The “reinvented” TV family
Once upon a time, TV families were different. ”It used to be kids in TV families who caused the problems and the parents who solved them,” writes Pajamas Media columnist Katherine Berry. ”In the brave new world of reality television, parents are the problem.” Just look at Living Lohan and Denise Richards: It’s Complicated, two new cable reality shows that network executives want viewers to believe reflect more accurate depictions of the American family than fictional families of old. But Berry says these new shows will never captivate us like the Cleavers, the Bradys, the Huxtables, or even the Simpsons did:
Completely missing from these shows is the one thing that keeps us tuning in, year after year, to reruns of Leave it to Beaver, The Brady Bunch and The Cosby Show, the same ingredient that has kept The Simpsons on the air longer than any other sitcom in the history of television. At the end of It’s Complicated or Living Lohan we are not left with the belief that a family, headed by a wise and loving parent, will somehow come through its struggles better off and stronger for having worked through them together. Rather, we are left shocked at the complete and utter absence of a true parental figure and certain that, somehow, any problems those families encounter are largely caused by the parents themselves. If watching these shows leaves us with that same warm, fuzzy and affirmed feeling that the sitcoms of old did, it’s simply because – by comparison – our realities look so much more sane than theirs.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top28 Comments to “The “reinvented” TV family”
Hollywood needs to believe the rest of the country is as messed up as they are, That way they can continue to feel superior to us.
Report comment to moderator
…. we are not left with the belief that a family, headed by a wise and loving parent, will somehow come through its struggles better off and stronger for having worked through them together. Rather, we are left shocked at the complete and utter absence of a true parental figure and certain that, somehow, any problems those families encounter are largely caused by the parents themselves.
Hmm … but if some shows show the positive effects of having good parents around, and other shows depict the negative effects of the absence of good parents, are they not making the same point in different ways?
Report comment to moderator
Answer to #2:
No.
Report comment to moderator
At least these shows are aimed at adults. Unfortunately most kids shows now show parents, teachers and other adults as complete idiots deserving very little respect.
Report comment to moderator
And guess who Hollywood, in hoards, and in all their presumed moral superiority, is supporting for President?
Report comment to moderator
It sounds like the pendulum has just swung to an opposite extreme. She may find Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Bunch to be charming and endearing, but to me (and I suspect to most people who weren’t alive when they were originally aired) they are just hokey and saccharine. Christians should love truth and beauty, not pine after the “good old days.”
Report comment to moderator
Wasnt the Brady Bunch premised on a divorced man marrying a divorced woman? Why didnt the kids have their original dad’s last name?
Report comment to moderator
I also think that many family sitcoms tend to offer up too much of a “Dad as Doofus” theme:
Everybody Loves Raymond
Reba
Still Standing
According to Jim
Yes, Dear
George Lopez
Report comment to moderator
The first TV show I can remember watching regularly as a child had a pretty “doofus” dad, but then it was a cartoon – The Flintstones.
We watched The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie, where the parents weren’t always perfect but could be counted on for their wisdom and support. One of my favorite shows was One Day at a Time, where the mom was divorced, but did a good enough job as a mom that I wished I had a mom like her (one who cared enough to set clear boundaries and expectations for her daughters).
I haven’t watched any TV shows regularly in the last two decades (except Stargate SG-1,, which isn’t about a family), so I can’t say much of anything about the stuff today. Regarding SteveG’s point, I think that seeing the negative result of poor parenting does make the same point to a limited extent, but a negative example is only helpful in the context of other, positive, examples. If people’s own families are messed up and TV families are messed up, they know the world is a mess but don’t have much idea how to fix it. Not that TV is the greatest place to learn from – but for people whose own families are messed up and who have no other real-life families to learn from, a good TV family example is better than nothing (and I say this from personal experience).
Report comment to moderator
#7. Sawgunner, both of the Brady parents were widowed.
Report comment to moderator
Hollywood knows that children control the TV dial at home just like they know children are much more likely to go to the movies than adults.
They produce their shows accordingly.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t care what anyone thinks of her show – Denise Richards is hot.
Report comment to moderator
Sort of off subject, but I’m writing kids’ books, which means I’ve sought expert advice (books, conferences, an online writing group) on what makes good kids’ fiction. One of the most common pieces of wisdom, and one that frankly makes me just a little uneasy as a Christian, is that kids have to solve their problems themselves. If an adult provides the solution (giving advice OR stepping in and taking care of the problem), then “it’s not a kids’ book.”
One result of this piece of advice that’s taken as an absolute is that kids’ books are loaded with families in which the mother has died. Why? well, in real life mothers give advice and counsel, and they’re present every day. A mother who doesn’t step in is a bad mother. So either the mother isn’t there in the first place or the kid ignores her advice. Now, I do understand that kids read books for adventures, not for adult advice. But I think that authors need to be careful to show parents as parents. (I’m trying to do a “happy medium” in my kids’ books. For example, a parent dispenses counsel and the kid thinks about it and decides specifically what to do.)
And of course today’s kids often don’t show kids making WISE decisions on their own, but making decisions that ought to bring parental wrath to bear.
Report comment to moderator
#12
So are Jalapenos, and better for you, too.
Report comment to moderator
I loved My Three Sons as a kid because I wanted a loving father like the Fred MacMurry character. My dad loved me, but traveled with his job and wasn’t emotionally available, in the common jargon.
I think if I had grown up on a steady diet of ignorant, nasty, parents, my vision of a family would have been altered. Instead, like Pauline, I learned positive lessons about family life from television. And that was comforting.
I think what bothers me the most about sitcoms–and I haven’t watched them in years because of this–is the nastiness which masquerades as wittiness.
I’ve long told my children home is a haven where you can say and do stupid things, but we’ll accept you with grace and love you just the same. The TV programs now, seem more like war zones. And I’d say it started with Archie Bunker. (Which I never watched, not once.)
Report comment to moderator
Agreed, Michelle, about the nastiness that masquerades as wittiness. In the few times I watched the Cosby show, I was amazed by how often the father did that, though it was considered one of the best family shows. Today any sitcoms strike me as so untrue to real life (and certainly untrue to any life I want to live) that they’re unwatchable. But I suppose millions of kids get their ideas of “families” thus.
Report comment to moderator
I think it goes a little deeper than nostalgia or pining for the past that made the old shows the winners they were.
Has anyone seen a video series by a would-be impressionist who analyzes various episodes of the “Andy Griffith Show” and “Mayberry RFD”? It seems the shows are replete with Biblical truths buried just under the surface of the quixotic tales.
The Loehan’s and Richards’ merely serve up more of the emptiness of man’s ideals fully displaying his inability to live with himself.
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone seen Bill Engvall’s show on TBS? I’ve heard or read that it’s supposed to be a good family comedy, but haven’t checked it out yet.
Report comment to moderator
What I find really sad is the nastiness of the kids towards their parents. The mouthy, smarter-than-the-parents kid has become the norm, and the parents rarely even react to the kid’s lack of respect, much less punish him/her. A prime example is the middle kid on Tim Allen’s Home Improvement. That boy was always insulting the father and never chastised for it. True, Tim’s character was supposed to be not-too-bright and clumsy, but his son should not have constantly been making wisecracks about it.
As for Lohan and Richards: they’re a couple of train wrecks looking for their 15 minutes of fame at the expense of their kid’s childhood.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. Once again, wise thoughts. I think the answer is that in real life, the ideal situation is one in which parents nurture their children in the Lord and use every opportunity to help them practice that. Thus, the mother doesn’t step in to solve a problem, but rather coaches the child (in an age-appropriate manner) through the situation using Biblical principles. Even when a parent must provide the solution or step in to bail the child out of a sticky situation they’ve gotten themselves into, it can be a beautiful lesson about grace.
I don’t suppose that would make a very popular TV show. It won’t even be very popular around here with several of our posters.
Report comment to moderator
Kayvee–Agreed. I rewatched the Cheaper by the Dozen remake with Steve What’s-his-face in it the other day and was reminded why I don’t like it:
It’s a bunch of kids who don’t respect their father and his vision and aren’t willing to work with him. They’re selfish brats (granted, the father needs to work some things through too) who sass their father constantly and do nothing to help with the family.
And we see this as the norm these days … even OK.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D, #13. Isn’t that writing 101? The protagonist should be the master of their own fate in the end. That doesn’t mean the mentor or parent isn’t there in the beginning giving them what they need at the point of crisis. That’s parenting 101. You won’t always be there when they have to make a critical decision so hope you have prepared them to make the right one.
Also I never thought the humor on Cosby was at all nasty.
Report comment to moderator
Kbells, yes, it is–but in real life, seven-year-olds don’t solve their own life issues. So if one reads a consistent diet of books in which seven-year-olds solve everything without parental input, doesn’t that encourage too much independence? Consider that Little Women (in which the girls were teenagers) still had a lot of input from Marmie, and Little House had a wise, even commanding, father. That didn’t stop the fun.
Again, I think a mix is needed. Parents do give counsel, and kids seek it. In scenes where parents are absent, kids make choices based on what their parents would want them to do…or they choose otherwise and suffer consequences. No constant parental presence, but book characters who are children shouldn’t come across as orphans or disobedient rebels who get away with their disobedience, either. (In my first book–so far unpublished–my protaganist has been told things that aren’t true. She believes them at first, and when she begins to have doubts, she asks her mom a question or two. After that, she goes to her Bible–conveniently a kids’ Bible that has study notes–and begins to figure out how she should respond to the situation. So she has a mix of adult input and figuring things out herself.)
Report comment to moderator
I don’t watch shows where people insult each other, regardless of their roles in the family – I just don’t find it funny. I never thought of it as detrimental to the famiy, specifically, just to human relationships in general.
But it also never would have occurred to me – until reading these comments – that anyone, even people who find such shows funny, might think that kind of behavior was acceptable in real life, any more than throwing pies in people’s faces. There really are families where people talk to each other that way?
Report comment to moderator
I really can’t think of a child’s book where there is no adult input at all. The parent doesn’t have to be right in the child’s face to have input. Consider the “Little Princess”. Even though the father is not there physically, he is always there influencing Sarah’s decisions and attitudes. I’d rather see a positive absent parent like that than the negative present parents you see on Nick Jr.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – sure, there are families like that. My in-laws are very much like that. They tend to do more making-fun of each other than any family I have ever met. Gets old. And I try to make sure my kids don’t take part, and realize that it isn’t right. It’s easier that we live 4 hours from them, but still. It’s unfortunate.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline, yeah, there really are.
I have a brother who’s several years older than me, but last time I visited him, when he was about 40, it struck me how juvenile his humor still was. One night at dinner he and his wife and kids, me, and one or two of our brothers were present. I said something, and my brother pretended to catch me in a contradiction, so he accused me of lying. To him it was in good “fun,” but to me I was accused of lying in front of his children, and that wasn’t funny. I tried to defend myself, and he kept it going. His wife finally told me to give it up. The whole visit I realized that he did that kind of “catching you in a trap” with everybody. It would have completely disgusted me to deal with it all the time, as his family had to.
When I was about 20, I was part of a youth group that did that stuff routinely. I got very good at it, and later had to break the habit. But it’s a juvenile habit, annoying to others, and way too easy to step over the line and truly say the wrong thing. (I once completely offended my sister in such a regard. She was spending the night with me and she asked to borrow a pair of pants to put on over her PJs. I loaned her a pair, but told her she’d never be able to zip them up–I barely could zip them without anything underneath them, and she was putting them on over PJs. She tried and failed to zip them, and I said, “Boy, you’re fat.” She burst into tears. She was a size six, trying to zip pants that I’d told her couldn’t be zipped–to me it was fairly obvious I didn’t really think she was fat. But my silly comment still really hurt her in an area where, unknown to me, she was sensitive.)
Report comment to moderator
It’s a shame when families use mean-spirited or sarcastic humor against each other.
There is a kind of gentle teasing-with-love that we do in our family. But we don’t tease about subjects that we know are touchy or hurtful. And we don’t overdo it.
For instance, my husband can tease me about my lack of good balance (he calls me a Weeble), but he won’t tease me about my weight.
I can gently tease him about his occasional absent-mindedness, but I would never impugn his intelligence.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!