A starting definition of the sitcom genre might be “a short narrative-series comedy, generally between twenty-four and thirty minutes long, with regular characters and setting” (Neale and Krutnik, 1990, p. 233).
This relationship between channel and audience is apparent in Britain too, though in a slightly different way. That is,it is only really in the last couple of decades, with the advent of Channel 4, subsequent developments on BBC2, and the proliferation of cable and satellite channels, that specific sitcoms have aimed to actively engage discrete sections of the audience.
(Mills, 2005, p. 6)
While sitcoms have been
produced and been popular in other countries, it has been British or American
150
programmes that have been the most critically acclaimed, culturally influential
and successful in sales worldwide, despite the truism that comedy has difficulty
crossing borders (Mills, Television Sitcom 60).
The success of the character and its apparent resonance with British
sensibilities set a particular course for the content of sitcoms in the UK. The
battle with everyday life by a character, pair or group of characters who evade
success through their own failings but who occasionally retain some vestige of
audience sympathy
(Wickham p. 151)
As
Sky is a subscription channel it may be that sitcoms will be able to develop
audiences away from ratings pressures, as with models such as HBO in the
United States but it remains too early to say whether this activity and investment
will be maintained or whether it might just prove to be a method of applying
commercial pressure to the BBC and Channel 4 by diminishing their claim to
original and innovative programming. However at the moment the BBC still
remains the broadcaster most associated with sitcom and the particular practices
and culture of the corporation have helped to create a distinctively British model
for the genre. (Wickham p. 152)
Sitcom also developed its own narrative structures that presented a
different kind of seriality to other forms of television fiction. Neale and Krutnik
believe that “what the sitcom pivots around is the ‘refamiliarizing’ of the recurring
situation, protecting it and redefining it in the face of various disruptions and
transgressions… the sitcom’s process of narrative transformation relies much
more emphatically, then, upon circularity” (234-5).
Gillian Swanson says for instance that “change is not possible in
156
conventional sitcom at a structural level as the situation must remain the same
for the series to continue in its recognisable form” (33). Yet it is important to
understand that although circularity is an important element within sitcom, its
narrative structure is often much more complex than might be apparent.
Conclusive quote:
Perhaps what is most significant about this recurring pessimism (dying genre) is that the decline of the sitcom can only be a recurring topic if it's assumed that the genre matters; the fact that so many executives and creatives, as well as audiences and reviewers, bemoan the lack of high-rating, era-defining sitcom shows that there's a hunger for the genre to occupy precisely this position, and to give audiences a form of entertainment and pleasure that it cannot find anywhere else.
(Mills, 2009, p.126)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7HmFmw6OBSMC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=sitcom+a+dying+genre&source=bl&ots=1RsrKS_-Ap&sig=pSQUL9u9_HyW8LYGnyOGhy06R-s&hl=en&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiNx7Wv17vMAhVD3CwKHSJ2DTAQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q=sitcom%20a%20dying%20genre&f=false
My Family
- 3 headed monster - live studio audience - laughter track - traditional domestic settings
The Sitcom - Brett Mills
Vaudeville died, didn't it? Music hall died. And I think we have to be aware of the possibility that sitcom has died. (Bill Dare 2005)
Nick Lacey notes that genres are 'cyclical' while its desirable to the see the current state of the sitcom as representative of all genres' tendencies to go through 'rise and decline', the fact that he also sees some genres having a limited '"life"'cycle' (2000: 225) could be seen as sounding the death knell for the television sitcom, the outlook is pretty bleak.
The abandonment of the traditional sitcom, along with its contemporary association with lower quality; than that of newer forms, is therefore a highly ideological move in which the sitcom becomes embroiled in ongoing tussles over cultural distinctions. (p.134)
However, as many interviewees noted, the death of the sitcom has been heralded many times before. As Jon Plowman eloquently put it, 'I think that the death of the sitcom is much predicted and much talked about and probably bollocks' (2005). Similarly, Sioned Wiliam (2005) had a newspaper article from 1967 about the death of the sitcom. (p. 126)
However, sitcom has often been defined as "remarkably stable" (Hartley 2001: 65), and the genre has been seen as less experimental - particularly in terms of its aesthetics - than other kinds of programming. And it's certainly the case that the 'traditional' sitcom exists and continues to flourish. My Family (BBC1, 2000-) and After You've Gone (BBC1, 2007-8) are the most-watched comedy programmes on British television. (p. 127)
When thinking about the 'death'; of sitcom, the key question should be why it is that traditional sitcom has lost much of the social position it once had, to the point where some creatives working in broadcasting refuse to be associated with it. As Sioned Wiliam (2005) notes, "It's very difficult for actors to be in comedies now. It's very difficult to get companies to want to make them, because they're fed up of being crucified for daring to try and make a sitcom." (p. 135)
The only option available to creatives desiring cultural legitimacy, therefore, is to alter television aesthetics, and this has been achieved through visual styles often read as "better, more sophisticated, and more artistic than the usual network fare" (Thompson 1996: 13). For these reasons, traditional sitcom has become the scapegoat of a cultural hierarchy that necessitates certain texts to be defined as less worthy:
For Charlie Higson, 'people always need different kinds of comedy' (2008); the death of the sitcom would herald the death of a certain kind of communal conversation, and it's hard to see any society willingly allowing that to happen.
The sitcom has responded to developments in quality television in ways which have altered its aesthetics and performance style, and it's clear that, for both the television industry and its audiences, the notion that traditional sitcom may not have the cachet it once did is apparent. Yet I want to end this book by arguing that the more genres develop, the more they stay the same. While it's clear that a broader range of sitcom is available now then ever before, this is not to suggest that these have replaced the traditional format completely. (p. 142)
Is sitcom a dying genre or has it reinvigorated itself?
How the genre's conventions have innovated to retain their popularity and importance in British society.
