Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The other day, I read a comment about the nature of British comedy TV series as compared to American ones. The observation was thus; in American comedies, the comedy always takes place in what you might call an 'aspirational setting'. That is to say, the locations/sets tend to be big comfortable houses or important places, the people in them tend to have successful careers, the people financially well off and (for the most part) attractive. British comedy shows meanwhile, tend to be far more focused upon gritty down to earth settings/jobs/characters.

Thinking it over, I realised that most American comedies you see, from The Big Bang Theory, to Parks and Recreation, to the ubiquitous Friends, American shows do seem to have an inclination in that direction. Meanwhile, back in Britain, from Only Fools and Horses, to Bottom, to the IT crowd, the characters are generally portrayed much more as poor/socially dysfunctional/unsuccessful at life.

So I'm curious. American and Brit alike, would you agree that this is the case? If so, where do you think this difference in style originates from? And do you consider it as being a good or bad thing? Discuss.

I can't say I've seen a lot of british comedy series (just old stuff like monty python and black adder).

I don't follow a lot of American comedies (BBT, P&R, F, etc), but I do have a great fondness for it's always sunny in Philadelphia, and the gang certainly isn't very well off or have successful careers. Perhaps that isn't the norm for America, though, and perhaps that's why I enjoy it more.

I mean, I'd say a lot of comedies everywhere rely on people who are dysfunctional one way or another. There's a lot of humor to be found there.

I'm not sure if that's a rule or not - I mean, I can think of exceptions to it on both sides (Brooklyn 99, where the main character is terrible with money and several episodes reference characters living in bad apartments; Community, where pretty much everyone had some major financial/social issues - except Pierce, who made up for his riches with literally everything else about himself; the first three seasons of Blackadder, which literally take place in royal courts; and the Vicar of Dibley, where...I don't think anyone was less than successful, but it's a much gentler comedy than the other three), but I don't know if they disprove the rule or they actually are exceptions to it.

A reflection of life there. In the US we enjoy our big open spaces and provided you aren't in big expensive urban areas it isn't that expensive most places. My co-worker had family come visit his $1300 a month 3 bedroom apartment from Mass. The kids though he was in Miami Vice or something by all the palm trees and big pools around the complex and how much space there was. Big Bang can be explained off-screen as they are both high level doctors and as roommates bring in fairly big paychecks(big enough they shouldn't need to have roomates). I also think its we like seeing bright colorful sets. I have seen the IT Crowd and other British shows and have been turned off by how boring the sets were. Parks and rec looks like many small towns in the US and reflects how fun we wish those jobs were. Hell, until our boss stepped in and ended 6 years of decorations, my office techroom had multiple flags on the walls, latest target shooting accomplishments, and ubiquitous "I love me" walls at every bench. Its been taken down but thanks to a union loop hole I still have Star Wars bobble head toys on my work bench standing vigil while I work. Just my observation anyway.

 Spinner wrote:
I mean, I'd say a lot of comedies everywhere rely on people who are dysfunctional one way or another. There's a lot of humor to be found there.

Perhaps 'socially dysfunctional' isn't phrasing it the best way. You're right, Sheldon Cooper of Big Bang Theory, to seize an example, easily qualifies as that. But he's also successful (career-wise), surrounded by friends and family who all like and appreciate him (if barely at times), is clearly doing well for himself financially, and so on. Meanwhile, on the flip side, you have Maurice Moss of the IT crowd, a very similar character in terms of disability, who lives with his mum, works in a tiny office underground, and whilst blessed in his workmates, certainly doesn't do as well for himself as Dr Cooper.

To take another example, Roy Swanson of Parks and Recreation, and Ricky Gervais of The Office are both at managerial level. Both are socially dysfunctional, but one is portrayed as more of a 'manly' stereotype, whilst the other one is something of an awkward sad tit. In both comedies again, the setting difference is striking (a very comfy government run office against a block in dreary Slough.

I'm not saying it is the case, quite the contrary, just that in my experience of American comedy, it tends to be the case. So I'm interested to see if it's just me (and I haven't watched enough American comedy), if it's more of a general trend.

I think the OP's comparison is generally accurate, but it wasn't always the case. The TV I grew up with had a balance of shows that depicted wealth and poverty. In the 70's and 80's we had shows like All in the Family, Sanforn & Son and Roseanne which depicted more middle class, or really, lower-middle class families. A lot of the shows' comedy situations came from the characters' poverty, so it was a constant theme on those programs. That isn't to say there weren't shows on during that period where wealthy characters were the focus. The Cosby show is a great example of a family living well in a large house with nice furnishing and which the parents had respectable careers (doctor and lawyer). Silver Spoons and Different Strokes are other examples.

Then again, going way back to the start of TV, there was the Honeymooners whose characters lived in a crap apartment, and not much later I Love Lucy where there was some implied money issues early in the show, but where Ricky Ricardo is a successful entertainer who continues to do well for himself so that by the end of the series he moves his family and neighbors out to the country for a leisurely life.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a post-90's comedy that has dealt with poverty (Grace Under Fire maybe?). I wonder if the economic boom of the 90's helped push the focus from "average" American characters on TV to aspirational ones that at the time reflected the growing wealth of the country. Then with the reality TV craze of the early aughts pushing the culture to obsess even more with glitz and celebrity, perhaps producers of American TV think that Americans aren't interested in seeing characters struggle financially on TV.

Personally, I'd like to see more shows that feature characters living in a gak-hole apartment or who can't make rent (and aren't magically saved in the 22nd minute of the show). There is something cathartic about seeing your own struggles portrayed on television. It would be nice to return to settings outside of posh apartments or Malibu beach-side mansions.

It isn't just comedy, I've also seen that observation made about soaps. American Soaps are aspirational things like Dallas and Sunset beach, while UK soaps are EastEnders and Coronation Street.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think the OP's comparison is generally accurate, but it wasn't always the case. The TV I grew up with had a balance of shows that depicted wealth and poverty. In the 70's and 80's we had shows like All in the Family, Sanforn & Son and Roseanne which depicted more middle class, or really, lower-middle class families. A lot of the shows' comedy situations came from the characters' poverty, so it was a constant theme on those programs. That isn't to say there weren't shows on during that period where wealthy characters were the focus. The Cosby show is a great example of a family living well in a large house with nice furnishing and which the parents had respectable careers (doctor and lawyer). Silver Spoons and Different Strokes are other examples.

Then again, going way back to the start of TV, there was the Honeymooners whose characters lived in a crap apartment, and not much later I Love Lucy where there was some implied money issues early in the show, but where Ricky Ricardo is a successful entertainer who continues to do well for himself so that by the end of the series he moves his family and neighbors out to the country for a leisurely life.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a post-90's comedy that has dealt with poverty (Grace Under Fire maybe?). I wonder if the economic boom of the 90's helped push the focus from "average" American characters on TV to aspirational ones that at the time reflected the growing wealth of the country. Then with the reality TV craze of the early aughts pushing the culture to obsess even more with glitz and celebrity, perhaps producers of American TV think that Americans aren't interested in seeing characters struggle financially on TV.

Personally, I'd like to see more shows that feature characters living in a gak-hole apartment or who can't make rent (and aren't magically saved in the 22nd minute of the show). There is something cathartic about seeing your own struggles portrayed on television. It would be nice to return to settings outside of posh apartments or Malibu beach-side mansions.

In the 1990s you had Roseanne, Married with Children and The Simpsons in which none of the families were wealthy. More recently you have Grounded for Life, The King of Queens and Mike and Molly.

What I find watching US comedy is that it seems very scripted. Obviously it is scripted, because nearly all comedy is scripted. Even Improv actually is often prepped before the broadcast.

What I mean is that if I watch a great UK show like Fawlty Towers or Ab Fab or Still Open All Hours, which are totally scripted, somehow they seem more natural than the US shows, even though they often portray ludicrously contrived situations.

No doubt this is due to cultural differences. I am a Brit, so naturally I feel more at home in British idiom.

If this has any relevance to the original point, all the shows I mentioned, and other top shows such as Black Adder, The Young Ones and Miranda, take place in non-aspirational settings. We see the same in comedy film: Johnny English and Hot Fuzz for example.

I think this is because there is a strong element in English and British culture of not boasting, not being forward, being self-deprecatory, and not taking things seriously.

Read Watching The English for an in-depth sociological study of these psychological factors. It's about the English but there are elements that go throughout British culture. (Father Ted, Still Game, Rad C Nesbit, The Rubberbandits.)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002V0929W/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Two Broke Girls (a terrible show) deals with "poverty" sort of.

But thinking back to a show that shares some similarities (house/setting wise, at least) with some US shows is "Mrs. Brown's Boys".

Infinitely funnier than most US comedies I have seen in a long time.

Prestor Jon wrote:
In the 1990s you had Roseanne, Married with Children and The Simpsons in which none of the families were wealthy. More recently you have Grounded for Life, The King of Queens and Mike and Molly.

I'll nitpick the first two, those shows started in the 80's therefore they are 80's shows in my opinion ( ) but good call on the others.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
I think the OP's comparison is generally accurate, but it wasn't always the case. The TV I grew up with had a balance of shows that depicted wealth and poverty. In the 70's and 80's we had shows like All in the Family, Sanforn & Son and Roseanne which depicted more middle class, or really, lower-middle class families. A lot of the shows' comedy situations came from the characters' poverty, so it was a constant theme on those programs. That isn't to say there weren't shows on during that period where wealthy characters were the focus. The Cosby show is a great example of a family living well in a large house with nice furnishing and which the parents had respectable careers (doctor and lawyer). Silver Spoons and Different Strokes are other examples.

Then again, going way back to the start of TV, there was the Honeymooners whose characters lived in a crap apartment, and not much later I Love Lucy where there was some implied money issues early in the show, but where Ricky Ricardo is a successful entertainer who continues to do well for himself so that by the end of the series he moves his family and neighbors out to the country for a leisurely life.

Off the top of my head I can't think of a post-90's comedy that has dealt with poverty (Grace Under Fire maybe?). I wonder if the economic boom of the 90's helped push the focus from "average" American characters on TV to aspirational ones that at the time reflected the growing wealth of the country. Then with the reality TV craze of the early aughts pushing the culture to obsess even more with glitz and celebrity, perhaps producers of American TV think that Americans aren't interested in seeing characters struggle financially on TV.

Personally, I'd like to see more shows that feature characters living in a gak-hole apartment or who can't make rent (and aren't magically saved in the 22nd minute of the show). There is something cathartic about seeing your own struggles portrayed on television. It would be nice to return to settings outside of posh apartments or Malibu beach-side mansions.

In the 1990s you had Roseanne, Married with Children and The Simpsons in which none of the families were wealthy. More recently you have Grounded for Life, The King of Queens and Mike and Molly.

married with children morphed into Modern family

 Kilkrazy wrote:
which are totally scripted, somehow they seem more natural than the US shows, even though they often portray ludicrously contrived situations.

IMO, this could come down to differences in how the UK and US see comedy in general....I get what you're saying. Personally, the way I see it, is that you can take a show like BBT, Friends, How I Met Your Mother, etc. and you can literally see the "script" on screen every episode. TV executives in the US see things as a formula to make money.

Whereas on the flip side, I've watched a number of episodes of MP's Flying Circus, and the comedy definitely is more natural feeling. You can see the writer's thought processes and the experimentation of "will people think this is funny?" going on on screen.


There is also, IMO, a fairly significant difference between comedians from the UK and comedians in the US. It may not be the right term, but most of the British comics that I've seen doing stand-up tend to focus more on a conceptual humor, whereas Americans tend to be more grounded, or basic in humor. What I mean is, I've seen a number of Eddie Izzard stand-ups, and his jokes work whether you keep the situation the same or completely change them, it's funny at the conceptual level. Comics like Larry the Cable Guy, Ron White, Gabriel Iglesias, Carlos Mencia, etc. all ground their jokes in stories, and if you change elements of the story, the joke loses it's punch.

I'm sure there's something going on but I had two thoughts:

1. As an american tv consumer, Parks and Recreation doesn't strike me as a particularly good example, unless you mean how Leslie rises up through the ranks in later seasons.

Most of the cast whose homes we see have average houses, except (to my memory) Ron (who is a recluse and has more than one cabin), Leslie (whose house could have been featured in an episode of hoarders until one particular episode), Donna (whose house I don't think we ever see. But her cousin's place is a multi-million extravaganza) and Andy, who spent a season living in a dirt pit.


2. Large parts of america can get housing for much cheaper than most any place in Europe. You can move from a ten room house to a closet moving from Texas to New York. Do our large house look more impressive to UK audiences than the same group in the US?

Are we considering the american cartoons? I always thought it was a fact the all american nuclear family was the basis for most shows (family guy, the flintstones, the simpsons and so on). In fact it's accepted it's become a part of our culture's comedy i think.

Not only that but i'd hardly consider cartoon comedies like south park, futurama, beavis and butthead or king of the hill to be about well off people. I'd say it's more of an american thing for the USA to have lots of humorous cartoons and political satire shows (daily show, colbert report, etc.) though.

Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe did an excellent episode on this IIRC, aspirational TV in particular.

The main thing with British comedy for the most part is, the protagonists aren't exactly heroes, role models or in most cases, remotely likeable (Basil Fawlty is the best example, as this is how John Cleese intended him to be, someone you couldn't root for and wouldn't feel bad about when something bad happened to him), as intended.

Just compare the original Red Dwarf to the ill-fated US version, or read any interview where a British comedy was being examined by a US company for broadcast or adaptation. I remember an interview with Rik Mayall where a US executive asked who was the hero character in the Young Ones.

As for the writing, the old trope "British Brevity" comes to mind, where British shows are usually shorter, but are polished and developed to a high degree before production, unlike their American counterparts, which are knocked out on a weekly basis for a full season.

Personally I'm a bigger fan of British comedies, though the already mentioned Roseanne and Married With Children gleefully broke away from the established mold of that era of US comedy.

I think Stephen Fry explains it quite well actually:

 zedmeister wrote:
I think Stephen Fry explains it quite well actually:

I'd agree with him as well, that is definitely how I would of described the two.

I agree with Stephen Fry, Us British are failures and we love it.

That was a really good link to Fry there, thanks for sharing!

It would appear that he at least, as a professional comedic writer/actor, more or less subscribes to the idea that the American comedic characters are aspirational role models, whereas the British ones are, as he put it 'failures'.

I think there's something that's been missed actually in the British definition so far. Whilst the characters are failures, at the same time, they are determined failures. They never quite give up on their hopes and dreams, or aspirations (whatever they may be) Rimmer in Red Dwarf always still sees himself, despite a hologram and an arse, as a higher ranking officer someday. King Arthur in Holy Grail keeps plugging away at his quest to find the Holy Grail, Rik Mayall in the Young Ones never allows his image of himself to be dented, Baldrick never stops coming up with his 'cunning plans'. Delboy always has one more scheme to be a 'miwwionaire', Ben Harper is always after the quiet life in 'My Family'.

Despite their many, many (and often extremely comedic setbacks), they never allow their misfortune to change who they are, or what they want out of life (be it a bigger turnip, or an easy life). Would any of you agree with that assessment? Do you think it's replicated in American comedy or not?

I would agree with that statement, many of the British comedy great keep going despite all they suffer and undergo. It's like watching a fight where someone gets the crap beaten out of them over and over again, but they keep getting up.

I think that's probably why I enjoy watching Sunny in Philadelphia, the Reynolds suffer set back after set back, none of them are particularly nice people. So you don't feel that bad about it, but all of them are still after money. It's very British I think

It's easy to cherry pick a few shows and make a generalization about their country of origin. I can't say that I've seen a lot of British TV beyond what appears on PBS. If that's our yardstick, we Americans think all of you Brits are fabulously wealth and live in mansions (Downton Abby, Mr. Selfridge), crime solvers (Father Brown, Mrs. Marple, Sherlock), or lovable dysfunctional clowns (The IT Crowd, Mr. Bean, Last of the Summer Wine). I'm joking, but only a little. Any sensible person knows that these TV shows are not wholly representative of reality. They're meant to entertain.

On the other side of the Atlantic, I'll offer a comments on shows I watch/have watched that don't fit the stereotypes presented by the OP:

2 Broke Girls is about two women who are struggling financially. Their apartment sucks, their careers suck, they are not well off, and they've had setbacks. While the actors and actresses might fall into the stereotypical American tv trope that only pretty people are allowed on TV, the plot lines are most definitely not about how comfortable they are in life. It's quite funny, even if it strays into crude jokes more often than not.

The Middle, Raising Hope, Moms, Mike and Molly -- these are all shows that involve characters working to pay the bills, put food on the table, raise kids, get by in life, often while dealing with serious personal issues. Jane the Virgin is a strangely entertaining show about a single mom, her family, relationships, and struggles. None of these successful shows fit into the cookie-cutter stereotype presented by the OP.

I would argue that Friends, at least in the earlier seasons, was not about people with successful lives that were financially well off. Yes, it was full of pretty people in ridiculously huge apartments, but most of the characters went through some struggle to transition from early adult hood where they were just barely paying the bills to finding success and their places in life. Many of the plot lines involved characters who were fired, quit jobs they hated, had crazy room mates that they tolerated to pay the bills, being robbed, etc. As the series dragged on, the characters became more successful, financially stable, and eventually they went their separate ways.

 Ketara wrote:
..... Ben Harper is always after the quiet life in 'My Family'.....

How could you list so many great characters and then settle on that crap?

It mystifies me how that both secured a Friday night slot and carried on for years.

Bad Ketara, Bad!

Everybody hates Chris- financially struggling yet intact family.
Malcolm in the Middle- financially just-coping family constantly at odds with each other.

The Vicar of Dibley- I am a woman and a Vicar. I live in a nice C-of- E sponsored home and the humour comes from the locals.
Keeping Up Appearances- middle class married woman with no real financial issues generates her own problems by trying to pass as upperclass.

 Cleatus wrote:
It's easy to cherry pick a few shows and make a generalization about their country of origin

That's why I asked for American input, and made certain I qualified all my statements about American comedy. So relax.

notprop wrote:How could you list so many great characters and then settle on that crap?

It mystifies me how that both secured a Friday night slot and carried on for years.

Bad Ketara, Bad!

I always liked it on the basis of the fact it reminded me of my own curmudgeonly father.

I could have gone with Father Ted I suppose? Or Wayne Slob?

 KingCracker wrote:

I'd agree with him as well, that is definitely how I would of described the two.

Only thing I'd disagree with him on, is that the self-help sections of the majority of book stores are NOT the largest sections of book stores. (I mean, he presents a decent argument by putting cook books in with the "you can do better, if you believe!!!!!" books)

I recall several articles over the years that, generally speaking, looked at how many of the people in American sit-coms would never be able to actually afford the living spaces they are shown in.

Ahtman that really depends on the location of the show. Would Penny be able to afford that apartment as a struggling actress/waitress? No, not even in the cheap south I think unless she worked something out with the landlord. I think though that Leonard and Sheldon with their jobs don't even need to be roommates with their jobs for the apartment across the hall. From what I hear about apartments up north in the hive cities, they aren't near as spacious as TV puts them off to be, while down South they would be fairly normal. The Middle is a great show as is Fresh off the boat for these examples. Those are fairly typical for homes for their income bracket. Again I am not a fan of British humor past Monty Python so I do not know of comparable comedies to go by. Shaun of the Dead I thought showed the very dry British humor and no one special as the protagonists.

Col. Dash wrote:
Shaun of the Dead I thought showed the very dry British humor and no one special as the protagonists.

Another good example of the British humour actually. Shaun is a bloke in his thirties living with two other blokes, one of which is a slob, and he works in a shop as a retail manager with people who don't get him. His girlfriend just broke up with him for being unambitious, and all he wants is to grab a pint and wait for all this blow over.

Cor, I couldn't say definitively with American comedy, but there really is a 'loser' trend in British comedy. Even when they're portrayed as being successful, they're lacking in other ways (I'm looking at you, Mr B'stard).

I would both agree and disagree.
1. Most network series of any type are fairly wealthy individuals.
2. Exceptions:
-Married with Children
-MASH
-All in the Family
-The Honeymooners
-Orange is the New Black
-Better Call Saul

I don't have other references as I haven't watched network TV outside of news in...years.
EDIT: I realized thats not right-we have recorded Superstore and Telenovella. One's a Walmart type and the other is wealthy I guess.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
It isn't just comedy, I've also seen that observation made about soaps. American Soaps are aspirational things like Dallas and Sunset beach, while UK soaps are EastEnders and Coronation Street.

They all suck compared to the greatness of Telenovellas. Ah Maria!