Posted on 05/06/2004 9:44:11 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
If you never pick up a newspaper, turn on the television, or listen to the radio, you just might have missed the news that NBC’s situation comedy Friends is ending its ten-year run. The media is giving this event about as much coverage as it would give the second coming of Christ—maybe even more. USA Today alone has published so many features on the show in the past several months that NBC ought to have the paper on its payroll as a publicity agent.
The popular show about six glamorous and appealing young New Yorkers is widely seen as a cultural milestone. Perhaps the most bizarre sign of the show’s perceived importance was a rash of articles that came out not long after September 11, celebrating Friends as the kind of “comfort TV” that would help us all feel normal again.
And while that’s debatable, for sure, no one can deny that Friends has had a deep impact—deep, but regrettably not very positive.
Look at some of what are considered the show’s classic moments: a lesbian wedding (in which the ex-husband of one of the women gave her away); a drunken Las Vegas wedding that soon ended in divorce; various premarital sexual relationships and partner swapping; and one character’s foray into unwed motherhood—the television kind of motherhood, that is, where the baby hardly ever inconveniences anyone or even shows up. Nearly every week, using winsome characters, the show reached levels of vulgarity and sexual frankness that continued to define deviancy downward.
Am I—like the media—taking Friends too seriously? After all, it’s only supposed to be comic relief. But comedy is what made the show so dangerous. Comedy gets under our radar in a way that political debates don’t.
Consider a study commissioned by the RAND Corporation and published in the journal Pediatrics a few months ago. The researchers came to the incredible conclusion that Friends and shows like it were useful for sex education, because teenagers remembered their sexual messages so well. The fact that these messages were unhealthy somehow escaped the researchers’ notice. And this is all the more disturbing since a large percentage of Friends’s audience is teenagers and even preteens. And for an increasing number of them, nobody is stepping in to counteract the sexual lessons that they’ve learned from Friends.
It’s hard to argue that Friends presented a false picture of what goes on in our culture. Premarital sex is widespread among both adults and teens—even in the church. But the real problem with Friends was that it made this kind of lifestyle look like fun. Even a show like Sex and the City, with all its bed-hopping, showed someone getting hurt once in a while. On Friends, by contrast, it was all in good fun. No sexual relationship was ever so damaging that it couldn’t be healed by a new one within the next few weeks. That’s a picture that has nothing at all to do with reality.
Yes, the critics are right, as overblown as they sometimes sound: Friends has left a lasting mark on our popular culture. And Christian parents, pastors, and youth ministers need to face up to the damage and step up to the task of reconstruction.
All sitcoms, good or bad, use either a large studio audience or a laugh track. Early on in the advent of TV it was found that most people have a strong "laugh barrier" that can only be overcome by the presence or simulated presence of a large, laughing crowd. If the laugh barrier isn't broken, those who watch the show usually don't laugh or even think it's funny, no matter what the quality is. Heck, even the Dick Van Dyke Show and Mary Tyler Moore had laugh tracks.
Interesting point.
Those shows (especially arrested) are brilliant. Frazier's also very well done.
Me. I'm guessing that the show has done well because it has really attractive people. It might also appeal to those who like the soap opera type of show.
With the exception of "Newhart", the Finales of the "big" shows have been very lame (MASH, Seinfeld, Cheers). I will not bother to see this one.
Besides, my daughter has a basketball game tonite that I'm looking forward to seeing.
Um...? What in the world?
This show is entertainment, and it delivered exactly that. "M*A*S*H" did not glorify war, or cross-dressing.
No, it didn't, but it portrayed war, communism/capitalism, America and her Army in a way that conformed to a very liberal view of the world. It was to war what The West Wing is to conservatism: It describes a world far different from the real one in order to score points for an ideology. In the West Wing world, socialism works like a charm and the only reason someone like Dr. Laura would criticize the gay agenda is if they're a hateful bigot. In the MASH world, communism is just another point of view, South Korea wasn't worth defending (and of course, neither was Viet Nam) and only a bigoted, cowardly, fundamentalist twit like Frank Burns would be interested in fighting a philosophy that had already killed tens of millions in the Soviet Union. If you've seen or read Band of Brothers, ask yourself this: How many MASH characters who showed any enthusiasm for fighting Communism would be fit to shine Major Dick Winter's boots? How many would be fit to shine Pat Tillman's? A message of "war is funny" was not being sent, but a message was being sent nonetheless.
The "sex with no consequences" message of Friends is just as silly as it would have been for MASH to portray a war without casualties. And while there may not be someone sitting in a room at NBC thinking, "How can I tell preteen girls to get laid this week?" there is a "zero consequences" message being sent, just like a war movie that shows only glory with nobody dying on either side.
Did you see his sketch where he showed what he'd do if he was our ambassador to the UN?
Surely, you jest! Blech!
Mr. Roger's frequented the land of 'make believe' with puppets, and a talking trolley.
and only a bigoted, cowardly, fundamentalist twit like Frank Burns would be interested in fighting a philosophy that had already killed tens of millions in the Soviet Union.
Frank Burns was the effigy of many people who are craven, backstabbing cowards; who desire nothing more than power and the chance to abuse such.
This appears to be a simple case of you reading characters and situations differntly than I. I saw MASH as a case where MD's were forced into hell; one that they had no wish to be in, that was often pointless, and stupid. The Korean conflict had ample examples of pointless battles, and stupid decisions. I didn't take away a 'Communism is a different point of view' message. The war could have been totally fictional; and the show would have been just as entertaining.
On the other hand, Band of Brothers DOES tell the tale of an actual war. The show is absolutely flawless, the stories are true and these people did exist. Band of Brothers is not a comedy, nor is it intended to be humorous in any sense of the word. These men are heros in every sense of the word; and a credit to the nation. MASH is fictional, the characters do not exist, and the stories are intended soley for entertainment. The funny thing about humor is; if there isn't some truth to the joke, it's not funny.
Don't need to be black to pull that one off. The routine where he quit his show and they gave it to Wayne Brady was pretty funny, too.
Yuck. And then some.
Johnny, I think we have the quote of the day.
"Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman" did not have a laugh track, and I thought it was hilarious. Just goes to show that good writing doesn't need to prompt the audience.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.