The Sitcoms of the 1970s: Different Jokes for Different Folks - Essay Example

The Sitcoms of the 1970s: Different Jokes for Different Folks As the turbulent 1960s were ending, network television was gearing up for the even more violent 1970s. Within the first few years of the decade the network executives would virtually kill off the rural south, the working white male, and the obedient mother and her house brimming with smiling well-behaved children. Idealism would be replaced by realism and experimentation would take the place of formula. Television began to be broadcast in full color and with it came the understanding that television was America. But who were these Americans They were reflected in the thirty-minute weekly episodes of television's mainstay, the sitcom. The television sitcoms of the 1970s explored our racism, sexism, and class bias and uncovered a reality that exposed the depth of prejudice in America and the television industry. Because television during this period was an evolving event, it's helpful to view it somewhat chronologically. By 1970 Leave it to Beaver had been deceased for 7 years. Ozzie and Harriet passed in 1964 and My Three Sons had just two more seasons of life left. The image of the typical American family that consisted of a well employed father living in suburbia had been exposed as a myth and could no longer support a sitcom. The 1960s and the war in Vietnam had dissolved the country's innocence and America was ready to explore their new maturity. No other vehicle would spark as much social, political, or cultural debate as the American sitcom during this period. The years 1970 - 1972 were as important for what was canceled as much as for what was debuted. In 1971, the rural south was virtually eliminated from the comedy half-hour format. Green Acres and the Beverly Hillbillies were both canceled. These two shows depicted an unrealistic view of the South and rural America in general. Characters were put in positions that were not believable while portraying a bias against the underlying themes of bigotry and ignorance. Mayberry RFD and Hee Haw, shows that reflected the widely accepted view of rural common sense and decency, also got cut in 1971. These shows would be replaced by more urban and topical settings with characters capable of generating greater controversy and better demographics (Butsch 19). Idealism was being tempered by network economics. A major theme that ran throughout the 1970s sitcom was the reshaping of our perception of the American household. The picture of the house being headed by a strong father figure was fading. Women were becoming more dominant and shown as more independent in shows such as Mary Tyler Moore and Maude. The men were portrayed with character flaws such as Archie Bunker in All in the Family and Fred Sanford in Sanford and Son. Men were underemployed and if married lived with a dominant female. This restructuring of the household offered the producers and writers the opportunity to explore issues that the white middle class male could not approach. June Cleaver could not even discuss abortion, while Maude Findlay could have one. Ward Cleaver did not drink while Walter Findlay, Maude's husband, was an alcoholic ("Maude"). Many sitcoms of this era were placed in a household where the children were grown. This provided an environment for adult issues to be aired and debated. It would also offer the contrasting social viewpoints that were emerging at the time. No other show propelled the 1970s sitcom genre as much as All in the Family did when it debuted in 1971. Producer Norman Lear had gone to the edges of the American psyche to explore racism. Yet, television was still in its adolescence and this was shown in the naivet of the program's plot and writing. Archie Bunker, the lead character, was an avowed bigot who referred to minorities as "Spades, Spics, or Hebes" and believed that their social gains were coming at the expense of the middle class whites ("All in the Family"). Lear believed that by playing Bunker as a misguided fool, his bigotry would likewise be exposed as the ignorance that it was. This formula would infect a string of copycat and spin-off shows. The flaw in Lear's formula was that America was not ready to accept racial and social equality and the shows became mouthpieces for prejudice. Edith Bunker, Archie's wife, seldom challenged Archie's racial tirades. The major alternative viewpoint came from his son-in-law, Michael Stivic played by Rob Reiner. He was an unemployed hippie living with his in laws and generally being supported by Archie. The writers even gave the character, known as Meathead, a foreign sounding name. Viewers got the message that the employed white male had a prejudicial viewpoint and was justified to it merely by a lack of a credible challenge. Group polarization theory says that this approach would heighten and strengthen the existing prejudice rather than diffuse it (Myers 721). Though Archie was a fool, Michael was portrayed as a bum and a loser. The desire for social change would be stigmatized by Rob Reiner's portrayal of Michael Stivic. Prejudice would also show up in the black comedies of the time. The Jeffersons was s spin-off from All in the Family that revolved around a black family that had worked their way up from the ghetto and into middle upper class America. Yet, here they were surrounded by whites where George Jefferson was allowed to promote his own racial attitudes, even while employing a black maid. Jefferson was, "...intolerant, rude, and stubborn; he referred to White people as "honkies." He was a short, mean, bigoted popinjay who balked at manners" ("The Jeffersons"). Here was the portrayal of a successful black that necessarily lived in white America. The show painted the picture that to move up you would have to move toward white America complete with a black maid. Sanford and Son and Chico and the Man also attempted to explore racial attitudes by introducing America to the lifestyles of the black and Hispanic community. Fred Sanford was portrayed in a black surrounding that was projected to be typical. However, Fred's son, Lamont, was "...oriented to improvement and middle class manners. He was continually embarrassed by his father's blatant violations of middle class decorum" (Butsch 24). In Chico and the Man, Freddie Prinz played a young Chicano employed by a white bigot who owned a business in the barrio. The show was widely criticized for its, "...failure to provide any writing opportunities for Chicanos, which, in turn, prompted its disparaging representation of its East L.A. setting" (Oguss 5). Both of these shows were an adolescent attempt to explore ethnic issues through the medium of the white dominated writers and networks. What the networks were doing for racism through this period they were also doing for sexism and feminism. Maude, played by Beatrice Arthur, was one of the earlier and most popular formats for this issue. The producers contended that Maude was, "Strong-willed, intelligent and articulate, the liberal progressive" and was able to bring a wealth of women's issues into the genre ("Maude"). However, once again we see the white male dominated production's influence on the content. Her outspoken portrayal as a feminist was highly stereotyped. Lentz argues that the shows comedy was centered on, "Her forthrightness, her stature, her brash way of talking, her booming, masculine voice, and her habit of verbally threatening other characters (especially her husband, Walter)" (71). This was the network's version of the ERA movement. While Maude promoted the masculine side of the feminist movement, other shows were taking a more typically timid viewpoint of the single American female. The Mary Tyler Moore Show was meant to display the advances that women had made in their careers. However, a 1970 article in TV Guide that introduced the show was centered on television's new radicalized approach to programming (Lentz 50). Though the audience was to infer that Mary Richards had grown up and escaped the smothering on Dick Van Dyke, the show failed to live up to its promise. She was surrounded by males in a white dominated office making coffee and running errands for the boss. As Lentz says, "The liberal feminist story falls short of rescuing television from its thoroughly feminized status" (51). Once again the producers only serve to fortify the stereotype and not diffuse it. Another attempt at realistically portraying the single female was Bonnie Franklin, known as Ann Romano, the divorced mother on One Day at a Time. The show revolved around traditional female roles of mother-child relationships, the domestic family, and menial work while emphasizing that the independent role was tentative as expressed by the title 'One Day at a Time'. (Rabinovitz 8). The show would only allow feminism within the boundaries of the traditional male-female sexual roles. The opening credits to the show reinforce the image of the women as sexual objects and the male as the onlooking figure (Rabinovitz 8,9). This theme was echoed through the numerous single-mom sitcoms of this era. Class distinctions also felt the brunt of Hollywood's humor during the 1970s. Good Times was a show set in a black neighborhood where two of the children, Thelma and Michael, planned on attending college and were "...headed out of poverty and into the middle class" (Butsch 24). However, these were the minor characters in the show. The lead characters were JJ the irreverent older son, his mother, and his unemployed father. The father was portrayed as violent and the cause of the poverty in the family. JJ was depicted as a get rich quick schemer who had no future plans and no hope of advancement out of the situation. The show, rather than representing an impoverished family, depicted the poverty as a result of a failed male figure. The fact that the family was black solidified the concept of the single black female destined to a life of poverty. The 1970s were some turbulent times for television viewers. There was no end to the issues to be explored or the debates to be aired. However, rather than portraying the racism that existed in America, the dominate viewpoint only served to polarize and confirm it. This was true of feminism and class distinctions as well. When these three stereotypes merged in some programs, such as when the upper class feminist Maude hired a black maid, it left the viewers with an ambiguity of perception. The writers were telling the audience that this was reality and its presence on TV justified its existence. As with any media endeavor, the story will be told through the perceptions and ideas of the writers and the producers. The sitcoms of the 1970s could not escape the established mindset of the networks and their producers. Though they naively tried to explore serious issues, they only served to draw attention to and amplify our existing bias and prejudice. Works Cited "All in the Family." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. MBC. 19 Apr. 2007 . Butsch, Richard. "A Half Century of Class and Gender in American TV Domestic Sitcoms." Cercles 8 (2003): 16-34. 19 Apr. 2007 . Lentz, Kristen M. "Quality versus Relevance: Feminism, Race, and the Politics of the Sign in 1970s Television." Camera Obscura 15.1 (2000): 44-93. "Maude." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. MBC. 19 Apr. 2007 . Myers, David G. Psychology. 7th ed. New York: Worth Publishers, 2004. Oguss, Greg. "Whose Barrio Is It: Chico and the Man and the Integrated Ghetto Shows." Television and New Media 6.1 (2005): 3-21. Rabinovitz, Lauren. "Sitcoms and Single Moms: Representations of Feminism on American TV." Cinema Journal 29.1 (1989): 3-19. "The Jeffersons." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. MBC. 19 Apr. 2007 . Read More