‘Seinfeld’.
‘The Mary Tyler Moore Show’.
‘Martin’.
‘I Love Lucy’.
‘Everybody Loves Raymond’.
‘Everybody Hates Chris’.
‘Miranda’.
‘The Bernie Mac Show’.
‘George Lopez’.
‘The Ms Pat Show’
You know what these shows have in common? It’s very easy to see who stars in them. Since the start of television, even though they are acting, many comedians kept their real names for their show titles. In the 20th century, comedians ruled radio shows, and already made sitcoms that people could listen to, so with the rise of television in the 1930s, it made sense for those shows to continue through a different medium. Movie stars wanted to maintain that glitz and glamour celebrity status that the big screen provided, meaning there was a lot of room for the radio comedians to transfer to the small screen. There were many sitcoms that were created this way, but this blog is about the shows where reality and the screen overlap – the eponymous shows.
Because comedians already had an audience from the radio shows or standup, it made sense for their TV show to have their name on it, to make it clear to their fans that it’s familiar content. Some are directly on the nose, with comedians like Jerry Seinfeld, George Lopez, Sarah Silverman, D.L Hughley and John Mulaney keeping their full names for their characters. Most commonly, comedians just kept their first names, for example:
- Ray Romano played Ray Barone (‘Everybody Loves Raymond’)
- Martin Lawrence played Martin Payne (‘Martin’)
- Ellen Degeneres played Ellen Morgan (‘Ellen’)
- Roseanne Barr played Roseanne Conner (‘Roseanne’)
- Bernie Mac played Bernie McCullough (‘The Bernie Mac Show’)
But the celebrity name was so important that sometimes, they put the comedians name as the title of the show, even when it wasn’t the protagonists’ name, for instance, Bill Cosby playing Heathcliffe Huxtable in ‘The Cosby Show’ or Dick Van Dyke playing Rob Petrie in ‘The Dick Van Dyke Show’.
All of this to say, the key to the show was the comedian. Instead of spending all that money on marketing, TV executives opted for a recognisable face that people would tune in for. And with this recognition came the need for relatable storylines. As comedians do standup routines that drew from real life, so the eponymous shows had to have a similar feel. There’s nothing too extravagant about their shows, it’s low risk as they find comedy in everyday life instead of making their life around the setting. Jerry Seinfeld has famously said that his show is a show about nothing, and it was true.
After some research, if the plot isn’t about the actor’s adolescence or truly biographical piece, eponymous shows usually fell into these 3 storylines (this is not exhaustive):
- A married protagonist who is a blue collar worker and quite goofy and unserious. Maybe they have kids, but almost always, there is a spouse who acts as the ‘straight man’ to the comedian. Typically, audiences rarely hear about the life of the spouse outside of household, because to the audience, it doesn’t matter – it’s all about the comedian (this premise is very well challenged in a show called ‘Kevin Can F**** Himself’, which looks at the sitcom from the spouse’s perspective). This can be accompanied by some crazy friends with differing personalities.
- A wisecracking and grumpy, pessimistic protagonist whose personal life is a mess. Maybe they have an addiction or an anger problem and they are hopelessly dating or if they are lucky, a sad spouse. No kids though – or if they have kids, they don’t have a good relationship with them, and they find the dark comedy in all of this.
- A protagonist with a creative job, who just gets up to daily life shenanigans with friends. Relationship status varies, but it’s always a fun ride. Usually this is where the female comedians reign. A very lighthearted 22 minute show!
Whatever the premise, it is clear that the comedian is the main character of the show and the fictional world revolves around them. Their comedic voice from standup is the anchor for the show. But the problem with that is, eponymous TV shows run the risk of the fictionalised versions of comedians bleeding into real life because their fake selves would be too similar to reality. Sarah Silverman, Jim Gaffigan, Louie C.K and Larry David all played comedians or public figures in their shows, sharing the occupations with their actual selves. Sure, their character maybe more exaggerated for comedic effect, but people believe that the character is truly them and this can encourage the notion that comedians always have to be ‘on’, ready to be that over the top version of themselves all the time. Or that they can’t actually act because they are just playing themselves.
Anyway, there has been a shift from these types of eponymous shows. Seinfeld has said that because everything is getting a little bit too politically correct for TV, comedians are going back to their standup roots instead so they can say what they really want to say without being policed. But beyond this, as I always say, what we see on the screen is dependent on the context of the time. Now we have less sitcoms in front of a live studio or canned laughter. The audience wants more serious work instead of cookie cutter stories. We see that through a new stylised version of shows with comedians at the centre. Shows like ‘Mo’, ‘Ramy’, ‘Louie’ or autobiographical ones like ‘Bupkis’ (Pete Davidson) and ‘Life and Beth’ (Amy Schumer) have darker themes. I know that the last two aren’t named after the comedians and that’s also part of the point – story is taking precedence over the comedian, we don’t necessarily need a big name on a show title for it to get attention anymore. We want deeper stories, so we have shows that still make us laugh but it’s a step away from their standup routines and more towards real life situations, even some traumatic ones.
This shift reflects the deeper themes that we see take the forefront in society. We want to see multi-dimensional characters who aren’t just there to make us laugh. This balance is not easy to capture but it seems to be going well. I wonder what the comedians will do with TV next.
I have two main thoughts on this. First I think there is still a place for more old school sitcoms, with Damon and Damon Wayans Jr Poppa’s House, and (potentially) the reboot of Frasier showing how well they can still land, but also how much skill you need to actually make that type of show feel organic and relatable, and the chemistry you need to capture within your characters for it to replicate that feeling of closeness that the studio audience vibe used to give. It isn’t about the one star, but on effective casts. We don’t want the underdeveloped background characters anymore, anyone you introduce to us needs to have a purpose. But agreed that KCFH, and to an extent Bel-Air, are showing that there’s also an appetite for the old stories to evolve and give us something new.
The second thing is that I always cringe at the suggestion of having to be too politically correct to be successful, because otherwise irreverent shows like South Park and Family Guy wouldn’t still have an audience, but I think it’s more that there is a disconnect in what real people are experiencing. The internet, and social media has given everyone the ability to be a comedian, so subpar stand-up sets that are more offensive than funny just won’t work, especially if they’re cosplaying as the “everyman”. The time it takes to actually deliver an authentic presentation of these character’s lives, which are more likely to feature a more diverse family, friend groups, and work environments (so by definition likely to be more political). And a world where it is both an escape, but close enough to be relatable is hard work, but I think shows like Abbott Elementary, Ted Lasso, Modern Family showed that it can be done.
Completely agree! Thanks for sharing your thoughts – it’s good stuff!!