Despite the fact that these two shows were made in different countries they both share a similar narrative pattern in the way that the comedy is derived. Only Fools and Horses sees a traditional comedy approach to the sitcom and shows a working class family living in Peckham, London. It epitomizes the dysfunctional family and the ways in which they live. The family consists of Derek ‘Del Boy’ Trotter (the oldest brother), Rodney (the younger brother), Granddad and then later Uncle Albert. Del Boy is the head of the family and the breadwinner as he owns his own business and brings in the most money. He always finds a way to manipulate Rodney into helping him run his business. Rodney usually tries to break away but his ventures always go wrong and he comes back. He can’t do anything for himself and he always seems to come running back, whether he wants to or not, into the hands of Del Boy.
Frasier is very similar in the ways of the dysfunctional family. Dr. Frasier Crane, a successful Boston psychiatrist, moved to Seattle to get a fresh start on life. He has his own radio talk show and lives with his dad, Martin, and live-in house keeper Daphne. This half-hour comedy showcases the humorous ways Frasier deals with life and how his family and friends follow suit. One of the main differences of Only Fools and Horses and Frasier is that Frasier lives in a more middle-class society and he has a good job. Unfortunately for him, he always finds himself in situations that are just as bad as Del and Rodney’s. This displays the idea that everyone is the same, that the idea of class boundaries has no bearing on the establishment of the family home.
The two sitcoms can be classed as a ‘domestic’ comedy meaning that they are usually set in the home, work place or at a popular meeting place. This form of sitcom is very appealing to an audience because they are able to relate more to the characters. For instance, if it was set in space and the characters are astronauts there would be no way to relate to the characters and it would be difficult to comprehend it in a realistic way. For a show to be analysed in ideological terms it must have to conform to realism and social and political society.
The ideological implications in sitcoms are used to form a better and more structured society. By this I mean that every episode of every season shares views and ideals that can be spread throughout society and therefore imposing a general view or fear of something. For example in Only Fools and Horses the family usually end up having an argument about something and they fall out but by the end of the episode the person who was in the wrong makes amends. This establishes the closing of the narrative and that whatever happens a family should stick together. It is also the victory of good over evil or in the case of sitcoms right over wrong. The appeal of sitcoms lies in the familiarisation of the characters and the stereotypical approach to how they are represented. Usually this approach is to ensure that viewers continue to watch the shows and characters often, for example, dumb blondes, are funny to them due to them doing actions or saying something that reminds them of themselves or someone they know. he dominant force becomes the natural way of life while others that go against this are perceived as being ‘radical’ no matter how logical their approach may be.
Viewers enjoy the idea of watching a ‘dysfunctional’ family because everyone aspires to have the perfect family but this doesn’t really exist. The audience can see what the characters go through with each other and in some cases may be able to relate to the situation that the characters are in. They may learn how to deal with grief, mental health or illness better if it should happen to them in the future. All of these themes can be represented in a situation comedy in an often less threatening manner than in real life and doesn’t invoke fear or uneasiness of the subject. Some of the time a sitcom is derived to inform and educate viewers on such matters. Garry Marshall who makes sitcoms says of his shows;
‘We did shows about mental health, about diabetes, about death, blindness, epilepsy. Tolerance. That’s what we tried to teach. Be nice to each other’ (Mintz, 1985, P. 119)
This kind of ideology is best suited for situation comedy in my opinion because it deals with it on a lighter side and has more of an effect on the audience. One example of this is the 200th episode of Happy Days in which a retarded girl was portrayed ‘sensitively and constructively’ (Mintz). After this showing there was a reported increase in library cards by 500 percent.
The early comedies were very aware of their moral implications in their storylines and that is why many people in today’s society may perceive them as being a bit exaggerated. They were made to be very obvious and over the top. Such shows as Different Strokes’, which portrayed a mixed race family consisting of two black children, one white child and a white father, and M*A*S*H showed a group of doctors at an Army hospital in Korea adopted this style and imposed views of race, behaviour and family values amongst others. I believe this was to conform to the needs and desires of the audience. However, in today’s sitcoms you can still see a divide in ethnic minorities versus the majority. It has changed a little since they began but it is mainly fixed onto the dominant white majority. They are shown in a wider social context and the dominant view has to be taken in order to ensure a large audience. There is one drawback to this in the way that one could see Britain and America as one culture and one nation instead of multicultural.
‘Sitcom tends to look at other races and cultures from the viewpoint of the dominant white culture’ (Bowes, 1990, P.136)
For instance in Frasier the viewer rarely gets to see a person of a different race or culture. You wouldn’t expect to see a black person or a Chinese person very often as they are not the majority and their values may differ from ours. They have attempted to bring the gap between cultures but it is the British culture they show in the form of Daphne. But even so she is still the stereotypical view in America of what British people are like, albeit, sometimes taken to the extreme. The times when you do see those of a different culture are the times when a stereotypical approach has been taken. If you analyse it by what Bowes said above you only see them in one way, and from one perspective which is not their own, and you don’t learn anything new about their culture or lifestyle.
In conclusion, the points in which I have talked about help to form the ideological framework within sitcoms. Ideology in situation comedy is derived from the social implications of the time in which they were made. In time stereotypes may have changed and the situations the characters get themselves into may mirror events in society but in the whole it reflects how people think society should be and how people should behave. It encapsulates the ideal that everyone should hold the same views, or similar views, on certain topics be it political or social and it helps to build a stereotype of certain people. The ‘dumb-blonde’ for instance, is taken to the extreme in the majority of sitcoms and it has led to idea that most women who have blonde hair are stupid and say silly things. Many forms of ideology can be displayed in sitcoms such as political; a set of ideas and principles that explain how the society should work, and offer the blueprint for a certain social order. The dominant ideoloy in sitcom is from the political angle and sitcom will always be structured on the views of those in power.
Bibliography
Hamamoto, Darrell (1991) Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal Democratic Ideology, New York, Praeger
Bowes, M, (1990), Only When I laugh, in, Goodwin, A and Whannel, G (Eds), (1990), Understanding Television, London, Routledge
Mintz, Lawrence. E (1985) Situation Comedy in, Alley, Robert. S and Rose, Brian G. (Eds) (1985) TV Genres: A Handbook and Reference Guide, London, Greenwood Press
