For a while now I have been trying to figure out what the big fuss was about sitcom. Newspapers, magazines and TV shows have all been trying to clarify our relationship with the British sitcom. Most recently, the RADIO TIMES (2003 10 - 16 May) published (yet another) article about how 'absolutely super' British Sitcoms are. To be honest, it was a rather sickening article that, as usual, seems to believe that the ONLY contribution to sitcom is Fawlty Towers, Only Fools and Horses and The Office.

In the article, a panel of experts put their heads together and put together a list of what would be essential components of the "ULTIMATE SITCOM" (dear god). What they came up with was… for want of a better word… dull. All the usual suspects were present and correct, Basil Fawlty, Del Boy, Captain Mainwaring, David Brent which, again, only really shows that we have a very short memory for sitcom in this country.

Hang on… before I go any further, I don't want to come across as saying that I think these sitcoms or characters are crap, or that I think they are unfunny, but rather I'm expressing my frustration of the way the media report on this area of comedy.

So back to my rant…

So yes, the usual suspects were all present and correct but with closer inspection it seemed that the rest of the characters needed to build "The ULTIMATE SITCOM" were from a particular type of sitcom, the type I like to call 'the cosy prime time' sitcom. So, I was surprised (or rather not) to find such examples of Birds of A Feather, Are You Being Served, Keeping Up Appearances and The Vicar Of Dibley in among the more obvious entries.

Again, you can comment amongst yourselves about the hilarity of these shows, but I found their place on the list rather odd.

Lets look at the other examples you could throw in there?

Where was Blackadder? Father Ted? The Young Ones? Men Behaving Badly? Red Dwarf? Hell, even The Good Life!?

All these shows have just as much to offer the world of sitcom as any other. They all contain the classic comedy staples and conventions, but in some cases they twist them or bend the rules. So, are they not included because they don't fall in to the rather mundane world of the 'Cosy' sitcom (yes I know The Good Life does, but I'm skating over that one for the purposes of this argument) or is it simply because no one can be arsed to do their research?

Then, I looked at the panel and bar the psychologists, university lecturers and such I found it amusing to see that two seats were taken up by Paul Mayhew-Archer and Sue Teddern who, respectively, wrote Vicar Of Dibley and Birds Of A Feather! So THAT explains some of the surprising additions in the ULTIMATE list!

Possibly the worst aspect to all this is the seemingly satisfied attitude these articles (and certainly BBC 1's The Sitcom Story) take in that a good sitcom MUST have a French Window, Middle Class Suburbia and British Eccentrics to make the grade.

Surely the only components that count in SITCOM are Situation and Comedy. Anything else is a casualty of the cultural environment from which the programme was made. The Sitcom Story goes to great pains to state that shows like Only Fools… or Fawlty Towers were big flops at the time of their original broadcast but grew in praise over time. Which is fine. But I would say this… how many pilots or first series disappeared and were never repeated?

One example I would give would be Hippies on BBC2 in 1999. It was a new sitcom created by Graham Linehan and Arthur Mathews (Father Ted) and had a pretty damn fine cast (Simon Pegg, Sally Phillips, Darren Boyd). It featured, as you may have already gathered, a bunch of Hippies. It didn't fare very well, but there were many glimmers of hope throughout the series. There were very strong lines, interesting concepts and wonderful supporting characters and had more than enough going for it to attempt another series. But that never happened. Which was a shame. However, there wasn't even a repeat available to give it a second chance. So in this instance, where was the support, where was the growth and development? On another note, why has Two Pints Of Lager And A Packet Of Crisps been given the privilege of 3 whole series? From what I have read and heard, it is not well received and from my experience… not very funny.

And on with my rant.

I think the point of all this is that reading up on and listening to all things Sitcom is beginning to sound like a broken record. Office this and Fawlty that… Don't people understand that if you look hard enough, there are many more sitcoms out there lost in time, desperate to find a new audience? Even new sitcoms need to be given time (unless they REALLY do suck - The Fitz?) and I just find this constant worshipping of 3 or 4 sitcoms really annoying.

It's kinda like the British obsession with the 1966 World Cup win… England won it once and yet we still make a big deal about it despite the fact there are plenty of other countries that have won it a fair few time. In terms of Sitcom, we like to go on and on about how simply wonderful Only Fools… is (which it is, but if I have to see Del Boy fall through the bar ONE MORE TIME…) but what about the other shows that have been forgotten, or even worse, ignored?

Ok, feel free to disagree, feel free to moan, bite back, commend, reject or ignore this rant (and it is a rant), but hopefully, it has got you talking about what should or shouldn't be mentioned in the world of sitcom, rather than some panel of 'experts' tell you how British sitcom should be remembered.

As I wind down this ill thought out and probably badly written article, I will just hope that people will have their own thoughts on what good comedy should contain…

But don't even get me started on the whole American Vs British thing…

No way…

This will be the last time I write the word sitcom…

I've used the word far too often!