Industries: How to Narrate a Sitcom Episode (and how everyone does it...)

Warning: if you are doing your GCSEs in Summer 2023, parts of this post are not relevant to your upcoming exams. You can still read the parts on Friends but must ignore the remarks on Modern Family. Remember what Steve Neale said? He said that genre is instances of repetition and difference. Re-read this post if you'd like a full refresher, but simply put: products in a genre tread a fine line - they have to be just similar enough to other products to be familiar, but just different enough to be worth consuming. Hall would remind us that sitcom writers want us to have the preferred reading of the product (you can re-read Hall here) and getting that balance between similar and different right is important.

Pay attention to this image. I'll use it every time there's a similarity between the two sitcoms that you should take note of.

It's amazing how similar you can get before anyone notices. Sitcoms can take place in the same city, for example. Lots of sitcoms take place in New York, Friends being just one. One huge similarity (or, to use the proper term, a convention) between sitcoms that nobody questions is the narrative. Writers stick to a broadly similar narrative between sitcoms as their point of familiarity for audiences. The difference tends to be offered in the characters. As you may have gathered, we're going to be drawing upon all the narrative theories we've learned so far - I'll link the relevant posts and advise you to re-read them if you need a reminder. I'll also be making direct reference to your set texts, which are Friends (Season 1, Episode 1 aka The Pilot, The First One or The One Where Monica Gets a New Roommate) and Modern Family (Season 8, Episode 2, A Stereotypical Day). Friends is available on Netflix, Modern Family on Disney+. If you are having issues accessing either of these for your revision, please let me know.

The Set Up or Disruption

Todorov (reminder here if you need it) said that narratives always begin with an equilibrium that is disrupted. Sitcoms are no different - they will, invariably, begin with 'just another day' before things quickly become disrupted. This happens in both shows, although there's a bit of a difference between Friends and Modern Family: your Friends episode is the pilot, that is, the episode that would have been shown as a demo or preview to TV networks before the full series was made. This means the disruption comes a bit later in Friends because it has to spend the first part of the episode introducing its characters and setting. The plot only really gets going when Rachel enters. Your episode of Modern Family is in Season 8, so there's no need for introductions - the disruptions (Alex's illness, Lily's new friend and Jay's new neighbours) all appear shortly after the characters themselves do.

Nevertheless, both sitcoms similarly start with 'just another day' - in Friends, the friends are hanging out in Central Perk, while in Modern Family each family is getting ready for the day ahead. It's in this comfortable time when we like routine and things to run as normal that the disruptions are funniest.

Narrative Hooks (aka the Enigmas)

Sitcoms normally resolve most disruptions within the episode. Good writing sets up questions that we want answered and answers these questions before the end. Barthes called these his enigmas (and you can get a reminder here). It's this promised resolution that keeps us watching. We want to know: In Friends: - Will Rachel return to Barry or leave him for good?

- Will Ross get over his divorce from Carol?

- Will Monica and Paul's relationship blossom? In Modern Family: - How will Alex respond when learning Caltech have fired her? - Why did Lily call Tom a weirdo? How will this be resolved? - What will be the outcome of Manny's new lifestyle? - What will Jay's relationship with his new neighbours be?

Notice the similarities - our questions are often about how characters' relationships will be different by the end of the episode or how conflict between characters will be resolved. Sometimes, longer running products will also leave some questions open. In Friends for example, Ross and Rachel's relationship is an unanswered question - one that would take 10 series to answer! Equally, your episode of Modern Family is just one more in Lily's life, which audiences have charted from birth - a story still being told at the time of your episode.

The Comic Trap, The Fish Out of Water and the Circular Narrative

There's some overlap with the disruption here. The disruption normally traps the character (usually in a situation, but sometimes literally in a place) in such a way that they want to escape. Similarly, characters can find themselves in a situation that's very unfamiliar, unusual and totally out of their comfort zone - a so-called 'fish out of water,' unable to cope.

Keeping a fish out of water for real would be cruel. In this humorous clipart, it's amusing, as we're sure the fish will be put right back... right?

Their discomfort in being trapped in a situation that makes them uncomfortable gives us a sense of schadenfreude or 'enjoyment of suffering' - I talk more about this in the post on Maslow but in brief, some of the humour in sitcoms comes from watching character suffer. There is a safety in this humour (and quite often, the situations wouldn't be funny in the real world) because we know the characters aren't real and that the situation will be resolved. At the end of the episode, we mostly return to the same equilibrium that we had at the start. Sitcoms almost hit a big 'reset' button by the next episode at the latest. Situations usually don't carry over into the next episode. This makes storytelling easier and lets us put those characters in whole new situations next time. If you want some extra reading, Dyer would have a lot to say about this. Sitcoms can do this in a jarring way sometimes: sitcoms can see the characters all die horribly at the end of one episode, only to return safe, well and with zero reference to the incident next week. As some examples: In Friends: - Rachel feels trapped in her marriage to Barry. Having to cut herself off from her Dad makes her a fish out of water. - Both Ross and Monica feel trapped in the single life, especially Ross who, out of marriage, feels like a fish out of water. Can you think of how Joey, Phoebe or Chandler are trapped? In Modern Family: - Alex is trapped by illness and career worry. - Phil is literally trapped in the closet and then later by his experiences. - Mitchell and Cameron are trapped by their inability to accept that Lily's views may differ to theirs. They have the 'fish out of water' feeling in this scenario. Can you think of how Manny, Lily or Jay are trapped?

Notice the similarities between the two - lots of the feelings of entrapment come from being single, worrying about our jobs or worrying what other people think of us.

The Family Dynamic and Propp

Think about the stereotypical, 'nuclear' or '2.4. child' family as it can be called: mother, father, son, daughter (possibly a baby) and pet. The Simpsons are a perfect example. All sitcoms have a family dynamic. You'd think that obvious in a show called Modern Family and you might also think about Ross and Monica being brother and sister in Friends, but that family dynamic has nothing to do with actually being related - it means the roles that characters play and their relationships and how that remind us of members of a stereotypical (and usually quite broken or dysfunctional) family.

Monica doesn't become an ACTUAL mum until MUCH later in Friends - but she's the show's mother figure. She gives out advice and support (especially emotional) to all the characters like a mother would. But remember, she isn't ANYONE's mother in the set episode!

That is to say that every episode usually has a character being a mother figure. Similarly, characters might also behave as we'd expect a father, brother, sister or pet to behave even if that isn't their actual relationship to the other person - and in all cases, they do it badly, incorrectly or with disastrous consequences, all of which are funny. Roles can change from scene to scene. For example, Joey gives Ross some almost fatherly (and bad) advice about women in his apartment, but behaves like an annoying little brother when Monica learns that Paul is a liar. With Modern Family it's hard to separate the actual family members from the roles. Remember a mother doesn't always behave as a mother. Consider that Claire is the actual mother of the family, but it's Alex who behaves as we'd expect a mother to. Phil, despite being the actual father of the family, behaves more like a helpless younger child.

Notice, though, that both sitcoms have those figures. Just as Alex is motherly in Modern Family, so is Monica motherly in Friends. Those aren't the only examples: can you think of characters in both sitcoms who fulfil the roles of father, brother, sister or even baby or pet? That's not all. Characters can also take on Propp's character roles (reminder here). You might remember that just like the family dynamic, Propps roles can move from character to character between or even during scenes. I won't spell them out for you here, so will instead leave you to have a think: where do you see Propp's character roles in our two episodes? What are the similarities? Do you see all the roles, or are some missing because these aren't fairytales?

The Binary Oppositions

Remember that Lévi-Strauss said narratives are driven by binary oppositions (or if you don't remember, you can read again here). In sitcoms, the huge difference between situations, places, people and events can be a source of humour. In Friends: - Consider how spoilt rich girl Rachel contrasts with the other friends, all working hard in jobs they (mostly) don't like for little money. - Consider the failure of Ross and Rachel's relationships versus the seeming success of Monica's date with Paul. Can you think of how a binary opposition exists between Ross and Joey? In Modern Family: - Consider how Manny's new-found Communist beliefs put him at odds with the rest of the world. - Consider how Mitchell and Cameron's beliefs are contrasted with what they assume Lily's to be. Can you think of any other binary oppositions in this episode?

Notice the similarities: binary oppositions often arise from characters' love lives, wealth or beliefs and attitudes.

In Summary

Even though Neale says we need some similarity within a genre, sitcoms can have a surprising amount in common, not least of all their narrative. Sitcoms usually: - Open with an equilibrium that's disrupted (Todorov)

- Have narrative hooks or enigmas - questions we want answered by the end of the episode. (Barthes) - Have a comic trap or 'fish out of water' moment that the character(s) must navigate - but one that's usually resolved by the end in a circular narrative. (Maslow and Todorov)

- Have a family dynamic, with characters taking the roles of members of a typical family (e.g. father, mother, son, daughter, baby, pet) - remember that even though there are actual family roles in Modern Family, mothers don't always behave as mothers etc!

- Are driven by binary oppositions. (Lévi-Strauss)