Will and Grace (and TV characters generally)

few sitcoms preceding W&G were without gay undercurrents, even if the characters were straight

that said if you look back to John Inman in Are You Being Served very little has changed or moved on which is surprising even in the realm of mainstream situation comedy, so traditionally rife as it is in homo-erotic innuendo, double-entendres and such. I'd go as far as to say that because homosexuality and the insinuation of is such a cornerstone of humour in Western countries that people are afraid to change the nature in which it is portrayed. I guess people will keep on finding it funny for a while longer yet but eventually perhaps this comedic effort will wear off? (tho I guess that would have to happen in tandem with the eradication of hostility towards homosexuals in society, replaced by tolerance/indifference and NO REACTION AT ALL)

The difference between W&G and the Cosby Show is that the Cosby Show wasn't full of lame gags about how hilarious it is to be black.

see i always got the impression that it WAS so i never watched it. having said that i adored Fresh Prince and i quite enjoyed Desmonds.

Or in the case of Will and Grace, placing a gay person in all sorts of straight situations, ie women coming on to him etc.

I guess this is dodgy ground a bit, maybe overestimating peoples prejudices but it's worth discussing all the same.

Would the Will and Grace writers argue that being gay is a big enough part of a gay person's life that yes they do encounter awkward situations which seem related to it every single day? I suppose it's a question of working on peoples prejudices to eliminate them, if you take their argument.

good point - i think we had overkill in the 80s tho, so my answer is 'no' ;)

that's the same thing really tho isn't it? MOST sitcoms work that way e.g. Last Of The Summer Wine, Friends, Coupling

I suspect the huge gulf between US and UK sitcoms as genres in themselves plays a part here - US sitcoms are generally like soap operas with less bloodshed and more funny bits, where you're supposed to like and/or identify with the characters. The best UK sitcoms nearly always feature central characters who are one-dimensional and cartoonish and also obnoxious or pathetic or both (Only Fools and Horses is the exception here).

(xpost) God that Jasper Carrott thing is awful.

Would a comedy about a disfunctional black family in the projects be funny?

Eddie Murphy thought so. Did The PJs even get a second series tho? (it was animation tho so maybe don't count, but it wasn't actually that bad)

But I don't think it makes that much difference, we could also argue about who watches the programmes and who they're made for, but even that's a fairly difficult thing to get a handle on.

Mark S entirely otm about Frasier, and closer to the topic by not making it the topic, that's exactly what I was getting at with my "premise of an entire series" comments above.

Steve, The Fast Show DOES have racial stereotypes - they're just WHITE racial stereotypes. Something like Ted and Ralph wouldn't work with black or Asian actors.

Equally, Father Ted is loaded with Irish racial stereotypes - what is the difference between this and Goodness Gracious Me, other than format and the quality of the jokes?

I'm not sure who I'm arguing with, if anyone at this point.

gay -> jack :: fr jack <- irish

gay = jack
irish = fr jack

Paul Dacre of course.

Of post-GGM stuff, Kumars is troubling especially in the Gareth Gates song: ie Hindu iconography/Christian record... I know Jesus is in some parts a Hindu icon, but this was all wack. Using stereotypes is still using stereotypes whatever the purpose. The Woody Allen/GGM comparison is interesting because WA is no more 'universal' than GGM -- it's just that broadly 'Jewish' humour has been v popular.

Answer is ALWAYS 'because he lived at home until he was 30 and his mum thought he was God'.

Also Ronan it so isn't just about Irish priests!

ie the more marginalised the culture is the more it troubles people regardless of how universal the actual subject being satirised.

Equally, do 'all-white' comedies ACTUALLY have a 'universal' appeal among different racial groups or is that just a white person's presumption because it features other white people and is therefore cast as some normative or centrist point from which everything else is to one side or the other?

And it's not blatantly anti-establishment either, if it was it wouldn't have been so popular with people of all age groups here. It's definitely as much about rural Ireland as the priesthood, but it comes across too fond to be really biliously anti-establishment, especially over here in the current climate and compared to some of the anti-church feeling.

I saw a very early "Are you being served" where we join inman and bannister halfway through a conversation "They say one in three" "Really, as high as that?" its not stated what, but we all know. Eventually many years later he's 'appearing' in stuff elton would consider ostentatious...

But Richard Curtis is writing about well-to-do professional middle-class West London-dwelling British people who are, overwhelmingly, white. The problem arises when you consider why this plays far better to international audiences than any other aspect of Britishness.

Well, yes, although 'LA' tries to broaden the scope a bit, among other ways by having (two?) black characters, which his other work has not had. UK films play up to expectations of what is 'British' but on the other hand two of the biggest exports were 'Launddrette' and 'Beckham' -- even if you don't like these films that does sort of undermine the thesis. Actually 'Dirty Pretty Things' and Frears films in general get mo' love abroad than here.

I think RickyT has hit the nail on the head here in that the problem arises when race or sexuality is made the entire premise of the comedy, which it is in Will & Grace and that bloody Jasper Carrott thing whose name no one can remember in a way it isn't with Goodness Gracious Me or Father Ted or the Fresh Prince.

Posh W11 people spend the whole summer moaning about having to batten down the hatches for Carnival weekend. The only interracial interaction they do involves shopkeepers, cleaners and drug dealers.

Sometimes yr identity is a source of comedy in life -- this is tricky territory, of course -- but certainly among my acquaitances a lot of laughter comes from situations which are too typically bourgeois-liberal or whatever. Many of my friends are Guardian-reading Islington-dwelling Oxbridge grads who work in publishing. So there's obvious sensitivity to class/gender stereotypes especially.

So perhaps GGM/Woody Allen isn't so bad after all -- we're conscious of stereotypes in life, not just on TV.

The thing that always bugged me about Will and Grace was that it was just an irritating New York Sitcom. It even has irritating New York Sitcom music. The difference between Seinfeld, Mad About You, Friends and Will and Grace is.... what? It's the same jokes over and over, it's all a bunch of ooh-we're-so-white-and-clever-tee-hee tripe.

And the fag hags just coo over how 'real' it all is. Bullshit!

To me, Queer As Folk (the U.S. version) is a realistic portrayal of gay life... there is not a gay man I know that isn't insecure about how he looks, no matter how gorgeous he is; who isn't lonely, who isn't out looking for Mr. Right, and who isn't falling on his face in one way or another. Queer as Folk may seem like the most superficial aspects of gay life (drugs, nightclubbing, sex, looking *gorgeous*) and its superficiality is subjective.

W&G is nothing BUT superficiliaty. There is nothing more to it than what exists right there, there are no hidden depths, despite all the Very Special Episodes and the Heartwarming Moments. It's just recycled NBC must-see-tv shite from different shows, over and over again.

A while ago when I was working on my collection of essays detailing fag hags, as part of the research I slapped my whole group into a room and forced them to watch movies like The Object of My Affection. around the film's turning point, the other Straight Girl in the room stood up and declared, I don't like this movie. The boys told her to sit down and shut up. At the end, we talked about it. When I asked the guys how they felt about these kinds of romantic comedies that fool women into thinking they can "change" gay men, thus trivializing gay mens' sexual orientation/identity as well as turning the girl into a heroine and each of the boy's possible love interests into villians, they said, "It's just nice to see some gay people in movies and on tv. Especially if they're cute."

but this describes MOST PEOPLE not just gays (substitute Mr Right as you wish)

agreed about QaF - not fundamentally a comedy so it doesn't feel it has to fawn over an imagined stereotype comedy queer

Can't agree "The difference between Seinfeld, Mad About You, Friends and Will and Grace is.... what?" obv. Though I cannot stand any of those (except Seinfeld also obv).

exactly. that's the point. they're just people, like us, and these things unite us.

well, I like Seinfeld. I think it's hysterical because all the people are really loathesome and shallow and I think that's what makes it so subversive. On Seinfeld, you're rooting for the bad guys.

but with all the others -- last night I caught a bit of W&G and they were going on a Road Trip. So they packed all the characters into a car that wasn't working. Didn't I see this on Friends once with Phoebe's grandmother's taxi? I mean, it's the same schtick. And since these shows are little more than schtick, there's not a lot that differentiates them besides cast and airtime.

Yes, but comedy is about what separates, not just what unites, surely? For example the way Woody Allen in 'Annie Hall' tells Annie's WASP mom that 'the ham is *dynamite*' is very funny, but not really relate-able to unless you're Jewish (or Muslim).

(but in reference to QaF, it's not a comedy so it can dive deeper and explore the whole range of human emotions rather than just the ones that we can make fun of or laugh at.)

You see the same 'shtick' in 'The Awful Truth', 'Bringing up Baby', 'His Girl Friday' etc etc - it's called genre. Just because these comedies don't "address issues" head on doesn't, I think, make them any less funny or even - dread word - "subversive".

No offence to Ricky, but this conclusion was reached well upthread! Sorry, minor ILE bugbear.

Naturally a show like Will and Grace will be very popular in this climate, since the stereotypical characters on the show are the very eptiome of this aesthetic. Gay men = vain and fashionable, fag hags = worse than fashionistas.

it's not necessary for a comedy to address issues -- leave that to ER and the after school specials. There is, however, a moral obligation to not trot cliches and tired stereotypes across our screens on a weekly basis. Pickaninnies and blackface are not acceptable in this day and age, just as Jack and Karen won't be once the shock of seeing a mainstream gay comedy is absorbed.

The point is cliches and stereotypes exist in life and are always a source of comedy, always have been. Ppl are always measuing themselves against perceived ideals for their 'type', like it or not, and this is a source of comedy.

Absolutely, but what is considered a cliche or stereotype and what becomes sexist, racist, or otherwise -ist is when these cliches and stereotypes break down and new ones take their place. Racist jokes are 'funny' but they're not on must-see-TV anymore.

roseanne strayed into them but it wz based in their home really (also dan wz self-employed a lot of the time)

it's time we had an up-to-date please sir! (or wacko! haha)

Teachers is the latter day Whacko! But with drugs. So Smacko!

I never interpreted it that way.... I know a lot of people have made the comparison that they're women acting like gay men, and therefore they're women being portrayed as more independent and aggressive and so very New York, and isn't that wonderfully glamorous and exciting, darling?

What I like about Sex and the City is that it focuses on the strong bond women can have with one another, but doesn't portray it in that Oprah lifetime network let's all weep together stylee.

'...'

Nu-Enrique, I'm not sure I follow.

well, the problem starts with equating sexually promiscuous woman with woman who has sex. The two are not one and the same. There's really only one sexually promiscuous woman on Sex and the City, and she's a caricature of both men and women who are promiscuous.

I always thought the difference between The Real McCoy and Goodness Gracious Me was one of accessibility. The Real McCoy seemed to black comedy aimed at a black audience (see also The A-Zone), wheras GGM seemed to be aimed at a wider audience - or at least attempted to explain its characters milleu more, ie the very comedy of assimilation. I suppose we have to ask ourselves what the aim of the show is (and not just big ratings). The Jasper Carrot/Myra Syaal thing seems to be trying far too much at once. I see no reason now why a white man/asian woman family scenario would not work on British TV now, but having it narrated from the child with cerebal palsy's POV AND starring Carrot makes it too much of a stretch.

The hiostory of black characters in British sitcoms is an interesting one, and starts drying up about sic years ago. What was Lenny Henry's Chef if it was not a comedy where the race of the lead character was one of th least important things about it (except for the terrible episode where he had to rediscover "soul food"...)

That is, if you do think there are prejudices concerning women who have sex, perhaps I've just answered that question with my blundering semantics but anyway.

x post: yeah Enrique maybe I'm being too kind to the writers in that case, but I suspect pre 1998 the idea was quite different, and hardly involved the same level of detailed discourse surrounding sex, another fairly male stereotype I'd have thought.

er, like, stand-up comedy, sketch comedy, situation comedies, comedy onstage, comedy fringe, comedy in film....? I think they all serve different purposes.

'cause seriously, people who are watching stuff like sitcoms are usually in the mood to zone out in front of the telly after working a bullshit job and need some light relief and mild entertainment and maybe even something to look forward to on thursday.

in film, I think it's the same but on a higher level. you're going to the theatre to be entertained, therefore the stakes are higher. Be Entertaining!

same with stand-ups and onstage stuff but I think there's also a sort of education/challenge/issues element there that makes their brand of comedy sharper and more poignant (see satire). it's the safe means of criticism, and that brand of comedy is very important, I think (although to be really cunty about it, it does date your work).

Also she cd quote Freud and teach Shaz and whatever her name was middle class manners (or not). In Charlotte I spose S&TC has *some* social element -- the other three cd have been born on Mars.

yes i wasn't suggesting the sudden rediscovered existence of "influence" enrique

Perhaps if each book was seen as the arc to a series it might be more akin to a straight drama.

Also: Equally, do 'all-white' comedies ACTUALLY have a 'universal' appeal among different racial groups or is that just a white person's presumption because it features other white people and is therefore cast as some normative or centrist point from which everything else is to one side or the other?

COMPLETELY 100% OTM. This cannot be emphasized enough.

(Also, "Will and Grace" is COMPLETELY about Karen's all-consuming narcissism.)

Also: Equally, do 'all-white' comedies ACTUALLY have a 'universal' appeal among different racial groups or is that just a white person's presumption because it features other white people and is therefore cast as some normative or centrist point from which everything else is to one side or the other?

'all white' comedies are not CONSCIOUSLY 'all white' unless decisions really are made about 'not having a black character' but i'd be surprised if that had happened in the last 15 years despite the possible evidence for. but it struck me that The Cosby Show, Fresh Prince, Desmonds and GGM all have a specific agenda to promote something i.e. the acceptability of leading Afro or Asian characters not aligning themselves with dubious stereotypes - they are kinda forced into that pidgeonhole and me suggesting it only perpetuates it's supposed necessity i guess. side-question - how do you avoid tokenism when you're trying to represent the populous at large?

to clarify, i got the sense that The Cosby Show was trading on a lame premise ('black people making jokes about the fact they're black') and that seemed contrived, but i never gave it a real chance (see also GGM). psuedo-racism ahoy!

yes, Ainsley Harriot was not a 'token black chef' for example.

sorry but now i'm thinking of South Park and laughing (sigh)

asians have so far been unlucky in getting the same kind of response on (american) telly.

(i once had a big argybargy w.a lesb friend abt how horrible i wz beginning to find jul!an cl4ry: she loved the bitchiness but i found it v.formulaic)

(haha tracer hand's kenneth williams impression to thread)

stupendously otm

http://www.chrisstcyr.com/images/portfolio/interactive/benson.jpg

x-post: was there a discussion way back about spin-offs spawning spin-offs? Because All in the Family => Jeffersons => 227 is definitely one. or was that covered?

I think something to remember too when dealing with how minorities are portrayed on TV, and especially sitcoms, is that 95% of the time it's demeaning to everybody. TV is by necessity exploitative.

er, are you saying nobody deals with AIDS on QAF u.s.? Because they totally do. Michael's uncle has it, his partner has it, at one point Fag Hag Momma makes a very significant point about what the reality of the disease is.
I think in the very first episode when Brian does Justin for the first time, I could practically smell the lube while watching it. QAF has always been very warts-and-all to me, and if there was any laissez-faire attitude towards AIDS on the show, I interpreted it as the shifting attitude of the community that AIDS has become something that's easier to live with. (And let's not even get into the whole gift-giving culture.... brrrr)

i can't see them eradicating 'Equal Opportunities Monitoring' forms in future - the problem with those things is that it delivers equality only in paranoia ("I might not get this job because I'm a white male")

I'm not suggesting that business has eradicated prejudice, has equal ops down to a fine art, but how much of an issue are the black cast members of, say, ER? Race has been used as plotline, but then so has almost everything else in ER (that and helicopters), and I certainly would never advocate not using everything at your disposal to write interesting stories. Perhaps comedy is more self conscious about this - after all they might be wary of making jokes about sensitive subjects.

reading things into things that aren't necessarily there part 3491

xpost Huck, can you elaborate?

Shoot me now, WTF have I wasted my life learning about?

the other in is a morality tale against getting old.

I want to do a PhD analysing pictures just like this for the exact reason you've posted it. I mean, colors aside, consider the characters: Winston wasn't part of the original team, he's not a SCIENTIST, etc. It's rankism!

I don't think it's about one single character, or another.

they're at a trial hearing, and he's handcuffed to john candy. Candy asks him why he's here, and without changing his thousand-yard-stare, deadpans that "I set fire to my family."

http://personal.inet.fi/cool/leffamaailma/topten/candyman.jpg

as Will & Grace's new neighbour