School of Film and Television Studies

FTVF3F28 / FTVF3F30: Television Sitcom

Spring 2009 Module Organiser:
Brett Mills, A2.54, brett.mills@uea.ac.uk, x2094

Unit Description
This unit explores key topics relevant to understanding and examining television sitcom, primarily though not exclusively focussing on British, contemporary examples. We consider the status of the genre in television culture and broader debates associated with TV Studies. We also map the ways in which the genre responds to and reflects social and historical milieux, and the relationship between British and American programmes, as well as those from other countries. The social functions of comedy and how these relate to the societal roles of broadcasting will be examined. There are several themed case studies such as representations of the family, upset and offence, and issues of ethnicity, gender, class and sexuality. Incorporated screenings may include Hancocks Half-Hour, Only Fools & Horses, Men Behaving Badly, The Office, The Cosby Show, Brass Eye, Green Wing, I Love Lucy, Roseanne, and Friends.

Time Commitment
All students on this module are expected to dedicate at least the following time each week to their studies for this module specifically: Lecture/Screening: 2 hours per week Seminar: 2 hours per week Private Study (including required reading, secondary reading, additional viewings and preparation of written work): 14 hours per week.

Total amount of time dedicated to module: 12 hours per week Aims and Objectives
The unit aims: to introduce students to key debates about television sitcom, in terms of its history, its relationship to genre, and its social functions; to place those debates within broader topics such as Television Studies, the social role of humour, and the entertainment functions of broadcasting; to encourage students to critically examine those debates and the relevant programmes, placing them in appropriate contexts; to develop skills in research, analysis, and presentation, especially those of writing and reading.

Learning Outcomes
Knowledge and Understanding By the end of the unit students should be able to: understand key issues concerning television sitcom; understand sitcom in terms of a range of

relevant theoretical and empirical debates; understand key theoretical debates about the relationships between television and society; undertake their own independent research of relevant literature. Intellectual Skills By the end of the unit students should be able to: apply ideas and concepts in the discussion of television and comedy, and their relationships with society; construct and present coherent and independent arguments. Professional Skills The unit will develop students' ability to: select, sift and synthesize information from a variety of primary and secondary materials; write accurately and grammatically and present written material using appropriate conventions. Transferable Skills The unit will also develop students' ability to: manage a large and disparate body of information; use IT to word process their assessed essays; speak and write cogently about a chosen subject area.

Reading
The module uses a Reader which can be collected from the School Office. You must sign for the Reader and will be charged.

Coursework and Assessment

There are 3 assessments for this unit,: 1. a critical summary of a reading (25%); 2. a small-group assessed discussion in Week 6 (25%); 3. an unseen, closed book exam (50%). All work should be submitted via the FTV School Office (Room A2.40) using the usual essay booking-in system. Penalties for late submission are at <http://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.20814!f41%20csewrkextpenalties.pdf>. Extensions can only be granted for medical or personal reasons for which you can provide the appropriate documentation. Computer problems are not regarded as a valid reason for needing an extension. If you think you need an extension, discuss your circumstances with your seminar tutor and complete one of the extension forms available from the School Office.

The Universitys marking scheme applies to both assignments, and is in the Undergraduate Student Handbook. Note that these criteria suggest that: It is unlikely youll get above 59% unless your work has accurate and full citation and bibliography; It is unlikely youll get above 59% unless your work has careful assessment of evidence and a good use of examples; It is unlikely youll get above 59% unless your work is directly addressed to the question; To get above 69%, your work should have, amongst other criteria, some originality, a wide range of sources, sophisticated use of examples, and excellent presentation. Also, please note the following, which will be taken into account during marking: media is the plural of medium, and there are no such words as mediums or medias; this means television is a medium, while film, television, the internet, and others are, collectively, media; effect is a noun, while affect is a verb; so you write television affects people, while televisions effects are noticeable; in British English, which you are expected to use, program can only ever be used to refer to a computer program; what you watch on television is a programme. Of course, were available for consultation about both of these assessments. Come and see us during our office hours, or book an appointment for a convenient time.

Plagiarism and Collusion

The University takes very seriously cases of plagiarism (the unacknowledged use of another persons work) or collusion (a form of plagiarism, involving unauthorised co-operation between at least two people, with the intent to deceive). The universitys full definitions of plagiarism and collusion are provided below. Students who deliberately plagiarise or collude threaten the values and beliefs that underpin academic work and devalue the integrity of the Universitys awards. In proven cases, offenders shall be punished, and the punishment may extend to failing their degree, temporary suspension or expulsion from further study at the University if the case comes before a Discipline Committee of the University. Plagiarism and collusion, at any stage of a students course, whether discovered before or after graduation, will be investigated and dealt with by the University. See the Universitys Policies at (http://www1.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.20813!f40%20plagcollpolicy.pdf), and the Learning Enhancement Services Plagiarism Awareness Factsheet (http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/services/students/let_service/let_plagiarism _aware). Plagiarism is the unacknowledged use of another persons work. It can take the following forms: the reproduction (or quotation), without acknowledgement, of the work of others (including the work of fellow students), published or unpublished, either verbatim or in close paraphrase, including material downloaded from computer files and the Internet. It can occur in open-book examinations and/or coursework assessments which may take a variety of forms, including, essays, reports, presentations,

dissertations, projects. All work submitted for assessment by students is accepted on the understanding that it is the students own effort without falsification of any kind. Students are expected to offer their own analysis and presentation of information gleaned from research, even when group exercises are carried out. In so far as students rely on sources, they should indicate what these are in accordance with the appropriate convention in their discipline. Collusion is a form of plagiarism, involving unauthorised co-operation between at least two people, with the intent to deceive. It can take the following forms: 1. The conspiring by two or more students to produce a piece of work together with the intention that at least one passes it off as his or her own work. 2. The submission by a student of the work of another student, in circumstances where the former has willingly lent the latter the work, and where it should be evident to the student lending the work that by so doing an advantage is conferred on the other student. In this case both students are guilty of collusion. 3. In cases where there is unauthorised co-operation between a student and another person in the preparation and production of work which is presented as the students own. Various forms of collaborative assessment undertaken in accordance with published requirements evidently do not fall under the heading of collusion.

Week by week schedule

Week 1 What is Sitcom? This session will introduce you to the study of television sitcom, and raise a series of key themes which will run throughout the unit. Key here will be the relationship between comedy, broadcasting, and society, in order to place the programmes that will be discussed in the appropriate societal context. The reasons why examining sitcom matters will be discussed, as will problems of generic definition, which will raise issues to be explored over the subsequent four weeks. Set Readings 1. Mills, Brett (2005) Television Sitcom, London: BFI, pp2639. 2. Grote, David (1983) The End of Comedy: Sit-Com and the Comedic Tradition, Hamden: Archon, pp9-15. Other Readings David, Murray S. (1993) Whats So Funny? The Comic Conception of Culture and Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morreall, John (1983) Taking Laughter Seriously, Albany: State University of New York Press. Palmer, Jerry (1987) The Logic of the Absurd: On Film and Television Comedy, London: British Film Institute. Week 2 Sitcom in Britain and America The two globally dominant sitcom producing countries are Britain and America, and this session will explore the similarities and differences between

their outputs. The sessions main focus will be American remakes of British series, in order to explore the changes which such programming goes through in order to appeal to different markets. The reasons for such changes whether social, historical, or industrial will be explored. Set Readings 1. Butsch, Richard (2005) Five Decades and Three Hundred Sitcoms about Class and Gender, in Gary R. Edgerton and Brian G. Rose (eds.) Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary Television Genre Reader, Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, pp111-135. 2. Critchley, Simon (2002) On Humour, London: Routledge, pp79-91. Other Readings Davies, Christie (2002) The Mirth of Nations, New York: Transaction Publishers. Hamamoto, Darrell Y. (1989) Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal Democratic Ideology, New York: Praeger. Jones, Gerard (1992) Honey, Im Home! Sitcoms: Selling the American Dream, New York: St. Martins Press. Miller, Jeffrey S. (2000) Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Staiger, Janet (2000) Blockbuster TV: Must-See Sitcoms in the Network Era, New York and London: New York University Press. Week 3 American Sitcom: Jewish Comedy A key focus of much analysis of American comedy is its Jewish component. This session will explore exactly what this means, and examine particular examples of sitcom which exemplify it. Questions will be raised concerning the historical factors which have led to this, and the contemporary consequences such comedy might have. In addition, such content will be compared and contrasted with British sitcom, in order to see whether such comedy is primarily American in the manner which is commonly argued. Set Readings 1. Brook, Vincent (2003) Something Aint Kosher Here: The Rise of the Jewish Sitcom, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: Rutgers, pp1-20. 2. Billig, Michael (2005) Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour, London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage, pp37-56. Other Readings Epstein, Lawrence J. (2002) The Haunted Smile: the Story of Jewish Comedians, Oxford: PublicAffairs. Feuer, Jane, Kerr Paul, and Vahimagi, Tise (eds.) (1984) MTM: Quality Television, London: British Film Institute. Zurawik, David (2003) The Jews of Prime Time, Hanover and London: University Press of New England.

Week 4 The Origins of British Sitcom This weeks work will involve examining early examples of sitcom, to look at how the genre developed, in both Britain and America. This will be placed within the context of early television forms as a whole, as well as the radio and theatrical origins of the genre. You will look at how the genre has developed (if at all) since its inception, and relate this to debates about the social role of entertainment covered in week 1. Set Readings 1. Goddard, Peter (1991) Hancocks Half-Hour: A Watershed in British Television Comedy, in John Corner (ed) Popular Television in Britain: Studies in Cultural History, London: British Film Institute, pp75-89. 2. Clark, Michael (1987) Humor and Incongruity, in John Morreall (ed) The Philosophy of Laughter and Humor, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp139-155. Other Readings Baker, James (2003) Teaching TV Sitcom, London: British Film Institute. Cook, Jim (ed.) (1982) B.F.I. Dossier 17: Television Sitcom, London: British Film Institute. Goddard, Peter (1991) Hancocks Half-Hour: A Watershed in British Television Comedy in John Corner (ed.) Popular Television in Britain: Studies in Cultural History, London: British Film Institute. Wagg, Stephen (1992) Youve Never Had it so Silly: The Politics of British Satirical Comedy from Beyond the Fringe to Spitting Image, in Come on Down? Popular Media Culture in Post-War Britain, London and New York: Routledge. Week 5 Adult Animation This week we will explore another recent (primarily American) development in sitcom; that of animation made for adults. Such programmes question high/low culture distinctions, as well as raising questions about adult/childish pleasures. In addition, these series have often caused concern over their representational strategies and the effects they may have on audiences; because of this, a key focus is the social role of comedy and television. Set Readings 1. Farley, Rebecca (2003) From Fred and Wilma to Ren and Stimpy: What Makes a Cartoon Prime Time, in Carol A Stabile and Mark Harrison (eds) Prime Time Animation: Television Animation and American Culture, London and New York: Routledge, pp147-164. 2. Morreall, John (1983) Taking Laughter Seriously, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp20-37. Other Readings Donnelly, Kevin (2001) Adult Animation and The Simpsons and South Park in Glen Creeber (ed.) The Television Genre Book, London: British Film Institute.

Gray, Jonathan (2006) Watching with the Simpsons: Television, Parody and Intertextuality, London: Routledge. Kellner, Douglas (2000) Beavis and Butt-head: No Future for Postmodern Youth in Horace Newcomb (ed.) Television: the Critical View, 6th Edition, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Turner, Chris (2004) Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation, Cambridge: De Capo. Week 6 Tutorial Week Assessed Discussions There will be no class this week. Week 7 Representation and Gender In moving on to look at sitcom and representation, we are entering debates which have often been at the core of the analysis of comedy. This week we will look at how men and women have been portrayed in sitcom, and discuss whether the specifics of comedy and comedic performance might offer different opportunities for portrayal compared to other genres. Set Readings 1. Rowe Karlyn, Kathleen (2003) Roseanne: Unruly Woman as Domestic Goddess, in Joanne Morreale (ed) Critiquing the Sitcom: A Reader, Syracuse: Syracue University Press, pp251-261. 2. Gurevich, Aaron (1997) Bakhtin and His Theory of Carnival, in Jan Bremmer and Herman Roodenburg (eds) A Cultural History of Humour, Cambridge: Polity, pp54-60. Other Readings Finney, Gail (ed.) (1994) Look Whos Laughing: Gender and Comedy, Langhorne: Gordon and Breach. Gray, Frances (1994) Women and Laughter, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Mellencamp, Patricia (1992) High Anxiety: Catastrophe, Scandal, Age and Comedy, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Rowe, Kathleen (1995) The Unruly Woman: Gender and the Genres of Laughter, Austin: University of Texas Press. Week 8 Representation and Race Because of the history of stereotyped and negative representations of certain ethnic groups, comedy has been a key area for debates about the depiction of race. In this session we will examine the relationship between representations of race and sitcom, in particular in terms of representations of black people and culture. Differences between British and American portrayals will be explored, as will the relationship between entertainment and race. Set Readings 1. Coleman, Robin R. Means, and Charlton D. McIlwain (2005) The Hidden Truths in Black Sitcoms, in Mary M. Dalton and Laura L. Linder (eds) The Sitcom Reader: America Viewed and Skewed, Albany: State University of New York Press, pp125-137.

2. Oring, Elliott (2003) Engaging Humor, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp41-57. Other Readings Dines, Gail, and Jean M. Humez (eds.) Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Text-Reader, Thousand Oaks: Sage. Gillespie, Marie (2002) Television and Race in Britain: Comedy in Toby Miller (ed.) Television Studies, London: British Film Institute. Larson, Stephanie Greco (2006) Media and Minorities: Race and Politics in News and Entertainment, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield. Ross, Karen (1996) Black and White Media: Black Images in Popular Film and Television, Cambridge: Polity Press. Week 9 Representation and Sexuality It has been argued that, like race, sexuality has often been a topic of comedy because of its deviant nature in the majority of white, Western societies. This session will explore the ways in which heterosexuality and homosexuality have been portrayed in sitcom, giving this analysis an historical aspect. This will be explored related to camp, and the nature of performance and theatricality, and the differences between British and American portrayals of sex and sexuality. Set Readings 1. Mitchell, Danielle (2006) Straight and Crazy? Bisexual and Easy? Or Drunken Floozy? The Queer Politics of Karen Walker, in James R. Keller and Leslie Stratyner (eds) The New Queer Aesthetic on Television, Jefferson, North Carolina and London: McFarland and Company, pp85-98. 2. Medhurst, Andy (2007) A National Joke: Popular Comedy and English Cultural Identity, London: Routledge, pp111-127. Other Readings Arthurs, Jane (2004) Television and Sexuality: Regulation and the Politics of Taste, Maidenhead: Open University Press. Becker, Ron (2006) Gay TV and Straight America, New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press. Fejes, Fred (2000) Making a Gay Masculinity, Critical Studies in Media Communication 17 (1) 113-6. Feuer, Jane (2001) The Gay and Queer Sitcom, The Unruly Woman Sitcom, and Will and Grace in Glen Creeber (ed.) The Television Genre Book, London: British Film Institute. Week 10 Comic Performance This weeks session will involve looking at acting and performance in sitcom, for multiple reasons. Firstly, we will see how the comic intent of sitcom is signalled by performance. Secondly, we will examine the nature of sitcom actors and stars, and how they differ from performers in other genres. Thirdly,

we will discuss the consequences and origins of comedys particular performance style, and how these relate to issues such as representation. Set Readings 1. Seidman, Steve (2003) Performance, Enunciation, and Self-Reference in Hollywood Comedian Comedy, in Frank Krutnik (ed) Hollywood Comedians: The Film Reader, London and New York: Routledge, pp21-41. 2. King, Geoff (2002) Film Comedy, London: Wallflower Press, pp63-77. Other Readings Dale, Alan (2000) Comedy is a Man in Trouble: Slapstick in American Movies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Krutnik, Frank (ed) (2003) Hollywood Comedians: the Film Reader, London: Routledge. Thompson, Ben (2004) Sunshine on Putty: The Golden Age of British Comedy, from Vic Reeves to The Office, London: Fourth Estate. Week 11 Comedy and Offence This weeks session will involve looking at what happens when audiences are offended by comedy, often resulting in complaints. Considering the social role comedy is often required to fulfil offence may be an unsurprising effect of the genre; however, the social role television is required to play may place limits on sitcoms offensiveness. This session will engage with debates about the consequences of such humour, and explore issues such as regulation, scheduling, protest groups, and historical changes in offensiveness. Set Readings 1. Palmer, Jerry (1994) Taking Humour Seriously, London: BFI, pp161-173. 2. Littlewood, Jane, and Michael Pickering (1998) Heard the One About the White Middle-Class Heterosexual Father-in-Law? Gender, Ethnicity and Political Correctness in Comedy, in Stephen Wagg (ed) Because I Tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics, and Social Difference, London and New York: Routledge, pp291-312. Other Readings Billig, Michael (2005) Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour, London: Sage. Davies, Christie (1990) Ethnic Humor Around the World: a Comparative Analysis, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Lockyer, Sharon, and Michael Pickering (eds) (2005) Beyond a Joke: the Limits of Humour, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Week 12 Summary and Exam Revision In this session we will draw together all the key issues which have been covered throughout the unit, in order to prepare for the forthcoming exam. There will be no screening this week.

NOTE: All content in this handbook is subject to change.

1 0