The Sitcom Theory

A Genre Analysis of “The Big Bang Theory”

           “The Big Bang Theory” is an example of a television program that represents the television genre commonly known as the situation comedy or the sitcom. Jane Feuer states that “the difficulties of genre result from it being used to analyze ‘(1) the system of production, (2) structural analysis of the text, and (3) the reception process’ (144 qtd in Mills 26). Utilizing television studies genre theory and a reception study methodology, I will proceed to analyze how one specific episode of “The Big Bang Theory” represents the situation comedy as a genre and how the television show is situated in said genre. I plan to conduct a reception study in order to determine whether or not audiences are able to situate “The Big Bang Theory” in the sitcom genre, and whether or not they are familiar with the conventions of the genre, as genre theory suggests that audiences are well aware of this television genre’s apparatus. In order to analyze a specific episode of the television program we must first understand the sitcom as a genre in a theoretical perspective and use this foundation to ultimately draw conclusions concerning “The Big Bang Theory” specifically in relation to the genre.

GENRE THEORY:

To begin to understand genre, let us commence by acknowledging Feuer’s writings on the subject. She explains that the “term ‘genre’ is simply the French word for type or kind” (113). When discussing literature, film, or television, Feuer explains that the term genre “takes on a broader set of implications. The very use of the term implies that works […] can be categorized; they are not unique […] a work may be considered to belong to a class of related works” (Feuer 113). Television genres are used to distinguish different television shows from one another but also articulate similarities between television shows that are comparable in style, format, and content. “Genre theory has the task both of making these divisions and of justifying the classifications” (Feuer 113).

Jason Mittell explains that situating television shows into distinct and recognizable genres “is a central component of how television is understood and experienced” for critics, creators, executives, and audiences alike (234). Television genres are used to “distinguish between major types of narratives”, similar to the categorization of literature and film, from which television genres were influenced (Mittell 234).

Feuer asserts that the “most basic program format known to the medium [is] the situation comedy” (120). Mills notes that the “sitcom is a form whose structure and content appears to be merely ‘known’ by both industry and audience, and requires such assumptions in order to be effective” (26). Casey, Casey, Calvert, French, and Lewis say that “comedy is one of the most interesting of television genres in that it is so clearly meant to provide ‘escapist’ entertainment” (40).

The sitcom employs humour to achieve a comedic effect on audiences. Sitcoms are typically half an hour long and air once a week. Each episode presents the same group of core characters, the same familiar settings and locations, and a new issue the character(s) must engage with, react to, and solve throughout the duration of the half-hour, returning to a balanced equilibrium upon episode completion, so as to delve into a new topic the following week. Many television scholars delineate a list of criteria pertaining to the situation comedy.

Feuer says that its “salient features [are] the half-hour format, the basis in humor, the ‘problem of the week’ that causes the hilarious situation [which] will be resolved so that a new episode may come on next week” (120). Mills states that the “characteristics apparent in sitcom are more numerous than those for other genres, incorporating, not only content and narrative structure, but also shooting style, performance style, types of actors, as well as programme length and scheduling” (26). Mills offers a definition of the sitcom from Mintz, who states the sitcom is “a half-hour series focused on episodes involving recurrent characters within the same premise […] episodes are finite; […] solved at the end of the half hour […] The most important feature of sitcom structure is the cyclical nature of the normalcy of the premise undergoing stress or threat of change and becoming restored” (27). Mills goes on to offer a definition by Jones who says the sitcom always has “the same basic structure: domestic harmony is threatened when a character develops a desire that runs counter to the group’s welfare, or misunderstands a situation because of poor communication, or contacts a disruptive outside element” (31). Casey et al. agree that sitcoms “usually adhere to the series format, with each continuing for a limited number of episodes. Individual shows last for thirty minutes at most, are repeated at the same time each week, and centre on the lives and activities of an established core of characters and locations” (41-42). Mittell also asserts that “[a]lthough genres are important to television as more than just part of textual form, television scholars have most commonly considered them as formal elements, along the lines of style and narrative” (Mittell 234). 

While many definitions of the sitcom are far too general, ultimately including other television shows fitting the criteria, which rightfully belong to another genre, others are too specific and deem many definite sitcoms unqualified. “Neale and Krutnik note that the limits of a genre ‘are determined largely by considerations of tone’ […] For them, the sitcom is not defined by a certain narrative structure, but by that narrative structure being motivated towards humour and having the tone of humour. It is usually the treatment of narratives which makes them sitcoms, and not the narratives themselves”. Not only is the script written in a certain way, but it is also “performed, shot and recorded in a certain way […] there is a ‘look’ which is indicative of the sitcom just as there is a visual style associated with many genres” (Mills 31).

  Mittell also points out that one of the major functions of genre in the television industry is “for producers and programmers to more efficiently create and schedule television shows “ (236). Furthermore, viewers are able to plan their television-watching schedule based on these genre groupings. For example, three sitcoms are broadcast on the same network, back-to-back, so audiences will continue watching, while audiences benefit by being offered three shows that are similar in content, structure, format, and delivery, which they can assume they will most likely enjoy.

Sitcoms often employ a formula, which adheres to the criteria listed above. Feuer quotes Cawelti explaining, “a formula is a conventional system for structuring cultural products” (116). Although many sitcoms utilize popular and effective formulas to guide the creation and execution of new television shows, certain elements must change over the years and when designing a show for a different culture, in order to maintain cultural and temporal relevance, as Feuer contends, “film and television […] are culturally specific and temporally limited” (114).

Feuer offers three different perspectives of the situation comedy, provided by different theorists. David Grote puts forth a literary approach to understanding the sitcom stating, “it lacks development of any kind, serving merely to reassert the status quo” (120). Horace Newcomb offers a ritual view. While he agrees with Grote in terms of the genre’s limitations “in its capacity for ambiguity, development, and the ability to challenge our values”, he also provides an understanding of the reassurance the television medium provides for its audience (Feuer 120). David Marc offers an aesthetic approach relating the sitcom form to social satire (Feuer 121). Meanwhile, Feuer presents a synthetic approach, contending that “viewing the sitcom as a genre that did develop, for historical reasons, in the direction of the continuing serial” (121).

While each of these approaches makes a valid argument, it is immediately apparent that there is an overlying notion across the four perspectives. Each statement asserted indicates that the sitcom provides comfort and easy access for audiences in and of the culture for which it has been created. The lack of development Grote discusses, reasserts the status quo, providing a program that adheres to the social norms, and common knowledge of Western society. The sitcom is a product of the dominant ideology and it purges the very ideological messages back upon audiences who are absorbed by the very same ideology. Newcomb states that the sitcom embodies a lack of ambiguity, development, and inability to challenge the mainstream, and also that the sitcom is easily understood by audiences, providing them with a sense of comfort and reassurance. Again, the sitcom is discussed in terms of its loyalty to the dominant ideology and mainstream collective consciousness. Feuer concludes by discussing the sitcom in terms of its historical development and popularity, and the resulting continuing serial, which of course perpetuates alongside the ongoing cyclical motion of Western society who gazes back in on the television, laughing at the very ideologies in which they dwell.

Television genre theorists have found it difficult to establish exactly how television comedy shows, and sitcoms in particular, work (Bignell qtd in Mills), as one of the key reasons for studying the sitcom is to understand “why the genre has maintained its popular cultural position” (Mills 4). In America, in almost every television season the sitcom dominates the network ratings (Hamamato in Mills 4).

Feuer asserts, “a very basic arrangement of plot and character has predominated” (121), when it comes to the situation comedy. Mills discusses the sitcom in regard to audience, suggesting that it can be “investigated as an industrial tool for cohering specific audience groups, with the implication that such groups find similar things funny, and have similar responses to particular character types” (Mills 5). In order to create the broad, cross-generational appeal that many successful sitcoms capture, the television show must present easily understandable narratives, easily identifiable characters, and the show must embody the same values and beliefs held by the majority of audiences. Therefore, the content of the sitcom adheres to the dominant ideology and must refrain from challenging said ideology so as to attract the most viewers. The four perspectives presented by Feuer are accurate as they articulate and argue that the sitcom serves the audience with mainstream content, garnering the most viewers possible, and simultaneously perpetuating stereotypes and other questionable dichotomies of the reigning ideology.

Mills agrees with this theoretical perspective, “for television, which, is usually organized along national boundaries, the kinds of jokes which exist in sitcom reveal that nation’s mass consciousness and the aspects and events of the world which it deems acceptable to laugh at. There is, then, ‘a remarkable parallel between the themes of successful situation comedies and the social history of modern society’ (Paterson 66)” (8). Sitcoms “reflect that which broader society finds normal” (Mills 9), as do some other television genres. The goal of the television show creators is to reach the widest audience possible, so they must attempt to present content that is readily accessible, understandable, identifiable, relative, and “normal” for the masses. Davies and Mills contend, “sitcoms drawing on social norms becomes apparent once societies are compared, and it has demonstrated that the particularities of a culture’s sense of humour are extremely specific and often incomprehensible to other societies” (8). However, many American comedy programmes are popular and comprehensible across the globe, which can be attributed to globalization and cultural imperialism (Strinati, Cantor, Mills 9).

Mills reverses this scenario pointing out that it is not only the sitcom that becomes “representative of a culture’s identity and ideology, it also becomes one of the ways in which that culture defines and understands itself […] [G]roup laughter at a joke serves to signal an agreement about the way things are, should be or are understood to be” (9). He states that comedy constructs a “simplistic version” of “us”, making generalizations in order to apply to more viewers, and “the distinction between social groups is fostered – indeed, is relied upon – for the success of sitcoms which target specific audiences”; comedy highlights “distinctions between social groups that it is often criticized for creating or upholding unhealthy divisions within society, particularly through the use of comedy which can be defined as ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’” (Mills 11). The sitcoms do present stereotypical versions of individuals in television narratives to create a comedic effect, and often prey on racist and/or sexist material, but it is significant to note that it is the realities of society and the hegemonic ideologies of the mainstream that are being represented on television. The fact that the comedy on television perpetuates this notion of stereotyping is merely a mirror reflection of societal and cultural beliefs whether people are able to admit it or not. These shows are not criticizing racial others or women, they are criticizing the mainstream for upholding these racist and/or sexist beliefs.

The relationship between industry and audience “in which texts offered as entertainment demonstrate the kinds of audiences that industry imagines their viewers to be, […] has led to the primary way in which sitcom has been explored; what it says about representation […] the ways in which individuals and groups are presented to mass audiences” (Mills 7). For television shows and television representations to “be successful - and by successful, what is meant is easily understandable – they must conform to and utilize normalized social conventions” (Medhurt and Tuck qtd in Mills 7).  The sitcom intends to create comedy. Therefore, Medhurt and Tuck insinuate, “immediacy is imperative, and to find a character immediately funny that character must be a recognizable type, a representative embodiment of a set of ideas or a manifestation of a cliché” (Mills 7).

Mills continues his discussion of the sitcom and the ensuing “debates about the nature of humour” that “consistently highlight its simplicity, its immediacy and its limitations, to the extent that its assumed that the ways in which comedy works must therefore be quite simple” (7). Humour, like any transmitted message, relies on both the sender to encode the message, and the receiver to decode the message. Mills examines this relationship in the context of the sitcom, “humour relies on both the relationship between the teller and the audience for its effects, which means that comedy must be examined as a social and cultural phenomenon” (8).

Mills delves in to a discussion regarding comedy’s attempt to critique the world we live in, “while sitcom often does attempt to make serious statements about the world, politics and society, it repeatedly downplays the significance of its statements because they are presented through the mode of humour” (Mills 33). This is imperative to the study of the sitcom and comedy in general, as the humour, in a way, allows these blunt and subversive critiques, yet the humour simultaneously detracts from the message’s validity, reliability, and overall significance.

METHODOLOGY: Reception Study

The methodology employed in order to derive further in-depth analysis is a study of reception. The questionnaires disseminated to participants consist of five open-ended, interview style questions. The questionnaires were disseminated to six participants. The participants were selected regardless of having seen the show prior to the study or not. The age of each participant ranges from 20-55, as the television show has been well received across this age range, I thought it would be beneficial and informative to ask a range of age groups their opinion. One female and five males volunteered to participate in the study. Three participants were sent the questions and episode via email and responded once their portion was complete. Three participants watched the episode together and proceeded to complete the questionnaire individually after watching the episode. Some participants had already seen this episode. Some participants had never seen an episode prior to the study.

Please find below the five interview questions posed to each participant:

1. Did you enjoy the episode? If so, what did you like about it? If not, what didn’t you like about it?

2. Had you ever seen an episode of “The Big Bang Theory” before this study? Did you find that the episode relied on back-story and narrative information from past episodes in order to fully understand this episode? Explain.

3. Who would you recommend this show to? What age range? Why?

4. Does this show remind you of any other television programs (in terms of format, style, content, characters, etc)? Explain.

5. Which genre do you think “The Big Bang Theory” belongs to? Why? What elements of this episode situate the show in this genre category? Explain.

Please refer to the APPENDIX to view the participant responses.

ANALYSIS:

“The Big Bang Theory” is an excellent example of the situation comedy genre based on the academic sources examined and the reception study conducted. The program is quickly and easily identifiable as a situation comedy to study participants, and it does not deviate from or challenge what has been said about the genre. The narrative and style aligns closely with other situation comedies which participants were easily able to identify and compare. The episode is easily understandable in isolation and does not rely on previous knowledge from previous episodes and/or seasons.

Based on the participants in the study, the show is fairly well received across all age groups, and most participants would recommend the show for viewers as young as fourteen and as old as sixty years old.

The show utilizes stereotypes pertaining to race, religion, and gender to communicate clearly and make easily understandable the narrative and the embedded comedy. The characters in the show are easily identifiable and understandable archetypes, and many characters are seen interacting with another character who resembles their polar opposite character type, for example Amy, who is socially inept genius, and Penny, who is a popular, attractive girly-girl. By presenting an array of character types, sitcoms are able to provide audiences with a range of possible characters to relate to or identify with.

The program follows the conventional format of the sitcom. A laugh track or live audience is used throughout and the characters each pause after jokes for audience response. The episode consists of the five core characters: Leonard, Penny, Sheldon, Raj, and Howard. The marginal characters who have already been introduced to the show in previous episodes who appear in this episode include Amy, Bernadette, and Will Wheaton. These characters are introduced in earlier episodes, but their relationships to the core characters are restated in order to explain their role in the confines of one episode, so as to comply with the finite episode convention of the sitcom. Bernadette is dating Sheldon. Amy is dating Howard. Will Wheaton is a “pseudo-celebrity” who Sheldon despises.

In terms of format, style, content, characters, etc., the participants agree that the show is reminiscent of other sitcoms in that it is “based on a group of friends discussing social conventions and practices, making ‘bazingas’ off of pop-culture” (Brandon Moore); “based on a group of friends both male and female and revolve around various situations and how the characters deal with the situation” (Matt Moore).

Study participants recognize each of the characters as a conventional archetype of the sitcom genre: nerd, popular girl, bully, and so forth. The friendships and relationships are reminiscent of other television shows such as “Friends”, “Seinfeld”, “That 70s Show”, and “How I Met Your Mother”. One participant even related the show to “Happy Days” (Jacquie Moore), which demonstrates that the older audience members have an array of access points that they can engage with, in order to understand the show and identify with the narrative. One participant stated that this episode is reminiscent of every sitcom he has ever seen in that it employs “the banter, jokes, story arcs, character interaction” (Matt Poole) which are recognized, easily understood, and utilized in this television genre.

The episode includes pop-culture and mass media references to “Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Arc”, Star Trek, Wikipedia, and Twitter, which each of the participants understood and commented on. Again, these moments of intertextuality allow a range of viewers to engage and interact with the new material. The participants stated that they would recommend the show to 14-60, 17-45, 18-60, under 60, and 15-40. Outside research shows that the show is well received and watched by the largest demographic in the history of the sitcom, ages 18-54, so the participants’ responses are accurate in suggesting which age groups would enjoy the show. The reasons given for suggesting these age groups include: technological references such as Twitter and Facebook would not be understood by anyone older than 60; the language is mild allowing older and younger audiences to enjoy; sexual innuendos are able to go over children’s heads and appeal to this age group; pop-culture references appeal to this a wide age group as some speak to younger audiences, and others may speak to older audiences; the show is easy to understand and familiar as it remains consistent with the typical sitcom format, style, and structure.

The participants understand the conventional format and structure of a sitcom. They recognize that “The Big Bang Theory” is undoubtedly a situation comedy as it is funny, presents jokes, remains in one or two familiar locations, featuring a core group of main characters, is 30 minutes long, provides clever writing, situations the audience can relate to, use of satirical humour, intertextuality and references to pop-culture and sitcom storylines, and the use of archetypal characters.

The only back-story/narrative information from previous episodes and/or seasons is fully explained in the episode, for example, the past relationship between Penny and Leonard is commented on throughout the episode, providing each characters’ current feelings, and so forth. The participants who had not seen the show prior to the study were easily understand the back-story between Penny and Leonard, as noted in their responses.

Moving beyond the participants’ responses, it is significant to mention some of the elements of “The Big Bang Theory” that were not commented on. The episode selected may not have been the most suitable episode to derive responses pertaining to the race stereotypes. Rajesh “Raj” Koothrappali is originally from New Dehli, India, and his background is often a topic of discussion. Also, Howard Wolowitz is Jewish and this too is often a point of discussion amongst the characters. Raj looks like and sounds like the stereotypical representation of an Indian person, and Howard looks like the stereotypical representation of a Jewish person. Additionally, both of these two characters’ parents have appeared on the show in the past (again, not this episode which the participants responded to). Raj’s parents live in India and they communicate via webcam. They are always pushing him to excel in his work, making fun of his current standing as an astrophysicist. They are also always pushing him to find a nice Indian girl, scolding him for taking Penny out in a past episode. His parents also represent the stereotypical version of what Western society understands as Indian. Meanwhile, Howard’s mother has never been shown on screen, but she is always hollering upstairs to him while he is in his bedroom. She yells outrageous and inappropriate things that have been the basis of comedy when he has had a girl over in the rare occasion as she blurts embarrassing and personal things to her son. She has the stereotypical raspy accent, and the other characters have imitated her for a laugh.

Some of the participants commented briefly on the show’s employment of “archetypal” characters, but they neglected to discuss the sexist preoccupations regarding the different portrayals of Penny, Amy, and Bernadette. Penny is Leonard’s dream girl. She is beautiful by North American standards, she is socially popular and “cool”, and she is significantly less intelligent than Leonard and his surrounding circle of friends. This is of course the premise of the show, as the awkwardly hilarious situations unfold as socially inept Leonard, Sheldon, Raj, and Howard make contact with a socially relevant girl. However, I was surprised to find that none of the participants commented on this stereotypical presentation of women. In contrast, the show portrays all of the intelligent women as equally socially awkward as Leonard and his friends, and they are all unattractive. Amy, Howard’s girlfriend, is the only female who is somewhat socially aware, and attractive, and smart, and she is fairly new to the group. However, she too is at times portrayed to be slightly bubbly and spacey.

Perhaps my interview questions were not direct enough to derive such specific responses. It was my intention to leave them fairly open-ended in hopes to garner an assortment of opinions, however, it seems that some of the information I was hoping to extract was overlooked, while the responses I did receive were all relatively similar. The information collected was relevant and helpful during my analysis, but much of the content I would have liked to discuss was dismissed, as I had rearticulated my arguments throughout the course of the project. However, by pointing out some of the key aspects of the episode that prove that sitcoms perpetuate the beliefs and values of the dominant ideology, while also proving that audiences recognize and understand the sitcom as a distinct genre, I have demonstrated that the collective knowledge of television audiences identify with, and agree with the representations depicted in situation comedies, therefore conforming to the dominant ideologies of Western society. 

Works Cited

Casey, Bernadette, Neil Casey, Ben Calvert, Liam French, and Justin Lewis. Television

Studies: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print.

Feuer, Jane. “Genre Study and Television”. Channels of Discourse: Television and

Contemporary Critics. North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 1987.

Mills, Brett. Television Sitcom. London: British Film Institute, 2005. Print.

Mittell, Jason. Television and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Print.

“The 21-Second Excitation.” The Big Bang Theory. CBS. California. 11 Nov. 2010. Television.