Chuck Lorre’s Big Bangin’ Sitcoms

The decline of comedies has not stopped Chuck Lorre who has many successful shows under his belt. His style seems to come from the past (especially with the trends of 30 Rock etc). Despite the criticism he garners for not conforming, he effectively juggles two highly rated comedies. Lorre’s sitcoms follow a conventional set up in which multiple cameras are used to get the action of punch-line jokes from characters with contrasting qualities built off stereotypes. Lorre’s signature includes the classical sitcom setup, characters that are polar opposites, and characters that are the epitome of their stereotypes.

Chuck Lorre began his career as a musician without much success. When asked how he made the leap from musician to sitcom producer, Lorre said “I was always enamored of telling stories as a songwriter, and it was a natural inclination to make them funny.” After starting out as a writer for animated series, Lorre got his break as producer for Roseanne. He has gone on and created the shows Grace Under Fire, Cybill, Dharma and Greg, Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory. Even with success, Lorre is known for being angry and lashes out at those who disrespect his shows. At the end of his sitcoms a vanity card is quickly shown in which you can read about Lorre’s rage against critics. His hot temper has resulted in him leaving/being fired from both Grace Under Fire and Cybill after clashing with the shows’ stars. Some of Lorre’s frustrations are embodied in his characters. Evelyn (Charlie and Alan’s mother) on Two and a Half Men is a critical, cold and unlikeable character that is based off Lorre’s mother (who he hated). Despite his rage, Lorre has created a formula for likeable characters whose stories play out in the traditional sitcom arrangement.

The common format of a Chuck Lorre show is the use of the classical sitcom setup. The show is driven by punch lines and is taped in front of a live studio audience using multiple cameras. Newer comedies, like The Office, use a pseudo documentary, single camera setup (which uses many takes) and uses dry comedy. Multiple camera comedies require less takes because many cameras capture different characters at the same time. The shots are edited together later. In an episode of Two and A Half Men titled “The Pink Things with the Coconut,” Charlie comes into the house drunk and yells to the car outside “thanks for the ride,” and then turns and says “and for getting me home too.” Chuck Lorre shows often pause for laughter while showing a medium close up (a shot of a person from the chest up) reaction shot (a shot of a character’s reaction to the dialogue) of the person hearing the punch line. In the reaction shot of this scene Alan looks mad. In The Big Bang Theory episode “Vartabedium Conundrum”, Leonard is being scolded by his girlfriend and when she leaves he delivers the punch line “why do I feel like I just got a prostate exam?” A medium close up shot is then shown of Penny who is smiling while the audience is laughing. The jokes derive from stereotypical and opposing characters.

Another staple of Chuck Lorre’s shows are characters that are polar opposites. In Dharma and Greg, Dharma is a hippie and Greg is conservative. In the opening song Dharma is blowing bubbles and dancing, while Greg is trying to read a stack of papers. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie is a womanizer while Alan is a woman repellent. In the episode “Winky Dinky Time” Charlie gets Alan a prostitute because Alan cannot find a girl for their double date. In The Big Bang Theory, Penny is a pretty airhead, while Leonard and his gang are all geniuses. In the episode “The Gothowitz Deviation,” Sheldon tries to train Penny to exhibit behavior he likes by using tricks. Penny does not realize this and is trained like a dog.

Lorre uses extreme stereotypes in his shows. In The Big Bang Theory Penny is the cool, but ditzy girl, who never understands the jokes. Leonard and his friends are dorks. They make scientific jokes, play video games, and love Star Trek. In the episode titled the “Bat Jar Conjecture,” Penny quizzes Sheldon and Leonard to see who is smarter by asking questions about pop culture, and the two guess using Star Trek characters. In Dharma and Greg, Dharma is a liberal hippie while Greg is a conservative lawyer. In the first episode, Dharma takes Greg to different places and impulsively decides to get on a plane to get pie; while Greg keeps repeating that he has never done anything like this before. Greg is often seen wearing a suit, following a schedule and working. Dharma wears eclectic attire, is a yoga instructor and is spontaneous. In Two and a Half Men, Charlie is the stereotypical bachelor who drinks all the time, wakes up at noon, and sleeps around. Alan is the epitome of a loser who lives with his brother, repels women, and is awkward. Charlie often reminds Alan that he is a loser, which always shuts Alan up. In the episode “I Always Wanted A Shaved Monkey,” Charlie tells Alan that if he wanted his opinion he would ask his ex wife and Alan says he would ask one of the many women Charlie has had sex with if he wanted Charlie’s opinion.

Chuck Lorre's Success shows that the sitcom is not dead. Despite problems with his temper in the past, he effectively juggles two shows by using the classical sitcom setup, in which his characters provide comedy with their stereotypical and opposing qualities.

Works Cited

Littleton, Cynthia. "Chuck Lorre." Variety. 20 July 2009. Variety, Web. 18 Oct 2009.

Rice, Lynette. "It Hurts to Laugh." EW 8 Jan 2007:Web. 24 Nov 2009.

Roush, Matt. "Chuck Lorre." TV Guide. 28 July 2008. TV Guide, Web. 18 Oct

2009.

TV Is Not More Than Mindless Entertainment. Right?

Everyone is a critic. So what makes my criticism relevant? Hopefully I will engage people who follow my blog and make my perspectives on shows clear. With each blog post I want to make my opinions relatable to the readers. You will come to understand how I am situated in the world of criticism by understanding my goals in writing TV criticism, my view of TV as an object of study and how I intend to relate to people following my blog.

Why write TV criticism? O’Donnell (2007) describes that the goal of criticism should be to gain a fuller understanding than just what is presented in a show and relate the meaning to culture (7). Gronbeck and Sillars (2001) explain that the steps to writing criticism are to: describe (way you see the text), interpret (make meaning of the text), and evaluate (provide judgment) (7). Similarly, O’Donnell’s steps include understanding, analyzing, interpreting, and communicating (15). I think the goal of criticism should be to help readers to understand the hidden messages and relate meanings to culture, so I will focus on this idea. An example that comes to mind is when taking a film studies class, we watched Taxi Driver. I did not really like the movie because all I saw was violence, but once we discussed it in class, I gained a new appreciation. The line between right and wrong is blurred because Travis (Robert Deniro) wants to do the right thing by saving Iris (a young prostitute), but he uses a lot of violence. In society doing what is right is not always clear. When the messages in a text are understood, it becomes easier to see its relevance.

We have heard over and over that TV is a waste of time and makes us dumb. If this is the case, why should we spend time criticizing television? Corner (1999) describes that people are concerned with television’s influence on the public. He argues that television creates a substitute for people so they do not have to directly participate in democracy (like going to speeches) (4). I believe this is true in a way, because certain politicians can afford more air- time, or are favored by particular news channels. Corner later argues that a distortion of politics has already happened with other mediators (newspapers, and so on) (6). This leads me to believe that a distortion of politics is not only television’s problem, but also a problem with any text. Corner also argues a displacement of culture arises because spending time watching TV is a waste and it makes people less intelligent (5). I completely disagree. Television may not give the intelligence we value most, but we do gain something each time we watch. Lazily watching a show about wildlife in Spain gives the viewer some knowledge about different kinds of birds like Corner argues. Corner also explains that TV is involved in culture in many ways. People tend to focus on the negative influence of TV (violence for example), but it also impacts the way in which people understand society (6). For example, music and fashion are influenced. In The Real Housewives (of any city), all the women are caddy even in their forties. Female high school viewers with similar experiences may come to understand how unimportant some of their seemingly large problems are by watching these women. Butler’s (2002) idea of polysemy allows viewers to find what is important to them, even if not at the top of the hierarchy of meanings (7). The discourses (previous experiences) viewers bring when watching, engage them in the program (11). I agree with this because we can come to better understanding of our lives by identifying with a show.

I intend to create a deeper understanding of culture and a realization that studying TV is important by relating to readers of my blog. There are three ways according to Brunsdon (1993) that a critic and an ordinary viewer develop a relationship. The first way is a hegemonic relationship, in which the viewer and the critic are kept separate (313). The viewer cannot relate because the material is only relevant to those who have a deep prior knowledge of the scholarly works referenced and the jargon used. When reading Charlotte Brunsdon’s article about feminist television criticism, I did not understand and want to read it because I had no prior knowledge of the articles she mentioned (and did not describe). I also could not understand the terminology she used. A second way that the viewer and the author can establish a relationship is a fragmented relationship (314). In this case the viewer and the author do not need to establish a relationship. I believe readers will not return to this author if there is no connection. In my opinion the best relationship is a transparent relationship. This happens when both the critic and the viewer are on the same side (312). If the criticism is clear and relatable, it will be most effective. An article about a show I am familiar with, that uses vocabulary I can understand, will have more meaning. I plan on relating to people who follow my blog by being careful to sustain a transparent relationship, and encouraging feedback if something is not clear.

TV obviously is more than mindless entertainment. Its impact on culture makes it relevant for everyone. Through my description of my position in the world of criticism, I hope it was made clear that TV has meaning for all.

References

Brunsdon, C. (1993). Identity in feminist television criticism. Media, Culture and Society, 15: 309-320.

Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.

Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes,

Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.