Many people forget, or don’t even realize, that “sitcom” is derived from the Latin phrase “situatus comedus”, or “situation comedy” ($5.00 to the first person who bought my Latin). The idea being that the stuff that happens (within the stuff that is labeled as such) will be comedic, or funny. However, somewhere between episodes of The Honeymooners and Seinfeld, creators of this mass-produced form started confusing “funny” with “nasty”. I don’t mean to imply that “funny” and “nasty” are mutually exclusive, or even that the old stuff is any funnier than the new stuff (because that is entirely up to an individual’s interpretation), but rather that the new stuff is undeniably nastier than the old stuff– and it seems that every year these shows strive with all due diligence to top the last year’s nasty apex. I’m not going to pretend to be an expert in TV, the way I pretended to be an expert in Latin, because I would fail with equal splendor, but suffice it to say that in the 1950’s, “Dr. House” would be the curmudgeonly next-door neighbor, and not the star of his own show, titles like “Desperate Housewives” would be changed to “The Golden Girls”, or at least, “I Dream of Marriage”, and “Ugly Betty” would be toned down to the relatively innocuous: “Bewitched”. The solution is not (of course) to revert to denial and the straightjacket-like censorship that proceeded these modern times, but rather to realize that with the incredible expressive freedoms that exist today, we do not need to resort to solely exploring how far we can push “nasty”, because there are other options out there to be explored, and nobody’s really pushing back anymore anyway (at least nobody worth being funny around). Sitcoms existed before we were allowed to turn everything into sexual innuendo and insulting diatribes (I Love Lucy); they have certainly flourished as exclusively sexual innuendo and insulting diatribes (Sex and The City), so why not combine both worlds and see what happens?

But this is a difficult request because the TV landscape is so competitive nowadays, with shows getting cancelled before their first half a season, that programs seem to have “shock” written into their DNA as a protective measure. I can imagine network executives dropping the “what’s your gimmick” line and adopting the “what’s your shock” line, because there’s always a “reality show” just around the corner that’s a lot less expensive to produce and lot easier to see for it’s pure shock value. And here in lies the true stupidity of the entire modern sitcom situation.

Nothing will ever be as insulting, or shocking, or mercilessly embarrassing as actual people crucifying themselves in front of TV cameras just to get attention. So, sitcoms can’t win the “shock games”. Let me repeat this, since it seems worth repeating: SITCOMS CAN’T BE MORE SHOCKING, OR NASTY, THAN ACTUAL STUPID HEADS! I hope the three people who read this rag at least read that sentence, because it seems to be truly misunderstood by most everybody producing sitcoms, and maybe these three people could go tell the producer folk. Or maybe it will just exist as another unread sentence in caps begging for attention it will never be able to attain without additional vitriol and sexual deprecation. Regardless, it would be enjoyable to see someone produce a TV show that embraces the reality that comedy comes in more than one flavor, and acknowledges that, by it’s own fictional composition, the sitcom will never shock us to our core, so maybe all the usual attention spent trying to do so, could be spent writing a nice character, or (God forbid) two. And for all those writers out there who are so far removed from creating that sort of characterization that it seems impossible, maybe a virtual visit to our more censored past could reveal some insights into the less demeaning thought patterns of good natured people. I’d suggest starting with “Ed Norton” (the character, not the emaciated Oscar winning drama queen- you know, “Ed Norton”, the crazy sidekick to the less than well adjusted and good natured “Ralph Kramden”- hey, I never said the “nasty” didn’t have a long history as well!). And if that doesn’t work as inspiration, you could always just imagine me beating you in the face until you stop being a shithead!

‘Till next time…YOUR MOM!