April 12, 2004
THE ONLY WORTHWHILE NETWORK COMEDY:
Not everybody loves 'Raymond': Sitcom's repetition of '50s cliches has gotten old (Matthew Gilbert, 4/12/2004, Boston Globe)
"Everybody Loves Raymond" isn't the worst show on TV. That's about the highest praise I can muster for CBS's Monday sitcom hit, whose massive success continues to mystify me.How can it be that inventive comedies get the guillotine every season, while this banal rehash of 1950s gender cliches continues to rival "Friends" as TV's most-watched sitcom? How can it be that "Everybody Loves Raymond" is not only a ratings blockbuster but a multiple Emmy winner, while the original likes of "Scrubs" scuffle for scraps of attention? [...]
[T]he show does almost nothing to update the battle of the sexes, stubbornly dooming it to a time when it was a man's world and wives were trapped. The hackneyed plots hark back, way back -- Debra gets sick and her bumbling hubby must care for the kids; Ray invests in a go-kart track despite her disapproval; wacky things happen to Debra's engagement ring. It's like stumbling onto TV Land, a cable channel devoted to TV shows of yesteryear. And the idea that in-laws are endlessly hysterical might have hit its peak in the 1960s, with "The Mothers-In-Law," starring Kaye Ballard and Eve Arden.
Accepting the Emmy for best comedy last year, "Raymond" executive producer Phil Rosenthal proudly described his struggle to hold onto his show's old-fashioned orientation when CBS urged him to make it hip. "I want to thank all you hipsters in the audience for supporting us all these years," he said with heavy irony. "We do it for you." And it is true that producers like Rosenthal need to resist the entertainment industry's relentless push to capture the younger viewers who are so popular with advertisers. But at the same time, "adult" -- "Seinfeld," for example -- doesn't have to mean unyieldingly retro and bland.
As they recycle Barone behaviors, the "Raymond" episodes blur together. Most sitcoms repeat themselves; by definition, sitcom characters don't grow, which is part of what makes them funny. But the repetitions on "Raymond" are particularly irritating -- from Debra and Marie's duels to the sibling rivalry between Raymond and his giant older brother, Robert (Brad Garrett).
The show's character dynamics were timeworn eight years ago; now they're just annoying. Perhaps Romano is aware of the creative strains, since he has yet to commit to another season, saying only that the show will probably return, but with less than a full season of episodes.
The success of "Raymond" has inspired a number of throwback family comedies, such as the other Monday CBS comedies "Yes Dear" and "Still Standing," which bear the same mark of mediocrity. These shows aren't so much creative responses to "Raymond" as businesslike attempts to duplicate its demographic ratings success. They're far from the worst that TV has to offer; that distinction goes to reality shows such as "The Swan" and "I Want a Famous Face." But they're the kind of shows that resist breaking ground, that give viewers a safe retreat from new views of ourselves and our world.
Here are two thoughts that would never occur to Mr. Gilbert in a million years: (1) many couples may see much that's familiar from their own lives in Ray and Debra; (2) others may aspire towards such a life.
MORE:
-"DON'T GET MAD AT ME, RAY DID IT TOO"
-EVERYBODY LOVES PATRICIA
I read an article about the writers of Raymond where they admitted that a lot of the situations come from their real lives. One writer said his wife will yell "don't you dare put this on the show!" during a fight.
I think the show's stale and probably should've been retired a couple of years ago, but I seem to be in the minority.
Posted by: NKR at April 12, 2004 9:55 AMOnce again, the people let down the elites.
Posted by: Peter B at April 12, 2004 10:12 AMWhy is it that Shakespeare's plot devices are timeless and enduring, but the tropes of sitcoms (which are frequently the same thing) are "retro" and "bland"?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at April 12, 2004 10:27 AMWe're supposed to be tired of those tired 1950's ideas like marriage, responsibility and extended family.
The whole point of the show as I see it is that
men and women protect each other from their own
most extreme instincts. Therein lies the conflict and
the humor.
The show may not be for everybody but it certainly
insults the intelligence less than most offerings.
He runs into the same problem as many critics - he thinks that "new" is a synonym for "good".
Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at April 12, 2004 11:12 AMWhile not as big a factor as the editorial page or political slant, Gilbert and the other lifestyle writers were another reason I stopped reading the Globe.
I think the show has gotten a bit stale the last few years but don't question why it was funny in the first place.
How can you trust a critic who likes "Scrubs?"
Posted by: Chris Durnell at April 12, 2004 12:42 PM"Raymond" is tired because it lacks everything that makes a sitcom really work today: Infidelity, Flaming Homosexuals, Gratuitous Sex, Drunks, etc. Now THAT'S entertainment!
Posted by: John Resnick at April 12, 2004 12:45 PMTry "Life with Bonnie" when it comes back next season on ABC; 9:30 Fridays this past season.
Posted by: genecis at April 12, 2004 1:39 PMThe real test for "Raymond" or any of the other comedies that Gilbert may like, will be in syndication -- if the show vanishes without a trace a year or two after it leaves the network, than its success can be considered just a phenomenon of the times; mega-hits on network TV like "Happy Days" and "The Cosby Show" never did as well as expected in syndication, because the stories after the first couple of seasons stunk, and their network success was based on the popularity of the characters at that moment, something that the audience eventually got over.
But if you're still seeing "Raymond" in decent time slots 8-10 years from now, then its a legitimate success based not just on spur-of-the-moment viewer decisions, but because the stories hold up to repeated viewing.
Posted by: John at April 12, 2004 3:04 PMJohn
The "Fonz" didn't succeed in syndication?? I'm surprised.
Given the prices stations paid for both "Happy Days" and "The Cosby Show" when they went into syndication, neither one produced the ratings stations buying the program expected...
...on the other hand, were it not for the overpaying by TV stations around the country for The Cosby Show, the Boston Red Sox would probably have at least one different owner today.
Posted by: John at April 12, 2004 9:11 PMI could never get into "Raymond" because it took the time slot of one of the few superb high-quality, funny and decent shows ever on television--"Due South."
Posted by: jsmith at April 12, 2004 9:55 PM