Review: Who Killed the British Sitcom?

In January 2006 Channel 4 aired a documentary in which former ITV Director of Programmes David Liddiment analysed the 'death of the British sitcom'. Screenwriter Richard Bevan sent in this review...

I have to agree with Scott Thompson's review of David Liddiment's Who Killed Off the Sitcom programme in that it appeared to be incredibly selective of its views.

It's interesting the notions that TV people have about what actually makes engaging, engrossing television shows - usually concepts that actually alienate the audience - and appear oblivious to the fact that the ratings and an audience's reaction to a show tells a very different story. Why is it assumed that TV comedy has to be one kind of creature and nothing else?

There's no doubting that TV comedy has evolved and moved on from the static, stagey productions of sitcoms made in the 70's and 80's, but if a show that is filmed on limited sets, in front of an audience actually works, and is a ratings success, then doesn't that speak for itself? Different kinds of shows have different types of audiences and I've come across twenty year olds who couldn't stand 'Spaced' but loved 'Dinnerladies'.

Victoria Wood in the programme was heard to sound the death knell for her own traditional sitcom writing, but ironically - and strangely ignored in the programme - 'Dinnerladies' was a ratings success and LOVED. The kind of comedy programme that is still enjoyed continuously on the likes of UKGold. Let's also not forget that 'Fools & Horses', another traditional style sitcom that harbingers of doom are suggesting is now null and void, still pulls in greater audience figures when repeated than most new shows.

So why then is this kind of comedy deemed redundant when audience figures and appreciation indexes suggest otherwise? There's a great deal of talk by TV people about shows being 'cutting edge' but such notions are irrelevant when it comes down to just making viewers laugh. They don't care what the style of a show is, how it looks or whether it's shot with a digital multicamera set up. All they are bothered about is whether they like the characters, love to hate the characters and that the script is funny, very funny.

Personally I find 'My Family' as amusing as a heavily used cat-litter tray, but I understand that millions love it. But is 'My Family' revolutionary simply because it is written by a bunch of writers reflecting the American system? I doubt it because there's nothing about the show that says it's actually better because of that dynamic - say compared to a bygone but brilliant and cheap sitcom 'Rising Damp' that was authored by one writer. It's success came down to its writing and acting.

The Liddiment programme also ignored the successes such as 'Ab Fab', a show that still hasn't been matched for wit by any British sitcom to-date. Was Jennifer Saunders wrong to write the show in the way she did? I doubt 'Ab Fab' would have been any more successful had it been shot in 'realistic style' on one film or video camera without a studio audience.

So Victoria, forget TV trends. They're meaningless and do us all a favour and write a sitcom that is equally appealing, endearing, has pathos -and bathos - and makes us laugh the way 'Dinnerladies' did, even if some the gags were obvious.

Instead of becoming obsessed about 'style' producers and commissioners should be more concerned about whether a comedy is actually funny or not. We need better comedy writing, mentoring and investment in the script side of the industry, so that maybe one day British TV will finally have a sitcom as witty as the likes of 'Friends', 'Frasier' and 'Will & Grace'.

See also: Scott Thompson's review of 'Who Killed the British Sitcom?'