Dramedies: Lest We Forget

I was most impressed with Mimi Avins’ knowledgeable and thoughtful piece on “dramedies” (“Back to the Future of TV,” Jan. 14), but I think she gives short shrift to the two primary milestones that preceded “Hill Street Blues.”

The three-story structure, which in “Hill Street” Steven Bochco expanded to five or more intercut stories, was pioneered by easily the best dramatic series of the late ‘70s, “Lou Grant.” “Grant” also started its life as a dramedy, a one-hour spinoff of the half-hour “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.” It soon moved toward more drama and less comedy as it found its voice, and it was television’s first (and probably last) series about newspapers in which the reporters were allowed to be reporters instead of quasi-detectives. It also pioneered the concept that the personal stories of the continuing characters are as important as the stories (or criminals or diseases) they’re chasing, which of course was also the direction of the later “Hill Street” and virtually all TV dramas and dramedies today except “Law & Order.”

The other milestone, and possibly the place where what we now call dramedy was invented, was “MASH.” Under the aegis of Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds (who went on to run “Lou Grant”), “MASH” was the only half-hour comedy that dealt in the horror of war in a serious way in between humorous scenes about the relationships among the regular characters.

BOB SHAYNE

Malibu

*

Avins neglected to mention in her otherwise excellent article that one of the principal precursors to the American dramedies of the 1980s and 1990s was John Mortimer’s “Rumpole of the Bailey,” the British TV series seen here on PBS.

That program, first airing in England in the 1970s, provided the structural blueprint and inspiration for the Bochco, Kelley and Sorkin dramedy product of the past few decades. Indeed, Bochco’s “L.A. Law” was in many ways an adaptation of “Rumpole.” He even paid homage to the program in an episode featuring actor John Standing as an English barrister.

Since Day One, I always regarded Aaron Sorkin’s writing style in “The West Wing” to be a combination of John Mortimer and Paddy Chayefsky prose: witty, wordy and wonderful! Lessons from the masters are rare these days.

CRAIG HUBLER

Burbank

*

Your article omitted two of the genre’s finest examples: the short-loved but brilliant “Frank’s Place” and “Northern Exposure.” More than honorable mention is also due “Picket Fences,” which proved that David E. Kelley was much wittier when he was writing only one program instead of writing/producing two or more.

E.S. WALLER

Los Angeles

*

Avins cites “The X-Files,” as an example of a show that remains “comfortably grave.” I’m supposing that she hasn’t actually watched “The X-Files.” I don’t know that I’d go so far as to call this show a dramedy, but certainly it has always had an underlying thread of humor, at least prior to the current season, courtesy of David Duchovny’s portrayal of the character of Fox Mulder.

There have also been several episodes that were written intentionally as comedy and that for my money are funnier than anything I’ve seen in any of the recent designated sitcoms. “Bad Blood” from 1998 written by Vince Gilligan is an excellent example.

MARY DOLAN

Sacramento

*

Avins’ phrase “the audience will surely tire of the contrived situations of so-called reality TV” caught my eye. What could be more “contrived” than dramedies? With every word scripted, every move, every viewing angle pre-selected, are they supposed to be more spontaneous than those ridiculous “reality programs”?

PAUL J. BURKE

Palmdale

*

Avins’ article was actually funnier than most sitcoms on the air today.

The problem with network TV has nothing to do with the type of programs they offer, but rather that the people in charge are incapable of making the necessary developmental and promotional adjustments to the new competitive realities, what with viewers having 100 other options, not just three or four like there were in the 1970s.

KEN CONVOY

Woodland Hills