Roush on Lipstick Jungle
Question: Why is it that when something is seen as bad or clumsily put together, it is automatically compared to a sitcom (as in your
Lipstick Jungle review)? Yes, most use the term "bad sitcom," but as a sitcom writer, I find that statement to be a little offensive, because to me it implies that sitcoms are a lower form of entertainment then dramas. Why can't something just be bad? There are many bad shows out there, not just sitcoms. And for those sitcoms that truly are great, comparing a bad show to a sitcom hurts the integrity of the form. Sorry, just had to get that out there, because some sitcoms in the past have dealt with issues better than any show, let alone any drama, could dream of doing, such as
All in the Family and
Roseanne once did and the way
South Park does today. Thanks for the platform, Matt.
— Michael K.
Matt Roush: I get where you're coming from. I feel the same way when I read a theater or movie review and the critic snottily patronizes something as being too much like TV, as if TV is so inferior to the cinema or the stage. (Which it is not, and I speak as someone who has gone to a lot of lousy theater since moving to New York. And movies? Well, outside of the usual Oscar bait, most of the year I'm thrilled to be focusing my attentions on TV instead. And I'd put Mad Men, Lost, Friday Night Lights, Dexter and a number of other top dramas up against this year's mostly overrated best-picture contenders any day.) My intention in that Lipstick Jungle reference to "bad sitcoms" — which I would have developed further if I'd had space — was to liken the show's storylines to the dreck we used to see on NBC on Thursdays back when Suddenly Susan, Veronica's Closet and the like used to pollute the schedule. Lipstick Jungle is especially clumsy at blending the drama with the romantic comedy, and that's what I was getting at — not tarnishing the entire genre of sitcoms, which is an endangered enough species already.
