem. For example, in an episode of ONE DAY AT A TIME, Schneider is confronted with someone to whom he once said, "Keep in touch". The man shows up, just out of prison. Schneider, Ann and Barbara are all apprehensive about having him around, but as they get to know him they realize they were prejudging him. He turns out to be a nice but socially unskilled person, havin g spent half his life in jail. They get him a job, which solves his problem, although the next moment the police come to take him back to prison for having left it without the formality of being released. Schneider, Ann, and Barbara resolve to visit him, having discovered something about themselves, that they tend to be prejudiced and resolve to avoid it in future.
As can be seen from the above example, it was not the convict's problems that were the focus of the episode: it was the family's reactions to the problems. The resolution of the episode was not for the convict, who ended up right where he started, in prison, but the effect on the family and their new knowledge about themselves.
All characters, with minor exceptions, are sympathetic. The plots do not arise out of a protagonist/antagonist conflict, but a mental and/or emotional conflict within a character, and attempts by the character and his family to eliminate the conflic t. At most, a character, usually a transient, will be a personalized representation of the conflict, and thus appear unsympathetic. However, with the resolution of the conflict, any antipathy toward this character will disappear as it is realized that e ither his motivations were misunderstood or he is to be pitied rather than despised.
One thing that distinguishes a domcom from an actcom is the competency of the characters to cope with problems. The parent does not always have the answer but does always have some explanation by the end of an episode. The children have an amazing degree of understanding of human nature and the problems of children and parents.
#
The following sections discuss the differences in the characters in the three types of domcom: standard, single-parent, and pseudo-domcom.
Standard Domcom
The standard domcom is one which uses a complete family as the basic unit. That is, there is a father, a mother, and children.
The main characters in a standard domcom are the parents. The father is the head of the family, in keeping with the idealized middle-class American family. He is a fount of wisdom, firm but gentle, and the final decisions rest with him on all matte rs financial, the general running of the household, and discipline. In other words, he is a benevolent dictator, the breadwinner and provider for the family. He may be occasionally unsure of what to do but he is always willing to try and do his best.
The mother is the father's right hand. She runs the home, handling the details of cleaning, shopping, cooking, etc. She maintains order in the home, deferring to the father in most matters of discipline, providing the emotional facets of all proble ms, leaving most of the logistics to the logical and rational mind of the father. As Mrs. Brady says on THE BRADY BUNCH, "I don't have to be logical--I'm a mother." The mother is the wellspring of comfort and mother love, and attends to the emotional we ll-being of the family.
In recent years, as women have become more individual and independent, the wife has occasionally assumed the traditional "husband" characteristics, contributing more to the financial and disciplinary well-being of the family. At the same time, the husba nd has contributed more to the emotional aspects. On THE COSBY SHOW we often see Claire Huxtable handling discipline, while Cliff Huxtable provides comfort and emotional support to the children. Nonetheless, the standard characteristics of husband and w ife detailed above still hold true in the majority of shows and episodes.
Primary among the supporting characters are the children, who range in age from about six to about seventeen.
At least one child will be very young, rher innocence and lack of experience providing many plot problems and complications as rhe learns about the world around rher. For examples, there is Kathy on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Nick on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Patty on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Cindy and Bobby on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Rudy on THE COSBY SHOW.
At least one child will be old enough to experience problems with growing up in society. This child is learning not only about the world but the people in it, and experiences problems with friends, the opposite sex, money, egotism and snobbishness. For example, there is Bud on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Tom and Elizabeth on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Jeff on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Jan and Peter on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Vanessa on THE COSBY SHOW.
The other children, if any, will be older, beginning to cope with adult problems. The parents will guide rather than dictate solutions to these children, and the character will most often discover rher own solutions. In addition, this character wil l help with the raising of younger children, providing examples, good or bad. For example, there is Betty on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Nancy, Susan, Joanie, Mary, and David on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Mary on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Marcia and Greg on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Theo and Denise on THE COSBY SHOW.
If a show has a long enough run, four or more years, you will often see a new child added to the family in order to maintain the age spread as the original children (read, the actors playing them) grow older and move into new slots. For example, FAMILY TIES had the age spread the first few seasons with Jennifer, Mallory and Alex. However, as these three characters aged, a new child, Andy, was added. Andy provided the youngest, Jennifer moved from the youngest to the second slot, Mallory moved to the o lder teenage slot, and Alex became a new slot, the young adult.
Other supporting characters are most often the parents' friends or family. They are often professional people (doctors, especially). They will aid in the raising of the children by offering advise and encouragement. Rarely do they provide anything in the way of plot problems and complications. On those shows in which the main characters are the children rather than the parents, such as FAMILY TIES, other supporting characters are often the children's, rather than the parents', friends.
There is extensive use of transient characters, portraying in particular friends of the children. Through these friends the children can explore various ways of learning about life: peer pressure, success and failure, other families.
Single-parent Domcom
A single-parent domcom has a family broken for some reason, such as the death of one parent, or a divorce. Thus, the basic unit is that of having either a father or mother, but not both, and one or more children that the single parent must raise.
The main character in a single-parent domcom is usually the parent, such as Andy Taylor on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW. Occasionally, however, it is the parent and the child. Tom Corbett and his son, Eddie, on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER, is an exam ple of this.
Most shows of this kind use a widower. This appears to be due to an assumed effect on the audience, that men are less competent to raise children and thus there is a greater poignancy in a father trying to be a mother as well.
The supporting characters include the children, the surrogate parent, and friends. The children are usually young (six to twelve years of age). If the show has a long run the children naturally grow up, and new young children are brought in. For e xample, on MY THREE SONS, which ran for 18 seasons, the oldest son grew up, got married, and moved out, so they adopted a new youngest son. This maintained the age range for interesting plots (and incidentally insured that the title remained applicable).
The surrogate parent is a member of the cast that fulfills the role of the other, non-biological, parent. There are, of course, two types of surrogate parents: surrogate fathers and surrogate mothers. Surrogate fathers are usually well-intentioned but bumbling. Schneider, on ONE DAY AT A TIME, is constantly offering advise and assistance to Ann on the raising of her two daughters. The advise is often inapplicable and the assistance obstructive. Nonetheless, it is obvious that he believes that what he says and does is for the best. Bub, and later Uncle Charlie, on MY THREE SONS, played the wife to Steven Douglas' husband. Bub/Uncle Charlie did the cooking and housework, and provided some of the emotional support for the children.
Surrogate mothers are warm and loving, stable and dependable. When they are not it is for the purpose of plot complication or problem. For example, Mrs. Livingston on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER is always there, warm, smiling, gentle. On one e pisode she was in danger of deportation to her native Japan, and little Eddie had to cope with the prospect of losing her and try to understand the wonders of government. When Tom manages to get her permission to stay in America, Eddie is ecstatic, but a lso more aware of life in the big world.
Occasionally there is a hybrid form of single-parent domcom, in which there is a parent and a surrogate parent of the same sex. KATE & ALLIE and MY TWO DADS are example. In this case the role of parent and surrogate parent trade off. In some episodes K ate is the surrogate father to Allie's mother, in other episodes vice versa.
The parent's friends are often bumbling but well-intentioned, providing a foil for the parent's level-headed competence. Barney Fife on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW and "Uncle" Norman on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER are examples of this type of friend.
Friends are almost exclusively of the same sex as the parent. The parent will rarely have a friend of the opposite sex. Anyone of the opposite sex turns out to be an employee, an employer, a co-worker, or a love interest.
Transients brought into a single-parent domcom are usually important. For the parent they are either a love interest or a family complication for the parent, the child, or the surrogate parent. For the child the transients are brought in to introdu ce questions or problems for the parent to answer or solve. For example, on JULIA, Earl introduces the problem "Is Santa Claus black or white?". On an episode of THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER, Eddie wants to marry his babysitter, who in turn wants to marry Tom. This is a problem for Tom to solve.
Pseudo-domcom
The characters on a pseudo-domcom are a set of adults who bear relationships to one another that are analogous to those in a regular domcom. An example is THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, in which Mary, Lou, Murray, Ted, Georgette, Rhoda, Phyllis and Sue Ann take the parts of the family, Mary as the usually calm and level-headed single parent surrounded by children older than herself.
Occasionally an actcom will mature into a pseudo-domcom, as why the characters do what they becomes more important than the mere fact that they do it. A prime example is CHEERS.
CHEERS, a pure actcom for the first few seasons, matured as the characters began examining why they did things. Sam, an inveterate, egotistical skirt-chaser has tried everything he can think of to get Rebecca into bed. He sees his opportunity when Rebe cca has lost the love of her life and is vulnerable. He moves in, then suddenly stops as his conscience (something he never had the first few seasons) bothers him: how can he take advantage of someone who needs a friend to talk to, not a roll in the hay ? Sam bolts from the room and calls Rebecca from the lobby of her apartment house, knowing he can't be a friend while in the same room with her -- his old reflexes are too strong. Sam's examination of his own character, realization of a moral dilemma, a nd decision to do something different from his normal behavior patterns, are factors that make this episode a domcom rather than an actcom.
Although most episodes of CHEERS are actcom, many are domcom, with the characters in the bar taking the roles of parents and children, swapping the roles around according to the dictates of individual episodes.
The only difference between a regular domcom and a pseudo-domcom, once the concept of the pseudo-domcom is understood, is that the character of parent, surrogate parent and child(ren) in a pseudo-domcom will often rotate between the characters.
Return to Main Domcom Page
Return to Sitcom Contents Page
Return to 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 Washington State University or the Edward R. Murrow School o f Communication. Similarly, any opinions expressed are my own and are in no way to be taken as those of WSU or ERMSC.
In addition,
I, Richard F. Taflinger, accept no responsibility for WSU or ERMSC material or policies. Statements issued on behalf of Washington State University are in no way to be taken as reflecting my own opinions or those of any other individual. Nor do I take r esponsibility for the contents of any Web Pages listed here other than my own.
Domcom: Character-Based Situation Comedies
by
Richard F. Taflinger
This page has been accessed times since 30 May 1996.
Characters
The characters in all types of domcom are more like human beings than those in actcoms. They are not so one-dimensional and stereotyped: no scatter-brained conniving wives; no perpetually confused and angry husbands; the neighbors are people, not s tooges or henchmen. They experience real emotions: grief, not wailing; love, not panting desire.
In addition, all characters are important, not just the star or main characters. The main character is not necessarily the pivot point of every plot: the supporting characters are central to the plot much more often than in an actcom. Also, soluti ons are not always provided by the main character: they are sometimes provided by supporting characters or even transients. For example, in an episode of THE BRADY BUNCH, Jan's aunt, a transient character, proves that Jan is not ugly. In an episode of EIGHT IS ENOUGH, David, a supporting character, pushes Mary into realizing that she is trying too hard in medical school and is making everyone miserable in the process.
Supporting characters are much more important in their own rights. They are not strictly underlings to the main character. They lead dramatic lives of their own away from the main character. They are often involved in plots of their own.
The supporting characters in a domcom are the children, neighbors, friends, and the parents' co-workers (In domcoms of the 50s and 60s the wife rarely had a job that took her out of the house. However, as women moved more and more into the workplace , so did the wife in domcoms.)
The children are the characters that have most of the problems, usually associated with learning about living in a social world. The relationship between parent and child, and the children themselves, is good and loving. Though there is sibling riv alry and hostility, there is even more love and support.
A major problem with television's series programming is solved by having the children as the characters with most of the problems. For a piece of drama to be gripping for the audience, it must take place during the major event in the life of the pro tagonist. For OEDIPUS REX to take place while Oedipus was on the road, rather than at the moment when he discovers the truth about himself and his life, might be interesting, but also might leave the audience asking, "So what?" For E.T., THE EXTRATERRES TRIAL to be about E.T.'s trip to Earth, rather than about his meeting and surviving his encounter with humans, would lack immediacy and tension. Hamlet's life at school could be fascinating, but is nothing compared to the dramatic impact of his desire to revenge his father's murder. Thus it is clear to see that whatever happens to the character, the piece should be about the most important thing to happen to him/her/it in his/her/its life.
What this means to series television is -- it's impossible. If what happens in this week's show is the most important thing that can happen in the character's life, then next week's show is an anticlimax, as is the next, and the next, and the next, if there is a next (if the audience loses interest, the show loses its contract).
However, what if the characters with the problems are children? Children are incomplete adults, still learning about the world around them. Therefore, every problem they have is potentially the most important event in their lives to that point. Ne xt week's problem can be even more important. This solves a major problem with the dramatic quality of series television. It is now possible to tell a story every week that is the most important thing in a character's life without having to change chara cters.
Other supporting characters in a domcom rarely have problems of their own for the family to resolve, but merely act as comic intensification and foils for the main characters. Though they rarely have problems of their own they are often instrumental in the solution by either providing a sounding-board for another character to discover the solution or by discovering the solution themselves. A prime example is Tim Allen's next door neighbor on HOME IMPROVEMENT. Although his face is never seen, he al ways has a perspective on Tim's problems that gives Tim a new approach.
Transients are most often the cause of a plot problem or complication, coming into the show for one episode to create a problem for one of the main characters or children. They play roles ranging from total stranger to rarely seen relative, and thei r problem, often the most important event in their lives, is resolved through their interaction with one or more members of the family.
The number of transients is kept to a minimum: the interest is in the family's reactions to the problems, not the transient's problem. For example, in an episode of ONE DAY AT A TIME, Schneider is confronted with someone to whom he once said, "Keep in touch". The man shows up, just out of prison. Schneider, Ann and Barbara are all apprehensive about having him around, but as they get to know him they realize they were prejudging him. He turns out to be a nice but socially unskilled person, havin g spent half his life in jail. They get him a job, which solves his problem, although the next moment the police come to take him back to prison for having left it without the formality of being released. Schneider, Ann, and Barbara resolve to visit him, having discovered something about themselves, that they tend to be prejudiced and resolve to avoid it in future.
As can be seen from the above example, it was not the convict's problems that were the focus of the episode: it was the family's reactions to the problems. The resolution of the episode was not for the convict, who ended up right where he started, in prison, but the effect on the family and their new knowledge about themselves.
All characters, with minor exceptions, are sympathetic. The plots do not arise out of a protagonist/antagonist conflict, but a mental and/or emotional conflict within a character, and attempts by the character and his family to eliminate the conflic t. At most, a character, usually a transient, will be a personalized representation of the conflict, and thus appear unsympathetic. However, with the resolution of the conflict, any antipathy toward this character will disappear as it is realized that e ither his motivations were misunderstood or he is to be pitied rather than despised.
One thing that distinguishes a domcom from an actcom is the competency of the characters to cope with problems. The parent does not always have the answer but does always have some explanation by the end of an episode. The children have an amazing degree of understanding of human nature and the problems of children and parents.
#
The following sections discuss the differences in the characters in the three types of domcom: standard, single-parent, and pseudo-domcom.
Standard Domcom
The standard domcom is one which uses a complete family as the basic unit. That is, there is a father, a mother, and children.
The main characters in a standard domcom are the parents. The father is the head of the family, in keeping with the idealized middle-class American family. He is a fount of wisdom, firm but gentle, and the final decisions rest with him on all matte rs financial, the general running of the household, and discipline. In other words, he is a benevolent dictator, the breadwinner and provider for the family. He may be occasionally unsure of what to do but he is always willing to try and do his best.
The mother is the father's right hand. She runs the home, handling the details of cleaning, shopping, cooking, etc. She maintains order in the home, deferring to the father in most matters of discipline, providing the emotional facets of all proble ms, leaving most of the logistics to the logical and rational mind of the father. As Mrs. Brady says on THE BRADY BUNCH, "I don't have to be logical--I'm a mother." The mother is the wellspring of comfort and mother love, and attends to the emotional we ll-being of the family.
In recent years, as women have become more individual and independent, the wife has occasionally assumed the traditional "husband" characteristics, contributing more to the financial and disciplinary well-being of the family. At the same time, the husba nd has contributed more to the emotional aspects. On THE COSBY SHOW we often see Claire Huxtable handling discipline, while Cliff Huxtable provides comfort and emotional support to the children. Nonetheless, the standard characteristics of husband and w ife detailed above still hold true in the majority of shows and episodes.
Primary among the supporting characters are the children, who range in age from about six to about seventeen.
At least one child will be very young, rher innocence and lack of experience providing many plot problems and complications as rhe learns about the world around rher. For examples, there is Kathy on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Nick on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Patty on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Cindy and Bobby on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Rudy on THE COSBY SHOW.
At least one child will be old enough to experience problems with growing up in society. This child is learning not only about the world but the people in it, and experiences problems with friends, the opposite sex, money, egotism and snobbishness. For example, there is Bud on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Tom and Elizabeth on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Jeff on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Jan and Peter on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Vanessa on THE COSBY SHOW.
The other children, if any, will be older, beginning to cope with adult problems. The parents will guide rather than dictate solutions to these children, and the character will most often discover rher own solutions. In addition, this character wil l help with the raising of younger children, providing examples, good or bad. For example, there is Betty on FATHER KNOWS BEST, Nancy, Susan, Joanie, Mary, and David on EIGHT IS ENOUGH, Mary on THE DONNA REED SHOW, Marcia and Greg on THE BRADY BUNCH, and Theo and Denise on THE COSBY SHOW.
If a show has a long enough run, four or more years, you will often see a new child added to the family in order to maintain the age spread as the original children (read, the actors playing them) grow older and move into new slots. For example, FAMILY TIES had the age spread the first few seasons with Jennifer, Mallory and Alex. However, as these three characters aged, a new child, Andy, was added. Andy provided the youngest, Jennifer moved from the youngest to the second slot, Mallory moved to the o lder teenage slot, and Alex became a new slot, the young adult.
Other supporting characters are most often the parents' friends or family. They are often professional people (doctors, especially). They will aid in the raising of the children by offering advise and encouragement. Rarely do they provide anything in the way of plot problems and complications. On those shows in which the main characters are the children rather than the parents, such as FAMILY TIES, other supporting characters are often the children's, rather than the parents', friends.
There is extensive use of transient characters, portraying in particular friends of the children. Through these friends the children can explore various ways of learning about life: peer pressure, success and failure, other families.
Single-parent Domcom
A single-parent domcom has a family broken for some reason, such as the death of one parent, or a divorce. Thus, the basic unit is that of having either a father or mother, but not both, and one or more children that the single parent must raise.
The main character in a single-parent domcom is usually the parent, such as Andy Taylor on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW. Occasionally, however, it is the parent and the child. Tom Corbett and his son, Eddie, on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER, is an exam ple of this.
Most shows of this kind use a widower. This appears to be due to an assumed effect on the audience, that men are less competent to raise children and thus there is a greater poignancy in a father trying to be a mother as well.
The supporting characters include the children, the surrogate parent, and friends. The children are usually young (six to twelve years of age). If the show has a long run the children naturally grow up, and new young children are brought in. For e xample, on MY THREE SONS, which ran for 18 seasons, the oldest son grew up, got married, and moved out, so they adopted a new youngest son. This maintained the age range for interesting plots (and incidentally insured that the title remained applicable).
The surrogate parent is a member of the cast that fulfills the role of the other, non-biological, parent. There are, of course, two types of surrogate parents: surrogate fathers and surrogate mothers. Surrogate fathers are usually well-intentioned but bumbling. Schneider, on ONE DAY AT A TIME, is constantly offering advise and assistance to Ann on the raising of her two daughters. The advise is often inapplicable and the assistance obstructive. Nonetheless, it is obvious that he believes that what he says and does is for the best. Bub, and later Uncle Charlie, on MY THREE SONS, played the wife to Steven Douglas' husband. Bub/Uncle Charlie did the cooking and housework, and provided some of the emotional support for the children.
Surrogate mothers are warm and loving, stable and dependable. When they are not it is for the purpose of plot complication or problem. For example, Mrs. Livingston on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER is always there, warm, smiling, gentle. On one e pisode she was in danger of deportation to her native Japan, and little Eddie had to cope with the prospect of losing her and try to understand the wonders of government. When Tom manages to get her permission to stay in America, Eddie is ecstatic, but a lso more aware of life in the big world.
Occasionally there is a hybrid form of single-parent domcom, in which there is a parent and a surrogate parent of the same sex. KATE & ALLIE and MY TWO DADS are example. In this case the role of parent and surrogate parent trade off. In some episodes K ate is the surrogate father to Allie's mother, in other episodes vice versa.
The parent's friends are often bumbling but well-intentioned, providing a foil for the parent's level-headed competence. Barney Fife on THE ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW and "Uncle" Norman on THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER are examples of this type of friend.
Friends are almost exclusively of the same sex as the parent. The parent will rarely have a friend of the opposite sex. Anyone of the opposite sex turns out to be an employee, an employer, a co-worker, or a love interest.
Transients brought into a single-parent domcom are usually important. For the parent they are either a love interest or a family complication for the parent, the child, or the surrogate parent. For the child the transients are brought in to introdu ce questions or problems for the parent to answer or solve. For example, on JULIA, Earl introduces the problem "Is Santa Claus black or white?". On an episode of THE COURTSHIP OF EDDIE'S FATHER, Eddie wants to marry his babysitter, who in turn wants to marry Tom. This is a problem for Tom to solve.
Pseudo-domcom
The characters on a pseudo-domcom are a set of adults who bear relationships to one another that are analogous to those in a regular domcom. An example is THE MARY TYLER MOORE SHOW, in which Mary, Lou, Murray, Ted, Georgette, Rhoda, Phyllis and Sue Ann take the parts of the family, Mary as the usually calm and level-headed single parent surrounded by children older than herself.
Occasionally an actcom will mature into a pseudo-domcom, as why the characters do what they becomes more important than the mere fact that they do it. A prime example is CHEERS.
CHEERS, a pure actcom for the first few seasons, matured as the characters began examining why they did things. Sam, an inveterate, egotistical skirt-chaser has tried everything he can think of to get Rebecca into bed. He sees his opportunity when Rebe cca has lost the love of her life and is vulnerable. He moves in, then suddenly stops as his conscience (something he never had the first few seasons) bothers him: how can he take advantage of someone who needs a friend to talk to, not a roll in the hay ? Sam bolts from the room and calls Rebecca from the lobby of her apartment house, knowing he can't be a friend while in the same room with her -- his old reflexes are too strong. Sam's examination of his own character, realization of a moral dilemma, a nd decision to do something different from his normal behavior patterns, are factors that make this episode a domcom rather than an actcom.
Although most episodes of CHEERS are actcom, many are domcom, with the characters in the bar taking the roles of parents and children, swapping the roles around according to the dictates of individual episodes.
The only difference between a regular domcom and a pseudo-domcom, once the concept of the pseudo-domcom is understood, is that the character of parent, surrogate parent and child(ren) in a pseudo-domcom will often rotate between the characters.
Return to Main Domcom Page
Return to Sitcom Contents Page
Return to 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 Washington State University or the Edward R. Murrow School o f Communication. Similarly, any opinions expressed are my own and are in no way to be taken as those of WSU or ERMSC.
In addition,
I, Richard F. Taflinger, accept no responsibility for WSU or ERMSC material or policies. Statements issued on behalf of Washington State University are in no way to be taken as reflecting my own opinions or those of any other individual. Nor do I take r esponsibility for the contents of any Web Pages listed here other than my own.
Plot
Orientation
The plots of actcoms are plots of action. That is, the emphasis is on the action rather than on characterization or thought, as will be shown below.
Exposition
The exposition is usually under the opening credits: still photographs, cartoons, or film showing the characters, settings, and basic premise. For example, the opening of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW shows photographs of the cast, as does FAMILY TIES. C artoons were very popular as openings in the 1960s (BEWITCHED, I DREAM OF JEANNIE, IT'S ABOUT TIME), and films showing characters and locations are often used (CAVANAUGHS, NEWHART, RHODA, THE WONDER YEARS). If any information other than visual is needed, then the lyrics of the title song supply it, as on GILLIGAN'S ISLAND or THE BEVERLY HILLBILLIES.
Problem
The problems in an actcom are mistakes, misunderstandings, attempts to influence the behavior of others, or unforeseen circumstances, all of which disrupt the status quo. In one episode of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW (see appendix C) the plot is precipit ated by Mel Cooley, the producer of "The Alan Brady Show" (for which Rob Petrie, Sally Rogers, and Buddy Sorrell are writers) and Alan's brother-in-law, who rejects a script about a man rising to the top by marrying the boss' daughter, thinking the script is about him. He is wrong but he realizes it only at the end of the show, allowing a half-hour of comic results built on his misunderstanding. In another episode of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, the plot is started by Ritchie, Rob's son, being in a school pl ay.
In an episode of I LOVE LUCY, Lucy thinks the romance has gone out of her marriage and wants to induce her husband, Ricky, to show the same interest in her that he did when they were first married. She never mentions this to him, but instead embarks on three different schemes, each designed to get Ricky's attention.
Sometimes the character attempts to influence his own behavior rather than someone else's. Rhoda, on RHODA, frequently tries to behave in a manner not consistent with what she believes her character to be. In one episode, she rebels against her ste reotyped upbringing that insists that a woman wait for the man to ask for a date, and asks the man of her choice to go out with her.
On yet another show, DELTA HOUSE, the boys want to impress their parents on Parent's Day at the University.
Most often the problem is an unforeseen occurrence: Mork (MORK AND MINDY) demonstrates his gullibility; Lucy and Ricky (I LOVE LUCY) prepare for an overseas trip; the station (WKRP IN CINCINNATI) is holding a contest with a cash prize; Tabitha (BEWI TCHED) wants a toy elephant; Cosmo (TOPPER) needs money to pay his wife's bills; Brad's father (ANGIE) wants Angie and her mother to come meet him; Roper's (THREE'S COMPANY) drain needs fixing; Alex (TAXI) picks up an old lady; Murray, the cop, (THE ODD C OUPLE) meets Felix' new girlfriend and remembers that he raided the play she is in; a space capsule is going to pass directly over the island (GILLIGAN'S ISLAND); Frasier and his new girlfriend invite Sam and Diane over for dinner (CHEERS).
All of the above examples are simple, yet set off chains of events that comprise the bulk of the show, all of them physical rather than mental or emotional actions.
Complications
The complications are flaws in the plan to solve the problems or natural outgrowths of the problem. In the first DICK VAN DYKE example, complications include Rob quitting in protest to Mel's canceling the script, and Buddy and Sally not quitting wit h him. In the second example, Rob has to leave town and can't go to Ritchie's play. In the I LOVE LUCY example, complications include Lucy's schemes to get Ricky's attention. In other examples: The Delta House boys realize that the last thing that wil l impress their parents in their junkyard of a house. In addition, their faculty advisor is told to get contributions from their parents or face an unrenewed contract; Mork meets an escaped prisoner who tells Mork that he escaped in order to visit his mo ther; Lucy has to get a passport for the trip, but can't because she has no birth certificate; Johnny Fever, the WKRP disc jockey, misquotes the amount of the cash prize, saying that it is .00 instead of the correct .00; Clara the witch, Tabitha's aunt, wants to give Tabitha a toy elephant, but mixes up her magic spell and creates a real elephant instead; Cosmo gets involved in catching counterfeiters; Angie's mother is afraid to fly and therefore won't go to see Brad's father; Roper can hear what is said in the apartment upstairs through the open drain; the old lady likes Alex' company and sets up a regular meeting for him to drive her around; Felix thinks that his girlfriend is a librarian, not a nude actress; the castaways attempt to signal the capsule; Frasier and his girlfriend, Lilith, who has just moved in with him, begin arguing about their personality foibles.
Each of the complications is fairly simple and straightforward, and do not lead the characters to any great moral decision or mental strain. They lead quite naturally to some type of action, in which the characters do something to solve the complica tion: Rob tries to get back in time to see the play; Lucy tries yet another scheme to get Ricky's attention; the Delta House boys take over the swank Omega House; Mork frees the prisoner; Lucy tries to find someone to vouch for her at the passport office ; the disc jockey tries to rig the contest so nobody can win; Clara tries to get rid of the elephant; the ghosts try to get rid of the men in Cosmo's basement who are counterfeiters; Angie tries to get Brad's father to come to see her; the three kids upst airs give Roper a good piece of false gossip; Alex feels like a gigolo but goes along; Felix and Oscar go to the theatre to see if Felix' girlfriend is really a nude actress; the castaways on the island try a variety of ways to signal the space capsule; L ilith locks herself in the bathroom.
Crisis
The crises are the points at which it is 1) necessary for the protagonist to make a decision about what action to take, or 2) the events place the protagonist at a low point. The decisions involve no great soul searching, philosophical pondering, no r consideration of possible consequences beyond the solving of the immediate problem. The greatest amount of thought is devoted to the actual mechanics of carrying out the decision. The low point is the failure of a plan, or circumstances that put the p rotagonist in some sort of trouble.
Examples of the first include: Alex must decided whether he should continue to see the old lady; Oscar must decided whether to tell Felix about his girlfriend.
More often, the protagonist finds himself in trouble: Mork is arrested for freeing the prisoner; Lucy can't find a witness in lieu of a birth certificate; someone wins the WKRP contest for ,000.00; a loan officer and investigator are coming over a nd will see the elephant; the ghosts think Cosmo is the counterfeiter; Roper thinks that Chrissy is pregnant.
Climax
The climax is the highest point of physical and verbal action. The protagonist has gone to his farthest extreme in mistake, misunderstanding, attempt to influence, or to cope with the unforeseen occurrence. A result must be obtained, either vindica ting his actions or showing him his error, thus achieving resolution.
The resolution of actcom plots in most cases is a restoration of the status quo. In both THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW and I LOVE LUCY examples, once the protagonists have admitted what they were doing (Rob hating Buddy and Sally for not quitting with him and Mel admitting his error, and Lucy trying to rekindle romance), the facts were told and the status quo restored. In the other examples: Mork is vindicated when the prisoner returns from visiting his mother; the WKRP prize money is stolen by a conman, but Johnny, the disc jockey, redeems himself by getting it back; the bank inspector is made to look a fool and thinks he hallucinated the elephant; the ghosts alter the printing plates to make play money and catch the counterfeiters, saving Cosmo; the Om ega House is destroyed but the advisor has checks for contributions, saving Delta House and his job; Roper looks like a fool and the kids get what they want-- .00 off the rent; Alex tells the old lady off, refusing to be a gigolo; the capsule blows up; Rob dreams he's a puppet and his wife is pulling the strings to get him to his son's show; both Lilith and Diane end up in the bathroom, upset with Frasier and Sam.
Denouement
The denouement shows that the status quo has been reestablished. It can occur very quickly. In the above I LOVE LUCY example, it is simply Ricky and Lucy embracing after he reassures her that he does indeed love her. More often, though it is a sho rt scene showing that all is once again as it was at the beginning, with everyone happy and laughing together: Ritchie sings his song from the play for Rob; Johnny offers a new prize--a tube of lip gloss; Mrs. Topper had ,000 in counterfeit money but couldn't find anything she wanted to buy; the checks the advisor gave the dean were forged by the Delta House boys; Roper has done a bad job of fixing the drain -- it leaks all over him; the old lady agrees not to try to buy Alex, but is not sure she can stomach the places he can afford to take her; Oscar sets up a date for Felix with Felix' ex-wife, Gloria; Mr. Howell, who had money on the space capsule when it blew up, throws a tantrum; Frasier locks the bathroom door from the outside and he and Sam go upstairs to watch television.
As can be seen in the above examples, the orientation of the plots is toward action rather than character or thought. The problems are superficial and often invented by the characters themselves, and are minor occurrences happening to the main or a s upporting character leading to further action.
Character
The characters in an actcom are not human, but humanoid. That is, though they have the appearance of humanity, certain characteristics are exaggerated in an actcom for effect. When a character is in love rhe wanders aimlessly, moony-eyed and sighin g; when rhe cries rhe screws up rher eyes and wails; when rhe's angry rhe tears rher hair, bugs rher eyes and yells.
Characterizations are generally shallow, the writer emphasizing certain characteristics and ignoring others. For instance, Harry on THE LUCY SHOW is loud, belligerent, and constantly angry and exasperated when he is not being obsequious to his super iors. Ricky (I LOVE LUCY) is also loud and ill-tempered, as is the Skipper on GILLIGAN'S ISLAND. On WKRP IN CINCINNNATI, Johnny Fever is so laid-back he approaches comatose, and Herb is a smug, often stupid yes-man. Oscar (THE ODD COUPLE) is a slob and Felix is a neurotic neatnik. Mrs. Topper (TOPPER) is a scatterbrain, as is Chrissy on THREE'S COMPANY and Howard on THE BOB NEWHART SHOW. Woody on CHEERS is naive to the point of stupidity and Christine on NIGHT COURT is sweet to the point of syrup poi soning. Other characteristics may exist, but they are introduced only on a particular episode for effect. The main characteristics may be counted on to appear in all episodes.
In addition, there is a great deal of stereotyping. The husband is the breadwinner, usually the only one in the family with a job, as in I LOVE LUCY, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, BEWITCHED, and TOPPER. The wife is the homemaker, staying in the house. I f she does get a job she usually quits by the end of the episode, having proven that she is incompetent outside the house. The children are either cute and winsome, brats, or both. Of course, as society changes, so do the stereotypes as they reflect tha t society. In the last ten years, women have become more and more important in the workplace. Thus, sitcoms now have the wife working. Nonetheless, much stereotyping still exists.
Many actcoms, such as I LOVE LUCY, THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW and NEWHART, will have what I will call, for lack of a better term, a star, as opposed to a main character. A star is the leading character in virtually every plot, being the focal point of t he action, the instigator and the one who carries out the bulk of the action, and the most visible character. Lucille Ball, Bob Newhart, and Dick Van Dyke were all the stars of their shows, acting as focus to the action. In recent years, Harry Anderson on NIGHT COURT, Tony Danza on WHO'S THE BOSS?, and Alf on ALF are the stars.
There are certain characteristics devolving on the star depending on whether the star is male or female. If the star is male his character is often confused and beset, he tries to do his best but often fails, tries to be honest and straightforward b ut is defeated by the forces around him.
If the star is female her character is often confused and confusing, flighty, ambitious, and devious.
Along with the star there is often one other character who is the second lead. Ricky on I LOVE LUCY, Laura on THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, and Joanna on NEWHART are examples. If the second lead is male he is usually loud, volatile, and exasperated. If the second lead is female she is often docile but determined, supportive, and witty. A female second lead is also often more intelligent and well-rounded that a male second lead. Joanna and Jill (HOME IMPROVEMENT), for example, are witty and clever, ver y supportive but not above making disparaging remarks about their respective husbands, Bob and Tim.
Many actcoms have a basic unit of a man and a woman as main characters. Actcoms based on gimmicks such as magic or other supernormal powers always have this basic unit, although it may be a hybrid such as MY FAVORITE MARTIAN wherein the basic unit i s a man and a Martian, or MY LIVING DOLL in which the unit is a man and a robot (although the robot looks like a beautiful woman).
In gimmick-based actcoms one member of the basic unit has unusual skills or characteristics: Samantha (BEWITCHED) is a witch, Jeannie (I DREAM OF JEANNIE) is a genie, Uncle Martin (MY FAVORITE MARTIAN) is a Martian with the ability to disappear, lev itate objects, etc. In all cases, the other character is both the victim and the benefactee of the first character's skills. An interesting point is that in all cases wherein the basic unit is a man and a woman, it is the woman who has the special abili ties. It appears to be assumed that it is acceptable for a woman to take advantage of a man by turning him into a housefly or dropping him into the middle of the Gobi desert, but not for a man to take advantage of a woman in a similar fashion.
In most actcoms the main characters are shown as shallow and superficial, physically rather than mentally or emotionally motivated, with certain characteristics exaggerated. The motivations and emotions that are shown by the characters are few and s imple, basically those necessary to continue and illustrate the action. Motivations can be jealousy, greed, envy, curiosity, fear, etc., but they are never complex and rarely mixed. The same is true of the emotions shown: they are basic--grief, fear, e xcitement, love, etc.--and usually exaggerated for comic effect. However, in the more sophisticated actcoms such as RHODA, THE GOLDEN GIRLS and HOME IMPROVEMENT, the characters are more dimensionally human: they respond to stimuli in a fashion denoting an ability to think rationally and not necessarily comically. They have a tendency to use wit rather than slapstick, tears rather than crybaby wailing, sarcasm rather than yelling.
The more sophisticated actcoms approach sex as something more than simply that which one avoids telling the children. The main characters are rarely virginal in mind or body. For instance, Rhoda and Brenda on RHODA both think of men not only as mar riageable but as sexual objects. Dan on NIGHT COURT thinks of women only as sexual objects. Granted, they often use oblique language, but they are rarely reticent in admitting to sexual encounters.
Supporting characters in actcoms are usually henchmen, dupes and straightmen. They provide assistance, wittingly or not, and are occasionally the targets of schemes. They also provide straightlines for the main character's punchlines.
Their dramatic function is usually limited to being confused and beset, rarely providing plot problems, simply aiding and abetting, or being the victim of the main character's actions. Colonel Bellows (I DREAM OF JEANNIE), Gladys Cravits (BEWITCHED) , Maynard (THE MANY LOVES OF DOBIE GILLIS), Mr. Roper (THREE'S COMPANY), and Cliff (CHEERS) are examples.
In the more sophisticated actcoms, such as THE GOLDEN GIRLS and THE DAYS AND NIGHTS OF MOLLY DODD, supporting characters are also often relatives of the main character, intimately involved in rher life: mother, father, siblings, spouse. They do pro vide plot problems and complications, often by imposing themselves on the main character's personal life. In addition, the supporting characters can, like the main character, grow and change, affected by the events that occur.
Unsympathetic characters are often supporting characters, providing a variety of functions. They are foils for the main characters, are perpetual obstacles to overcome, and are continuing butts of complications in constant confusion. Larry Tate on BEWITCHED, Mel Cooley and Alan Brady on THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW, Herb on WKRP IN CINCINNATI, Dean Wormer on DELTA HOUSE, Brad's family on ANGIE, Louis on TAXI, and Dan Fielding on NIGHT COURT, are examples of this type of character.
In any case, supporting characters are as shallow and superficial as the main characters in the same show, their special characteristics exaggerated and others ignored.
Transient characters have three purposes. First, they provide plot problems and complications. Second, they provide comic bits of business, aiding the regular characters in comic scenes. Third, they make it possible for many plots to function, per forming those bits of business that would be dramatically impossible for a regular character to do.
Transient characters can often be unsympathetic, providing conflict with the main character or one of the supporting characters, or both.
The relationships between the characters on an actcom are only as close and deep as is necessary to make the actions possible and believable. Families and friends often appear to have no life beyond that shown on the screen, leaving a sense of super ficiality, as though families were barely acquainted, much less related.
All characters in actcoms have one special purpose: to be the agent to carry out the dictates of the action. Their characterizations are developed only to the point at which they can carry out their function, with little or no growth or change as p eople.
Settings
The settings for an actcom are generally simple and functional, serving as a background for the action rather than being a part of it. They show little personality, either of their own or of the characters inhabiting them. They are kept to a minimu m, usually just the home (the living room, kitchen, and occasionally a bedroom), and the main character's place of work.
They are generally middle-class, occasionally lower-middle-class, but very rarely upper-class. Lower- and upper-class settings are only used when they are a basic part of the situation, as the run-down shack on GREEN ACRES, or the mansions on THE BE VERLY HILLBILLIES, THE GOOD LIFE, and THE POWERS THAT BE.
The rooms are often not even designed to be functional. For example, the kitchen on THE LUCY SHOW has the refrigerator upstage center, the sink stage right, and the stove stage left. This would not be remarkable were it not for the fact that the ki tchen appears to be approximately 20 feet across. Such a distance and arrangement of appliances would make cooking more an act of endurance than a preparation of a meal.
If one is to believe an actcom, bodily functions do not exist. Bathrooms are almost never used. If a bathroom is shown it is only if specifically required for the plot in a particular episode, as in an episode of THE DICK VAN DYKE SHOW in which Lau ra gets her big toe stuck in the bathtub faucet. However, the only fixture that appears in this bathroom is the bathtub. The rest of the room is empty. In another DICK VAN DYKE episode, Rob thinks he is losing his hair, but he comes out of his house's bathroom to check his scalp's condition in the bedroom dresser's mirror. A most unusual house, that has no mirror in the bathroom. On an episode of CHEERS, the bar's men's room was used, but only because Diane's name and number were on the wall, and she had to go erase it.
The basic locations on place-based actcoms are dictated by the format. For example, on GILLIGAN'S ISLAND the basic location is a jungle-covered deserted island which acts as all the regular basic areas. APPLE PIE uses a living room and kitchen and no place of work. PLEASE STAND BY has a living room and a place of work, the TV studio. The locations are still a background to action, but with some personality in the major location. CHEERS has a warm and comfortable-looking bar, APPLE PIE has a liv ing room with furniture in the style of the 1920s and 1930s, rather shabby and in keeping with the personalities of the characters, and HOGAN'S HEROES' Stalag 13 has all the charm of a leaky outhouse in a Buffalo winter.
Due to the nature of gimmick-based actcoms many special locations are used: clouds, icebergs, jungles, deserts, etc. These locations are easily conjured up by magic. Nonetheless, the majority of the action takes place in settings just like any oth er actcom.
In general, the settings in actcoms are unimportant. They are impersonal backgrounds to action, generally middle-class unless altered according to the dictates of the format. As the show's type becomes more sophisticated the settings become more pe rsonalized to the characters. However, in all cases the settings are merely functional to the comic action.
Thought
The characters in actcoms rarely seem to indulge in rational thought. At most, they devise schemes to accomplish their purposes, to solve their problems. Further consequences of their actions are either never considered or shrugged off as unimporta nt. Their thought processes are also superficial, their motivations based on first impressions, appearances, and hasty conclusions. Rob automatically thinks his friends have deserted him when they don't walk out with him when he quits; Mork believes eve rything he sees and hears; Lucy, trying to get her passport, almost commits a Federal crime because she doesn't think about the consequences of lying on her application; the WKRP prize is easily stolen because the characters don't even consider asking for identification from the man who comes to claim it; many of the magic spells on BEWITCHED backfire because no one thinks of alternative possibilities that the same spell could produce.
Actcom plots rarely have a theme, a point of view expressed or implied by the writer. Occasionally, there is a moral, as on HAPPY DAYS when Fonzie says, "Stay in school-it's cool", but such morals seem almost an afterthought, tacked on and out of pl ace because it is not prepared for during the course of the show. Instead, the show uses action and humor for its own sake.
Diction
The language used in actcoms in generally simplistic, the emphasis being on physical action, not verbal wit. It reflects the shallow characterizations found in most actcoms, and is limited to only what is necessary for the plot. When a character is witty, it is usually done for effect, the incongruity of the character speaking like Oscar Wilde or Mark Twain being funny. For example, Frasier Crane (CHEERS) is a psychiatrist, and often speaks in a very erudite fashion. However, when he does, the re st of the characters either make fun of him, or look at him with a blank stare, at which point he translates what he said into simplistic terms.
Music
The first auditory effect noticed on an actcom is the sheer volume of the lines. I can think of no other type of television program on which the characters shout with such consistency. There is little or no use of background music and few sound eff ects.
They almost invariably used a laugh track. There are four basic reasons to use a laugh track. First, people are more likely to laugh with someone else than they are to laugh when they are alone. Thus the track provides them with that crowd.
Second, even though many shows use a live audience, a live audience simply doesn't put out the volume and intensity of sound for it to work. Several shows, including I LOVE LUCY, THE ODD COUPLE, and MORK & MINDY tried to dispense with the laugh machine and use only the live audiences' laughter, which, with each of those shows, was rich and heavy. The results sounded thin and anemic, sort of like the polite noises made by a matron hearing a dirty joke. Therefore, even shows with live audiences "sweeten " the laughter with the machine.
Third, as a stage actor knows from being in shows, when rhe says a laugh line, the audience laughs, and the actor waits until the laughter begins to diminish before continuing to insure the audience doesn't miss the next line -- it's called holding for l aughs. However, on a TV show, particularly one without a live audience, there is no way for the actors to know at what the audience will laugh, or for how long. If you watch the shows carefully, you will see the actors "hold for laughs" after a purporte d funny line, leaving a window of opportunity for the audience at home to laugh and not cover the next line. However, many supposedly funny lines are duds that the audience doesn't laugh at. The laugh track is there to fill that hole of silence so the a udience doesn't notice that the actors are holding.
Finally, of course, "they can assure themselves some laughs during an otherwise mundane show." However, the laugh track is not there just to be annoying, but is there for some purely, necessarily technical reasons. The laugh track is a major characteri stic of the "music" in actcoms.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, the actcom is a basic, even simplistic, form of comedy. The idea is to get laughs, not examine character or discuss social or personal problems. Action is the means by which humor is created, rarely verbal wit or subtlety. Little or nothing is placed in the way of the action, neither setting nor diction, and little thought is given to possible outcomes of action.
In recent years there has been a trend toward actcoms examining social ills, such as crime, drug and alcohol use, and sexual diseases. However, many times this social consciousness appears tacked on rather than an integral part of plots. Since to exami ne social problems the characters have to respond to them as people involved and affected by them, not merely agents of actions, actcoms are particularly ill-equipped for the task.
The TV Soap Opera Genre and its Viewers
Daniel Chandler
What is a soap opera?
Soaps compared with other genres
Subject-matter and style
The openness of soaps
Realism
Stereotypes
Coronation Street
Brookside
Eastenders
Dallas and Dynasty
Neighbours
UK Soap Audience
Women as viewers
References
Key Links
What is a soap opera?
The soap opera genre originated in American radio serials of the 1930s, and owes the name to the sponsorship of some of these programmes by major soap powder companies. So, like many television genres (e.g. news and quiz shows), the soap opera is a genre originally drawn from radio rather than film.
Television soap operas are long-running serials concerned with everyday life. The serial is not to be confused with the series, in which the main characters and format remain the same from programme to programme but each episode is a self-contained plot. In a serial at least one storyline is carried over from one episode to the next. A series is advertised as having a specific number of episodes, but serials are potentially endless.
Successful soaps may continue for many years: so new viewers have to be able to join in at any stage in the serial. In serials, the passage of time also appears to reflect 'real time' for the viewers: in long-running soaps the characters age as the viewers do. Christine Geraghty (1991, p. 11) notes that 'the longer they run the more impossible it seems to imagine them ending.' There are sometimes allusions to major topical events in the world outside the programmes.
Soaps compared with other genres
One related genre is the melodrama, with which it shares such features as moral polarization, strong emotions, female orientation, unlikely coincidences, and excess. Another related genre is the literary romance, with which it shares features such as simplified characters, female orientation and episodic narrative. However, soaps do not share with these forms the happy ending or the idealized characters. British soaps are distinctively different from these related genres in their debt to a social realist tradition (e.g. 'kitchen sink' dramas) and an emphasis on contemporary social problems.
Some media theorists distinguish between styles of TV programmes which are broadly 'masculine' or 'feminine'. Those seen as typically masculine include action/adventure programmes and Westerns; those seen as more 'feminine' include soaps and sitcoms. Action-adventures define men in relation to power, authority, aggression and technology. Soap operas define women in relation to a concern with the family. The relative 'openness' of soaps in comparison with other genres will be discussed shortly.
Subject-matter and style
Recurrent events in soap opera include courtships, marriages, divorces, deaths and disappearances. Gossip is a key feature in soaps (usually absent from other genres): in part it acts as a commentary on the action. Geraghty notes that 'more frequently than other TV genres, soaps feature women characters normally excluded by their age, appearance or status' (1991, p. 17).
Broadcast serials have the advantage of a regular time-slot (often more than once a week), but even if some viewers miss it they can easily catch up with events. Any key information which might have been missed is worked into the plot when necessary. Nevertheless knowledge of previous events can usefully be brought to bear by habitual viewers, and doing so is part of the pleasure of viewing for them. Viewers are also in an omniscient position, knowing more than any character does. The form is unique in offering viewers the chance to engage in informed speculation about possible turn of events.
Unlike a play or a series there is always a wide range of characters in a soap opera (which means that no single character is indispensible). The large cast and the possibility of casual viewers necessitates rapid characterization and the use of recognizable 'types'. British and Australian soaps which are not in 'prime-time' slots typically operate on a small budget.
Soaps are frequently derided by some critics for being full of clichés and stereotypes, for having shoddy sets, for being badly acted, trivial, predictable and so on. Soap viewers (often assumed to be only women, and in particular working-class housewives) are characterized unfairly as naive escapists. Given the great popularity of the genre, such criticisms can be seen as culturally elitist. Robert Allen (1992, p. 112) argues that to emphasize what happens when in soaps (in semiotic terms the syntagmatic dimension) is to underestimate the equal importance of who relates this to whom (the paradigmatic dimension). Certainly relationships are more important than plot.
The openness of soaps
Some feminist theorists have argued that soap operas spring from a feminine aesthetic, in contrast to most prime-time TV. Soaps are unlike traditional dramas (e.g. sit-coms) which have a beginning, a middle and an end: soaps have no beginning or end, no structural closure. They do not build up towards an ending or closure of meaning. Viewers can join a soap at any point. There is no single narrative line: several stories are woven together over a number of episodes. In this sense the plots of soaps are not linear.
The structure of soaps is complex and there is no final word on any issue. A soap involves multiple perspectives and no consensus: ambivalence and contradiction is characteristic of the genre. There is no single 'hero' (unlike adventures, where the preferred reading involves identification with this character), and the wide range of characters in soaps offers viewers a great deal of choice regarding those with which they might identify. All this leaves soaps particularly open to individual interpretations (more than television documentaries, suggests David Buckingham 1987, p. 36).
Tania Modleski (1982) argues that the structural openness of soaps is an essentially 'feminine' narrative form. She argues that pleasure in narrative focuses on closure, whilst soaps delay resolution and make anticipation an end in itself. She also argues that masculine arratives 'inscribe' in the text an implied male reader who becomes increasingly omnipotent whilst the soap has 'the ideal mother' as inscribed reader. Narrative interests are diffused among many characters and her power to resolve their problems is limited. The reader is the mother as sympathetic listener to all sides.
Easthope argues that the masculine ego favours forms which are self-contained, and which have a sense of closure. 'Masculine' narrative form favours action over dialogue and avoids indeterminacy to arrive at closure/resolution. It is linear and goal-oriented. Soaps make consequences more important than actions, involve many complications, and avoid closure. Dialogue in masculine narratives is driven by plot which it explains, clarifies and simplifies. In soaps dialogue blurs and delays. There is no single hero in soaps, no privileged moral perspective, multiple narrative lines (non-linear plot) and few certainties. Viewers tend to feel involved interpreting events from the perspective of characters similar to themselves or to those they know.
Not much seems to 'happen' in many soaps (by comparison with, say, an action series or an adventure serial) because there is little rapid action. In soaps such as Coronation Street and Brookside what matters is the effect of events on the characters, This is revealed through characters talking to each other. Charlotte Brunsdon argues that the question guiding a soap story is not 'What will happen next?' but 'What kind of person is this?' (in Geraghty 1991, p. 46). Such a form invites viewers to offer their own comments.
Realism
Viewers differ in the extent to which they judge soaps as 'reflections of reality'. Whilst American soaps such as Dallas and Dynasty are seen (at least by British viewers) as largely in the realms of fantasy, British soaps are more often framed by viewers in terms of 'realism'. However, it is misleading to regard even 'realist soaps' as simply 'representing real life'. The representation of 'reality' is not unproblematic: television is not a 'window' on an objective and unmediated world. British soap operas are often described as 'realistic', but what this means varies. There are several philosophical positions underlying people's assumptions about the nature of 'reality':
Realism: The world has an objective existence which is independent of our use of any means of representation. An attempt to represent the world in words or images may 'distort reality', but at its best can 'mirror reality'.
Relativism: We unavoidably contribute to 'the construction of reality' - of the world - in our use of words and images. We do this within cultural frameworks (Stanley Fish refers to 'interpretive communities'), so realities are not entirely personal and unconstrained.
Idealism: 'Reality' (or 'the world') is purely subjective and is constructed by human interpretation, having no independent objective existence.
'Common-sense' theories tend to be 'realist' theories in this philosophical sense. Philosophical realism is involved when viewers consider soaps in terms of the extent to which they offer a 'distorted image of reality' of 'the outside world' (Ang calls this empiricist realism on the part of viewers). From the perspective of the programme makers, documentary realism (Colin MacCabe calls this classic realism in the case of the novel) involves foregrounding the story and backgrounding the use of the conventions of the medium (e.g. using 'invisible editing').
This 'transparency' of style encourages viewers to regard the programme as a 'window' on an apparently unmediated world rather than to notice its constructedness. Realism in drama is no less a set of conventions than any other style, and it serves to mask whose realities are being presented. 'Transparency' is associated with a close sense of involvement by the viewers. It is found in most soaps, although in American soaps such as Dallas and Dynasty lapses into implausibility may tend to distance the viewer.
British soaps also employ the transparency of classic/ documentary realism, but owe a great deal to the social realist tradition (associated with late 50s British films and kitchen-sink dramas). Social realism emphasizes 'relevance' - a sympathetic portrayal of everyday social problems recognizable to the working class (see Jordan, in Dyer 1981, p. 28). Plausibility and credibility is also valued more than in American prime-time soaps. Geraghty suggests that 'British soaps, because of their greater dependence on realism, are less daring [than US soaps] in displaying their own fictionality' (1991, p. 20).
John Fiske (in Seiter et al. 1989, p. 68) notes that minimal post-production work on 'realist' soaps (leaving in 'dead' bits) may be cost-cutting, but it also suggests more 'realism' than in heavily edited programmes, suggesting the 'nowness' of the events on screen. Published stories about the characters in soaps and the actors who play them link the world of the soap with the outside world, but they also allow viewers to treat the soap as a kind of game.
Ien Ang (1985) argues that watching soaps involves a kind of psychological realism for the viewer: an emotional realism which exists at the connotative rather than denotative (content) level. This offers less concrete, more 'symbolic representations of more general living experiences' which viewers find recognizably 'true to life' (even if at the denotative level the treatment seems 'unrealistic'). In such a case, 'what is recognized as real is not knowledge of the world, but a subjective experience of the world: a "structure of feeling"' (Ang 1985, p. 45). For many viewers of Dallas this was a tragic structure of feeling: evoking the idea that happiness is precarious.
I would argue that especially with long-running soaps (which may become more 'real' to their fans over time) what we could call dramatic realism is another factor. Competence in judging this is not confined to professional critics. Viewers familiar with the characters and conventions of a particular soap may often judge the programme largely in its own terms (or perhaps in terms of the genre) rather than with reference to some external 'reality'. For instance, is a character's current behaviour consistent with what we have learnt over time about that character? The soap may be accepted to some extent as a world in its own right, in which slightly different rules may sometimes apply. This is of course the basis for the 'willing suspension of disbelief' on which drama depends.
Producers sometimes remark that realistic drama offers a slice of life with the duller bits cut out, and that long-running soaps are even more realistic than other forms because less has to be excluded. However, dramatists do more than produce shortened versions of 'the film of life': the construction of reality is far more complex than this, and whose life is it anyway?
Stereotypes
Jordan (in Dyer 1981) identifies several broad types used extensively in Coronation Street: Grandmother figures; marriageable characters (mature, sexy, women; spinsterly types; young women; mature, sexy, men; fearful, withdrawn men; conventional young men); married couples; rogues (including 'ne'er-do-wells' and confidence tricksters). Buckingham refers also refers to the use of the stereotypes of 'the gossip', 'the bastard' and 'the tart'. Anthony Easthope adds 'the good girl', and Peter Buckman cites 'the decent husband', 'the good woman', 'the villain' and 'the bitch' (in Geraghty 1991, p. 132). Geraghty herself adds 'the career woman' (ibid., p. 135ff).
Coronation Street
Coronation Street is a Granada production which is broadcast nationally in the UK on ITV. First shown in 1960, it is the longest-running British TV soap opera. It is watched by about one-third of the British population, by rather more women than men, by older people, and especially by people from lower socio-economic groups (Livingstone 1990, p. 55). It offers a nostalgic perspective on northern industrial working-class life as group-centred, matriarchal, commonsensical and blunt but also warm-hearted.
It includes strong and positive middle-aged females who are the first to spring to mind when viewers are asked to recall the characters. It deals with personal events. Work away from the home is seldom shown. Political and social explanations for events are largely supplanted by personal explanations based on the innate psychological factors of individuals or (occasionally) on luck (Jordan, in Dyer 1981). People meet in shops and the pub to comment on events. Life seems to revolve around finding a partner. The introduction of outsiders to the community is usually presented as a threat.
It departs from realism in its use of caricature, stereotyping, bursts of stylised repartee and occasional use of melodrama, some of these features sometimes being employed almost self-mockingly. It has been criticized for the minimal role of non-whites.
There is little of the inner searching of 'psychological realism'. Viewing ratings dropped when an attempt was made to introduce more contemporary themes, and there was then a move towards a lighter, more humorous style. One producer said in 1985: 'We are in the business of entertaining, not offending' (in Goodwin & Whannel 1990, p. 122). Rival soaps have led to some attempts to update the style. However, it has been criticized as having grown old with its audience.
The camerawork and editing is very conventional. Cutting is largely motivated by dialogue. Camerawork consists primarily of group shots, 2-shots or 3-shots (in medium to medium close-up), shot-reverse shot, occasional panning, and close-ups of single characters for emphasis.
Brookside
Brookside, set in a modern Liverpool housing estate, first appeared in 1982, and it became Channel 4's highest-rated programme with around 6 million viewers (it also appears on S4C in Wales). Producer Phil Redmond declared that it would 'tell the truth and show society as it really is', dealing with what are seen as topical issues and problems such as unemployment (in Goodwin & Whannel 1990, p. 123). 'The Close' uses part of a real housing estate rather than a constructed studio set.
It features a range of characters from different social classes, and some of the actors are similar to the characters they play. It has a number of young characters (including some still at school) so not surprisingly it appeals very much to younger viewers. It also offers a wider range of male characeters than the traditional British soaps. Geraghty suggests that the programme has also given more prominence to 'male reoccupations': 'Brookside has developed story lines which depend more on action and resolution rather than the more soap-oriented narrative strategies of commentary and repetition' (Geraghty 1991, p. 169). It has sometimes drawn on the genre of the crime series.
The use of real houses tends to restrict it to a single-camera approach. There are no real meeting places, which makes it difficult to weave several stories together. And it has sometimes been criticized for being too didactic.
Eastenders
Eastenders, a BBC production, was first broadcast in 1985. It is watched by a little under a third of the British population, by more women than men, and more by those in lower socio-economic groups (Livingstone 1990, p. 55). The BBC is aware of its 'responsibility' as a public service (unlike commercial British television companies) to be of benefit to the public, and to produce 'serious' programmes of 'quality'. The characters tend to be mainly working class. In addition to women, young characters and men are given strong roles, so that the potential audience is wide. It has become particularly popular with teenagers. Buckingham notes that 'much of their fascination - and particularly that of the younger children - arose from its inclusion of aspects of adult life from which they were normally "protected"' (1987, p. 200).
Set in London's East End, it is in the social realist tradition. The programme makers emphasized that it was to be about 'everyday life' in the inner city 'today' (in Goodwin & Whannel 1990, p. 124). They regard it as a 'slice of life'. Producer Julia Smith disingenuously declared that 'we don't make life, we reflect it' (Geraghty 1991, p. 32). She has also reported: 'We decided to go for a realistic, fairly outspoken type of drama which could encompass stories about homosexuals, rape, unemployment, racial prejudice, etc. in a believable context. Above all, we wanted realism. Unemployment, exams, racism, birth, death, dogs, babies, unmarried mums - we didn't want to fudge any issue except politics and swearing' (ibid., p. 16).
Eastenders has also featured single-parent families, teenage pregnancy, prostitution, arranged marriages, attempted suicide, drug problems, alcoholism, generational conflicts, a protection racket, a cot death, extra-marital affairs and marital bust-ups, sexism, urban deprivation, mental breakdown, disappearances, muggings, a fatal road accident and a suspected murder: it has sometimes been criticized for being bleak! Perhaps in an attempt to attract more male viewers once can sometimes notice a tendency to shift a little towards the genre of the crime series. Nevertheless, much of the action remains deliberately mundane.
Although it was part of the intention to handle 'controversial social issues' the programme makers insist that Eastenders is not 'issues-based' (i.e. storylines are not developed simply to illustrate predetermined issues). They see themselves as pursuing 'documentary realism' and their dramatic use of conflict leads to issues arising 'naturally' (Buckingham 1987, pp. 16; 30; 83).
They accept that the programme has an informational or educational function for viewers, offering a discussion of topics of concern to them, but they are more concerned with raising questions than with offering answers. Entertainment is seen as the main purpose. The programme makers probably seek to avoid putting viewers off by seeming to be patronising. However, critics have occasionally noted episodes involving a very didactic style.
The programme does not confine itself to the naturalistic mode, but sometimes shifts towards either melodrama or sitcom. Buckingham observes that the camerawork and editing is in the naturalist tradition, supporting an interpretation of the programme as a 'window on the world': the use of the camera is unobtrusive and largely static, with only rare use of close-ups and tracking; the editing seeks to be 'invisible'; the background sound has a 'density of naturalistic detail'; lighting is usually flat, with no harsh shadows (ibid., p. 74). However, he also notes that it tends to have more simultaneous storylines, more scenes, more meeting-places, more characters per episode, and a faster pace than either Coronation Street or Brookside (ibid., p. 54).
Dallas and Dynasty
Dallas, a high-budget American weekly prime-time soap first screened in 1976, has been broadcast in over 90 countries. One fifth of the British population watched it; viewers included more women than men (Livingstone 1990, p. 55). Some theorists distinguish the American prime-time soaps Dallas and Dynasty from British social realist soaps by referring to these US soaps as 'melodramatic serials'. They certainly featured the villains, villainesses and emotional excess of melodrama and sometimes drifted into total fantasy. Elements of the Western were also employed.
These soaps focused, of course, on the rich: 'poverty is eliminated by the simple tactic of ignoring it' (Geraghty 1991, p. 121). Glamour was a key feature: locations were often exotic and the costumes of the main actresses were often extravagant; viewers were invited into a world of abundance. Most of the characters were physically very attractive, and almost all were white. Dallas also made more use of cliffhangers than British soaps: usually a 'psychological cliffhanger', Ang notes (1985, p. 53). Dallas featured the rivalry between the Ewing family and the Barnes family, but business life was far more central than in British soaps. The story also featured murder, marital crisis, adultery, alcoholism, illness, miscarriage, rape, air and car accidents, kidnapping, corruption, illegitimate children, secret pasts, chance meetings and so on.
Some critics say that 'too much happens' in US soaps by comparison with British ones: the pace tends to be faster. An episode typically featured 20-30 short scenes, most of which consisted of conversation. Camerawork and editing remained conventional, to avoid distancing the viewer. Facial expressions are sometimes shown in close-up and held for a few seconds before the next scene. Regarding soaps in general, Tania Modleski (1982, pp. 99-100) notes that close-ups (seen by Robert Allen as a key feature of prime-time soaps) provide training in the 'feminine' skills of 'reading people' - in understanding the difference between what is said and what is meant - as well as an invitation to become involved with the characters depicted.
Neighbours
This Australian soap was aimed at young people, and attracted many young viewers in the UK. It has been criticized for its bland stereotyping. It tends to feature primarily physically attractive people and there is also a notable absence of people of colour. Maire Messenger Davies suggests that 'nothing goes wrong in Neighbours for very long and that's why children like it' (in Hart 1991, p. 136).
UK Soap Audience in 1988 (%)
Eastenders Corona- Emmer- Brookside Neighbours
week- omni- tion dale week- omni- lunch after-
days bus Street Farm days bus time noon
Age
4-15 16 17 11 10 16 18 8 32
16-24 14 17 10 8 19 18 12 15
25-34 18 16 14 12 19 18 17 14
35-44 15 13 12 10 14 12 14 13
45-54 12 13 13 12 10 12 12 10
55-64 11 10 14 16 11 11 11 7
65+ 14 14 26 32 11 11 26 9
Sex
Male 40 39 40 41 36 41 30 40
Female 60 61 60 59 64 59 70 60
Social grade
AB 12 8 10 9 12 11 11 14
C1 22 20 19 18 18 18 21 22
C2 32 33 29 27 34 30 29 33
DE 34 39 42 46 36 41 39 31
Average audience (millions)
13.4 6.5 16.2 11.2 4.0 2.4 6.6 10.8
(Adapted from Hart 1991, p. 35)
Socio-economic grades: A higher managerial, administrative or professional; B intermediate managerial, administrative or professional; C1 supervisory or clerical, and junior managerial, administrative or professional; C2 skilled manual worker; D semi and unskilled manual workers; E state pensioners or widows (no other earner in household), casual or lower grade workers, and unemployed.
Women as viewers
Soaps in general have a predominantly female audience, although prime-time soaps such as Dallas and the most recent British soaps are deliberately aimed at a wider audience. According to Ang, and hardly surprisingly, in Dallas the main interest for men was in business relations and problem and the power and wealth shown, whereas for women were more often interested in the family issues and love affairs. In the case of Dallas it is clear that the programme meant something different for female viewers compared with male viewers.
In 'realist' soaps female characters are portrayed as more central than in action drama, as ordinary people coping with everyday problems. Certainly soaps tend to appeal to those who value the personal and domestic world. The audience for such soaps does include men, but some theorists argue that the gender identity of the viewer is 'inscribed' in programmes, and that typically with soaps the inscribed viewer has a traditional female gender identity. And 'the competences necessary for reading soap opera are most likely to have been acquired by those persons culturally constructed through discourses of femininity' (Morley 1992, p. 129).
As housewives and mothers, women need to be able to do several things at once, to switch from one task to another, to deal with other people's problems, to be interrupted. Redundancy and repetition make interrupted viewing possible; it has even been suggested that soaps are made to be heard rather than seen. Modleski argues that watching soap operas habituates women to distraction and fragmentation.
Dorothy Hobson interviewed women office workers in Birmingham and found that their free-time conversation was often based on their soap opera viewing. Some had begun watching simply because they had discovered how central it seemed to be in lunchtime discussions. It involved anticipating what might happen next, discussing the significance of recent events and relating them to their own experiences. Hobson argues that women typically use soaps as a way of talking indirectly about their own attitudes and behaviour (in Seiter et al. 1989: pp. 150-67). Geraghty (1991, p. 123) also notes that there is some evidence that families use soaps as a way of raising and discussing awkward situations.
Most viewers seem to oscilate between involvement and distance in the ways in which they engage with soaps.
References
Allen, Robert C. (1992): Channels of Discourse, Reassembled (2nd edn.). London: Routledge
Ang, Ien (1985): Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. London: Methuen
Buckingham, David (1987): Public Secrets: Eastenders and its Audience. London: British Film Institute
Curran, James & Michael Gurevitch (eds.) (1991): Mass Media and Society. London: Edward Arnold
Dyer, Richard (ed.) (1981): Coronation Street. London: British Film Institute
Geraghty, Christine (1991): Women and Soap Opera: A Study of Prime-Time Soaps. Cambridge: Polity Press
Goodwin, Andrew & Garry Whannel (eds.) (1990): Understanding Television. London: Routledge
Hart, Andrew (1991): Understanding the Media. London: Routledge
Hobson, Dorothy (1982): Crossroads - The Drama of a Soap. London: Methuen
Livingstone, Sonia M (1990): Making Sense of Television. Oxford: Pergamon
Livingstone, Sonia M (1991): 'Audience Reception; The Role of the Viewer in Retelling Romantic Drama' in Curran & Gurevitch (eds.), op.cit.
Modleski, Tania (1982): Loving with a Vengeance: Mass-Produced Fantasies for Women. Hamden, CT: Archon
Morley, David (1992): Television Audiences and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
Seiter, Ellen, Hans Borchers, Gabriele Kreutzner & Eva-Maria
Warth (eds.) (1989): Remote Control: Television, Audiences and Cultural Power. London: Routledge
Daniel Chandler
November 1994
|
|
