Uniquepapers's Blog

“Married with Children” was a popular sitcom in the 1990’s and one of the reasons for its popularity was that it was drastically different from most sitcoms not only in the time period but in history. Indeed, Married with Children wasn’t about “good people” who had to overcome problems in and out of the family like its predecessors and contemporaries such as “Family Ties”, Growing Pains, “the Cosby Show”, “Home Improvement” and “Family Matters” among other shows. Married with Children was a show that was about a dysfunctional family with tremendously flawed characters who solved their problems through violence, pranks and scheming. Moreover, the characters interaction was filled with sarcasm and insults-but that made the show interesting in some respects than the sitcoms mentioned above.

One of the reasons that “Married with Children” was so popular was because in many ways it was more realistic that shows like “Family Matters” and the “Cosby Show.” That is not to say that fathers ram their daughter’s boyfriends’ heads into walls, but it is to say that there are families that stay together that are dysfunctional and the dysfunction of those families are more representative of American families than the other shows mentioned in earlier discussion. The shows mentioned above for the most part deal in micro issues and conflicts that are solved within the course of one television show. With “Married with Children”-there is no getting around the fact that Al Bundy (the main character, father and husband) is obsessed with the one day in his high school football career where he scored four touchdowns in one game. Moreover, Al Bundy is stuck in a job that he hates with a wife that is annoying and children that may be even more annoying-but he needs the job. That is more realistic to most people than having a father who is a doctor (Cosby Show and Growing Pains) or a mother that is a lawyer (Cosby Show). In other words, Married with Children is a reflection of how “imperfect” family life can be.

“Married with Children” is certainly not a show that is for children. Indeed, there is no message at the end of the show like there is with a show like “Full House.” The only possible messages are more macro messages because one can get the same idea from watching any random episode of the show. More to the point, the messages that “Married with Children” gives are actually more nuanced to a degree than the ones on the “family friendly shows.” For instance, when the Bundys go to the movies or a car wash and get into a conflict with another family-the Bundys band together to solve their problem through violence. The underlying/nuanced message is loyalty to one’s family despite any internal issues-but that is not a message most people will see (including adults). Most people will see the violence and either be entertained or turned off by it.

Another hint to the audience demographic “Married with Children” is going for can be heard in the live studio audience. When Al Bundy or any other major character first appears on a given episode-there isn’t light applause or respectful silence-there is hooting and hollering (for lack of a more “academic” term) from male voices. In other words, “Married with Children” caters to adult men who can relate to a man who has a job he hates and just wants to hang out with his friends at Hooters even though he is married. Moreover, those men also got a chance to look at Kelly Bundy (portrayed by Christina Applegate) who was a beautiful and sexy woman. Without being privy to the marketing plans for the television show-one can only assume that this show was created to appeal to the average “red-blooded” American male. If appealing to males was the design for the show-it certainly succeeded to that end.

The main characters were appealing to me because they weren’t perfect. That is not to say that the characters on other sitcoms were (for instance Alex P. Keaton on Family Ties was obsessed with money) perfect-but it is to say that there is something attractive about characters that are so interesting that as a viewer I know that any scenario that they wind up in will be intriguing in terms of the result. When the characters are written as role models as they are on most sitcoms-there is less intrigue because the end result is seemingly more about the message than entertaining the viewer. One way to put it is that I would rather see the Bundys get into a fight at a restaurant with another family for a random reason or Al Bundy scheme to try to make the proverbial quick buck than the Keatons (this is a hypothetical example because I am not sure there was ever an episode on Family Ties about race relations) have dinner with an African-American family to show solidarity between the races. There is a place for both type of shows-but personally I am more interested in “Married with Children’s” interpretation of the family.

“Married with Children” is one of my favorite television shows of all time because it is different. A show with a husband and father who had his best days before he got married, a slacker who only watches television, a sexpot daughter and a girl-hungry son is so different from the norm that it becomes interesting simply based on how unique it is. Beyond the characters, the plots are also different than what we have come to expect from the genre. Husbands and wives don’t usually plot against each other constantly. There are few if any sitcoms where solving problems with fighting is encouraged. While the show was certainly entertaining in its own right-I credit the creative team for having a vision of a sitcom that was more edgy (to say the least) than just about every sitcom that came before.