Laugh Track Record

Television critics seem to be almost congenitally incapable of recognizing cyclical trends of the medium. For example, it was not too long ago that the television cognoscenti proclaimed the death of the sitcom, slain by that apparently immortal, hydra-headed devil, reality television. Wait, what's that? This season, they declared, in Larry King-esque fashion, "Item — Reality TV is Dead! And, Hold on to Your Hats, The Sitcom is Back!"

Now, seriously, who didn't see this coming? Is there anybody who truly believed that the reality television boom would continue, unabated, forever? And, more importantly, haven't we seen this before? Wasn't the sitcom similarly eulogized in the early 1980's, right before NBC's juggernaut of "Cosby" and "Cheers" brought about a similar resurrection, which lead to over 15 years of sitcom dominance, ending with the anti-climactic final episode of Seinfeld?

The truth is, the sitcom is not dead and has never been in any real danger of dying. The television pendulum swings with almost depressing regularity. Exactly one season after the journalists and network chiefs declare something past its expiration date, there it is, the shining jewel in the network crown. Last year, it was the non-police-procedural drama, which made like Lazarus with "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives." And this year, it's the sitcom.

All this is not to say, though, that the sitcom has not evolved. In fact, the latest incarnation of the sitcom is fundamentally different from its predecessors. Quietly, over the past 10 years or so, the way in which sitcoms are produced has split. Think back to the most critically acclaimed sitcoms of this time period — "Larry Sanders," "Curb Your Enthusiasm," "The Office," "Scrubs," "Malcolm in the Middle," "Sex in the City", "Arrested Development." All of these shows, though very different in tone and subject matter, are produced in a non-traditional, single-camera, cinematic style. No three-walled sets. No "live studio audience." These shows moved sitcoms away from the clichéd look and style of the past and closer to look and feel of film and televised drama.

But here's the rub, what are the most successful sitcoms of the past ten years (in terms of Nielsen ratings)? Well, that is a completely different list — "Friends", "Everybody Loves Raymond", "The King of Queens," "Two and a Half Men"(?!). While the cinematic sitcoms received the glowing reviews, the traditional sitcoms got the audience.

But, perhaps things have changed. Two of this season's success stories, "My Name is Earl" and "Everybody Loves Chris," are made in the newly popular cinematic style. "Earl," which is similar in tone to shows like "Arrested Development" or "Andy Richter Controls the Universe," hails from the same avant-garde school of comedy that Fox repeatedly introduced and then promptly cancelled for the past few years. And "Chris" is the modern version of the family sitcom, having more akin to "Bernie Mac" or "Malcolm" (or the proto-version of the single-camera sitcom, "The Wonder Years"). Both are very different shows, and both are excellent television. "Earl" may not be as funny as some of the shows to which it is often compared, but the cast is charming and likeable (especially Jason Lee, Jaime Presley, and Ethan Suplee) and there is a lot of comedic potential in both the show's premise and the characters. And "Everybody Hates Chris" is quite simply the best family sitcom to come around in a long time. It is refreshing to see two sitcom parents who aren't horny morons, and Rock's bite and wit translate effortlessly into the medium.

The season's other comedic success, "How I Met Your Mother", on the other hand, is a traditional sitcom. The latest in a long line of "Friends" rip-offs, the studio audience cackles at the zippy one-liners and "awwws" at the lead character's earnest attempts to get laid. The show's premise, an off-screen father (voiced by Bob "Look At Me! I Can Swear!" Saget) explaining to his children how, um, he met their mother, is too cute and completely unnecessary. Additionally, it will only lead to complications (Why are the kids dressed in today's fashion if it's set in 2030? And, um, aren't those two kids going to age over the course of a few seasons?) Without its incredibly likeable cast, which includes TV vets like Alyson Hannigan from "Buffy", Jason Segal of "Freaks and Geeks", and Dr. D. Howser himself, Neil Patrick Harris, there would be little to recommend it.

So, the question is, have audiences finally moved passed the canned laughter and set-up/punchline style of the traditional sitcom? Has the American viewing audience advanced to the point where they will seek out a more complex, offbeat program like "My Name is Earl"? Do we still need to be told when to laugh and when to awwwww? Or are we viewing adults now, who don't need to be prodded to get the joke?

All three of these shows have been successes, though not one of them is a breakout hit like "Lost" or "Housewives." So right now it seems there's room for both, and perhaps the single-camera, cinematic sitcom is in its ascendancy. But get ready, trailblazing network HBO, who kicked all of this off with "Larry Sanders," has announced that they plan to develop a slew of traditional sitcoms, starting with a family sitcom based on the life of comedian Louis CK.

What does all of this mean? Well, regardless, I'm sure the television press will be quick to proclaim that reality television is certainly, unequivocally, and most-assuredly dead. So look forward to its triumphant return in 2008.

— Steve Carey (poppycockcircus at gmail dot com)

— graphic by Benjamin Chandler (blchandler at sbcglobal dot net)