Being ‘good’ in a sitcom

As many people who know me will know, I’m a huge fan of TV, specifically sitcoms and comedy. In fact, I am even interested in the idea of TV ‘morality’ and ‘decency’ and what it means for a sitcom character to be a truly good person and why that may be a rare find.

There could be several reasons for this. Some of the main reasons why not many sitcoms portray genuinely decent, lovely people is unsurprisingly to do with comedy. In fact, some people presume that a show would be less funny or even boring if the characters didn’t say or do some pretty terrible or selfish things or if a show had a cast of good, decent people even though a show with an entire cast of terrible characters probably wouldn’t be thought of as boring. Some may also argue that it helps viewers either feel better about themselves and what they consider to be their shortcomings and/or prejudices. Interestingly, some may believe that it makes it easier to relate to the characters if they’re very flawed as while things often move on and change within shows, the general tone or fundamental aspects of the characters might not change too much. Also, like with real people, there aren’t any totally perfect TV characters and that’s ok.

With shows like It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Seinfeld and Veep, the vibe and feelings towards the plots and characters is different as the writers are deliberately trying to tell stories of selfish, unkind or generally bad people without wanting to show growth or development, which means that you might judge their actions in a different light.

To continue with the Seinfeld and Veep theme, it’s interesting to compare the fictitious Vice President Selina Meyer from Veep (played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus from Seinfeld) with another fictional woman in politics - Leslie Knope from Parks and Recreation (portrayed by Amy Poehler). Both shows deal with American politics in comedic ways but in drastically different styles. 

 Some of the main cast of Veep

For instance, Selina and many of the other characters in Veep are not very nice or moral people (although Selina often isn’t the worst) and many of them speak in inappropriate, almost shocking ways at times. They can also be cutthroat, ruthless, insensitive and selfish about major political issues and huge problems and are not exactly PC or wholesome people. 

Leslie Knope, by contrast, is super positive, enthusiastic and very generous and caring. She’s also a proud, strong feminist and is very ambitious while not losing her more traditionally feminine traits. This isn’t to say that Leslie is perfect but the key thing is that she admits her mistakes and put others first as a lot of her mistakes come from having good intentions (which is not always the case in Veep) and she always makes it right when she messes up because of how much she cares about her town, friendships and relationships. Also, while some of the P and R characters enter into powerful positions, a lot of the show deals with, well parks and recreation, and the local politics of a small Indiana town. This is in contrast to the huge stakes of high-level power and corruption and big consequences that Veep deals with by focusing on the President and Veep of the USA. 

This concept of characters owning up to their mistakes is an interesting one as it definitely doesn’t happen in every show as some don’t want to come off as looking like they’re ‘teaching’ a lesson every episode and some want the characters to look bad on purpose and/or want to highlight future growth. While I get that comedy is often about ‘bad’ people, there’s a big difference between shows that purposefully focus on awful people doing terrible things with basically no growth/redemption and shows that showcase characters doing and saying unforgivable things but still want the viewers to root for them. Therefore, it frustrates me when certain male sitcom characters (and this goes for Glee too) get away with awful things as fans and other characters defend them or downplay their worst actions, whereas genuinely great characters like Jake from Brooklyn 99 and the women on TBBT, HIMYM and Friends are unfairly scrutinised and criticised. It also annoys me when they’re punished in some way or if their mistakes are sometimes focused on by other characters and viewers, rather than looking at all of their really good qualities. 

However, with shows like Parks and Rec and Brooklyn 99 (which are Mike Schur/Dan Goor shows), the tone is kinder and more heartwarming than in most shows (with the exception of some of their mean-spirited treatment of Jerry but even he is rewarded with a happy, satisfying ending, a loving family and home life and some nice friendship moments with some of the leads.) For instance, while the characters are flawed and mess up, it’s not unforgivable as they almost immediately own up to their mistakes to make things right and they’re never past the point of redemption, which shows that growth doesn’t have to be far-fetched and not believable. This is because while they’re flawed, they’re not terrible, bigoted or toxic as they remain decent and well-intentioned even when they mess up. This is perhaps interesting to note as some people try to claim that you can’t have growth if the characters aren’t offensive or horrible to begin with whereas B99 and P and R prove that characters don’t have to be jerks to have growth and development (also, while it wasn’t made by the same people, this is also the case with the Schitt’s Creek characters as they have flaws but they’re not awful and they’re still super funny.) The friendships and romances on these shows are also so much healthier than a lot of sitcoms as they prove that healthy relationships don’t have to be perfect but that solid relationships based on friendship, support, trust and mutual respect are not boring or unfunny. 

 The Rose family from Schitt's Creek <3

The Brooklyn 99 heists are interesting to consider here too as the concept could only really work in a show like Brooklyn 99 (as opposed to a show with characters that aren't often very nice to each other anyway) because it has so much heart and makes a point of establishing decent, kind, good-hearted characters and healthy, wholesome dynamics. This therefore makes the heist episodes stand out as it’s a different side to many of the characters and arguably even subverts and plays with the way that others shows depict characters betraying and treating each other badly for jokes. (Similarly to how most of the treatment of Jerry in 'P and R' demonstrates a a slight change from the often kind and supportive natures of many of the leads.) It also keeps things interesting with twists and turns but you never doubt that the characters still care for and support each other, which isn’t the case with every sitcom. Also, while it sometimes arguably went too far, even for a heist, with some of Amy’s unnecessarily cruel tricks on Jake in S7 and S8 (especially given everything he’s already been through), the heart and sense of family that’s so crucial to the show is never lost.

When it comes to sitcom characters, people are obviously entitled to their own opinion. Some may argue that the actions of fictional characters don’t matter. However, I do think there’s something quite interesting about reflecting on how sitcom characters act as well as the reasoning behind it and how their behaviour is framed. For instance, I’m quite interested in the idea that the way that characters react to each other isn’t always representative of how viewers will respond to or feel about them and doesn’t always tell the full story. For instance, even unbelievably narcissistic characters like Sheldon from TBBT can still somehow be defended by fans and treated well by characters who aren’t much better(and the awesome, overhated women on the show). Alternatively, truly wonderful, extremely selfless characters like Jake from B99 (and pretty great characters like Jonah from Superstore to a lesser extent) can be considered annoying or less intelligent with their amazing qualities and gestures often going unrecognised(sometimes even by truly lovely characters). Equally, if a character is always framed as being right, always gets their way and never has to apologise, some viewers may not be as drawn to them, whereas characters who are treated more harshly or even unfairly within the show may have viewers liking them all the more for it. I also like to reflect on how it affects their relationships and overall arcs going forward and what it says about comedy and the complexities and the good and bad in people. This applies to the more wholesome shows too as even though the characters aren’t real, it’s nice to think about finding a supportive family and being accepted and loved for all that you are.