The Big Bang Theory: Is it OK to Laugh? - Some Musings
We stayed up late tonight watching The Big Bang Theory. It's late and it got me thinking:
Steve and I are latecomers to the Big Bang Theory. It seems to be constantly on Freeview whenever we channel surf and we've been drawn in, watching episodes in random order. I like Sheldon and Amy particularly, and find Penny slightly annoying.
It seems that people that like BBT really like it and I was wondering what the charm is. I can't imagine that the networks were very excited by a pitch for a sit-com about theoretical physicists, although there's no reason why physics should be less interesting or less amusing than, say, law. And are we laughing at geeks or laughing because we are geeks, and so get all the references? Are we laughing because we are reassured that however geeky we are we are not as geeky as Sheldon?
Which brings me to Sheldon. I like Sheldon partly because he's Bunter-esque. He's thinner, older and much, much brighter but he has the same knack of manipulating people and getting his own way in spite of his total self-centredness. Is it OK to laugh at Sheldon? Many people on the autistic spectrum exhibit Sheldon-like tendencies and Aspergers / autism is not a subject for comedy. Maybe it's Sheldon's childlike tendencies; his neediness and being high-maintenance which makes him endearing as well as funny?
In Raj I see another parallel with Bunter. In the Bunter stories Indian prince Hurree Jamset Ram Singh is a prominent member of the supporting cast, extremely bright, good at sport, rich and with an extraordinarily idiosyncratic form of speech. Frank Richards has been both criticised for portraying Singh as a racial stereotype and praised for not only having a child from an ethnic minority in his stories but making him one of the heroes. Raj is similarly bright and similarly at variance with American culture. I'm unsure about some of the gags - his cousin working in a call centre in Delhi, eating hamburgers.
I suppose comedy needs stereotypes - people and behaviours that we can identify with and laugh at, but it's a fine line sometimes.
Penny's straight out of the Rachel box - pretty, ditzy, bad at organising her life, dreaming of a glamorous job but getting nowhere and waiting tables until something happens. The one area of her life she is in control of is her sexuality which she uses to manipulate people and to create a sense of unease and occasional discord amongst the male characters. I can't see her winning Feminist Icon of the Year any time soon. At the same time, she is the yardstick of "normality" against which the others are measured. Bernadette is firmly in the sidekick category, being the pretty girl's plainer friend. She's also the nice girl you'd take home to mum - even Howard's mother is won over eventually.
Many of the comments I've made about Sheldon also apply to Amy, but there's an extra dimension to my favourite character. She is sexless rather than not sexy, deeply absorbed in her scientific research and comic in her efforts to negotiate "normal" relationships. What message is she sending out? Are super-bright women not normal? What comparisons can be drawn between Amy and Penny? Are the antics of Shamy funny because they are incapable of a normal relationship or do they stand outside to show us how daft all our relationships are? Sheldon and Amy don't play games like Leonard and Penny and are always completely open and honest with each other, for example.
I know, I'm over-thinking. As I said, it's late.
Steve and I are latecomers to the Big Bang Theory. It seems to be constantly on Freeview whenever we channel surf and we've been drawn in, watching episodes in random order. I like Sheldon and Amy particularly, and find Penny slightly annoying.
It seems that people that like BBT really like it and I was wondering what the charm is. I can't imagine that the networks were very excited by a pitch for a sit-com about theoretical physicists, although there's no reason why physics should be less interesting or less amusing than, say, law. And are we laughing at geeks or laughing because we are geeks, and so get all the references? Are we laughing because we are reassured that however geeky we are we are not as geeky as Sheldon?
Which brings me to Sheldon. I like Sheldon partly because he's Bunter-esque. He's thinner, older and much, much brighter but he has the same knack of manipulating people and getting his own way in spite of his total self-centredness. Is it OK to laugh at Sheldon? Many people on the autistic spectrum exhibit Sheldon-like tendencies and Aspergers / autism is not a subject for comedy. Maybe it's Sheldon's childlike tendencies; his neediness and being high-maintenance which makes him endearing as well as funny?
In Raj I see another parallel with Bunter. In the Bunter stories Indian prince Hurree Jamset Ram Singh is a prominent member of the supporting cast, extremely bright, good at sport, rich and with an extraordinarily idiosyncratic form of speech. Frank Richards has been both criticised for portraying Singh as a racial stereotype and praised for not only having a child from an ethnic minority in his stories but making him one of the heroes. Raj is similarly bright and similarly at variance with American culture. I'm unsure about some of the gags - his cousin working in a call centre in Delhi, eating hamburgers.
I suppose comedy needs stereotypes - people and behaviours that we can identify with and laugh at, but it's a fine line sometimes.
Penny's straight out of the Rachel box - pretty, ditzy, bad at organising her life, dreaming of a glamorous job but getting nowhere and waiting tables until something happens. The one area of her life she is in control of is her sexuality which she uses to manipulate people and to create a sense of unease and occasional discord amongst the male characters. I can't see her winning Feminist Icon of the Year any time soon. At the same time, she is the yardstick of "normality" against which the others are measured. Bernadette is firmly in the sidekick category, being the pretty girl's plainer friend. She's also the nice girl you'd take home to mum - even Howard's mother is won over eventually.
Many of the comments I've made about Sheldon also apply to Amy, but there's an extra dimension to my favourite character. She is sexless rather than not sexy, deeply absorbed in her scientific research and comic in her efforts to negotiate "normal" relationships. What message is she sending out? Are super-bright women not normal? What comparisons can be drawn between Amy and Penny? Are the antics of Shamy funny because they are incapable of a normal relationship or do they stand outside to show us how daft all our relationships are? Sheldon and Amy don't play games like Leonard and Penny and are always completely open and honest with each other, for example.
I know, I'm over-thinking. As I said, it's late.