"...Call me immodest—moi?—but I honestly think Roseanne is even more ahead of its time today, when Americans are, to use a technical term from classical economics, screwed. We had our fun; it was a sitcom. But it also wasn’t The Brady Bunch; the kids were wiseasses, and so were the parents. I and the mostly great writers in charge of crafting the show every week never forgot that we needed to make people laugh, but the struggle to survive, and to break taboos, was equally important. And that was my goal from the beginning...
...Hollywood hates labor, and hates shows about labor worse than any other thing. And that’s why you won’t be seeing another Roseanne anytime soon. Instead, all over the tube, you will find enterprising, overmedicated, painted-up, capitalist whores claiming to be housewives."
Roseanne - And I Should Know
h/t The Activist
Crow's Eye: Maintaining a commitment to Pointless Acrimony™ and Hate Filled Invective™! Also available in corvid mischief and traditional sly dog's mistrust.
4 comments:
No question, "Roseanne" was a great show, broadcast because it made money for the network with its huge ratings, and, probably also because, Barr's ambitions not withstanding, it served as an outlet for the frustrations of people victimized by Reaganomics.
Or, perhaps, more accurately, there was a duality in which it simultaneously served to challenge and reinforce the emerging new neoliberal order.
But Barr is right, we won't see anything like it again anytime soon, and not just because she correctly skewers the hostility towards labor among cultural elites (it goes far beyond Hollywood), but also because there is no longer any residue of class consciousness as displayed by the characters on "Roseanne".
I missed the boat on "Roseanne" -- I always cite "Married... With Children" as the 90s sitcom most ahead of its time, more for its aesthetics than its politics. But yeah, we're not going to see another All In The Family (or Roseanne, or M...WC) any time soon. In fact, I think Ed O'Neil's transformation from put-upon shoe salesman Al Bundy to the rich patriarch in "Modern Family" illustrates your point nicely.
Granted, it's anecdotal, but I work with my fair share of liberal types, and a few aren't exactly friends of those who labor in a physical sense unlike us keyboard jockeys. Because of course your employment spells out every possible facet of your interests, loves, hates, personality.
I was Teeveeless when "Roseanne" was on (still am), but I remember that both Ralph Kramden and his Paleolithic doppelganger Fred Flintstone were working-class types.
Granted, it's anecdotal, but I work with my fair share of liberal types, and a few aren't exactly friends of those who labor in a physical sense unlike us keyboard jockeys.
That's a shame. It's funny, I always seem to have jobs which involve both brains and brawn. Computer, forklift... they're both machines.
Post a Comment