There’s an idea that a television show with humorous trappings is a sitcom, which is not actually the case. For those not in the know (with apologies to those in it (it being the know)), the term sitcom derives entirely from the phrase ‘situation comedy,’ as in, a character finds him/herself in a situation, from which humor is derived. This is fundamentally different from ‘comedy’ on its own, and while this is gut feeling stuff, here’s why(ish):
An example of a sitcom is “Friends.” 6 people live in New York, have enough money to not be truly worried about things, therefore the relatively low stakes nature of their career efforts, loves lives, and interests proves to be humorous, because we once were there (or thought we could be), but these people are crazy. An example of a comedic counterpoint to “Friends” is Nights and Weekends, a film by Joe Swanberg, about a long distance relationship. The trappings are entirely the same as the Ross-Rachel dynamic that became the focal point of the show: attractive metropolitan characters, excellent banter, an on again off again relationship, heartbreak and joyous tears.
The fundamental, and complete, difference is that there is no “situation.” They are just two people who have difficulties with each other, which is sometimes really funny to watch, and is sometimes not.
‘Comedy’ is comedy because there is always the potential it will stop being funny, and not in sense of execution, but because of the audience member’s own life. We laugh until we cry, literally. The “situation” however, will always be the playground for people to cast their woes into the plea that inevitability, things will work out for the better, because isn’t that the Shakespearean definition of ‘comedy?’ Maybe, but all it says is the lowest point for the characters is in Act III.
There’s nothing saying that it’s better in Act V than it was in Act I.
