The Grim State of Situation Comedies

Paul Brownfield’s excellent article about the current laugh lull in the sitcom cycle cites NBC’s “Jesse” as one example of a show unable to seize the advantage of a prime-time slot (“What’s So Funny? Not the Sitcom,” Nov. 1).

“Must-See TV” has long been an oxymoron, but “Jesse” was a very likable diversion last season. The title role featured a plucky, resourceful single mom surrounded by her friends and family in her father’s tavern, romanced by a good-guy hunk while resisting the pull of her ne’er-do-well ex. I liked her tenacity; the characters were well-drawn and multilayered. And it was funny!

But do you know how Jesse spent her summer vacation? She dummied down. This year’s model is a fumbling, slapstick damsel in distress, bereft of her family in a new setting, a puzzlement to the hunk (now portrayed as much less of a bargain himself), and surrounded by a group of one-note characters to make her insecurities appear even more pronounced. “Jesse” is now more annoying than funny, and I’ve tuned out.

I suppose it’s too naive of me to expect network television to be anything but knee-jerk, but it is regrettable that shows are being granted less and less time to evolve more naturally. The obvious casualty is good writing.

ROB CARROLL

Lake Forest

*

I think Brownfield missed one very important point as to why so many of us viewers are no longer tuning in to the so-called situation comedies. Not only are most of the “situations” stale and banal (we have seen them all many times before . . . and done with more style and panache), but the unbridled and flagrant use of the ubiquitous laugh track has become intrusive and annoying. It is often used when there is really nothing to laugh at, thereby nullifying any possible humorous moments that might subsequently occur.

I think most of us know when something is funny and when it is not. The use of the laugh track to insist that something is really funny doesn’t necessarily make it so.

JEROME H. LOEB

Long Beach

*

Another reason for audience disenchantment are the previews of sitcoms that repeat and repeat through news programs and other shows ad nauseam, and over-loud to boot. Did “The Mary Tyler Moore Show” and “All in the Family” ever have such previews? I don’t think so. And most sitcoms don’t need them. Audiences know what they like and tune in.

BILL WOLFE

Los Angeles

*

Brownfield’s excellent article hit upon a number of hard, sad truths about the current state of TV programming. As one of 15 writers selected for the 1999 Paramount Sitcom Apprentice Writers Workshop, I was looking forward to the possibility of finally realizing my long-held dream of writing situation comedy for TV. You may ask why I, as an award-winning fiction writer, even bothered with writing for the “vast wasteland.” Well, I believe that when TV writing is done well, it’s high art.

As we progressed in the program, it became evident that every producer on every show was discouraged beyond words at the incessant network (UPN, NBC, CBS, Lifetime, etc.) meddling. My “mentor” producer couldn’t even bring himself to read my spec script, as promised, and I can’t really blame him--his series was canceled midseason. Not a single writer from the workshop got onto a show; there were simply no jobs to be had.

Still, I learned something very important: The need for an authentic point of view is essential to the creation of high art. If corporate America keeps tying the hands of its artists, how do you expect them to paint? One only has to look at the music business to see how much dross the formulaic cookie-cutter approach has produced in recent years.

ROBERT MORGAN FISHER

Santa Monica