The Sitcom Germ May Be Endemic in Literature

Paul Chitlik’s response to David Fieber (“What Ails Movies? The Germ of a Sitcom,” Counterpunch, July 20) was indeed perceptive in reducing sitcoms to two themes: “You gotta be yourself,” and “Everything is OK as long as we’re together in the end.” But perhaps he oversimplified to the point that those themes could cover all tragedy, drama and comedy. “Enemy of the People” (reincarnated as “Jaws”) and “Oedipus Rex” fit into the first theme, for example, and all of Shakespeare’s comedies fit the second.

The art of writing literature (I embrace both print and film) includes the ability to dress up ancient themes and stories so that we respond to them subconsciously because they tap into our human qualities. The screenwriter who took “Mutiny on the Bounty” and turned it into the classic western “Red River” is a case in point, just as all voyage and road pictures are rooted in Homer’s “Odyssey.”

Chitlik’s criticism of “The Truman Show” overlooked a more important theme: the Edenic myth that embodies the dilemma of humans, the choice between innocence (ignorance) and bliss, or knowledge (loss of innocence) and pain. Truman, like Adam, lived in a paradise in which all his needs were met. As long as neither questioned God and remained in paradise, that bliss would continue. But, like Adam, Truman questioned the authority of God (the director in the sky) and chose the real world over his previous existence. As a species, that is always the human choice: We must know, and there is always a price.

One could even argue that the Christ story embodies “You gotta be yourself,” but of course there are more important aspects of that story, which symbolically parallels the lives of all humans. Consider this premise: A stranger of mysterious origin has the gift of healing, is hunted down and persecuted, dies, returns to life and ascends into the heavens. Sound familiar? Of course; it’s the plot of “E.T.”

The myth of the hero with the magic weapon, whether Arthur’s Excalibur, Robert Redford’s bat in “The Natural” or Sandra Bullock’s computer in “The Net,” will return again and again. These mythic themes will be recycled as long as there are people to read and view. The real basis for criticism is in how well they are done. I haven’t seen “Armageddon” and thus can’t argue its merits. But I would pose the basic questions of literary criticism: What is the purpose of the work? Is that purpose significant? And how well is it executed? Within the framework of Chitlik’s two themes, all the others he advocates may be explored by the skilled writer.

BLAIR CENICEROS

Idyllwild