On 'Modern Family'
From a New York Times piece about Modern Family:
Is there something in the culture today that craves this direct emotion? “A natural tendency of situation comedies is to shy away from emotion,” said Jesse Tyler Ferguson, who plays Mitchell. “There’s been an absence of well-grounded, family comedy on television. Instead we’ve had fantastic snarky comedies, like ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘Arrested Development.’ I think people miss shows like ‘The Cosby Show’ and ‘Family Ties’ that showed true family values.”
But not all earlier shows insisted on sweetness and light. The defining shows of the 1970s — Norman Lear’s “All in the Family,” “Maude” and “The Jeffersons” — tackled grittier fare, from infidelity to racism. “Modern Family” is a smart show — Phil quotes evolutionary psychology, Cam and Mitchell have primitive art on the walls. One episode mined the notion that it takes 10,000 hours to master a skill, made popular in Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers.”
But it’s also timid. In today’s global village, a gay kiss is considered controversial and breaking up with your boyfriend by texting is cutting edge. Edith Bunker, on a show that drew twice as many viewers, was the victim of an attempted rape. Maude had an abortion. Archie Bunker kissed a transvestite.
Direct emotion may be considered bold because TV once adhered so slavishly to the ironic kitsch of Seinfeld and The Simpsons, but as Adorno observed, it’s also a value loaded with reactionary history, and today’s buffet of primetime shows is a case-in-point. I have become convinced that we’re living in a TV era not unlike the late 80s. In that time, of course, HBO was shocking people with overtly political fare like Tanner ’88, while mainstream television avoided controversy utterly because (as I have speculated elsewhere) the demographic bump driving Nielsen metrics were late thirties, approaching middle age, and quite simply getting nostalgic.
Today, we have a similar selection. Anodyne comedies like Modern Family and Parks and Recreation present a pleasant, untroubled picture of the present at the same time that nostalgic shows like Glory Dayz (spiritual predecessor: The Wonder Years) present a romanticized past. Glee allows parents to project desired attributes onto their school-age kids. The Office, now far from Ricky Gervais’ unsparing portrayal of the corporate workplace, presents us a picture of American work that is fundamentally benevolent: the crazy bosses are quirky (and backwardly effective!) and careerists like Dwight Schrute are moved to the margins; everywhere, TV tells us, the common sense of the American mainstream prevails.
The late 80s feast of saccharine ended because advertisers became aware (through MTV) of another, younger demographic with their own ideas. If such a demographic existed today, where would they find them?
[Postscript: The obvious answer is that the internet now fills that role. There are cases for and against. For one thing, the internet is a different animal; many things that perfectly suit online behavior (comedy Twitter accounts, casual games) lend themselves poorly to TV formats. Some things, like YouTube Poop and SomethingAwful memes, have a doggedly insular appeal that would be wounded by any compromise.
On the other hand, MTV aired some pretty bizarre shit back in the day. It may be a matter of having TV stations staffed entirely by young people. Young people confuse advertisers, occasionally, into a benign neglect under which programming flourishes. But judging by the past, it can only be a matter of time before the same generation ages, turns against the lack of standards, and becomes incapable of producing or airing innovative shows. What’s to be done? Any idiot can make a movie now, with enough time and low enough standards. Same with a record, same with a book. Those are all engaged media. TV is one of the last remaining fortresses of the gatekeepers, and that sits uneasily beside the spirit of the internet.]
