MovieChat Forums > The Larry Sanders Show (1992) Discussion > One aspect of this show which tends to d...

One aspect of this show which tends to date it:

posted 10 years ago by awellman-428-778828
7 replies | jump to latest

And no, it isn't the fact that it takes place in the 1990's.

What bothers me when I watch the show today is how despite the fact that "Sanders" was instrumental in destroying many of the traditional sitcom tropes that came before it, it also had a tendency to succumb to them as well. One Season 5 episode ends with Hank facing serious legal jeopardy over some Cuban cigars, yet once the episode ends, the cigars are never mentioned again.

These days, we expect our sitcoms to have character and story arcs, and even though "Sanders" is one of the shows that truly transformed the sitcom genre, I get the sense that younger viewers, watching with modern expectations, have trouble sensing just how revolutionary the show was. I know that I certainly find the show's low budget and occasionally wobbly production values far more noticeable now than I did at the time.

But the real problem I now have with the show--and don't get me wrong, I still feel it remains one of the most brilliant in TV history--is the lack of continuity from one episode to the next. As has been noted on these threads, as well as by Shandling and others producing the show, the broadcast order of the episodes was apparently determined after the entire season had been filmed. For example, one of the final shows to air on HBO, "Beverly's Secret", was actually the first episode filmed for the show's final season. First-time viewers watching the show in broadcast order are likely to be confused about why this episode fails to acknowledge the season-long arc (that the show-within-a-show is in the process of finishing its run), yet viewers watching the show in production order would no doubt wonder why Beverly's titular secret--SPOILER ALERT: her pregnancy--is immediately and completely forgotten in each of the subsequent ten episodes.

Is this a fair criticism?

[–] LutherMahoney 9 years ago

This is a very astute criticism and something I hadn't considered before, namely that sitcoms of this era, even the best ones, rarely followed a narrative arc. Friends was one exception from that era, though it's overall a far inferior show compared to Larry Sanders.

I'm working through this show for the first time (on season 5 now), and it's a real joy to watch. As a child of the 80s, a huge part of its appeal is seeing iconic pop culture figures of the 90s (David Duchovny, Jerry Seinfeld, Phil Hartman) back in their primes in a way I hadn't seen them before. Duchovny's appearance in Season 4 is hilarious - the X-Files were just starting to take off at that time.

[–] liberius 9 years ago

Your specific example is certainly fair criticism.

Most dramas in those days didn't have story arcs let alone sitcoms. Think back to Hill Street Blues and its use of arcs which make it seem so modern despite being 35 years old. You're right, it is hard to describe in modern context how revolutionary these shows were. These days a show without strong arcs feels disconnected and shallow. We expect more involvement.

Having just rewatched the first two seasons of Larry Sanders I'm not sure it lacks arcs at all. I think the dominant aspect is that we see strong character arcs mixed in with some story arc. That is, it's possible for characters to have their own path without necessarily being tied into a specific story arc.

[–] TexasGreek 9 years ago

Every criticism you described is legit, and I have personally noticed each one myself, but I fail to see how any of them necessarily "date" the show.

[–] shelemm 8 years ago

i am not bothered at all by dropping the Cuban cigar arrest. It would be hard for me to imagine a Hollywood celebrity getting more than a wrist slap. Nothing that would have to be mentioned again.

[–] damazywlodarczyk 8 years ago

I don't know why you talk about lack of continuity, it is present, albeit subtly(hank's restaurant, network negotiations, marriages), but even if it doesnt have grandiose character arcs its not jarring because of the episode per show formula, every episode is a new show, and the show revolves around "the show" so the episode must be somewhat closed(as is the show).

[–] liscarkat (18886) 2 years ago

Your observation is valid. However, as you said, this might be more of a problem for younger viewers today. Having grown up with one-off tv series episodes from the 1950s through 1980s, when the only "story arcs" on television were found on daytime soap operas, I don't mind the loose continuity at all.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6437) a year ago

Episodic and serialized are two different ways to go. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither one is any better than the other.