40. 055) i+

CRITICISM AMD TELEVISION COMELY DRA.L'-:

AN ANALYSIS OF ALL IN THE FAMILY

.John Lewis Wright

A Dissertation

Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1975

BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY IA

(c) 1975

JOHN LEWIS WRIGHT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED W.'YW 610296

ABSTRACT

Television has become the medium for the most popular art forms of our time, and there is a need for television criticism which is investi­ gative and founded on knowlege of traditional patterns of artistic ex­ pression. Television comedy drama is a new part of a long comic tradi­ tion. At the same time the medium itself changes somewhat the nature of the work; for example, the structure and pace of television comedy is highly controlled, the process of creation is communal, and the per­ vasiveness of the broadcast medium provides an audience of the greatest diversity.

To demonstrate the application of traditional literary theories and methods, the various elements in the success of the American tele­ vision comedy series All in the Family are analysed, using the original scripts of the first four seasons as source materials. The British pro­ totype, Till Death Us Do Part, is examined in some detail as the Ameri­ can series is closely based on this program, with its bigoted father, absent-minded mother, and their troublesome daughter and son-in-law in realistic conflict in a lower-class setting. The study then traces the premiere of All in the Family: the process of getting the program broadcast, the critical reception, and the popularity of the series in its first season.

The success of All in the Family may be attributed to a skillful combination of invention and convention. The program brought new depth to American television comedy by providing a realistic setting, by giv­ ing the family a past, and by introducing complex and controversial characters and issues. While the characters are recognizable members of a modern lower-middle-class urban family, they are also founded on stock comic figures: Archie the buffoon, T4ike the ironist, Edith the naif, and Gloria the ingenue. Similarly, though current and contro­ versial issues are raised, the resolution of problems is based on a tra­ ditional comic ethic of moderation and pragmatism. Finally, the series has been successful because it has created and maintained a tension between the modes of low and high comedy, blending farce and social satire.

Included in the s tudy is a listing of the episodes of the first four seasons of the series, with titles, taping and air dates, personnel involved, and brief plot summaries. Ill

ACKNOVZLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the members of my committee for their guidance and helpful criticism: Dr. Thomas Wymer, Dr. Ray Browne, and Dr. Michael Marsden.

X am indebted to Tandem Productions of Los Angeles and A. L. S. Management Ltd. of London for providing the original scripts on which this study is based.

Special thanks go to Dorothy Betts for her care and concern in preparing the manuscript.

Finally, I thank my wife, Sandra Wright, for her insight and her help through the hard times. IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER ONE ASSUMPTIONS...... 1

CHAPTER TWO BRITISH ORIGINS...... 25

CHAPTER THREE AMERICAN DEBUT...... 4?

CHAPTER FOUR ELEMENT'S OF SUCCESS: SETTING...... ?O

CHAPTER FIVE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: ARCHIE AND EDITH ...... 79

CHAPTER SIX ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: MIKE, GLORIA, AND OTHERS...... 102

CHAPTER SEVEN ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: ISSUES AND THEMES...... 125

CHAPTER EIGHT COMEDY HIGH AND LOW...... 1M

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... ■...... 14B

APPENDIX DESCRIPTIVE LISTING OF ALL IN THE FAMILY PROGRAMMING, EPISODES 0101-0424...... 152 1

CHAPTER ONE

ASSUMPTIONS

On January 12, 19715 American television was changed. This date was the premiere of the comedy series All in the Family. The style and content of this new series marked a dramatic departure from the comedy drama of the preceding twenty-odd years of television programming. The very title of the series was an ironic commentary on the "family shows" that had prevailed on commercial television. The title seemed to prom­ ise the viewer another of those sentimental yet light-hearted looks at middle-class family life. But what viewers found, to their delight or dismay, was a comedy that confronted head-on such problems as the gener­ ation gap, sexual impotency, and bigotry. Furthermore, the problems were not trivialized but”were treated with sensitivity and dramatic real­ ism. Television comedy would never be the same after this date. Look­ ing back from the perspective of several years, one may see that the time was ripe for this sort of change in television comedy drama. Life styles and family patterns portrayed in most comedy programs did not approximate the reality of existence for most Americans, white or black, rich or poor. Of course, All in the Family was no perfect mirror of reality either, nor was it intended to be; like all good comedy, it was an exaggeration of certain aspects of life. It was an artistic presen­ tation of a particular view of the world.

The purpose of this study is to investigate in depth the history and meaning of this television series All in the Family. The first chapter sets forth and discusses the major assumptions and approaches 2

involved in the study. As far as can be determined, there have been few 1 studies written on single television series. For this reason, some basic ground-plans need to be laid before beginning the construction of the study.

The first assumption is that most current studies of television are peripheral and inadequate. They are peripheral because most research­ ers’ time and energy have been exhausted in studying areas only tangen­ tial to the programs themselves. To understand what has been done in television research, Harold Lasswell’s classic formulation of communica­ tion is helpful: Who Says What In Which Channel To Whom With V/hat 2 Effect. Most television scholarship has focussed on the last three elements of the communication process: the channel, the audience, and the effects. Studies of the channel include investigations of the historical development and economics of the various media, their tech­ niques, standards, and unique characteristics. The works of Marshall

McLuhan represent perhaps the most visionary and best-known study of the channels of communication. Like most other media theorists, McLuhan is not especially concerned vjith the content of the media. He has said:

"Our conventional response to all media, namely that it Is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the ’content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the 3 burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind." Rather he is preoccu­ pied with the impact which the media have on our daily lives and thought patterns by virtue of their mere existence.

Large amounts of time and money have been spent trying to deter­ mine to whom the message is being sent, as broadcasters and advertisers 5

probe the audience to find out who is watching what. The audience- probers also want to know with what effects the message is being re­ ceived, and they have underwritten numerous projects to find out whether and in what ways audience behavior is influenced. In recent years the industry people as well as Presidential commissions and other independ­ ent bodies have occupied themselves with such questions as the effects of television violence upon viewers, particularly upon children.

For example, in 1972 the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory

Committee on Television and Social Behavior issued a report examining televised violence, a report which was the result of three years of work 4 and over one million dollars in expense. Another issue has been the effect and effectiveness of political advertising on television. The social scientists have generally used quantitative methods in studying the audience and audience behavior. Two of the more significant of the studies in a social science context are Gary Steiner's The People Look at Television and the follow-up study Television and the Public, by 5 Robert T. Bower, both of which attempt to measure audience attitudes.

The social scientists and McLuhanesque theorists have all added to the general body of knowledge about television; the problem is that their approaches have dominated television research far too much.

Available studies of the Who and What of television are generally inadequate or at least irrelevant to understanding the esthetics of the medium. The Who is dealt with in technical manuals of broadcasting, such as the standard introductory text by Stasheff and Bretz, The Tele- g vision Program. These manuals are, of course, helpful lesson-books for the camera handlers, directors, and others, but the books usually give 4

little insight into the creative roles of the various people. Books dealing with script writing are also usually of the how-to variety. The hooks on script writing do not ordinarily provide such information as how and by whom a script is altered during production. There are numer­ ous books dealing with the industry of television, exposes of network operations and the like, one of the best being Les Brown’s study, Tele- 7 vision: The Business Behind the Box. Interesting as these studies are, they do little to explain the production of a particular program.

An exception here is The Making of Star Trek, by Whitfield and Rodden- berry, a book which examines one series in great depth from initial con- g cept to production and audience reception.

In any case, it is the What of television, the programs themselves, that have received least serious study. In particular, what has been most neglected is the kind of programming which makes up the vast major­ ity of all commercial viewing fare, the "entertainment" programs: quiz and game shows, comedies, variety shows, soap operas, talk shows, musical shows, cartoons, and the profusion of prime-time dramatic programs.

Most of the critical commentary on these programs is found in the col­ umns of the reviewers employed or syndicated by most major newspapers and many magazines. Reviewers are as divergent in quality and style as the programs they view, but the general level of reviewing is rather low. It has been said that a newspaper’s television reviewer is often the person on the staff who was not capable of doing any other sort of work. Unfor­ tunately, many television reviews are little more than gossip columns reporting the latest doings of the stars. Some reviewers rely solely on network press releases and industry rumor for information, and they are 5

sometimes co-opted by the industry. One writer has complained that "the

press—not to mention the nation—cannot afford the sort of slovenly, a uninformed, unreadable coverage it now accords television.'1 At the

same time, there are a few reviewers who are careful and thoughtful,

among them Rick Du Brow of United Press International and Michael J.

Arlen of The New Yorker. In addition, the reviews in the trade paper 10 Variety are noted for their excellence. But the pressures of time and

space often lead even the best of reviewers to a superficial evaluation

of a program substantiated by a few observations about the theme of the

show or the quality of the acting. Rarely do we find a thorough critical

analysis of a particular program or series.

The function of most television reviewers is comparable to that of

most book reviewers. Both types of reviewers are expected to write a

short and entertaining piece which summarizes the plot or action of the

work and then passes some sort of judgment on the work. The average

newspaper or magazine reader would have little patience with a review

which discoursed at length on the social import or artistic achievement

of a book or television show. There are, of course, significant differ­

ences between book and television reviewing. The book reviewer usually

operates from a position of superiority, in that s/he has read the book

and the prospective reader goes to the review for advice on whether or

not to spend time and money on the book. Unless the television reviewer

is granted a preview of a program, s/he is giving old news. As Jackie

Gleason has commented, "Television critics are men who report traffic accidents to eyewitnesses." Everyone with a television set has equal and

free access to the program; the only apparent expense is that of one's 6

time. A recent survey of some seventy television reviewers discovered

that a majority of them do not believe that good reviews can offset poor 12 ratings. Despite these handicaps, reviews do serve a vital function

because they give the viewer who has seen the same show an opinion

against which the viewer may react with his/her own thoughts. Since

many people watch television in a semi-conscious state much of the time,

a sensitive reviewer may be able to point out more than is ordinarily noticed.

But since the reviewer’s medium does not allow for much in-depth analysis of programming, what is needed is television criticism. Criti­

cism is here intended to be taken in the sense of literary or artistic criticism, not necessarily judgmental, but critical scholarship which is

investigative and builds up a body of knowledge. In-depth criticism is predicated on the second assumption of this dissertation, which simply must be a given: that television "entertainment" programs, especially dramatic programs, are a significant form of popular art and deserve study in themselves. The programs deserve, indeed demand, study first of all because they touch the lives of millions of persons; approximately forty million people see All in the Family each week. It is irrespon­ sible for scholars to ignore anything in the culture which contacts such a large part of the population.

But not only are television programs the most pervasive, most- viewed popular forms of our time; they are a significant form of popular art because they are highly structured and carefully wrought creations.

The average viewer takes these programs very much for granted; the aver­ age intellectual dismisses them as just so much cultural trash. What 7

neither sees is the enormous amount of creative energy that goes into

making a program. The purpose of a program may he purely that of enter­

taining the viewer for an hour, and there is nothing ignoble in this

purpose. The critic must judge the work in terms of its aims; if the

primary aim is to entertain, the work should be judged a success if it

accomplishes that goal.

But television dramatic programs deserve study apart from extrinsic

considerations. Commercial breaks and station identifications may be

seen as an integral part of the total show, but they are usually thought

of as merely annoying distractions that interrupt the continuity of the

program. This is not to say that advertisements are not at times little

works of art in themselves but that they often do interfere with percep­

tion of the program as an artistic whole. One reason most of the dra­

matic offerings broadcast on public television are considered more artis

tic than similar programs broadcast on commercial television is that the

structure and continuity of the programs are more easily discernible without the distraction of advertising. Indeed, viewing a videotape of a commercial television program from which the advertisements have been

cut is an enlightening experience; the show becomes much more engrossing and involving. A more common experience, that of seeing a film both in

the theater and on television, provides a somewhat similar contrast.

The programs must be separated from the context of the television indus­ try as well to recognize their artistry. A superficial knowledge of the networks tends to make most observers cynical about the motives of those who broadcast the programs. But it should be remembered that the network is little more than a channel for the communication. The net­ 8

work may exert pressure on the program’s creators, but the real respon­ sibility for the final shape of the work usually rests with the inde­ pendent producers and their staffs. To spend much time studying the role of the network is somewhat like studying the role of a publisher in the creation of a novel. Both publisher and network are usually more or less extrinsic to the work in itself. Finally, the program itself should be distinguished from its effects. Perhaps because television is a multi-purpose medium and because it is so pervasive, commentators on the medium often do not differentiate the program from the social impact of the program. The critical reaction to All in the Family is a case in point, as is shown later in the thesis.

Television dramatic programs are a significant form of popular art in our time also because, like popular culture in general, they provide a reflection of social values. Popular art is more likely than elite art to mirror the preoccupations and mores of a vast part of the society.

For example, the image of American family life on television has tradi­ tionally been that of a middle class ideal. An important distinction to make at this point though is that the popular arts, particularly the narrative arts, do not always reflect society as it is but as the members of the society may wish it to be. Popular fictions, however realistic they may be, often represent a sort of collective fantasy. Television drama, then, is a realm of fictions. Perhaps because television is intimate and immediate, the fiction of television programs takes on a compelling reality for many viewers. The critics of television are often led into what might be called a fallacy of verisimilitude: not recog­ nizing that artistic or dramatic truth is not always the same as truth 9

to everyday life. Of course the demand for a mirror-like realism in television is paralleled by reactions to the emergence of earlier forms and media. When the novel was developed in the eighteenth and nine­ teenth centuries, for instance, it was severely attacked for not being factual or "true to life." As with television, it was difficult for many to accept the idea of a fictional world, a hypothetical construct of reality. Again as with television, much of the attack on the novel came from those who saw the new form as escapist, a threat to serious thought, and a corrupting influence on youth. For various reasons, then, television dramas have seldom been accepted as autonomous forms of creative expression.

Television dramas are also significant because they reflect a modern relativistic view of the world. They do this in two ways. First, unlike earlier forms of popular narrative, television dramas often give the viewer a shifting viewpoint by which one is allowed to identify with different characters at different moments. This shift in viewpoint and sympathy is accomplished through shifts in camera angle and other visual techniques. In this respect television is like film, but it is unlike film in that a viewer sees a film once, whereas a television series is a continuing drama that recurs week after week. In the television series life is process rather than finished product. The individual episode may resolve the immediate problem of the drama, but the spectator knows that next week will bring new problems or mysteries. The soap operas are the most obvious example of this view of life as process or flow, but all series contain similar though less overt implications. A rela­ tivistic view is apparent in another way in the newer comedies such as 10

M*A*S*H or All in the Family. There is little overt moralizing in these programs; while certain humanistic values may he implicit in the work­ ing out of the story, the viewer is generally left to draw his/her own conclusions regarding the meaning of the drama. This ambiguity partly explains the fact of selective perception of Archie Bunker in All in the

Family; some viewers see him as an admirable figure, others see him as foolish or even evil. Contemporary narrative is not prone to obvious moralizing or didacticism, the little sermons of Marcus Welby notwith­ standing.

The third assumption of this dissertation is that dramatic comedy on television is related to comedy in other media. Television comedy is most directly descended from comedy in radio and film. In the early days of television a struggle was waged between two large divisions with­ in the industry who had differing views of what the new medium should be.

One group, based primarily in New York and Chicago, thought of tele­ vision as radio with pictures; they were especially influential on the live dramas of the 19^Qfs and on news and public affairs broadcasts then and later. They believed television was essentially a verbal medium whose prime virtues were its immediacy and intimacy and ability to trans­ mit information with great speed. The other group, located mainly in

Hollywood, thought of television as movies on a small screen; they have been influential on prime-time entertainment programs, particularly dramatic shows. Television is now an amalgam of these two views.

Television drama is indebted to radio for the half-hour format of most dramatic comedy. The specific concept of middle class domestic comedy comes directly out of radio. The reliance on fast-paced dialogue 11

and absurd situations is also found in radio comedy. It is relevant here

to note that All in the Family could probably be done very well as a

radio show, as the program relies heavily on dialogue to generate humor.

In fact, listening to an audio recording of All in the Family is very

much like listening to a recording of Fibber McGee and Molly or some of

the other radio comedies of years past. Specific character types as well as situations are common to comedies in both media: the bumbling

father, the gentle mother, the bratty son, and so on. These similarities are understandable when one considers that many of the writers, direc­

tors, and actors who had been successful in radio moved into television work in the 1950*s. In fact a number of radio comedies were transferred almost intact to television, including such popular shows as The Gold­ bergs and Amos Tn Andy. Of course television comedies differed from those on radio in various ways. Most obviously, the visual dimension of the new medium added new sources of humor—sight gags, slapstick, and the "take," or facial reaction. These visual resources were first exploited most fully and most successfully in the zany antics of I Love

Lucy, which premiered in 1951-

Television comedy is related in technique and content to film comedy as well. Both are two-dimensional images in which the camera controls the perception of the spectator. Both allow the creators to edit the film or tape to put together the best sequence of shots. The visual aspect of both film and television calls for similar kinds of visual com­ edy. Despite the fact, however, that both media involve both sight and sound, there are some important differences in technique. Because the television image is relatively small, only medium or close-up camera 12

shots are effective; a long shot would he indistinguishable on a nineteen-inch screen. The film, on the other hand, has the freedom to use almost any camera distance or angle. Interior settings are pre­ dominant in television comedy, while there are many more outdoor scenes in film. The use of interior settings is dictated by the lower cost of a single set which can be used week after week and by the greater effec­ tiveness of close-ups in television. In addition, television programs are more likely to be shot in sequence, while movies are almost never done in sequence. The visual image predominates in the film; in tele­ vision the visual and aural dimensions are more nearly equal. Thus there is generally less use of sight gags in television than in film. A com­ parison of the great film comedies, such as those of the Marx Brothers or V/. C. Fields, with television comedies such as My World and Welcome to It or Room 222 shows the difference in emphasis. In terms of theme, film and television comedy are closely related; recurrent themes in both include the trickster tricked, the theme of justice and the affirmation of basic middle class values of thrift, moderation, and respectability.

Television comedy has, however, been less subversive than film comedy in that it seldom-pokes fun at established social mores. The film com­ edies, on the contrary, have ranged from the innocuous Loris Lay romps to the vicious satire of Stanley Kubrick. 13 Television comedy also differs in structure from film comedy; the television program is usually one-half hour in length, while the film may be anywhere from a few min­ utes to three hours long. The structure and pace of television comedy is therefore more highly controlled than that of film. Films are more expansive, television programs are more restrictive; a comparison may 13

be made by saying the film is somewhat like a novel while the television show is more like a short story, concentrating on one limited situation or action.

Television comedy is closely related to live theatrical comedy too.

The reliance on a script, the relatively fixed setting, the feeling of immediacy are common to both media. All in the Family in particular is very close to live drama. As noted before, the dialogue is the main source of humor. Also, the presence of the live audience and the use of videotape rather than film for All in the Family increase the illusion of theatrical immediacy. The director is the prime shaping force in the final presentation of the show. The main setting of All in the Family is almost classic theatre, with two side exits and a stairway at the rear of stage center. Most of the scenes occur in the livi’ig room area; only rarely does the camera move to a bedroom or to another location entirely.

For the living room scenes the camera often maintains a fixed position that corresponds to front-row center in the theatre. There are few quick cuts; most shots are held for at least thirty seconds, sometimes lasting as long as two minutes. The camera angle is usually at eye- level, maintaining the feeling of a close yet detached human observer of the scenes. A difference, however, between stage and television is that there is greater opportunity for close-up viewing of the actors’ faces in * television, making for subtler forms of visual humor that might be lost on the stage.

Television comedy, including All in the Family, is of course related to earlier forms of dramatic comedy in structure and style. In fact television comedy is part of a larger comedic tradition that may be traced back to the Greek comedies of Aristophanes through Terence,

Shakespeare, Moliere, Shaw, and a host of others. While it is impos­

sible to lump together such diverse writers, one may see that television

comedy shares certain fundamental characteristics with comedy in all

times and all media. In theme and structure, comedy is an affirmation

of life over system, a. movement from pain to pleasure. The primary aim

of comedy is to amuse; a secondary aim may be to instruct. Comedy is at

times anarchic, yet it usually implies a moral norm desired by the

author. Comedy is ritualistic, like all drama, having its origins in

various archaic ritual ceremonies and celebrations. Comedy commonly em­

ploys stock devices and stock figures, such as the character of the brag­

gart. Comedic style is distinguished by colloquial speech, the use of

repartee, malapropisms, and word play of all kinds. In commenting on

the larger purposes of comedy, the philosopher Ernst Cassirer has said:

. . . the bitterness of the great comic writers is not the acerbity of the satirist or the severity of the moralist. It does not lead to a moral verdict upon human life. Comic art possesses in the highest degree that faculty shared by all art, sympathetic vision. By virtue of this faculty it can accept human life with all its defects and foibles, its follies and vices. Great comic art.has always been a sort of encomium moriae, a praise of folly.

All in the Family, like most television comedy, incorporates these general characteristics of comedy. It is a mixture of a number of dif­ ferent types of comedy, although it is difficult to tell exactly where one style leaves off and another begins. The program has elements of the farce, in its use of short gags and the humor which arises from exagger­ ated, improbable situations and coarse wit. It is also like farce in that each episode is relatively brief, not having the five-act structure 15

of most comedy. In its realism and satire, however, All in the Family has elements of the comedy of manners. It is even more closely related to the comedy of humors in Its emphasis on fixed character traits and the conflicts that arise from these. But unlike the comedy of humors, there are moments of real pathos in All in the Family which are akin to the domestic melodrama of sentimental comedy. The program is a unique mix­ ture of all these styles, one which reflects the eclectic age in which it exists.

The fourth assumption of this dissertation is that the script is primary and that there is validity in studying the program through anal­ ysis of the script. Because All in the Family is a highly verbal show, the script is especially important. The script is the real basis of the program, although the script may go through many modifications from the first draft submitted by the writers to the final or "as broadcast" draft. The script, in addition to the dialogue, often describes settings and characters, gives stage directions and camera directions, and indi­ cates reactions and tone of voice to be used. Television comedy director

Alan Rafkin has confirmed that "the script is everything" and that study of scripts is valid. 15 From another source, esthetician Susanne Langer, in her book Feeling and Form, states that "The lines of the play are the only guide a good director or actor needs. What makes the play the author’s work is that the lines are really the highlights of a perpetual, progressive action, and determine what can be done with the piece on stage.

While acknowledging the primacy of the script, it is at the same time necessary to acknowledge that, like a live drama or film, the tele­ 16

vision program is a communal creation. The finished work as seen by the audience is the result of the labors of many different persons, all of whom have had some hand in the creative process. The basic script is invariably altered by the director and the performers. The addition of the visual dimension will change or add to the script in a number of ways. Of course the actors will be able to interpret lines in accord­ ance with their own desires' and acting styles. Others involved in the creation may include the program’s producer, rewrite people, camera operators and other technicians, and the film or tape editors. On an­ other level, there may be network personnel who influence the content or tone of the show, such as the network’s censors, euphemistically titled

"continuity” or "acceptance" or "program practices" personnel. These outside influences have, however, had little effect on the shape of the program All in the Family. The series has been under the guiding hand of its creator and producer Norman Lear, who has made few compromises with the network over controversial issues or specific scenes. Although

Lear is the prime shaping force behind the show, a reading of the vari­ ous drafts of the scripts reveals the many changes made by the director and performers.

Television programs have not traditionally been credited to one par­ ticular creator, in the way a novel or stage play is usually credited to the author. In the public mind, the television program is associated with the star or stars of the show. It seems that once a program has become identified with a certain performer, it is almost impossible to change performers and retain the popularity of the program. In fact, many of the programs now simply give the star’s name as the title of the 17

series, such as The Mary Tyler Moore Show or The Boh Newhart Show.

Despite the popular image, though, it is not possible for the critic to assign the creative responsibility for the program to one particular

person. The auteur theory of film, 'which assigns this responsibility to

the director, is simply not applicable to television programs. For that matter, the auteur theory has lost ground with film critics in recent years as they have recognized the sizeable contributions of performers, editors, and others. In most television programs, the most important person is probably the producer, who usually retains ultimate responsi­ bility for the series. Ultimate responsibility is not necessarily con­ trol over each individual episode, but the producer is often a signifi­ cant creative force.

The inability of the critic to assign the creative role to one per­ son is perhaps one of the reasons television programs have usually been scorned by serious commentators. The notion that a work of art must be a solo creation, however, is of fairly recent origin, having its roots in the Romantic movement of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Among other things the Romantics believed that true art could only come from individual inspiration, and they set up lyric poetry as the yardstick by which the other literary arts should be measured. Since we are still under the influence of the Romantic doctrines, we tend to look on communal creations as less than art. The work which is the result of diverse hands is not considered as art but as, at best, good craftsmanship. The presupposition here is that ’’too many cooks spoil the broth," that the involvement of several persons invariably weakens the cohesiveness or power of the finished work. While it is true that 18

communal creation does sometimes dilute the work, it is equally reason­

able to assume that the work may be improved by this process, depending

on the creativity and intelligence of the persons involved.

It is just as well to grant the point that most popular art in­

volves more obvious kinds of compromise than elite art. Certainly con­

cessions are often made to what the creators believe or know to be the

popular taste of the time. After all, one of the primary aims of pop­

ular art is to be commercially successful or to reach as large a public

as possible. For example, All in the Family has always been conscious

of its status as a family show. The restrictions placed on the creators

in terms of subject matter or language have, however, been self-imposed

restrictions. While trying to satisfy a mass audience, the program's

creators have been guided principally by their own taste and vision. If

the restrictions have not always made for bolder programs, they may have

made for more creative methods of working within the boundaries of a

mass medium. The noted comedy writer and performer Carl Reiner has said:

Censorship can work to your advantage. It's there, and you have to acknowledge it. But maybe it’s good that it is there. It makes you find new ways to let expression come through. In the long run, comedy needs to keep inventing, to keep saying things that don’t offend, but aren’t stripped of everything that's human—and funny.

The fifth assumption of this dissertation is that much of the criti­

cism of All in the Family is irrelevant. From the program’s inception

the critics and researchers have persisted in emphasising the contro­

versial content of the show. They have ignored the fact that the program

is a comedy, not just a vehicle for social criticism. The program has been both praised and attacked for being too controversial or not contro­ versial enough. The consistent topic for discussion has been the 19

"realism" of the show, e.g., does Archie Bunker really portray the true

bigot? Critics have almost always assumed what was earlier called a

fallacy of verisimilitude—that a dramatic show should be "true to life"

rather than true to itself or true to the artistic demands of good com­

edy. The program does have topical references and deals with real

problems such as menopause, the fear of breast cancer, and the fear of

unemployment. These problems have, however, always been dealt with within a comedic framework which finds humor in even the most serious

situations. To do this is consistent with the comic vision of life, not

belittling the problems but finding laughter even in the midst of poten­

tial tragedy. The comic vision is not degrading; it is optimistic and celebratory of human vitality despite human weakness. It would be too narrow to think only of the serious "message" side of All in the Family■

A quick survey of the over one hundred episodes thus far produced re­ veals that about half of the shows deal with "serious" issues or prob­ lems while the other half are lighter, less pressing sorts of family situations. The series is a balance of pathos and humor, importance and triviality.

The final major assumption of this dissertation follows from the previous assumptions: that the methods of esthetic criticism are appli­ cable to television comedy drama and specifically to All in the Family.

Because the techniques of social science can not elucidate the structure and meaning of an artistic expression, humanistic methods must be applied.

Since television comedy drama is part of a larger tradition of comedic art, theories and techniques developed to deal with other comedic forms may be used to analyze and explicate All in the Family. Humanistic 20

criticism begins with scholarship: establishing the authoritative texts

■and ordering the evidence or primary materials. From this point the critic may take several different directions. One approach is the study of the methods of creation and the psychology and intentions of the artist or artists. Another approach is to place the works in an artis­ tic or historical context. Still another method is that of defining the genre of the work either inductively or deductively. A final approach is that of studying the work or works in themselves: conventions, plot, character, theme, patterns of imagery, and so on.

The chapters that follow study this television series All in the

Family in as much depth as possible from the standpoint of humanistic esthetic criticism. The study is not restricted to any one particular method of analysis but is eclectic, drawing on the insights of a number of different critics to gain an understanding of the works. The general thrust of the study, however, is perhaps that of the intrinsic approach: to keep the works themselves at the center of things, to remember that social and media contexts, biographical data, and the effect of the works are all less important than the works in themselves. If All in the

Family is truly an important contribution to the popular arts, it de­ serves no less than a serious and detailed examination of its many facets. 21

NOTES FOR CHAPTER ONE

1 See the bibliography following the text of the dissertation for a listing of these studies. 2 Quoted in Melvin L. DeFleur, Thecries of Mass Communication, 2nd ed., (New York: David McKay, 1970), p. 124. •Z Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media (New York: New American Library, 19^4), p. 32. 4 Eli A. Rubenstein, "The TV Violence Report: What’s Next?" Journal of Communication, 24:1 (Winter 1974), p. 81.

^Jlary A. Steiner, The People Look at Television (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1983); Robert T. Bower, Television and the Public (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973). /* Edward Stasheff and Rudy Bretz, The Television Program: Its Direction and Production, 4th ed. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1988)-

n ’Les Brown, Television: The Business Behind the Box (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) g ^Stephen Whitfield and Gene Roddenberry, The Making of Star Trek (Nevz York: Ballantine Books, 1968). ^Richard Burgheim, "Television Reviewing," Harper’s, August 1969, p. 100. 10 See Saul N. Scher, "The Role of the Television Critic: Four Approaches," Today’s Speech, Summer 1974, pp. 1-6. 11 . . Quoted in Lawrence Laurent, "Wanted: The Complete Television Critic," in The Eighth Art (New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1962), p. 155- ^Norman Dresser, "What is a TV Critic Made of?" Toledo Blade, 1+ Dec. 1973- 'JX "'See Gerald Mast, The Comic Mind : Comedy and the Movies (Indian­ apolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1973"H ?4 ? Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944), p. 150. ■^Personal interview with Alan Rafkin (May 1974). 16 Susanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form (New York: Scribner’s, 1953) P- 315. 22

17 Carl Reiner, quoted in Television: The Creative Experience, ed. A. William Bluem. (New York: Hastings House, 19Ó?/, p. 103. 23

CHAPTER WO

BRITISH ORIGINS

The story of All in the Family begins in London in June of 1966 with the premiere showing of the BBC television series Till Death Us Do

Part. The central figure in the program was Alf Garnett, a loud­ mouthed, none-too-intelligent bigot who battled incessantly with his wife, daughter, and son-in-law. Though the BBC had long been known for its willingness to experiment with new kinds of programming, Till Death

Us Do Part went a step further in the realm of dramatic comedy. The BBC itself described the program as ”a true-life situation set in the heart of London’s cockney East End dockland with social undertones and over- tones." The series exposed British viewers to a kind of comedy new to television, a comedy which found humor in the real problems of unemploy­ ment inflation, and racial prejudice rather than relying on absurd or trivial domestic dilemmas for laughter. The program also pioneered in television profanity, with an unrestrained use of "damn" and "bloody" as well as the numerous epithets of bigotry.' Perhaps most important, Till

Death Us Do Part was a television comedy which developed characters of some depth and complexity, characters who were not simply stereotypes but exaggerations of reality which were individualized yet archetypal.

The American journal TV Guide commented in 1967 that "Alf Garnett may not sound like the cozy comedy characters Americans are used to; frankly, network executives would send for the men in white coats if you sug- 2 gested him." Yet some four years later Till Death Us Do Part was to appear on American television adapted as All in the Family. Because the 24

two programs are closely related, it is useful to give some attention to

Till Death Us Do Fart to understand better the American program and to gain insight into British popular taste and the British system of tele­ vision.

The English system of broadcasting has been called "the least worst television in the world." The two channels of the British Broadcasting

Corporation and the commercial network of Independent Television are often under attack at home, but the system is universally admired by other countries. British television is distinguished by its relative independence from political and advertising pressures and by its range and quality of programming.The BBC is supported by some 240 million dollars a year in license fees, while I TV is supported by advertising income. The BBC is an independent institution which is under no direct political control; it is presided over by a chairman and eleven gover­ nors, all appointed by the Queen in Council.

Although the board of governors has ultimate control over the BBC, the direct governing power over programming is in the hands of the

Director-General. It is, therefore, the director-general who usually sets the style of the corporation. Until the 1960’s the BBC was con­ sidered as clearly a part of the Establishment, essentially conservative in policy and programming. When Sir Hugh Greene became director-general in 1960, however, the BBC underwent considerable change. Greene, by his own account, "wanted to encourage enterprise and the taking of risks. I wanted to make the BBC a place where talent of all sorts, however uncon- 5 ventional, was recognized and nurtured. . . ." Greene’s proclivity to take risks paid off, as he was able to reclaim millions of viewers who 23

had been lured away from the BBC by the light entertainment programs of

the ITV. Greene countered with an amazing mix of new programs that

covered everything from nature documentaries to musical-variety shows.

According to one writer, though, it was two comedy programs that really

helped the BBC pull back audiences. Steptoe and Son was the first of

these; a series about a junk dealer and his son Harold, it was the pro­

genitor of the American program Sanford and Son. The second comedy that

revived audience interest was Till Death Us Do Part, which became almost

required viewing throughout Britain.

Till Death Us Do Part, like most English series, was not neces­

sarily intended as a long-running show. The first series of programs

consisted of six episodes only, run through the summer of 19S6. Because the BBC contracted for only six shows, it was able to assess audience and critical response and react accordingly. If the series had failed,

it would not have been the financial disaster of a failure in American

television, where the contract usually calls for thirteen or even twenty or more episodes. But Till Death Us Do Part was a success, and the BBC then agreed to a second series of six episodes shown in late 19^6 and early 1967* These episodes were then rerun later and additional epi­ sodes were produced; indeed, the program was revived as late as 1971-

This practice of running programs irregularly and rather infrequently helps to keep both creators and audience fresh. The BBC does not allow a series to become repetitive or monotonous.

Like All in the Family, Till Death Us Do Part was an immensely pop­ ular program throughout its various runs and reruns, capturing half the adult population of Britain. 7 The English public were delighted by a 26

comedy series that was well-acted, well-directed, and well-written. The

creator and writer of the series, John Speight, was able to capture

truly the tone and texture of British working-class life. The environ­

ment of the program is London’s East End, an area of chronic unemploy­

ment; most of the work to be found is unskilled labor. Further, this

area is being invaded by "outsiders,” meaning Irish, blacks, and Indians.

The setting for most of the scenes in Till Death Us Do Part is the

Garnett home, which is shabby yet comfortable, and the home takes on the atmosphere of a haven from the dangers outside. However much infighting there may be within the family, they are united against the outside dangers of government officials, foreigners, and other strangers. The central scene of action is the Garnett living room, and the English social critic Richard Hoggart has said in regard to this aspect of working-class life:

Looking back on years of living in one, I should say that a good ’living-room’ must provide three principal things: gregariousness, warmth and plenty of good food. The living- room is the warm heart of the family and therefore often slightly stuffy to a middle-class visitor. It is not a social centre but a family centre; little entertaining goes on there or in the front room, if there happens to be one: you do not entertain in anything approaching the middle-class sense. The wife’s social life outside her immediate family is found over the washing-line, at the corner-shop, visiting relatives at a moderate distance occasionally, and perhaps now and again going with her husband to his pub or club, his work, his foot­ ball matches. The friends of either at all these places may well not know what the inside of their house is like, may never have ’stepped across the threshold.’ The hearth is reserved for the family, whether living at home or nearby, and those who are ’something to us,’ and look in for a talk or just to sit.°

Hoggart, in his valuable study The Uses of Literacy, goes on to de­ scribe the working-class mother, whose life is often a hard one, as it is she who is usually responsible for the maintenance of the home and 27

the budgeting of v/hat is likely to be a small income. Her world is a

close one, and "the pressure is so strong that in those who have special

troubles or are very poorly gifted imaginatively it csn produce a turned-

in-upon-itself world into which nothing which does not concern the. g family penetrates.” The father’s role is similarly tradition-bound,

as he Is considered the master of the house and is deferred to as the

main breadwinner. The man of the house is not expected to help with

household chores; indeed, he is to be pampered and waited on by his wife

and children. He is also allowed the indulgence of the pub, and it is

not uncommon for him to get drunk and act rough. This roughness is often

admired by his fellows and by the women, so long as he does not become

sadistic; it proves his manliness.

There is a sense of community in the working-class neighborhood not

found in most middle-class neighborhoods. The working-class life has "a

peculiarly gripping wholeness" which expresses itself in certain shared 10 attitudes. There is a strong sense of what Hoggart calls "Them" and

"Us": that the world is divided between the working-class people and everybody else. "Them" includes the world of the bosses and authority

figures: police, public officials, teachers, etc. "Towards ’Them* generally, as towards the police, the primary attitude is not so much fear as mistrust; mistrust accompanied by a lack of illusions about what

’They’ will do for one, and for the complicated way—the apparently unnecessarily complicated way—in which ’They* order one’s life when it 11 touches them." As a result, the working-class person will try at all costs to avoid contact with "Them," for by doing so one maintains one’s dignity and self-respect. Keeping one’s self-respect means that one is 28

in some sense free, free of financial or other obligations. The English

working-class value thrift, cleanliness, and self-respect because to

lose these may be to lose all that one has and to succumb to an environ­

ment that constantly threatens to drag one down.

The sense of community is not self-conscious, yet the solidarity of

the group’s shared attitudes works against change. In fact there is 12 often "an extensive and sometimes harsh pressure to conform." Accord­

ing to Hoggart, the philosophy of the working class is typified by a

series of apothegms: one must "put up with things"; "don’t be getting

above y’self"; "we are all in the same boat"; one must "live and let

live"; and things are "alright if y’ don’t go too far." 13 There is a

general lack of interest in public affairs, and there is no very strong

sense of patriotism. Coexistent with this, however, are often found

intense racial and religious bigotry and a love for the royal family.

Finally, the attitudes reflect the remains of a puritanism which may attempt to impose a rather rigid propriety.

The father and mother figures in Till Death Us Do Part, Alf and

Else, conform fairly closely to the life-styles and values described by Hoggart.L Their daughter and son-in-lav;, though, are of another

generation entirely. The. program is set in the London of the mid-196O’s and the younger people are what might be called "working-class mod."

They have been shaped not only by the values of their parents but also by the mass culture of rock music, television, and popular literature.

They are contemptuous of the values of the older generation and are clearly in revolt against their parents. Where their parents may be skeptical about progress and public life, the young people are cynical. 29

Son-in-law Mike has no great ambition of any sort; instead he is content

with getting by in order to live the life of a carefree young married

man about town. Daughter Rita is more closely tied to her parents, but

she too is relatively rootless, having no clear-cut structure of moral

values. Like her husband Mike, her main goal at this point in her life

is having a good time and taking things as they come.

It is appropriate here to give a somewhat more detailed picture of

Till Death Us Do Part by analysis of the scripts of two particular epi- 14 sodes. These two half-hour shows are from the Second Series of the

program, first telecast in late 1966 and early 19^7- Both episodes

were written by John Speight and produced by Dennis Main Wilson. The

first episode here was recorded December 15, 1966, for broadcast January

16, 1967; the second was taped January 31, 19&7 and aired February 13,

1967. Both episodes involve all of the four main characters in the ac­

tion: Alf Garnett, the father, played by Warren Mitchell; his wife,

Else Garnett, played by Dandy Nichols; their daughter, Rita, played by 16 Una Stubbs; and her husband, Mike Rawlins, played by Anthony Booth.

The action of the January 16 episode (Program 3 of the Second

Series) centers upon Mike’s attempt to deceive the Assistance Board into

giving him five pounds a week for rent, although the actual amount he is

paying his father-in-lav; is one pound a week. The program is tightly

structured in four scenes, the first of which is set in the Garnett

living room and features an argument between Alf and Mike about Harold

Wilson’s unemployment policies. The second and third scenes take place

respectively in the Unemployment Exchange/Assistance Board and a pub;

Mike encounters some other unemployed men, sets up the inflated rent 30

scheme, and later brags about it to a friend- In the final scene, back

in the Garnett living room, Mike involves Alf in the fraud by asking him

to lie to an investigator from the Assistance Board. When the investi­

gator arrives and makes threats about checking up on Alf’s income tax,

the scheme falls apart; the family become frightened and return the five pounds to the investigator. The motif of the episode, then, is that of the schemer caught in his own scheme. In the most commonplace terms, the theme of the show is that "honesty is the best policy," as Mike loses even the one pound actually due him. The creativity of the program, how­ ever, is not so much in the plot or theme as in the richness of the char­ acters as revealed in dialogue.

Alf Garnett is insensitive, tradition-bound, and filled with rage at the changes he sees happening around him. He self-righteously attacks his son-in-law for being unemployed and for wearing long hair: "I’m not one of your new rich unemployed . . . living off the fat of the land like that great hairy nelly over there" (Program 3, P* 1). He stoutly be­ lieves that the society is ill-managed and falling apart: "No wonder the country's in a bloody mess. Just encouraging the likes of him to be bloody lazy that is" (3, 2). One of the chief objects of his vitriol is

Harold Wilson: "Look, it's alright for your darling Harold sitting up there In that Downing Street lashing out money left, right and centre to lazy good for nothing gits like you . . . but who pays for it, eh? Who pays for it? Us, Us mate, Us bloody fools who are still working*’ (3» 3) •

Tlie show was filled with attacks like this on Wilson, and these attacks caused the Labor government to complain bitterly about the program. Wil­ son always felt that the BBC had mounted a personal assault on him by 31

allowing such slurs to appear in numerous comedy and satire programs.

In fact, though, any insult coming from the likes of Alf Garnett might

have been considered a compliment. The most effective attack on Wilson’s

policy of worker redeployment actually comes from Alf’s wife Else, who

reduces the policy to absurdity through her simplemindedness. Alf tries

to explain to Else the redeployment system by which employers are taxed

selectively to discourage overemployment, the result being that some workers are fired and forced to find work elsewhere:

Alf: But some of em will attempt to redeploy themselves in other factories what are short handed . . • where they won’t mind paying out an extra twenty five bob for new hands . . . even if they are rubbish. I mean take your B.M.C. I mean your Wilson’s cleared a lot of them out of Oxford ain’t he? Else: Well, where’s he going to send em? Alf: I don’t know do I? . . . Somewhere else I suppose. Birmingham or Manchester. Else: But say they don’t want em there? I mean it’s alright Old Wilson sending all the rubbish out of Oxford up to Manchester or Birmingham . . . but I mean perhaps the people of Manchester or Birmingham . . . don’t want all the rubbish out of Oxford, up there. Alf: It's not like that at all . . . Else? What about Birmingham’s rubbish . . . where’s that going to go? Alf: Look . . . ' Else: I suppose they’ll send that to Oxford, . . in exchange for their rubbish. . . (3, 13-15)♦

This exchange further degenerates into a discussion that points up the mutual ignorance and bigotry of Alf and Else. It should be noted that

Else, unlike Edith Bunker of All in the Family, is nearly as narrow­ minded and prejudiced as her husband:

Else: If they’re going to clear rubbish out of round here, I know a lot more round this way who are more rubbish than what young Michael is. All them Chinese and laskars for a start. Alf: V/hat are you talking about? Your Chinese come from China and your Laskars from Alaska. 32

Else: ... I mean I ain’t got nothing against em, hut they ought to send all them back to their own countries. I mean they’re foreigners they are. . . (3, 16).

Else is scatterbrained like Edith Bunker, but she has a much sharper tongue than Edith usually has. She is able to "top" her husband in this exchange about living in the country:

Alf: Well you go and live there then—suit you wouldn’t it? Down on the farm with all the other silly moos. Else: Yer, and all the other dirty, filthy pigs (3, 22).

Else's primary concerns, though, are less about the national scene than about her home and her neighborhood. She gossips with daughter Rita about a neighbor woman who was hit by her husband when he came home and found that dinner was not ready. Else feels sorry for the woman, but Alf is indifferent, saying "nothing to do with me if he hits his wife is it?

It’s his wife ... do what he likes with her for all I care" (3, 8).

This nonchalance is reinforced by Richard Hoggart’s observation that family fights "are understandably a part of the neighborhood's life: in narrow, terraced streets, with thin party-walls, they could hardly be 18 kept private anyhow, ..." Else, however, is concerned about the woman. She is a shade more tolerant than Alf as in her response to his mocking of the neighbor woman’s large Adam’s apple: "You shouldn’t mock people . . • just cos they’re afflicted. You wouldn’t like it if people mocked you" (3, 8). Else’s concern for her family is especially evident in her fear that Mike and Rita will have to move away because of the redeployment policies. Her ultimate reaction to this problem, her usual reaction to real or imagined threats to the family’s stability, is to break down into tears. Alf as usual ridicules her crying: "Oh blimey, here we go, waterworks. Blow your nose" (3, 17)- 33

The character of Mike is as complex as that of Alf or Else. To begin with, he is vain, as we see him in the first scene combing his long hair before the mirror for minutes on end. Alf calls him a "big blooming great pansy" (3i 10). Mike retorts with an oblique reference to Alf’s baldness: "When you’ve got it pop . . . it's worth looking after an it?" (3, 10). His vanity is evident again when he flirts with the secretary at the Unemployment Exchange:

Mike: What’s a pretty girl like you doing in a dump like this? Clerk: Waiting for a fellow like you to come along. What do you want? Mike: I want to talk to somebody about money for me rent— and I tell you what. If I copy heavily, it’s you and me back to your place for a bottle of champagne. Clerk: Cheeky! (3j 29)

This sort of flippancy is perhaps Mike’s outstanding characteristic; it serves him as a weapon against Alf’s ridicule:

Alf: . . . They bloody sacked him because he’s no good. That’s what they done. . . . (RITA REACTS) Mike: Don't argue with him. (FLIPPANT TO ANNOY ALF) I’m alright. Ding ding, I’m on the bus. I mean, eleven pounds ten a week's not bad for doing nothing. It’s a fair old living, I reckon (3, 2).

Although Mike is being flippant here, the foregoing exchange points up what is truly another of his characteristics: laziness. He is deter­ mined to get along in the world with the least possible effort, and his goal is simply to have a good time at the pub, at the movies, or lying about the house watching television. In his laziness he is quite unlike

Mike of All in the Family, who is working hard at school. His laziness also influences his political attitudes, as his support of Wilson’s

Labor government seems motivated by selfishness rather than ideology.

There is a distorted sort of truth in Alf’s remark that "people like him 34

enjoy being out of work, don’t they? That’s why he voted for them

labour lot . . . hoping they’d put him out of work" (3» 4). Mike’s

liberalism is self-serving; if the conservatives offered him similar

benefits, he would probably vote for them. Despite this, it is only

fair to say that Mike’s understanding of the larger political world is

much keener than that of Alf and Else; he has had more education and

greater exposure to the media.

Other distasteful qualities in Mike surface in the scene at the

Unemployment Exchange, where he meets a man named Dermot Kelly, who is

Irish and also out of work. Dermot denies being Irish to Mike and another man. The other man, a tough character, abuses the Irish at length, while Dermot and Mike say nothing. After the tough man leaves,

Mike’s petty selfishness comes out in his refusal to lend Dermot money for a cup of tea. He shows no sympathy at all for Dermot’s poverty, and their meeting ends in a bitter dialogue in which they exhibit mutual hostility and prejudice:

Dermot: . . . You see, they think you’re Irish . . . they don’t offer you so much . . . that’s the trouble. . . . They think if you’re Irish you don’t need so much. Mike: You should write to the Pope about it. (Mike walks away) Dermot: Protestant pig. (3? 28)

In the final scene of the episode Mike is again shown as selfish, in his attempt to give Alf two pounds ten shillings without explaining his motives. Here he is deceptive, scheming, and hypocritical. When quizzed by Rita, he rationalizes his fraud as follows:

Mike: . . . Made me sick it did . . . watching them down there all getting their rents paid for em. All your redundants down there they are getting their rents paid for em. Well you don’t like seeing it abused do 35

you? I mean in a case of genuine hardship yer, hut some of them—I mean they're just conning it an they? Rita: So you had a go at conning it too did you? Mike: No . . . hut I thought blimey ... If they’re having it mate let us have some. . . . (3, 3 9-^*0)

Rita disapproves of Mike’s scheming, but she asks her father to help keep Mike out of trouble. Her character is not delineated in any great detail anywhere in the show; in fact, she seems a distinctly minor character. She sometimes tries to act as buffer between Alf and

Mike, but she is largely ineffectual at doing so. She does not stand out as an individualized, complex person; rather, she functions as a background figure who is occasionally a conciliator or merely an audi­ ence for the others. This function is true of the next episode we have to deal with here as well as the first.

The action of the episode first broadcast February 13, 1967 (Pro­ gram 8 of the Second Series), is of an entirely different order than that of the show just discussed. While the previous episode dealt with rather serious problems of politics, unemployment, and bigotry, this one is lighter in tone and subject matter. Alf is in bed complaining about pains in his stomach. The other family members are skeptical about- his illness, their doubts being reinforced by Alf’s recent consumption of three-quarters of a bottle of whiskey. Nevertheless a doctor is called in, who coughs in Alf’s face, drinks the rest of the whiskey, and pro­ nounces the patient to be all right. Alf continues to complain of pains and insists on going into the hospital to be examined by a specialist.

The hospital doctors decide to operate on Alf, carefully scheduling the surgery around one doctor’s golf games and cocktail parties. Alf is visited by his family, who are still not entirely sympathetic to his 36

plight and discuss death. The episode ends happily with a brief scene in which Alf is wheeled from the operating room past the family: 19

Else: Is he alright, Doctor? Doctor: Oh he’ll live. Have you been using him as a money box? We found this lodged inside him. Else: Ooer. That must be the threepenny bit he swallowed . out of the Christmas pudding. Doctor: It’s most unusual for a stomach to retain a coin that long. Else: Trust him. He would have to hold onto it. Anyone else would have got rid of it normal. Not him. (8, p. 44)

All the main characters act in keeping with their personalities as depicted in the earlier episode. Alf is cantankerous, complaining, and bigoted; yet he is basically afraid, afraid of serious illness and death.

Else is by turns scatterbrained, abrasive, maudlin, and likewise fear­ ful. Mike is insensitive, self-centered, and indifferent to Alf’s prob­ lems. Rita is unobtrusive, commonsensical, and conciliatory. The main supporting characters are the various doctors, who are shown as fairly competent but slightly ridiculous, being more worried about their own welfare than the well-being of the patients. Throughout the story the family and the doctors seem at best only mildly concerned about Alf’s illness. This becomes one of the main sources of humor through all of the episode, with Alf’s constant refrain, "I’m in agony,” going largely ignored. In the first scene, for example, Alf is in bed sick and feel­ ing sorry for himself; he bangs madly on the floor with his boot to get the attention of the others, who are downstairs watching television intently.

Rita: (Monotone) That’s Dad. Else: (Monotone) Yer. (Banging on floor upstairs goes on. They still stare into telly) Rita: (Monotone) I think he wants something. 37

Else: (Monotone) Yer. (Banging goes on and they still stare into screen) Else: (Monotone) I’ll go up in a minute. (8, 2)

Since the focus of this episode is Alf and his illness, we learn more about his character than in the first episode described. His bigotry is in full display first as he refers to Dr. Gingalla, Dr.

Kelly’s associate, as "that coon partner of yours" (8, 15)» later calls

Dr. Kelly himself "an ignorant bloody mick" (8, 23), and finally cli­ maxes with the following speech prompted by the sight of a black nurse in the hospital:

Alf: Blimey . . . this place is full of coons an it? Like watching the Minstrel show. Man: She’s very nice that one. Very nice girl she is. . . . Alf: Oh yer. . . . Some of em’s quite intelligent really. . . . Well it’s the white an it? . . . Man: Eh? Alf: It's the white on em an it? ... I mean until we went out there an found em. . . . They was just natives they was . . . savages that’s all . . . but now. ... I mean some of em’s almost human . . . they are ... I was watching one of em on the bus coming up here this morn­ ing. . . . Conductor he was . . . doing the job quite well he was . . . seemed to know where the bus was going an everything. ... He wasn’t any different really to a white conductor. . . . Quite bright he seemed. • . . Still I spose . . . always the exception ain’t there. . . . (8, 28-29)

Another, softer side of Alf’s character is shown in a scene where he is leaving for the hospital and Else asks him to kiss her. We learn of his intense domesticity in that this is the first time he has been away from home since Viorld War II. We also see that he is very reticent about expressing emotion:

Else: Look, you don’t have to if you don’t want to. Alf: Look, I said I will, an I? Else: Oh please yourself, Alf: (Gives her a quick little peck) There you are. ... Goodbye then, luv. . . . (8, 22) 38

Alf’s dependency and fearfulness is again evidenced In his reaction to the Impending surgery. As the family is leaving his bedside, Else and

Rita break into tears and Alf hides under the sheets moaning, "X don’t wanna die. I don’t wanna die!" (8, 44).

One source of humor in Till Death Us Do Part is the use of absurd dialogues, actions, or situations. An example of an absurd dialogue is the discussion of the location of the factories, which Else says make her house dirty. She cannot understand why the factories must be near where the factory workers live: ’’Why can’t they take em somewhere else ... give someone else a turn. ... Why do we always have to have em down this area?" (3, 18). Absurd or incongruous actions include the following from the second episode discussed here: the doctor who has a cold and coughs in his patient’s face, the two doctors discussing golf games and dinner parties across Alf’s bed, Alf casually cleaning his pipe with a surgical instrument, and the family’s ignoring Alf when they come to visit him in the hospital. This last situation is particu­ larly grotesque in its incongruity; when the family should be comforting

Alf before his operation, they talk about the weather and eat the fruit and candy they brought for him. Mike says the hospital is called the

"butchers’ shop" (8, 38), and Else mentions that Alf has received a let­ ter from a funeral club asking whether he wants to be cremated or buried.

Additional sources of humor are mispronunciations and malapropisms, assorted word play, and scatology and other body references. Like Archie in the American program, Alf is the perpetrator of most of the mispro­ nunciations and malapropisms, referring to Wilson’s "political chick- enery" (3, 5), to Mike’s having an "exterior motive" (3, M), and to his 39

"perrogitive" to see a medical specialist (8, 13)- One example of word

play is the repeated use of the term ’’redundants'1 to describe those per­

sons released from the factories to serve the government’s redeployment

program. As the episode progresses, the "redundants" become for Alf

synonymous with "rubbish"; in other words, any outsider or bum or any­

one else he doesn’t like. Scatological remarks are almost always good

for a laugh, no matter how oblique or mild they may be. In reminiscing

about a vacation in the country, Else says "It was lovely to be able to

wake up and smell the wet grass an the fresh air. ..." Alf’s retort

is: "Fresh air ... it was cow dung you could smell. There was pan­

cakes of it . . . all over it" (3j 21).

A quick comparison of these two episodes of Till Death Us Do Part

with the series All in the Family suggests several points. The English

and American programs are broadly similar in setting and in the four

main characters, but they differ greatly in details and in tone. The

characters of Till Death Us Do Part are less sympathetic than those of

All in the Family. They are more abrasive, more venal, and more ridicu­

lous. The setting is more distinctly lower-class, and there is greater bitterness against the powers-that-be. There is more violent attack on

the Establishment by all of the family members, and the figures of authority that do appear are petty or ineffectual bureaucrats or other

functionaries. The tone in Till Death Us Do Part is more violent, nasty, and mean than in All in the Family. The British program is closer to sharp-edged satire, while the American counterpart is a gentler, broader sort of comedy.

The first critical notice Till Death Us Do Part received was a 40

brief note in the London Times of June 7, 1966:

Till Death do us Part, a new BBC-1 comedy series by Mr. Johnny Speight, also dealt with the difference between the gener­ ations, who argue, shout and quarrel with a bigoted ignorance that is sometimes nearly as funny as Mr. Speight thinks it always is. last night’s instalment suggests that the series will be noisy, honestly vulgar and at times hilarious.20

Some eight weeks later another notice appeared in the Times which was an indication of the controversy stirred up by the series as well as its popularity. Headlined "Heath Jibe To Be Repeated," the note ran in part as follows:

The B.B.C. Is to show again the television series Till Death Us Do Part, including the programme in which Mr. Heath is described as a "grammar school twit." The first screening led Conservative Central Office to obtain a script of the pro­ gramme from the B.B.C., but the party decided not to protest.21

In both the immediate reviews and the later evaluations of the pro­ gram, there was little disagreement about the artistic merit of Till

Death Us Do Part. The critics were nearly unanimous in judging the pro­ gram, along with Steptoe and Son, as the best comedy drama series ever to appear on British television. T. C. Worsley, columnist for The

Financial Times, focussing on the figure of Alf Garnett, made a point that was echoed by many other commentators:

Alf Garnett is a positively Falstaffian figure in its size and impact. If, instead of appearing in this transient medium, he had been the central figure of a stage comedy, he would instantly have been recognized as a major comic creation to be discussed and re-visited and revived over and over again. He would still be "on" at a London theatre and the whole pre­ posterous weight of him would be calculable at one sitting.22

He went on to say that a series "is the nearest equivalent on television to the stage play, slowly developing a character over the weeks, unfold- 23 ing more and more of him, as a play does over an evening." 41

Worsley called Alf Garnett "the rampaging, howling embodiment of

all the most vulgar and odious prejudices that slop about in the bilges 24 of the national mind." He felt therefore that the show had a purga­

tive effect on the society, "cleansing the Augean stable of our national 25 vices of mind." Another observation of Worsley was that the tele­

vision writer had finally gained long-overdue recognition:

... it is interesting to notice here that Mr. Speight has made yet another breakthrough in this series. It is univer­ sally known to be his. The writer has become (justice at last!) the star.26

Despite the praise of most critics, Till Death Us Do Part was

attacked from many sides. One writer has suggested that there were three 27 main sources of opposition to the program. The first of these was the

government, who objected to the verbal assaults on Wilson as well as

those on Heath and other political figures. Because the BBC is relatively

independent, though, these objections had little effect. The second

voice of disapproval was that of liberals who felt that Alf Garnett set

a bad example for impressionable viewers, particularly children. These

people worried that many viewers would take Alf’s distorted views seri­

ously and approve of them. There was, in fact, some justification for

this concern, as there were a few indications that some viewers saw Alf 28 as a heroic figure. The third set of opponents, by far the largest

and most vocal, were those conservatives who thought that the program was a deliberate attempt to make them look silly or evil by allowing a basically despicable character like Alf Garnett to voice conservative

opinions. The right-wing leader John Tyndall claimed that "the BBC and

the ’well-known leftist,’ Johnny Speight, had collaborated to put right- 29 wing views ’in the mouth of an idiot.'" 42

The conservative opposition was led most prominently, however, by a

woman named Mary Whitehouse, who was the spokesperson for an organiza­

tion called the Clean-Up Television Campaign, later renamed the National

Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association. In her book Who Does She Think She

Is?, Whitehouse recounts how her association sent a telegram to the

Prime Minister stating that Till Death Us Do Part was "dirty, blas­

phemous and full of-bad language" and that "the Director General seems 50 determined to provoke and insult the viewing public." Whitehouse denied that she wanted the program taken off the air; indeed she paid

tribute to the brilliant characterization and acting in the series. How­

ever, she did believe that Speight and others had dark motives:

Old Alf was the man we were supposed to hate. He was foul- mouthed and bigoted—he was also a Tory, and a patriot, who believed in God and v/as devoted to the Queen. If we could, be made to hate his offensiveness and prejudice, then we would perhaps also turn against his loyalties.51

The well-known critic Malcolm Muggeridge approved of the efforts of the Clean-Up TV Campaign, and he joined their attack on Till Death Us Do

Part. His grounds for criticism were both esthetic and moral. Esthet- ically, he found the characters repulsive and thought it dangerous that,

"far from being the clown-villain of the series, Alf is the hero."32

Curiously, the controversy over the program did not fully develop until the series had been broadcast and rebroadcast over several years.

It was announced in February of 1968 that Till Death Us Do Part was to be ended because the BBC thought the series was "exhausted." 35 John

Speight, however, charged that he ’was abandoning the series because of

"savage censorship" by BBC officials. The BBC•responded that such charges were "utter rubbish" and that "any cuts made were because Mr. 34 Speight had gone beyond the very broad tolerance given to him." The

story behind these remarks is related to changes in BBC management.

Lord Charles Hill took over as Chairman of the BBC in September of 1967,

having been chosen by Harold Wilson. Under Lord Hill’s regime, the BBC

began to adopt a more moderate and "respectable" stance. Although Sir

Hugh Greene continued as Director-General for several more years, the

BBC no longer displayed the daring of new programs like Till Death Us

Do Part; programs were subjected to more rigorous review by BBC execu­

tives. Finally, then, John Speight said that his series was being

smothered by an unbearable artistic climate:

We have been irritated by a number of idiotic and unreason­ able cuts. The trouble has been since Lord Hill’s arrival at the BBC and I could be the victim of new policies. I would write another series for the BBC but only if this censorship was stopped.35

Perhaps the most sensible evaluations of the impact and meaning of

the series came as post-mortems. An editorial in the London Times,

which had never before been particularly sympathetic to the program,

stated that "Till Death Us Do Part is a justifiably angry outcry against

the poverty of mind and spirit in which vast numbers of people spend 36 their lives." Karl Miller, writing for The Listener, made a point that

is well worth relating to the figure of Archie Bunker as well as that of

Alf Garnett, a point which is an esthetic answer to most of the contro­ versy over the effects of the program:

I can never understand those who worry about whether you are supposed to approve or disapprove of Alf. Whatever critics may find to say on such occasions, ambiguities of this kind are art-enhancing rather than the reverse.37

The discontinuation of Till Death Us Do Part on the BBC did not immediately bring its final showing. The series was rerun a number of 44

38 times and returned with new episodes as late as September 1972. The

initial energy, however, seemed to have been lost. The program was also

made into a feature film released in late 1968, written by Speight and starring the same cast as the television series. Unlike the television version set in the mid-196Ors, the film began in 1939 with the early married life of Alf and Else, went through World War Two experiences, and continued to the current scene. The movie was popular in England and praised by the critics for its realism and ability to evoke the texture of wartime London. But some critics thought it was "the famil­ iar story of a successful half-hour television series expanded for the big screen and losing itself in the process.”39 NOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO

Quoted in Robert Musel, "A Situation Comedy About a Bigot?" TV Guide, 30 December 196?, p. 16. 2Ibid., p. 15.

^Milton Shulman, The Least Worst Television in the World (London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1973)•

The 'following discussion of British television is indebted to Timothy Green, TheMJniversal Eye (New York: Stein and Day, 1972), pp* 80-102. c ■^Quoted in Green, p. 84. ^Ibid., p. 88.

7 Musel, p. 15« 8 Richard Hoggart, The Uses of Literacy: Changing Patterns in English Mass Culture (Boston: Beacon Press, 19^1) »?P^" 33-34. The fol­ lowing discussion of English working class life is indebted throughout to this book. 9Ibid., p. 38.

1( 0Ibid., p. 59.

11Ibid., p. 63.

12Ibid., p. 72.

l3Ibid., p. 73.

14 Scripts donated to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture Bowling Green, Ohio, by A.L.S. Management Ltd., 67 Brook Street, London. 15 'Till Death Us Do Part, Second Series, Programs 3 and 8. 16 Ibid., Program 3» p. i. Quotations from this script will be indicated by page numbers in parentheses following the material quoted. ^Green, p. 82. 18 Hoggart, p. 75. 19 Till Death Us Do Part, Second Series, Program 8. Unless other­ wise noted, all quotations from this script will be indicated by page 46

numbers in parentheses following the material quoted.

Times, 7 June 1966, p. 14. "IIbid., 25 July 1966, p. 10.

¿^Reprinted in T. C. Horsley, Television: The Ephemeral Art (London: Alan Ross, 1970), p. 68. 23 Ibid.

24Ibid. ¿^Ibid., p. 69.

Ibid., pp. 69-70. ^D.A.N. Jones, "Old Contemptible," The Listener, 10 Aug. 1967, p. 164. 28. Ibid.

29,Ibid. 30 Mary Whitehouse, Who Does She Think She Is? (London: New English Libratry, 1971), p. 77-

31Ibid. 32, 'Malcolm Muggeridge, "The Apotheosis of Alf Garnett," New States­ man, 15 Dec. 19o7, p. 843. 33 ^Times, 16 Feb. 1968, p. 1. 34 Ibid.

35Shulman, p. 12?. ^Times, 17 Feb. 1968, p. 8.

^Karl Miller, "Till Death," The Listener, 22 Feb. 1968, p. 229-

38 Shulman, p. 127- ^^"Till Death Us Do Part," Monthly Film Bulletin, February 1969, p. 36. For other reviews, see Variety, 18 Dec. 1968/ and Films and Filming, March 1969, pp- 54-55- ^7

CHAPTER THREE

AMERICAN DEBUT

In 1966 Norman Lear read a short trade paper review of Till Death

Us Do Part and was intrigued by the popularity and style of the program.

Lear checked on the British program further with a friend who had just returned from London, and the friend confirmed Lear's feeling that an adaptation of the series might be a success in the United States. Lear was especially interested in the basic conflict between Alf and Mike:

What I read indicated to me that the show was simply about a son-in-lav; living in his father-in-law’s home and that the two of them fought about everything. It sounded like a show about the generation gap—for real.^

Lear identified this conflict with his own past, saying "that was the 3 thing I fell in love with—I grew up that way."

Norman Lear, the creator and still the guiding force behind All in the Family, grew up the son of a lower-middle-class salesman in Hart- ford, Connecticut. In 1950 he began his television career as a writer on The Ford Star Revue. For several years he wrote comedy material for

Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis for their television shows, their radio shows, and some of their most successful films. He was involved in writ­ ing the Martha Raye Show and the George Gobel Show, which he also direc­ ted. He joined forces with Bud Yorkin in 19&0 to form Tandem Produc­ tions; together they produced a number of excellent television variety shows, including the Emmy-winning Fred Astaire dance specials. In addition, Lear wrote and produced the films Come Blow Your Horn and

Never Too Late. He won an Academy Award- nomination for writing and pro­ ducing the film Divorce: American Style. Following this he was involved 48

with the films The Night They Raided Minsky* s, Start the Revolution

Without Me, and Cold Turkey, a comedy starring Dick Van Dyke which Lear wrote and directed. Norman Lear was no amateur In the field of film and television comedy; following his instincts about, what he thought was funny had brought him considerable success.

Lear bought the American rights to the BBC series Till Death Us Do

Part and made a production agreement with the American Broadcasting

Company (ABC) to produce a pilot film for a possible new series. In adapting the series to American television, he retained the basic struc­ ture of the show but made some interesting changes. Alf Garnett the dockworker became Archie Bunker the shipping room foreman, an apparently slight but significant change in status, as Archie is in some sense a boss while Alf is just a worker. Else Garnett became Edith Bunker, Rita was changed to Gloria, and Mike Rawlins was now Mike Stivic. The set­ ting, of course, was changed from the East End of London to a lower- middle-class neighborhood in a New York City borough. There is a crucial difference between the working-class atmosphere of the British program and the lower-middle-class setting of All in the Family. "Working class" defined the Garnetts as part of that great and usually undifferentiated majority of the English population that are at or near the bottom of the social ladder in Britain. The lower-middle-class Bunkers by contrast are fairly comfortable if not prosperous, and they see themselves as middle class rather than proletarian in attitudes and values.

The first pilot film for ABC, completed in 1968, was titled Those

Were the Days and starred Carroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton as Archie and Edith Bunker. The roles of Gloria and Mike were played by two young 49

performers who were not hired for the later series. ABC officials liked

the film, but they were only lukewarm in their reactions to the charac­

ters of Gloria and Mike (who in the pilot was named Richard). The ABC

executives then asked Lear to make another pilot film keeping O’Connor

and Stapleton but using two different actors, Chip Oliver and Candy

Azzara, as Richard and Gloria. The pilot was made, tested, viewed by

the ABC executives, and it received universal favor. Nevertheless the

series was never aired by ABC; the network let their option on the show

expire, and Lear forgot about the whole affair and turned to moviemaking.

ABC had spent over $250,000 on a show which was never broadcast. If

Lear had lost his first chance to produce a television series, he at

least had gained a thorough knowledge of the show and was well prepared

when the pilot was revived. It is widely assumed that ABC did not air

the series because the network thought it was too bold and too contro­

versial, that the network was, as usual, playing It safe. ABC has never

disputed this view of the affair. Carroll O’Connor himself later recalled, 5 "I frankly thought the American public was too dour to laugh at itself."

A year or so passed. The CBS television network, by 1970, had a new president, Robert Wood, who v/as looking for new material. Wood learned of the old Those 'Were the Days pilot and contacted Yorkin and

Lear to discuss the show as a series. In retrospect Wood has said that the main attraction of the project for him was "the realism part. It was time TV dared to do something like this. I liked the fact that this program was going to draw off from real life."^ Of course hindsight Is always easier than foresight; one may wonder if Wood would have had much to say if the show had failed. To be fair, though, Wood’s tutelage of 50

the Tandem project is a rare case of a network president's being willing

to risk failure with a very new kind of series. Network presidents have

usually left the difficult job of programming to one or more vice presi­

dents. Then if a series fails, as so many do, the blame is on the heads

of the vice presidents. Wood did not want to be an anonymous or titular

head but an active force in broadcasting. As a relative newcomer to the

higher ranks of television he wanted to make a name for himself, and the

All in the Family project was just the means of doing so.

After viewing the pilot and holding several meetings with Yorkin and Lear in 1970» Wood and the other CBS executives agreed to finance

thirteen episodes of the series. There was, however, no firm guarantee that the series would actually be broadcast. Lear has said of this period:

... it wasn't until January 11th, 1971, one night before the first show was due to go on the air, that I said to my wife, 'Frances, we’re going to be on tomorrow.’ Until that very moment, I wasn’t sure. CBS wanted us to debut with the second show instead of the first one. Then, when I declined, they wanted to make a few changes. I couldn't do that. Finally, at seven in the evening, the night before the show was scheduled to debut, the network decided to go ahead my way. 7

Although there were no changes made in the first episode after it had been videotaped, there were a number of changes made between the second ABC pilot film and the episode that was the first broadcast on

CBS. Lear has been quoted as saying that "... the original pilot script is the same one which eventually debuted on the night of January g 12, 1971.” However, a comparison of the scripts of the two episodes reveals some noteworthy differences.

As time grew closer for the series to go into production, CBS began 51

to pressure Lear to tone down aspects of the show which they felt might

disturb some viewers. In the opening act of the pilot, for example,

as Archie and Edith return from church they are greeted by Gloria and

Richard coming down the stairs straightening their clothes. This scene

is preceded by Richard's convincing Gloria to retire to the bedroom while the parents are away. In the broadcast version the dialogue be­

tween Mike and Gloria remains basically the same, but the parents walk

in as Mike is carrying Gloria toward the stairs while they are locked in a kiss. This change marks a slight toning down which is not terribly important in itself, but it is representative of a general softening of the program. Most of the changes involve a tempering of the language, particularly Archie's language. The overall result here is to make

Archie somewhat less abrasive and more sympathetic. Some lines in the pilot which are omitted in the broadcast version are reminiscent of the sharp-tongued Alf Garnett: Archie calls his long-haired son-in-law "Shirley Temple" (Pilot, p. 12) and "Dickie Bird" (Pilot, 14A).^ Also omitted is a nasty remark by Archie about Richard's grades: "You ain't even a ’Q’ student. I don’t think they got enough letters in the alphabet" (Pilot, 14)•

The most interesting language change is the complete omission of a sequence regarding the word "Goddammit." The broadcast version has this line by Archie: "Edith! Stay the hell outta this!" (0101, 21). This line is an abbreviation of the following exchange from the pilot which, judging by the length of it, Lear originally felt was vital to the show:

Archie: Goddammit! Will you stay outta this! Edith: Now you’re swearing, too. You’re always swearing. You can’t talk without swearing. It’s always g.d. this—or g.d. that— 52

Archie: You call that swearing? That’s what you call swearing! The first word’s God. I suppose that’s a swear word. All right, now, the second word's damned. That’s a good word. The river’s damned to prevent flooding. That's one kind of damned, right? Then in the Bible you find, so-and-so was damned for stealing or cheating or committing insects in the family. And who damned him, huh? God damned him. That's who! And you call that swearing—right out of the Holy Book. Edith, don’t show off yer ignorance, will ya’! (Reaches for coffee—and cries out) Ow! Goddammit! I nearly burnt the hand off me. (Pilot, 20)

The television critic Les Brown has reported that Lear and Yorkin 10 "grudgingly" conceded to the CBS fears about the use of "Goddam." The ordinary observer might wonder at the vagaries of television taste by which "goddammit" is taboo but other swear words and ethnic slurs are acceptable. Brown offers the opinion that "there was probably no more inflammatory word that could be spoken on television. Affiliates in the 11 Bible Belt were going to scream."

Some other changes were clearly improvements over the original*

The dialogue was tightened and naturalized. For example, in the pilot

Gloria refers to brunch as "very sophis" (Pilot, p. 10), a slang phrase which has an archaic ring to it, if indeed it was ever current. The broadcast version changes "very sophis" to "very today” (0101, 10), a more natural phrase. An egregious lapse in the pilot is Edith’s remark,

"Archie, I’m telling you them kids don't leave this house until she can afford a part-time maid" (Pilot, 26). Such a line perhaps betrays the fact that the script has been written by a Hollywood producer who might momentarily forget that not everyone would think of having a maid. For­ tunately the line was changed in the broadcast version to, "Archie, I’m telling you them kids don’t leave this house until Mike can provide for 53

her proper" (0101, 28). Another improvement is a reference by Archie to

"blacks" (Pilot, 14a) which was changed to "spades" (0101, 16), a label which is more in character for Archie. In. this case the language is being toughened rather than softened. Archie's general language usage

is coarsened in the broadcast version, which contains many more double negatives (e.g., "didn't have no") and uses of "ain’t" than does the

pilot. One can conjecture that the motive behind this change was to make Archie seem more uneducated and uncouth; on the other hand, it might make him more human and therefore more sympathetic.

Other alterations worth notice include the changing of Archie and

Edith's surname from "Justice" to "Bunker," an appellation more descrip­ tive if less ironic. Richard is of Irish descent in the pilot, and

Archie calls him a "dumb Mick" (Pilot, 34). In the broadcast version

Mike is Polish, and Archie calls him a "dumb Polack" (0101, 38). In lines written for the broadcast version but omitted in taping, Archie continues this diatribe with, "You got the thick hands of a Hunky laborer and the thick head, too" (0101, 38). He also calls Mike "a

Polack joke" (0101, 38), a probable key to the motive behind the change-'

Mike's being Polish would allow for more jokes than if he were Irish.

The generally antagonistic relationship between Mike and Archie is sus­ tained in the first episode and throughout the series by Mike’s refer­ ring to Archie as "Archie" or "Arch." In the pilot Richard calls Archie

"Pop" (Pilot, 31), which jeopardizes this antagonism. In sum, Lear’s statement that he and Yorkin did not compromise their ideas about the series to get it on the air is basically true, as they did not change the plot or the cast of characters or the fundamental situation of the 54

show. It is, however, also true that some concessions were made in get­

ting the program aired.

The first episode of All in the Family v/as videotaped December 15,

1970, and first broadcast January 12, 1971, at 9:30 P.M. Eastern time.

Before the program v/as broadcast, CBS network president Wood intro­

duced it to the affiliate stations by way of a clcsed-circuit screening.

Among other things Wood said: "I hope you will agree that All in the

Family is an attempt—a genuine attempt—to get away from the tried and

true, from the conventional, and that this show can make a real contri- 12 bution to your entertainment schedule." The program received little

advance publicity, a CBS promotion executive saying, "We weren’t sure

how to promote it." 13 The network was fearful that vast numbers of

viewers would be offended, and extra switchboard operators were on duty

at the network offices and the affiliate stations to handle the expected

deluge of complaints. The pilot show had been subtitled: "Suggested

For The Mature Audience." This caution v/as extended ‘in the first broad­

cast when the following disclaimer was issued by a disembodied voice

immediately before the show began:

The program you are about to see is All in the Family. It seeks to throw a humorous spotlight on our frailties, preju­ dices and concerns. By making them a source of laughter v/e hope to show—in a mature fashion—just how absurd they are.^

The affiliate stations had been warned, the viewers had been warned, and

the network was taking no chances that anyone would be unpleasantly sur­ prised by the boldness of the program.

The new program had been scheduled as a mid-season replacement for

The Governor and J. J., a reasonably sophisticated comedy drama that was 55

15 a favorite of the CBS executives but a failure in the Nielsen ratings.

The unlikely lead-in program for All in the Family on CBS was Hee Haw, a rusticated .version of the successful program Laugh-In and a music and comedy show which celebrated rural middle-American values. It was not expected that Hee Haw and All in the Family would attract the same audi­ ence; the sound of channel changing would be heard throughout the land.

In the early weeks All in the Family also faced stiff competition from the other commercial networks, as ABC and NBC both were broadcasting feature films at the particular time period.

The first episode of All in the Family had no real plot. Lear admits that he "used the excuse of the Bunkers’ wedding anniversary to 16 go pot-shotting around, just to establish the people and the mood."

Vievzers who had read TV Guide before the program had already received this capsule description of the upcoming show:

Debut: Situation comedy takes a giant step into reality with this adult social satire. This series will explore American prejudices by looking at those of one middle-class family—if vievzers can take the heat. There’s plenty of abrasive language and subject matter. The family consists of bigoted Archie Bunker (Carroll O’Connor); his spiritless wife Edith (Jean Stapleton); their naively idealistic daughter Gloria (Sally Struthers); and Gloria’s husband Mike (Rob Reiner), an argumentative liberal who sorely tries Archie’s soul. Mike Evans plays Lionel, a black friend of the young couple. Tonight, Mike and Archie are wrangling about every­ thing from race to welfare.

The first act of the premiere revealed the basic characters and the fun­ damental situation. The act opens on a Sunday morning as Mike and Gloria prepare for celebrating Edith’s and Archie’s twenty-second wedding anni­ versary. Their friend Lionel is upstairs fixing a television set. Mike wants to have sex while the parents are out: "Gloria, we’ve been living 56

with, your folks since vze've been married. We don't get the house alone

that much" (0101, 2). Mike is long-haired and seems fairly liberal, and

■Lionel's greeting to him confirms the image: "Hey, so what's new on the

campus with all you angry white social democrats?" Mike's reply is,

"Oh, we're shaking them up" (0101, 3)• There is much discussion of

Archie even before he appears in the scene. We learn that Mike and

Gloria have, without Archie's knowledge, bought a present and card for him to give to Edith. It is the minor intrigue and embarrassment follow

ing from this deception that form the slight story of the show. Lionel early mentions Archie's racism in this exchange:

Mike: The old man's still giving you a hard time? Lionel: Oh, I'm used to him by now. You know his latest kick? Asking me what I'm gonna be when I get to college. He likes to hear me say: 'Ahm gwana bea’lectical ingineer.' (0101, 3-4)

Lionel leaves, and Archie and Edith arrive; Archie’s first line, spoken from offstage, is vulgar and argumentative: "If you don’t like what I do, then what the hell did you bring me there for anyway?" (0101,

6). He seldom goes to church, and he has been outraged by the Reverend

Felcher’s sermon, calling it socialist propaganda.

Archie and Edith walk in as Mike and Gloria are headed upstairs, and we learn of Archie’s prudishness, a theme that will recur throughout the series. Archie says that he believed that "the daylight hours was reserved for the respectable things of life" and, "In my day we was able to keep things in their proper suspective" (0101, 9)* He goes on only to be silenced by Edith:

Archie: When your mother-in-law and me was goin’ around together—two whole years it was—vze didn't—I never —there was nothin'—I mean nothin'—not till the wedding night. 57

Edith: Yeah, and even then . . . (0101, 10)

The essential difference in viewpoints between Mike and Archie is characterized by an exchange in which Mike asserts that poverty and law­ lessness exist because people like Archie "are afraid to give the black man and the Mexican-American and all the other minorities their just and rightful hard-earned share of the American Dream" (0101, 15)- Archie’s reply is swift and bitter: "Let me tell you something, if your spies and your spades want their share of the American Dream, let ’em go out and hustle for it just like I done" (0101, 16), The argument changes direction and the first act climaxes with a profession by Mike and Gloria of their lack of belief in God; Archie’s reaction is: "Well, I knew I had a couple of pinkos in this house; but I didn’t know v/e had atheists"

(0101, 20). Edith's simplistic but temporarily effective solution to the dispute is that they should all have something to eat. Archie abuses

Edith with the recurrent line: "Stifle ya silly dingbat" (0101, 20).

The second act opens with the family eating brunch and wearing party hats, indicating momentary change in mood. The good feeling lasts only a few moments, however, as Archie continues to attack Mike and slur blacks at the same time by saying: "Gloria, you married the laziest white man I ever seen" (0101, 29). When he calls blacks "Black Beauties,

Edith responds with a remark that indicates moderation of Archie’s lan­ guage, if not his attitude: "It’s nicer than when he called ’em coons"

(0101, 31). At this moment Lionel returns with flowers for Edith, and the highlight of the second act is a sequence in which Mike and Lionel try to convince Archie that he must be Jewish. They turn his own preju­ dices against him, pointing out that he knows some Yiddish words, that 58

he waves his hands in a "very Semitic gesture”(0101, 38), and that his

parents’ names are David and Sarah. Archie’s denial is humorous and

shows his ignorance: "David and Sarah. Two names right out of the

Bible—which is got nothing to do with the Jews" (0101, 37).

The third.act, or "tag," is some four minutes long, not typical of

the usual tag on All in the Family which lasts only about thirty seconds.

The show differs too from most of the other episodes in that it com­

presses forty-eight pages of script into the approximately twenty-four

minutes allowed, whereas most of the later scripts are between thirty

and thirty-five pages long. In this first show, then, the emphasis is

heavily upon dialogue rather than visual effects. There is no time

wasted, as Lear and all concerned seem to want to include as much talk

as possible to establish the ongoing characters and conflicts.

In one sense the premiere tries too much to touch all the bases,

thereby losing some structural cohesiveness. The tag, for example, is

in an entirely different mood from the preceding two acts, as it focuses

on Edith’s gift, supposedly from Archie but really bought by Mike and

Gloria. Edith is ecstatic over the gift of two lace handkerchiefs,

flowers, and a card with an appropriately maudlin poem. She reads the card and hurries from the room on the verge of tears. Mike notices that

Archie also has been affected by the verses and says: "I never knew before you were so soft and sentimental" (0101, 47)- Another aspect of

Archie is shown here, a side of him that makes him a more complex and interesting character. Even though the tone of this last scene is not altogether consistent with the first two acts, the scene deepens the comedy and ends the episode on a mixed note of sentiment and humor. One 59

of many reasons for the success of All in the Family is its ability to maintain a sometimes delicate balance among a number of seemingly con­ tradictory tones: raucous comedy and serious argument, pathos and bitterness.

The immediate public reaction to this first episode of All in the

Family surprised the CBS executives. There was no uproar, no flood of com­ plaints. Over one thousand telephone calls were received at network head­ quarters in New York and Los Angeles and at the five network-owned sta­ tions, but this was not an extraordinary number of responses.^ Usually most of the people who make calls want to complain, but in this case sixty- two per cent of the callers were favorable to the program. Callers were seldom lukewarm in their opinions about the show, calling it either "ter- rific" or "disgusting." VBBM, the CBS affiliate in Chicago, reported that telephone calls favoring the program were nearly seven to one ahead 20 of those complaining about it. New Orleans and Minneapolis affiliates were the only two stations to report a record telephone response; in both 21 cities favorable callers were in the majority.

The network executives were anxious to find out the reactions from professional critics as well as from the public. They hoped that favor­ able reviews would serve as a basis for further promotion of the pro- 22 gram. Fred Ferretti, writing in the Nevz York Times on the day the show was broadcast, sounded the first sour note. Having seen the Brit­ ish original and the pilot made for ABC,.he thought the broadcast version 23 was a watered-down product that lacked taste. Applying an ethical standard to the program, he said

Is it funny ... to have the pot-bellied, church-going, cigar-smoking son of Middle America, Archie Bunker, the hero 6o

of ’All in the Family,’ fill the screen with such epithets as ’spic’ and ’spade’ and ’hehe’ and ’yid’ and ’polack’? . . . The answer, I say, is no. None of these is funny. They shock because one is not used to hearing them shouted from the television tube during prime-time family programs. They don’t make one laugh so much as they force self-conscious, , semi-amused gasps.

The newspaper critics in general were much more sympathetic to the new program. All four of the writers for Chicago newspapers applauded the show, finding it humorous and provocative. Clarence Peterson of the Chi­ cago Tribune thought that the show "could become a very big hit, not only because it will be controversial, but because the scripts are funny and 25 the casting is brilliant." One of the more perceptive and witty of the television columnists, Johanna Steinmetz of Chicago Today, noted that

"while the networks have been pouring forth earnestly on the subject of

’relevance’ ... a grubby little sitcom has come along and pulled the 26 malapropism right out from under them." The most strongly favorable of the first reviews, however, appeared in the powerful tradepaper Variety, whose commentator said that the program was "the best TV comedy since the 27 original ’The Honeymooners.’" He further stated that "it’s the best casting since Sgt. Bilko’s squad. It should be the biggest hit since 28 ’Laugh-In,’ or the Nielsen sample is in need of severe revision."

It seemed for a time that the Nielsen sample would need that revision. Norman Lear had anticipated that the popularity of All in the Ihmily would grow only slowly. The rating for the premiere epi- 29 sode was a dismal fifteen per cent share of the viewing audience.

Considering that the program had little advance publicity, had no big- name stars, was a mid-season replacement, and was aired against movies on 61

the other networks, the low rating was no surprise. But as word of mouth spread comments on the program, the popularity rapidly increased.

The first episode had established that the emphasis of the series would be on character and language more than on plot or slapstick com­ edy, and the remainder of the first season’s thirteen episodes con­ firmed this promise. Six of the shows dealt directly with Archie’s character, specifically with his various prejudices. The third episode of the season concerned his preconceptions about Jews. After a minor automobile accident in which he claims to have injured his back, he hires the law firm of Rabinowitz, Rabinowitz, and Rabinowitz to press his case. He is discouraged when the firm sends their "house goy,"

Whitney Fitzroy TV, described in the script as a "thirtyish, slightly disreputable, kind of roofing-and-siding type guy" (0103, 30). Fitzroy is not acceptable to Archie, as he believes that Jews are shrewder than gentiles: "These people have a way of seein' right through ya" (0103,

29). Sol Rabinowitz is duly sent for; he arrives and is offered some

"Morgan David" wine (0103, 35)- The lawyer for the other party, Mr.

Marshall, also arrives, and he looks much like Fitzroy. Marshall reveals that Archie was at fault in the accident, which was witnessed by a sta­ tion wagon full of nuns, and the case Is closed. Archie’s motivation in this story is simple greed, as he feigns the back injury only after he has learned that Lionel’s parents had collected a large amount of money from injuries in a traffic accident. A continuing theme in the series is the futility of greed, as a number of later shows exhibit Archie ultimately losing because of his selfishness.

The episode also is one in which Archie is hoisted on his own 62

prejudice. Ironically, it is the gentile lawyer who wins the confronta­

tion. The same pattern develops in several other shows of the first

season, including one in which Archie believes a friend of Mike’s to be

homosexual, a "strange little birdie" (0104, 7). The absurdity of his

prejudice is shown by his assumption that England is a homosexual country:

"Ain’t they still pickin’ handkerchiefs out of their sleeves and standin’ around with them skinny umbrellas like this—sure, I know them, their whole society’s based on a kind of fagdom" (0104, 9)* Archie’s prejudice

is turned against him, however, when he learns that his own friend Steve, a drinking buddy with whom he arm-wrestles, is homosexual. The episode challenges the old notion that equates masculinity with ruggedness and homosexuality with intellectuality. Archie’s closing line in the episode is, "Nowadays you can’t bet on nothing" (0104, 4-5).

The other episodes of the first season that focus on Archie's preju­ dices are 0105, in which Archie argues against interracial blood trans­ fusions and heart transplants; 0107, in which Archie disapproves of an unmarried hippie-type couple whom Mike invites to stay overnight at the

Bunkers; and 0108, in which Archie tries to buy out a black family that is planning to move into the neighborhood, only to learn later that the family is Lionel’s. In this last-mentioned, Archie is particularly mean- spirited but also frightened, saying, "Am I the only one who cares about keeping up standards around here? Don’t you understand? The whole world’s tumbling down around us! The coons are coming!" (0108, 28). He is afraid to confront the new neighbors directly, so he asks Lionel to present the offer of purchase to them. The persistence of his bigotry is exhibited after he learns that the neighbors are Lionel’s family; he 63

warns Lionel against the dishonest "Eyetalian" butcher and «German mail­

man (0103, 4J). It seems, then, that Archie is Incapable of real learn­

ing or growth because he is locked into his view of the world and any

small change would threaten his entire system of values.

While many of the episodes center on Archie’s prejudices, there are .

many others that concern other kinds of situations, a point often

ignored by critics of the show. The second show of the series is simi­

lar to the premiere in that it is used primarily to establish characters.

The basic conflict here is between Archie and Mike, as each writes a let­

ter to President Nixon expressing his views on various social issues.

Archie’s letter, with the salutation "Dear Mr. President . . . Your Honor

Sir,” continues:

Mr. Nixon’s Voice: (reading the letter) I personally don’t agree with all the confragation on the college cam­ puses—or them ecology nuts who only see disaster in. this great country of ours. . . . But like Duke Wayne would say, we came up off the mat before, when the goin* was tough and I know so long as we all work together, this nation under God shall not diminish from the earth/ (0102, ^O)

Archie’s faith in the President is rewarded by having his letter read by

Mr. Nixon on national television. The humor in this instance is mainly topical; the device of injecting contemporary references into dramatic comedy shows was pioneered by All in the Family and has now become a common device in other comedy series as well.

In the sixth episode of the first season, a different tone is intro­ duced, a stronger mood of pathos. In this show it is learned that Gloria is pregnant. Edith is happy, but Archie rants about Mike’s inability to support a wife and child. Mike is finally goaded into getting an apart­ ment for himself and Gloria, but Gloria suffers a miscarriage. By this 64

time Archie is reconciled and actually looking forward to having a grandchild. When he learns of the miscarriage, the following takes place in Gloria's bedroom:

Gloria: Come in. Hi, Daddy. Archie: Hi, sweetheart—you okay? Gloria: I didn't do a very good job, did I? Archie: Who said so? Say, did that little Vienna sausage say anything to— Gloria: No, no. Now, stop it. And you can stop fighting, too. Well, what is it, Daddy? Archie: Nothing. Gloria: You love me. (Archie simply stands there and grins) Gloria: 1 love you too, Daddy. (0106, 4O-4l)

Despite his inability to express his feelings, Archie is here a much more sympathetic character than usual.

A surprisingly large number of the episodes evade easy classifica­ tion. In 0110 Archie is waiting up late at night to get a telephone call about whether he has been laid off from work; but the show is more slapstick than most, as the action arises out of a multitude of strange visitors who come to the Bunker house in the wee hours. In 0109 Edith is spotlighted, as she is on a jury hearing a murder case, and she is the lone dissenter holding out for acquittal. Edith displays here a quirky independence and wisdom, and she is proven in the end to be right in her judgment. We see too that her subservience at home is as much role-playing as stupidity. In 0111 the major conflict is between

Gloria and Mike. Although Mike at first claims to approve of women's liberation, it becomes apparent that he really believes women are infe­ rior. Gloria stomps out of the house, but she and Mike are finally reconciled when they realize they need one another. Gloria also learns something about her mother: 65

Gloria: Oh, Ma, you can’t help. You have the same problems we have. And you haven’t solved them. There’s no equality in your marriage. Whatever Daddy says goes—and you're just the dutiful little woman, wait­ ing tc serve the master. Edith: Oh, well, that’s what it looks like, I know. (Point­ edly) But how do you know that what you see is all there is? (0111, 32)

One of the most interesting of the first season episodes is #0112,

in which the Bunkers are visited by Eddie Frazier, an old friend of

Archie’s who is now a wealthy California car dealer. Archie arranges

a reunion for Frazier with some of their Army buddies from World War

Two. The Army buddies are uncomfortable and find they have nothing to

say to one another as they have grown too far apart. When Frazier

arrives, Archie is in awe of him, but the audience sees that he is a

back-slapping, fast-talking, joke-cracking, vulgar used car dealer. In

the midst of the forced merriment, Frazier makes a telephone call to his

son, who refuses to see his father:

Billy: Archie, look at Eddie. It looks like he’s crying. Archie: Huh? Crying? Eddie? He’s crying all the way to the bank with his 60 million bucks. (They all laugh) (Cut to Eddie on phone. Mike beside him.) Eddie: What do I care? VZhat d’you mean what do I care? Would I be talking to you like this if I didn’t care? Because you’re my son, dammit! Greg? Don’t hang up, Greg! (Greg has evidently hung up—Bo does Eddie) (Eddie takes a moment to pull himself together and then, drink in hand, pauses beside Mike) Eddie: Just talking to my son. Great kid. That boy could have anything he wants from me. Mike: What does he want from you? Eddie: He wants me to stay the hell away from him. (0112, 4-2)

■The loneliness of Eddie Frazier never is perceived by Archie, but Mike and the audience are fully aware of Eddie’s unhappiness. The sequence uses the television medium well with its closeup shots to convey the 66

multiple ironies of the situation: Eddie's unhappiness contrasted with

his apparent gaiety, with his air of success, and with Archie’s admira­

tion. This episode is Death of a Salesman in miniature.

The last show of the first season was broadcast April 6, 1971- By

that time All in the Family had become the biggest new hit on American

television. The program was high in the Nielsen ratings, and Norman Lear

received two Emmy awards, one for the Best New Series and another for the

Best Comedy Series. The show v/as renewed by the network for another sea­

son, and there was near-universal critical acclaim. The often-ascerbic

critic for TV Guide, Cleveland Amory, had stated unequivocally, "All in

the Family is not just the best-written, best-directed and best-acted 30 show on television, it is the best show on television." He noted too

that the show was controversial:

Obviously such a show will give much offense to some and some offense to many—if for no other reason than that it is so different from what we are used to. But you cannot deny that it is true—that it invariably well and often brilliantly holds up the mirror to our human (or is it' inhuman?) nature.51

Variety reported that a survey of blacks prominent in the media showed opinion almost equally divided over the series. Tony Brown, a producer of public television programs, found All in the Family "shock- ing," "racist," and an exercise in "rank bigotry." 32 On the other hand, an official of the NAACP said:

The standard of humor is not very high, but the humor makes a point, I think. While it’s impossible to predict the effect of this program, it certainly can’t do any harm to have preju­ dice stereotypes held up to scorn. YJho knows? It might actually lead some bigots to re-examine themselves.55

The first season ended as a success, both financially and criti­ cally. But All in the Family was aired in the summer of 1971 on the BBC, 67

and the British critics were much less kind than the American commen­

tators had been. The columnist for the Daily Mirror said, "God help .34 America if they regard (the show) as a biting, controversial comedy.'

The Daily Telegraph concluded with faint praise: "... this series

may be enjoyed as being well above average of American television

comedy, which is not saying much but is saying something."35 68

NOTES FOR CHAPTER THREE

4 Rowland Barber, "Bellowing, Half-baked, Fire-breathing Bigotry," TV Guide, 29 May 1971, P* 32. 2 Quoted in Marcia Borie, All You'd Like to Know About All in the Family (Lincolnwood, Illinois: Fawcett, 1971), P* 7- ■^Quoted in "TV: Speaking About the Unspeakable," Newsweek, 29 Nov. 1971, p. 54. 4 z Material on Norman Lear's career is from Borie, pp. o-7- ^Current Biography 1972, p. 334. r "TV: Speaking," p. 59« 7 Borie, p. 8. 8 „ . „ ■ Quoted in Bone, p. ?. g Quotations from specific scripts will be indicated in parentheses throughout by the word "Pilot" or the production number of the particular episode followed by the page number. Unless otherwise noted, ail refer­ ences are to the final draft version of the script. Scripts provided by Tandem Production, Inc., 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 670, Los Angeles, California. 10 Les Brown, Television: The Business Behind the Box (New York: ✓Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 13^ 11Ibid. i2 Louis Solomon, TV's First Family (New York: Scholastic Eook Services, 1973), P«

13Ibid. 14. Barber, p. 28. 15 Brown, p. 313« 16 Barber, p. 35- 1?TV Guide, 12 Jan. 1971, p- A56.

18 Variety, 20 Jan. 1971, p. 29- ^9Barber, p. 29- 69

20.broadcasting, 18 Jan. 1971, p. 44.

21'Barber, p. 30.

2Variety, 20 Jan. 1971, p. 29-

23 Fred Ferretti, "TV: Are Racism and Bigotry Funny?" New York Times, 12 Jan. 1971, P- 70. 24 Ibid. 25 Quoted in Broadcasting, 18 Jan. 1971, P* 4-5. 26Ibid.

^Variety, 13 Jan. 1971, p* 48. 28-.,., Ibid. 29 Solomon, p. 19- 3°TV Guide, 2? Feb. 1971, p. 18.

^1Ibid.

^^Variety, 27 Jan. 1971, P- 26.

^33Ibid. 34 Quoted m Variety, 21 July 1971, p. 31- ?5Ibid. 70

CHAPTER FOUR

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: SETTING

Undaunted by the critical attacks at home and abroad, and heartened

by the overwhelmingly favorable public response, Lear advanced All in the

Family into its second and following seasons, retaining its basic struc­

ture, its winning formula. It is difficult to attribute the success of

All in the Family to any one factor; rather its success arises from a

combination of elements, among them setting, character, and theme. In

All in the Family each of these components was a departure from what had

come to be expected in television comedy. The new combination v/as

fresh, startling, and at times disturbing.

The establishment of setting is the first important element in the

success of All in the Family. Earlier television domestic comedies

typically were set in clean, cozy, upper-middle-class homes in tree-

lined streets of suburbs or small towns. All in the Family, by contrast,

takes place in an urban environment—the lower-middle-class reaches of

the New York City borough of Queens. As each episode begins, Archie and

Edith Bunker are sitting at a piano singing off-key the song "Those

Were the Days," written especially for the show. The song and the man­

ner of singing it immediately establish a homely feeling to the show, a

sense of spontaneity, friendliness, and intimacy. The lyrics also point up one of the themes of the show, Archie and Edith’s nostalgia:

Archie: Boy, the way Glenn Miller played Songs that made the hit parade! Guys like us, we had it made— Those were the days! Edith: And you knew where you were then 71

Archie: Girls were girls ana men were men, Both: Mister we could use a man Like Herbert Hoover again! Archie : Didn't need no welfare state Edith: Everybody pulled his weight Both: Gee our old LaSalle ran great! Those were the days! (0102, C)

As they intone this paean to the past, the camera shifts to helicopter shots of mid-town Manhattan, lingers on the expensive high-rise towers for a moment, and begins a shaky, symbolic journey from the glamorous high-rent district across the rooftops of New York City. The camera moves to ground-level and rushes past rows and rows of small brick single-family houses and duplexes until it stops, almost arbitrarily, before one of these modest dwellings, 704 Hauser Street. Then the cam­ era moves in for a steady close-up shot of the front of the Bunker house.

The Bunker home is in a neighborhood of $15,000 homes built some thirty or forty years ago, inhabited by families of blue-collar workers.

These people are a mixture of ethnic identities, though there are few blacks. Life in the Bunker neighborhood is generally comfortable; everyone has the necessities' of life if few of the luxuries. On the other hand, the financial situation of the people here is at times pre­ carious, as they are subject to factory lay-offs and have little savings to fall back on. Archie Bunker’s attitudes are typical of those of the majority of his neighbors: a distrust of persons different from him­ self, a faith in the rightness of government, a belief in the work ethic, and a concern for keeping up appearances. The basic social unit is the family, and the value that is reinforced most strongly is the belief in marriage and children, in traditional roles, and in family love. The home is therefore seen as a haven from the dangers of the outside world. 72

As is the case with most television comedies, almost all of the action of All in the Family takes place indoors. This is done to keep down pro­ duction expenses, but it also conveys a message and an atmosphere. The message is that the important affairs of life happen within the family circle, and the atmosphere is one of intimacy. The focus of the show is on personal interaction rather than large-scale action or adventure.

The central arena of action in the Bunker home is a combination living room and dining room, which is a rather small place for four active people to spend many of their waking moments. The room has a worn, com­ fortable look, and the predominant color tone is brown. The oak wood­ work is discolored, and there is dirt around the light switches, a mute sign of neglect. The walls are cluttered with inexpensive but sentimental bric-a-brac, including painted plates and cheap prints of mountain scenes.

The room is expressive of Edith’s simple tastes and her past efforts to create a functional but personalized environment. The furniture consists of a broken-down sofa with pillows scattered about upon it, a wooden rack by the door where Archie hangs his hat and coat, a coffee table, several occasional chairs, and a dining-table with four chairs. In the middle of the room is a pair of chairs with a half-moon table between them which holds a few magazines. These chairs are the modest thrones of the king and queen of the castle, Archie and Edith Bunker. Edith’s chair is plain, while Archie’s is a faded overstuffed wingback model which sig­ nifies his centrality in the home. The chair is clearly his and anyone else who sits there (at least when he is present) does so only at his allowance. His petty tyranny over his chair affords a recurrent comic motif 73

Other objects in the room also hold expressive value or serve as

props for comic effects. The heavy wood front door is admirably suited

for slamming when someone is angry, and the swinging door that leads to

the kitchen is a constant source of mishaps such as collisions. The

dining area of the room is important as many of the family’s arguments

occur while they are eating. Conversely, eating can at times signify a

temporary cease-fire in the hostilities, providing a momentary sense of

community during the meal. The television set', placed directly in front

of Archie and Edith’s chairs, is another source of comic contention when

the family argues over what to watch. The most common camera perspec­

tive in the living room scenes is from the location of the television

set, perhaps unconsciously reflecting a sort of narcissistic concern for

the medium itself. The effect is somewhat as if the viewer is looking

out at the family through the TV set. The telephone is placed at the

rear of the room, and it is the family’s immediate link with the outside

world. Telephone calls serve to further the action in an economical way

without introducing secondary characters unnecessarily. A call may trig­

ger a problem, complicate a situation, or occasionally solve a dilemma.

Other parts of the small house are readily accessible from the liv­

ing room. The kitchen, at the rear of the house (camera left), serves

as a setting for many scenes. From the viewer's perspective the kitchen

is a crowded room with the door to the dining/living room on the right;

sink, stove, and refrigerator on the left; a counter downstage; a door

to the rear leading to the backyard: and in the center a kitchen table and chairs. YZhile the living room is Archie’s bailiwick, the kitchen is

Edith’s territory: it is here that she is in control and can feel free 74

to express her thoughts. Heart-to-heart conversations or private talks

are likely to take place over the kitchen table or at the counter. The

refrigerator is often a focus for comic confrontations, especially over

Mike’s ravenous appetite.

The stairs at the rear of the living room set lead to the upstairs area, composed of two bedrooms and a bathroom. The bathroom, never shown by the camera, is nevertheless a basis for recurrent jokes. Archie, ever euphemistic, calls it "the library," and we infer its existence

from the sound of flushing heard downstairs, usually heralding Archie’s descent to the living room. The bedrooms, seen on occasion, are the places of greatest privacy in the house. The most intimate conversa­ tions often occur in these rooms. But they too are subject to invasion, as Archie strains to hear through the wall a marital quarrel between

Gloria and Mike or as he rummages through Mike’s closet and finds an old love letter to taunt Mike with and precipitate an argument. There is really no place in the house where the individual family member finds complete privacy, and many of the arguments in the show are an indirect result of the forced closeness of interaction.

In keeping with the idea that life is acted out within the family circle, the viewer sees places other than the Bunker home only occasion­ ally. These are often settings where one of the family members, usually

Archie, must confront an authority figure: at the police department, the church, a doctor’s office, or the Internal Revenue office. The family member is almost invariably diminished in such scenes, appearing to be a victim or at least not in control of the situation. In particular, Archie is shown to be foolish and bumbling and vulnerable when off his home 75

ground. This motif is carried further in the references made by the

family members to experiences in the city. The subways, the streets,

and the stores are places of discomfort and danger, sometimes precipi­

tating the particular problem of the episode. Another kind of external

setting is the place.of refuge when the home territory itself becomes

unfriendly. Edith finds comfort in a neighbor’s home (usually a

kitchen), Gloria flees to a friend’s apartment, and Archie takes refuge

in Kelsey’s Bar. The neighborhood bar is supposed to be a place where

Archie can find male companionship and forget the troubles of home and

work. As it happens, he usually finds little comfort there, and like

the others must ultimately return to face the problems of the home scene.

The setting of the show is important because many of the problems

that the characters must contend with arise as a result of the urban

surroundings. Although the Bunker home appears settled and comfortable,

this home is placed in an environment which is far from stable. The

city is hostile and is a scene of shifting values and various styles of

living. Unlike those earlier domestic comedies in which the community at large supports certain well-defined middle-class values, the city in

All in the Family presents a constant challenge to attitudes and beliefs.

For example, one might expect the police in a small town to be thoroughly honest and fair, but in All in the Family the city police are assumed to be often corrupt and less than completely fair in their dealings with citizens. Archie and Edith (and, we may assume, all the others in the city who are like them) are therefore inevitably faced with tests of their values.

Those values are summed up rather simply in the program’s theme ?6

song, "Those Were the Days." Clearly expressed in this song are Archie

and Edith’s sentimental memories of the days when "you knew where you were" and "everybody pulled his weight." The song represents more than

mere nostalgia; it shows how Archie and Edith try to evaluate the pres­

ent in terms of the past, how their standards of judgment are the stand­ ards formed in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The outcome of using these stand­ ards is that Archie and Edith are often mired in the past, as they find the older values largely irrelevant to contemporary problems and issues.

For example, Archie evaluates the war in Vietnam in terms of his experi­ ences in World War Two, and he is unable to understand why the United

States doesn’t simply win this war too.

It is important also that the program occurs in the present and in the larger context of the American society of the 1970’s. The life of the Bunkers thus serves as a microcosm of the conflict and confusion of values with vzhich. most of the program’s audience themselves must cope.

Although the conflict in All in the Family is usually treated in a stylized and comic manner, the setting of the show is one with which many in the audience might be able to identify. If the physical setting of a program communicates in itself, it may be said that All in the

Family expresses not the somnolent upper-middle-class gentility of the isolated small town, but the often-frustrated and often-abrasive atmos­ phere of the city home of a blue-collar working man and his family.

Setting should, in the words of one writer, be "appropriate, ex- pressive of the play’s values, distinctive, and practicable." It 2 should, in addition, "help to establish the level of probability." The 77

setting or environment of All in the Family performs these functions on a level of domestic realism that nevertheless holds significance as an artistic product. 78

NOTES FOR CHAPTER FOUR

^Oscar G. Brockett, The Theatre: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 196977 P- 41. 2Ihid. 79

CHAPTER FIVE

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: ARCHIE AND EDITH

Another factor in the success of All in the Family is the complex­

ity of the characters in the program. Archie Bunker may be character­

ised. as a beer-drinking hardhat reactionary, but such a description is

reductive, in that it reflects only a very fundamental sort of concep­

tion of the character. Upon this original conception or framework is

constructed a more ambiguous mix of values and behavior. At the same

time, it is clear that Archie and the other characters are, at least in

essence, types. To say that the characters are conventionalized or

"stock" is not necessarily to disparage the program. Literary theorists are nearly unanimous in the observation that comic characters must, by

the dictates of the genre, be typed. One critic writes that "... the

comic abnormal hero is always a type—country bumpkin, boaster, ironist, misanthrope, miser, middle-age cuckold, young lover, foreigner. They are all funny because their abnormality implies and strengthens the norm, because even they are typical norms of abnormality." Another writer notes that "... typing is the essential device in stage comedy and ironic humor" and that "the visual equivalent of mimicry is carica- 2 ture, which often fastens on unconscious gesture. ..." The type- character is humorous because he or she must act in accordance with his or her narrowed set of responses. The great theorist of comedy Henri

Bergson has declared that this rigidity of character is the basis of most comedy:

Let us try to picture to ourselves a certain inborn lack of 8o

elasticity of both senses and intelligence, which brings it to pass that we continue to see what is no longer visible, to hear what is no longer audible, to say what is no longer to the point: in short, to adapt ourselves to a past and there­ fore imaginary situation, v/hen we ought to be shaping our conduct in accordance with the reality which is present. This time the comic will take up its abode in the person himself. . . .5

It appears, then, that the rigidity of Archie Bunker’s character is but

another manifestation of this comic tradition. One early newspaper

critic of All in the Family said that "... because the show is so one­ dimensional, because its characters are caricatures, it cannot even

claim the shock value of being courageously., uncompromisingly, true to 4 life." Far from being a reason for censure, however, the use of conven­ tional characters in popular television comedy drama fulfills one of the

first requirements of the comedic genre.

The characters in All in the Family seem to strike most members of the audience as much more than stock types, indeed as being well-rounded and individualized characters with complex behavior. This is due in large part to the subtlety and power of the performance by the various actors. It is also due to the form of the television series, in which the audience may observe the characters week after week, perhaps for years on end, in a variety of situations.

It is important too that the characters on All in the Family are given a past. This creation of a past makes the show different from most other television series, in which the characters exist only of and for the present moment in which the show takes place. The sense of a past is partly created through references in dialogue, especially through Edith’s reminiscences. It is also created through segments that directly involve the past, such as an episode-long flashback to Mike’s first meeting with 81

Archie (0203) or to the wedding of Mike and Gloria (0311, 0312). A recall of the more distant past occurs in episodes dealing with Edith’s high school class reunion (0319) or with the 25th wedding anniversary of

Archie and Edith (0412). This history has been created slowly through­ out the course of the series, and this is one way in which the charac­ ters have been deepened as the series progresses.

It becomes difficult, therefore, to differentiate one’s impressions of the characters as they were at the beginning of the series from one’s knowledge at a later time. The characters generally grow through a proc ess of accretion or accumulation rather than through a sudden revelation of new aspects of character. It is true that there are occasional dis­ coveries of hidden aspects of character, but these are rare. What is more usual is the accretion through the repetition of well-established qualities, such as Archie’s bigotry. It might be hazardous for those involved with the program to attempt to achieve a sudden change in per­ sonality, as the audience comes to have certain expectations about the characters. In addition to satisfying a rather mindless desire for rep­ etition which characterizes much television watching, there are valid esthetic reasons for keeping the characters consistent. If the show is to be realistic, the characters should not undergo sudden changes in attitude or personality. In particular, comedy relies on fixed charac­ ters reacting to new situations. At the same time, the audience may become bored with the series if there is no change. The show must medi­ ate between the desire for stability and the desire for novelty; the result is gradual change. It has been noted that slow change or no change at all is typical of most comedy: 82

... comedy tends to register the impact of experience upon character quantitatively rather than qualitatively. Experience and character do not, as they do in tragedy, interpenetrate. Happenings multiply in the life of the comic character hut do not modify him.^

There is little question that the show revolves around the figure

of Archie Bunker, and much of the program’s success is due to this com­

plex, controversial, and by now predictable American character. Archie

Bunker is an amalgam modeled after Alf Garnett of Till Death Us Do Part,

re-created by Norman Lear and by various writers, and incarnated by

Carroll O’Connor. The name "Archie Bunker" might be translated as "in­

comparable purveyor of nonsense," a phrase which is often an accurate

description of the man. Archie is in his fifties, gray-headed, some­

what balding, paunchy, with a round red face. His typical costume is

a dingy white shirt with the top two buttons undone to reveal a hairy

chest; dark, pleated full-cut pants held precariously by a thin dress

belt; plain dark tie-type shoes; and white cotton socks. His outerwear

is most often a plaid lumberjack coat, a muffler, and a battered felt

hat. In his personal habits Archie is self-indulgent but not hedonistic;

he smokes large cigars which he waves about to make rhetorical points,

and he enjoys a few beers, especially when he arrives home from work. A

creature of routine, he expects meals to be served at fixed times and will not eat any foods with which he is not familiar. His taste for

meat-and-potatoes meals is one of the many ways in which he lives up to his own conception of his masculinity: for him, Chinese food is unpatri­

otic and French cuisine is degenerate. His pettiness about food is some­ times childish, as in his insistence on having a particular brand of breakfast cereal. 83

Archie is a thoroughly domesticated animal despite a bearish

demeanor. Married to Edith for twenty-five years, he could not conceive

of life without her. He is loyal to her and would not "step out" on

her. On one occasion he is attracted to a pretty woman who stays over­

night with the Bunkers. This woman is eventually routed by a jealous

Edith, and Archie is grudgingly contrite but relieved to be rid of the

temptation. He is comfortable with Edith and he loves her, in spite of

apparent ill-treatment of her. He also loves Gloria and thinks of her

as his "little girl." Archie is a feeling person, even a sentimental

person with his family, but he is both reluctant to show his true feel­

ings and largely unable to express them. V/hen he and Edith go on a sec­

ond honeymoon on their twenty-fifth wedding anniversary, they drink

champagne:

Edith: I’m gonna make a toast. Thank you for a wonderful twenty-five years. Archie: You’re welcome Edith. And here’s to you. I couldn’t a done it without you. (0412, 30-31)

Archie takes seriously his role as family provider, and his assump­ tion is never questioned by him. This concept of himself as the money­ maker is the basis for much of his behavior: his worry over his job, his schemes for making more money, and his numerous domestic tyrannies. As he sees it, he is due the deference and respect of the other family mem­ bers because he is the provider, and this role also gives him certain privileges. In one episode, for example, when Edith tells Archie the telephone call she is having is private, Archie exclaims, "Private? This is my house. My living room and that’s my phone. I am in on all the privates in this house" (0412, 8). Archie’s masculinity depends on his

HOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 84

bringing home the paycheck, so that he feels that Mike is less a hus­

band and less a person because he doesn’t support his wife.

Archie will never understand that the others in the family love him

regardless of his moneymaking prowess. As a foreman on a loading dock,

his job is marginal. He is forced at times to take a second job driving

a cab to bring in the necessary money, and his factory position is peri­

odically threatened by lay-offs and by the possibility of becoming dis­

placed by younger workers. This worry over being fired from his job is

reflected in several episodes; in one (0316), he develops severe back

trouble which turns out to be psychosomatic, triggered by his fears about

a new energetic young man on the loading crew.

Archie is growing older and has aches and pains. He moves heavily,

as a man would who has spent thirty years on a loading crew. Several

episodes have dealt with this problem of age. In one (0317), Archie is

envious of an old high school classmate who looks much younger than

Archie. He goes home and looks at his balding head in the mirror. When

he learns that the classmate is "keeping young" by going to a prostitute,

he is more satisfied with his own lot and admits that he needs reading

glasses. In another episode (O417), Archie is upset because he is fifty

years of age. At Kelsey's Bar, he says to Edith, "Geez, fifty. Just

think of all the things I ain’t done yet! ... I ain’t never rode a

horse! I never had my picture in the paper. I never even been to Cali­

fornia!" (O4l7, 29).

Archie is a little man, a victim. The viewer is continually re­ minded of this, and sometimes Archie recognizes it himself. Strive as he might, he never seems to make headway. In "Archie Learns His Lesson" 35

(0322), he is trying to earn his high school diploma in hopes of getting a better job at the factory. He gets the diploma but does not get the

job. At one point he sums up his life as follows: . look at me.

Worked hard all my life and what have I got to show for it? Nothin’!"

(0322, 6). Despite these disappointments, Archie firmly believes in the

American myth of success through hard work.

Archie’s self-concept as victim makes him extremely defensive; he compensates for his real or imagined victimization by striking out at others. Carroll O’Connor has said this about the character he portrays:

Archie’s dilemma is coping with a world which is changing in front of him. He doesn’t know what to do except lose his temper, mouth his poisons, look elsewhere to fix the blame for his discomfort. The root of his problem is himself and he doesn't know it.

Archie is, as he sometimes realizes, fighting a rearguard action in de­ fense of his own, attitudes and beliefs. These beliefs were shaped many years ago and reflect the conditions of an earlier age. He cannot change his opinions on minor matters not just because he is stubborn but because even a minor change would be a serious threat to a carefully constructed system of values. For example, he sees Edith’s getting a job as a threat to his masculinity, to their marriage, and even to "the American way of life," which he believes is based on stereotyped sex roles.

Norman Lear conceived of Archie as a loser. When questioned closely about the matter of Archie as an admirable figure, Lear has bluntly re- 7 sponded, "If a guy wants to make a hero out of a fool, he’s a fool."

Sometimes Archie’s foolishness is painfully evident. For example, he tries in one episode (0205) to ingratiate himself with a policeman, whom he probably supposes to be Irish, by making a reference to "Polacks," 86

only to learn that the officer is himself Polish.

At another time Lear wrote that Archie "is not motivated by hatred g but by fear." His fear is particularly evident when he must deal with

persons whose background, appearance, lifestyle, or values are different

from his or do not fit his norm. Archie’s bigotry, therefore, like much

of his behavior, arises from a horror of change. In addition, his big­

otry is a means for him to simplify a complex world of individual dif­

ferences into neat categories that require no further thought. The problem is that the categories become a hindrance rather than a help in coping with his world. His bigotry is not malevolent, but it is still rather dangerous. The following exchange between Lionel and Hammy Davis,

Jr., helps to define the nature of his bigotry:

Lionel: But he’s not really a bad guy, Mr. Davis. Like, he'd never burn a cross on your lawn. Sammy: No. But if he saw one burning there, he might toast a marshmallow on it. (0221, 27)

It should be noted though, that Archie’s mostly-passive bigotry is undis­ criminating, as he nourishes numerous ethnic and national stereotypes: of the Chinese, the Germans, the English, the French, etc.

His language .habits reflect his attitudes, as much of his bigotry is not spelled out but is implicit in the terms he chooses, such as

"Chink," "Spic," and "Spade." He is crude in his use of the language and uses the relatively mild epithets "hell" and "damn" to reinforce his utterances. Archie is a past master of malapropism and mispronun­ ciation. It is here that the writers make him appear quite often ignor­ ant and foolish. The following lines from -The Wit and Wisdom of Archie

Bunker are only a small sampling of the many linguistic outrages he com­ 87

mits in every episode:

There’s somethin’ rotten in Sweden, Edith. Call it a father’s intermission ... but I smell a rat.

Rudy and me was as close as two peas in a pot.

Forget it. It’s irrelevant. It ain’t German to this conversation.

The Mets winnin’ the pennant . . . that would be a miracle. Yeah . . . Tike the immaculate connection.

It’s just a pigment of your imagination.9

But language is his weapon against the world, a way to take out his

frustrations upon others. Wife Edith is often the target of his sarcasm, as she is innocent of the ambiguities of language. A recurrent scene in the series is that in which Edith is literal-minded while Archie is angry and sarcastic. Another recurrent type of dialogue is Archie's mis­ quoting of a Biblical passage to prove a point he is trjring to make. He takes the Bible (or at least his version of it) literally, and he relies upon it to lend credence to his beliefs, another symptom of his authori­ tarian personality. The Bible becomes part of his defense against things he does not understand, as in his explanation of the origin of menstru­ ation:

Archie: Hey! Hey! Hey! God don’t make no mistakes. That’s how he got to be God. So don’t be blaming God for something you women brought on yourselves. Gloria: What!! Archie: That’s right, you don’t believe me. Read your Bible. Read about Adam and Eve. They had it pretty soft out there in Paradise. They didn't have no problems. They didn’t even know they was naked. But Eve wasn’t satisfied. So, going against direct orders, she makes poor Adam take a bite out of that apple. So God got sore and told them to get their clothes on and get outta there. So, it was Eve's fault God cursed women with this trouble. That’s why they call it, what do you call it, the curse. (0324, 9) 88

Finally, when language fails him, he resorts to inarticulate groans,

"raspberries," sticking out his tongue, or facial expressions of dis­ gust.

Archie is not an intellectual. His reading consists of the daily newspaper, TV Guide, and the Reader1s Digest. He watches television a great deal, particularly the news and sports shows. Walter Cronkite on the news makes him angry because he thinks Cronkite is a political left­ ist. He and Edith do not go out to see a movie very often, and when they do he is usually outraged by the sex scenes. His culture hero is John

Wayne, who for him represents an ideal of masculinity and red-blooded patriotism. He equates allegiance to the President and the Republican

Party with allegiance to his country. Throughout the first few years of the series there were numerous comic dialogues between Archie and

Mike about Nixon and his politics, in which Archie invariably defends the President against any charges of inaction or wrong-doing. In "The

Man in the Street" (0212), for example, Archie and Mike have this ex­ change :

Archie: . . . that’s what I told the CBS guy today, that there was millions of real Americans just like me who believe in Mr. Nixon. And God believes in him, too. Mike: You said that on television? God believes in Nixon? Archie: Certainly. Don’t Billy Graham play golf with him? Mike? So what does that mean? Archie: It means God believes in Nixon. Mike? What are you saying, Nixon rules because of Divine Right? Archie: Well, it's a damn sight better than your Divine Left! (0212, 11-12)

Archie's attitudes, especially his political and social convictions, have been formed by his experiences in the Depression, World War Two, and 89

the cold war of the 1950's. From the Depression comes his firm belief in the success ethic: that anyone can get ahead if he is only willing to exert himself and that those who are poor are simply lazy. World War

Two is remembered by Archie as one of the happiest times in his life, when he was young and strong and experienced male companionship. The War was probably the most exciting thing that ever happened to him in his life and is likely to happen to him. The cold war of the 1950's and

196O's has left him an ardent communist-hater, believing that anyone who criticizes America is likely to be a "pinko,” a label he often uses in reference to Mike and his university friends and professors.

His response to any challenge to his beliefs is emotional rather than objective. It is not possible for him to be objective because he identifies himself completely with his attitudes and allegiances. Every challenge therefore becomes a personal threat. As a result, he is an angry, defensive man who is almost totally resistant to social or per­ sonal change. O’Connor has said that Archie is . .a bigot who con- 10 fronts life every day and finds it damn near unbearable.”

There has been little real change in the character of Archie since the series began. He does not seem to learn from his mistakes. He keeps on trying to scheme his way through problems, and he is as argumentative and stubborn as ever. It might be argued that Archie has softened some­ what as the series has progressed, that sometimes he seems less bigoted and angry. It is true that there have been occasions when he appears more accepting of new ideas. Taking the series in its entirety, how­ ever, there is little evidence of change. For example, one might assume that he would have become more comfortable about having his daughter and 90

son-in-law living with him. But an episode late in the fourth season belies this notion, as he looks gleefully forward to Mike’s graduation and to getting Mike and Gloria out of the house. In other episodes of the fourth season, Archie gets into well-worn arguments about race and women’s rights. One critic complained that O’Connor was making Archie more obnoxious than ever:

This season, due chiefly to Carroll O’Connor’s surrender to phony liberalism, Archie Bunker is a straight-ahead moron— stubborn, cruel, loud—with no semblance of realism. Archie is a total caricature, and All in the Family is—more often than not—a "message show" aimed at slamming the Right and praising the Left, with not much room for the gray areas that invariably cloud up the issues in real life.^

There is little reason to lament the lack of change in Archie’s character. Archie’s inability to learn from his experiences is a key to the success of the series. The figure of Archie is the angry static hub around which the other more fluid characters revolve. We are able to measure the extent of their growth by contrast with Archie’s inability to learn. Perhaps the most to be said is that through seeing Archie in so many different kinds of situations, he becomes a character that is somewhat more complex and ambiguous. Yet there are no real surprises in him. For instance, if we think that Archie is now more mellow, we should remember that the very first episode of the series showed his sen­ timentality. He is also perhaps made less obnoxious when he is shown on the edges of the pathetic, as when he fears the loss of his job and feels that the basis for what real pride he has is slipping away from him.

The same sort of pathos appears in "Archie Feels Left Out" (0417), in which he is genuinely depressed about growing old. Typically, though, by the end of the show his irrepressibly comic character reasserts itself, 91

as he is learning to play the ukelele:

Edith: Oh, is it very hard learning how to play it, Archie? Archie: Of course it is. It’s one of the hardest things to learn, Edith. 1 mean, look . . . this thing’s got six strings, an1 I’ve got only five fingers!! (0417, 38)

The figure of Archie Bunker is in the dramatic tradition of the

alazon, the braggart and buffoon who acts quite self-important and pre­

tentious and is a target for ridicule by other characters. Archie is

thus an object of satire, a fool. According to Henri Bergson, it is the

automatism of figures like Archie that makes them laughable: "A comic

character is generally comic in proportion to his ignorance of himself. 12 The comic person is unconscious." As an inflated representation of

bigotry, Archie is something of a monster. However, he is comic not

because he is a bigot but because his bigotry is expressed in foolish

terms and because his bigotry is undercut by the audience’s knowledge

that he is largely ineffectual. Archie’s bigotry in itself is no more

comic than Falstaff’s cowardice; both become comic v/hen put in the con­

text of the whole character and the whole work. In other words, Archie

is humanized by being made a character with faults and failings and some

virtues, perhaps even a "lovable bigot." If the audience does not always

like Archie, they can partially understand the reasons behind his rigid­

ity. The figure of Archie has been the focus of much of the controversy surrounding All in the Family, but it is best to see him as an exagger­ ation. Then, as Bergson points out:

For exaggeration to be comic, it must not appear as an aim, but rather as a means that the artist is using in order to make manifest to our eyes the distortion v/hich he sees in embryo. It is this process of distortion that is of moment and interest. 92

Unlike the unattractive and disagreeable figure of Alf Garnett in Till

Death Us Do Part, Archie Bunker for many in the audience is not evil or

disgusting but pathetic and sometimes even heroic. Norman Lear might

wish that everyone would see that Archie is a fool and a loser, but as

one writer has noted, "Fortunately, the laughter in comedy will often be

far more ambiguous than the sponsor will ever understand." 14

Edith Bunker is an equally complex character, but also one that is

familiar to most viewers. She is about fifty years old with fluffy hair,

fluttering hands, and a high-pitched voice. Characteristically Edith

never walks; she runs with a tipped-toed, forward-leaning quick shuffle.

She also has a sideward movement—pulling one shoulder toward her—that

makes her look as if she were cringing back from an unexpected blow.

Edith, who has lived in the neighborhood of Queens all her life, speaks

with the nasal voice of a New Yorker, and her speech has a sing-songy

quality. Since she spends much of her time in the home, she is often

dressed in a loose-fitting printed cotton housedress.

Although she is constantly browbeaten by Archie, Edith is good-

humored and optimistic. She is an avid reader of Reader’s Digest, iden­

tifying with that magazine’s philosophy of optimism and sentimentalism.

Unlike her counterpart Else in Till Death Us Do Part, Edith is not a

vicious person. Rather she is open, tolerant, and accepting of people

as individuals. She is the one who cheers the others when they are wor­

ried or depressed. Her television hero, whom she has mentioned several

times, is Marcus Welby, the good doctor; for her his program provides

optimism and vicarious involvement with other people’s problems. But she

is not lost in a dream world; she is more interested in people than in 93

anything else. Because Edith has little awareness of herself, it takes others to point out her virtues. Archie almost never praises her, while

Mike and Gloria do occasionally. It most often is someone outside the family who sees her good qualities, as in the following remark hy Irene

Lorenzo, when Archie fears that Edith is thinking of converting to

Catholicism: "Archie—Edith is the one person in the world that doesn’t have to join my church to find out what our religion is all about. She learned a long time ago that the important thing in life is just to love other people" (0404, 32).

Somewhat surprisingly, Edith's naivete and simple trust serve her well in coping with the world. One of the basic thematic contrasts in the series is between her honesty and Archie's deviousness. Again and again when a problem arises, her honesty solves the situation, whereas

Archie's scheming only worsens the problem. One of her functions in the show is to act as a voice of child-like simplicity and truth. For ex­ ample, in "Everybody Tells the Truth" (0321), it is only Edith who is able to give an objective account of a recent experience, as Archie’s and Mike’s versions of the same event are distorted by their biases.

Edith expresses basic human values of love and faith and empathy. Be­ cause of these virtues Edith often acts a peacemaker in the show; she does not enjoy conflict and searches for solutions. One method she has for resolving conflict is to change the subject of conversation with an irrelevant remark or an invitation to the family to sit down to eat. A similar method is the apparently naive remark that serves to point up the inconsistency or hypocrisy that someone, usually Archie or Mike, is dis­ playing. 94

Edith is genuinely slow at times, too, and much humor therefore derives from her inability to understand a joke or from the long pause that occurs while she figures out one. In this sense, Edith really is, as Archie calls her, "the dingbat." But in her dramatic function as the naif, she combines the folly of innocence and inexperience with the higher wisdom of natural feeling. To a degree, then, her inability to understand cruelty, verbal or otherwise, is a sign of her blessedness.

Another important function of the character of Edith is as the family’s link with the past. She is fond of reminiscing about the early days with Archie or v/hen Gloria was growing up. For instance, when

Archie is thinking of selling their house in Queens and moving to Cali­ fornia, Edith is sentimental where Archie is avaricious:

Archie: ... Tell em’, Edith? Where are ya? (Looks around for her. She has wandered over to the hall closet and opened the door.) Edith, what are you doin' over there? Edith: I was looking at where we used to measure Gloria. Here’s the first mark. She was two years old. Remember, Archie, the trouble we had? She kept jumpin’ up and down and you couldn’t hold the pencil still. Archie: There she goes swinging down memory lane! Will you get away from that closet! Them things don’t mean nothin’ no more. (0209, 25)

These passages give’the television family a past that pre-dates the series

Edith’s thoughts of the past are for the most part rosy. She is nostalgic without being a hater of the present, as Archie seems to be; she compares the present with the past without denigrating either.

Although she is usually tolerant almost beyond endurance of Archie’s irritation, Edith is capable of being forceful when she is pushed too far.

If she has grown in any way throughout the series, it is in being more 95

and more forceful. The episodes of the first season portray her as almost completely subservient and intimidated; in the family setting she is at best supportive or gently critical. But there is an episode

(0109) in which she shows independence of thought by refusing to agree with the other eleven jury members in convicting a man of murder. There are also several segments in the second season which focus on Edith. In

"Edith’s Problem" (0214) she is going through menopause and acting more grouchy and short-tempered than she has ever been seen before. This episode shows her potential for anger, but the resolution seems to weaken this, as she only feels loved after Archie recommences his abuse of her. In a later second season segment (0219) she becomes hurt and angry when Archie calls her a saint, criticizing her for being too per­ fect. She gives him the silent treatment for the next eight days, until he manages an apology. Edith is here trying to upset others’ expecta­ tions of her.

Some third and fourth season episodes develop further Edith’s inde­ pendence and forcefulness. In "The Threat" (0304) Edith becomes jealous of Archie’s behavior toward a woman who is staying overnight with the

Blinkers and asks the woman to leave the house. On another occasion

(04D2) she discovers that Archie has been gambling and slaps his face, later she regrets the slap but makes Archie repeat an old promise not to gamble, made many years ago after an attack of gambling fever brought the

Bunkers to the brink of financial disaster. Her violence here is not selfish; it is done for the good of the family. It is the introduction of the neighbor Irene Lorenzo into the series (0403) that marks Edith’s real blossoming into independence. Unlike Louise Jefferson, who is very 96

much like Edith herself, Irene provides an active model of a liberated woman. Irene -and Edith immediately become close friends, and Edith is shown for once neglecting her family’s interests for her own. At one point, she uncharacteristically walks out of the house with Irene just as Archie arrives home from work; Edith is so happy to have a friend that she ignores Archie. Later in the same segment, she gets angry with

Archie, for his offensive attitude:

Edith: No, you listen to me, Archie Bunker. Ever since you come home tonight, you been acting like a little hoy. Archie: I’m hungry. ... Edith: I’m talking! Everytime I start to make new friends, something always happens between you and them. But I ain’t gonna let that happen with Frank and Irene, ’cause I like ’em and they like me—they're my friends, and I’m gonna keep them. (O4c4, 32-33)

Edith’s fast friendship with Irene seems also to point up a kind of lone­ liness Edith has felt, perhaps for her entire life. Until Irene arrives, there is no one she can be close to who will treat her as an individual rather than as a mother or wife.

Edith's innocence and subservience is partly an assumed persona.

She apparently has realized that the best way to get along with Archie is to humor him. Jean Stapleton has said that she first understood the character when Norman Lear told her that "Edith Is a person who has her head in the sand. Consequently, she is able to turn off Archie. To tune him out. She doesn’t hear a lot of what he says. She just doesn’t listen. She’s been living with Archie for so many years and this is her 15 best defense."

As the voice of simple honesty and truth, Edith often acts as the moral norm in the series. V/e can measure the humanity of the others by 97

comparison to the standard she unconsciously sets. Because her goodness

is spontaneous and unconscious, the virtues of the others may often seem

forced or hypocritical. This is not to say she is meant to be a perfect model, a role she would reject herself. Edith does not set an intellec­

tual norm, a function which is perhaps partly fulfilled by Mike. Edith’s

ignorance about the world is not especially admirable, but within her sphere of action, the family, she is generally competent.

Edith is expert at human relations, perhaps because of her dealings with Archie for many years. She often operates as a buffer between

Archie and the rest of the world, moderating his extravagant opinions and protecting him from himself. She is flexible where he is adamant, and she plays to the emotional needs of Archie and others unless the sit­ uation demands she assert her own rights.^In her role as buffer and moral norm for the family, Edith is not really exceptional, as this has been part of the traditional American view of a mother’s role. In this sense, then, she is simply fulfilling expectations that she has learned long ago and that are reinforced by the culture. Because she has inter­ nalized those expectations so thoroughly, she accepts them without much question.J

Her ability to intuit the complexities of any situation is reflected in her speech. Unlike Mike or Archie, who respond to problems with a smart remark or a glib comment, Edith says "Oh, my!" and then slowly weighs the issues. She doesn’t succumb to ready-made.answers or to emo­ tionalism. But in a society that often values smooth articulation above action, Edith is a comic figure within the family and to the viewer be­ cause her articulation is simple and imprecise. In regard to this, a 98

critic has said that

Comic action tends to he as Bergson described it, physical or purblind instead of highly conscious. Similarly, the great comic actor specializes in the presentation of mental obtuseness.

There is a disjunction between Edith’s thought and her speech; her under

standing is more profound than her expression. Despite this, her reason

ing is usually valid even if her talk seems muddled. She often voices what appear to be non sequiturs but turn out to have a kind of indirect

truth. For example, she may suddenly make a reference to the past that seems at first to be irrelevant but on explanation serves to clarify a problem. She thus is able to use the past to her advantage, as in the

following scene where she averts a serious quarrel between Mike and

Gloria:

Edith: Now when I was a little girl, my mother and father got into a terrible fight, that started just because there wasn’t enough maple syrup for my father’s pan­ cakes. Mike: Ma, what we’re arguing about here is a lot more im­ portant than maple syrup. Edith: Now wait a minute, I ain’t finished. They didn’t talk to each other for three weeks. Sven after they made up, things was never really the same between them. So, before you start sayin' things to each other that you can never take back, yon better stop now and think about how much you really mean to each other. Archie: Are you finished? Edith: No! Now, I know maple syrup ain’t very important, but would you feel any better breakin’ apart over something more important. (0324, 35)

Her awareness of complexity is also comically shown by the involved stories she tells. Archie, impatient as ever, asks her to skip the de­ tails and get to the point. As it happens, the details themselves are often the point, as in the following dialogue with Irene Lorenzo: 99

Irene: Edith, what is it? What's bothering you? Edith: If Mike fails his exams I think it might be because of a prayer God heard! Irene: You mean you prayed for Mike to fail? Edith: I didn’t mean to but maybe I did. You see, if Mike graduates he and Gloria plan on moving into their own apartment. . . . And I’ve been praying they would stay here. Irene: But that’s not the same as praying for Mike to fail! Edith: Yeah, but maybe God couldn’t find no other way to fix it. Irene: You’ve got to stop feeling guilty! I’m sure God knows exactly what you mean. Edith: Well, if he does, I wish he’d explain it to me! It’s a terrible feeling when you want something good for yourself and something good for somebody else, but you don’t want your something good to make their some­ thing good bad, or even their something good to make your something good vice-verse! Irene: You see what I mean? I’m sure God understood that perfectly. Well, I’ll see you later. (04-23, 25-26)

It would be oversimplifying the program to say, as some have, that

Archie Bunker is All in the Family. In fact, Archie and Edith act as

foils for one another. The show is Archie’s in that he is frequently the problem-creator while Edith is the problem-solver. Archie may often instigate the action of an episode, but Edith serves both to carry the action along and to work toward a resolution. It might be noted that there have been a number of segments in which Archie appears only momen­ tarily or not at all. There have, however, been few episodes in which

Edith does not appear. Both characters of Archie and Edith are integral to the success of the series, and it is impossible to think that the program could continue without them. The depth of these dramatic char­ acters is a tribute to Norman Lear, to director John Rich, to the skill of the writers, and especially to the very talented actors Carroll

O'Conner and Jean Stapleton. The characters are so well developed now that, as Jean Stapleton has remarked, "after five years we can almost put 100

down the script and find the lines coming to us after one reading," 17

For all that Archie is foolish and Edith is wise, no one character

in All in the Family has a corner on the truth. Since all are comic characters, all are undercut at various times. No one in the audience would probably wish actually to be Archie or Edith or any of the others.

The ethical ideal of the program, then, is not absolutely fixed in any one character. What the audience must do is find the ideal for them­ selves. All in the Family has generally refrained from easy moralizing, preferring instead to keep a kind of tension or balance among the char­ acters. This is necessary, in a sense, because as each episode ends the audience knows that in the next episode there will be imbalance, argu­ ment, and problems all over again. The ending to each segment is not so much a resolution as a temporary truce in a continuing war. In part, too, this is in the nature of comedy:

Comedy equates life with a game in which the players are all dissemblers. . . . Each proceeds as if his idée fixe (his love, greed, and so on) were all-important, with neither death nor disastér imminent possibilities. . . . This comic game is char­ acterized by a rhythmical movement from harmony to discord and back to harmony. 101

NOTES FOR CHAPTER FIVE

'j Albert Cook, The Dark Voyage and the Golden Mean (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949),p7 43~7 ^Matthew Hodgart, Satire (New York: McGraw-Hill, 19^9), PP- 120- 122. ■z yHenri Bergson, "Laughter," in Comedy, ed. Wylie Sypher (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1956), P- 67- 4 Stephanie Harrington, "The Message Sounds Like ’Hate Thy Neigh­ bor,’" New York Times, 24 Jan. 1971, pt. II, p. 17* 5 James L. Calderwcod and Harold E. Toliver, "Introduction to Comedy," in Perspectives on Drama (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 173. g Quoted in Louis Solomon, TV1s First Family (New York: Scholastic Book Services, 1973), P- 47. 7Ibid., p. 35. o °Ibid.i p. 90. ^The Wit and Wisdom of Archie Bunker (New York: Popular Library, 1971), PP- 5-12. ^Solomon, p. 46.

11 Gary Deeb, "Sorry, Archie, But You Are to Blame," Chicago Tribune, 21 Feb. 1974, section 3, p. 13- 12Bergson, p. 71*

1^Ibid., pp. 77-78. 14 William G. McCollom, The Divine Average (Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, 1971), P* 10. 15 Quoted in Marcia Borie, All You'd Like to Know about All in the Family (Greenwich, Connecticut: Fawcett Publications, 1971), P* 27- ^McCollom, p. 16.

17 'Telephone interview with Jean Stapleton, Jan. 1975- 18 Henry F. Salerno and Conny E. Nelson, Drama and Tradition: The Major Genres (New York: American Book Company, 1968T, p. 284. 102

CHAPTER SIX

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: MIKE, GLORIA, AND OTHERS

Another key to the great success of All in the Family is the com­

plexity and vividness of the secondary characters in the program. While

Archie and Edith are generally dominant in the show, the figures of son-

in-law Michael Stivic and daughter Gloria are essential to complete the

family unit and to provide dramatic conflict and comic interchange. In addition, the various friends, relatives, neighbors, and others who ap­ pear in the program are developed with great care and likewise increase

the drama and comedy.

As the name of the program implies, the focus is always on the

Bunker family itself. In the family unit, Mike is important largely as a foil for Archie’s vituperations. All in the Family, it should be re­ called, was created in the late 1960’s. At that time, the political opinion of the country seemed to be polarized, particularly on the issue of the Vietnam War. In the media and the popular mind, the two extremes of opinion were represented by the longhaired college student on the left and the hardhat or factory worker on the right. The characters of

Mike and Archie are founded on these two cultural stereotypes. To a great extent the series has moved away from the polarized political stereotypes, but the figure of Mike clearly has its origins there.

A stage direction in the script of an episode of the second season,

"Flashback—Mike Meets Archie," describes Mike as he appeared a year earlier. "He is dressed in clothes which border on *early-hippie1 anti sports a scraggly beard" (0203, 14). In this episode, Archie reads in 103

the newspaper about an anti-war rally and complains, "What the hell do them peaceniks want, anyway?" Mike’s response is immediate: "I guess they don’t like the idea of America fighting an illegal and immoral war"

(0203, 18). The argument continues and climaxes with Mike’s delivery of a tirade in defense of dissent while Archie sings "God Bless America."

This is a typical exchange between Mike and Archie in that there is no real communication. The argument ends in name-calling, with Mike saying

Archie is "totally close-minded" and Archie calling Mike a "dumb Polack"

(0203, 21). Anthropologist Howard Stein has drawn up the following table of contrasting pairs that effectively summarizes many of the ideological differences between Archie and Mike.

Archie Mike

Mom, apple pie, God, country. . . . .Anything that threatens to un­ and flag dermine this image of America White supremacy, male suprem- . . . .Integration, women’s liber­ acy ation A man’s home is his castle...... Togetherness with an extended network Tough-mindedness & hard ...... Sensitivity, lofty idealism pragmatism Rugged individualism and...... Interdependency, intimacy, self-reliance "going soft" Conservatism...... Liberalism, radicalism The way things used to be . . . .Change, progress Respect for age and authority . .Youth culture, permissiveness The wisdom of the common work­ . .Intellec tuals, academics, ing man professionals The working man, the "little - .Anonymous, influential people man" in high places The average man ...... Elitism "Hard Hats" ...... "Meatheads" Individual achievement, "making . . .Welfare, nepotism it on your own" 104

Archie Mike The double standard ("Do...... Equal rights for women, blacks, as I say, not as I do") and youth; openness and consistency Puritanism in mixed company...... Consistent expression of sex­ uality in varying social contexts Repression...... Openness, free expression of feelings Tight control...... "Let it all hang out" "Holding on"...... "Letting go" Beer, liquor, cigars...... "Drugs" Classical capitalism...... Socialism, communism Fundamentalist Protestantism...... Catholics and Jews, atheists The Bible, Biblical literalness . . .Science, evolution Mainstream U.S.A...... Foreign influence, "left wingers" Separate and unequal. • *...... Racial and ethnic mixing, social­ izing, dating, marriage, inte­ gration of schools and neighborhoods WASPS-Americans...... "Ethnics," blacks, and other "minorities" Law and Order ...... Anarchy, chaos Simplicity, certainty, and...... Complexity, ambiguity, possibil- predictability ity Action, doing, "shooting from ... .Reflection, careful thought the hip" Aggressive spectator sports ...... The sensitive arts (classical music, ballet, literature) President Richard Nixon...... K.D.R. The rural, suburban scene ...... The urban scene

Mike is physically a large young man, usually dressed in blue jeans and a work shirt or some other combination of comfortable clothing. He has become less "hippie-like" in his dress as the series progresses. He is somewhat overweight, and he has an enormous appetite. Mike’s gluttony is a recurring joke in the series, as Archie makes constant reference to 105

it: "Look at him mimin’ for the chow like Rin-Tin-Tin" (0310, 17). Of

course, the glutton figure is a staple ingredient in the comic tradition.

Gluttony is a type of comic automatism in that this figure is ruled by

his appetite rather than "higher" impulses. Archie especially resents

Mike’s appetite because Archie is paying the food bills. Mike has a

healthy appetite for sex as well as food, and this too is a topic for

humor as Archie Is affronted by Mike. Mike’s function as a foil for

Archie includes, therefore, provoking him as well as reacting to him.

The basic source of contention between the two is that Archie con­

siders Mike to be a parasite living off Archie’s earnings while he has a

good time. Episode 0310 concerns this dispute, as Mike inherits some

money and wants to give $200 to the McGovern presidential campaign.

Archie insists that Mike should give him the money to help pay his share

in the housekeeping. Mike, whose pride is injured, works nights to pay

Archie. The freeloader theme is dominant here, but it remains a con­

stant motif throughout the series. For example, one episode ends with

this exchange:

Edith: Ain’t it lovely to have the refrigerator fixed? And the lights’ It’s wonderful to have everything working again. Archie: V/hat do you mean "again"? (Pointing at Mike) That thing ain't worked yet.’.’ (0321, 45)

As a foil to Archie, Mike is a doctrinaire liberal, as rigid in his adherence to the left as Archie is to the right. Many of Mike’s beliefs have been shaped by reading rather than experience. As a result, he is sometimes hard-pressed to maintain his attitudes in the face of a direct attack. Mike’s naive liberalism is especially shown up in "Edith V/rites a Song" (0204), when two black burglars invade the Bunker home and enjoy 106

themselves by mocking Mike as well as Archie:

Archie: Wait a minute, 1 ain’t no bigot! I’m the first to say—it ain’t your fault you’re colored! Coke: (Screaming with delight) That’s one! Horace: Yeah. Bigotty! Bigotty! More! More! (Laughing and clapping) Archie: What did I say . . . ? Mike: Hold it. Will you hold it, please! He just doesn’t understand, fellas. He associates the stealing and the crime with the fact that you’re black and not with the underlying social causes! Coke: Oh, then, you must be a liberal. Well, man, we done found us a genuine liberal and an honest-to-God bigot!! Mike: Hey—you’re puttin’ me on now. All I meant was—he doesn’t understand what living in the ghetto can do to a man. Horace: And you do? Mike: Well, I’m studying it in Sociology class. Coke: I gotta talk to you. Sit down—I got my professor­ ship in Sociology. I mean where I live—we had to sleep all eight of us together. T0204, 27-28)

Despite his intelligence and education, Mike often displays a consider­ able lack of self-knowledge. In one of the most complex episodes yet produced, "Everybody Tells the Truth" (0321), Archie and Mike relate equally distorted versions of the same event, a visit by two refriger­ ator repairmen. Mike’s perceptions are strongly colored by his atti­ tudes, as he sees Archie as a bigoted monster, himself as patient and long-suffering, and the black repairman as an "Uncle Tom." When Edith tells the true story, Mike’s biases are made clear. In another segment,

"The Games Bunkers Play" (0408), Mike becomes upset when a Group Therapy game causes the other players to reveal Mike’s faults and prejudices.

Lionel tells him that Mike treats him as a token black rather than as an individual. Gloria laughs at him when Mike claims that he is mature be­ cause he is tolerant of the opinions of ethers. Edith tells him that he is acting "stuck up" and that, "If you was really smarter than Archie, 107

you’d be smart enough not to act like you was smarter than him” (O4O8,

23). Mike becomes confused, defensive, and angry, and he storms out of the game. The episode climaxes with the following speeches by Edith that do much to illuminate the Archie-Mike relationship and also to show

Edith’s perceptiveness:

Mike: All right, ma. What you’re trying to say is that I resent Archie because 1 owe him so much. Well, I’ve told him a hundred times that I’ll pay him back— every cent.—With interest. Excuse me. Edith: No, wait a minute, Mike I ain’t finished yet. There was more to the moral than that. The teacher said what the story really meant was that when you owe somebody an awful lot, you begin worryin’ if you’ll ever be able to pay him back, and that makes you resent that person even more. . . . You see what I mean? (0408, 40) Mike: Ma, I know why /Archie7 yells at me. He hates me. Edith: Oh, no. Mike he yells at you because he’s jealous of you. Mike: I don’t want to listen to this. Edith: No. Wait a minute. You listen to me. He is jealous of you. And that ain’t hard to understand. Mike, you’re going to college and you got your whole future ahead of you. Archie had to quit school to support his family and he ain’t never goin’ to be nothin’ more than he is right now. But you've got a chance to be anything you want to be. That’s why Archie’s jealous of you. He sees in you all the things he could never be. So next time Archie yells at you, try to be a little more understanding. Now you think that over and when you're ready come on back in here and be with our friends. (0408, 42)

Another of the reasons for Mike's blindness is his pride, especially his pride in his intelligence. He cannot abide being thought stupid, and secretly believes himself intellectually superior to Archie, Edith, and

Gloria. Thus he sets himself up for a fall. He is not a brilliant stu­ dent, and he has to work hard for good grades. Because Mike has so much pride in his studies, he worries a great deal about his school work. The second-season episode "Mike’s Problem" (0208) deals with this conceni, as 108

Mike’s worry over upcoming examinations makes him temporarily impotent.

He is enormously embarrassed and upset by this condition and is eventu­ ally led to ask advice from Archie, who is equally embarrassed.

There is a gap between Mike’s intellect and his emotions that he usually fails to recognize. In many ways he is like Archie: argumenta­ tive, easily angered, stubborn, and boastful. Yet he denies this like­ ness and is therefore led into hypocritical behavior. Rob Reiner, who portrays Mike, cites the episode "Gloria Poses in the Nude" (0201) as an example of Mike’s inconsistency:

. . . Mike professes to be very liberal and open-minded about Gloria posing in the nude for an-artist friend of his. But when Gloria actually does it, Mike’s as uptight as Archie. Intellectually, he spouts completely different ideas from Archie; they are at opposite ends of the stick. Emotionally, I feel he's probably very close to Archie in many ways.2

His inconsistency is again shown when he agrees with Archie In dissuad­ ing Gloria from pressing charges against a man who has attempted to rape her (0323). Although Mike's social conscience tells him that charges should be pressed, emotionally he is afraid and embraces Archie’s "family- first" attitude.

Mike has been particularly contradictory in his reactions to women’s liberation. He is intellectually in favor of the idea but emotionally against it; he has much to learn. In episode 0111 Gloria stalks out of the house when she discovers that Mike thinks a woman should submit to a man's superior power and wisdom. In another, Gloria poses a riddle that shows up the anti-feminist attitudes of both Archie and Mike. Mike is extremely frustrated by his inability to guess the answer, which is finally provided by Edith. Closely related to this epi­ sode is another (030?) in which Mike agrees, to Gloria’s disgust, with 109

Archie's preference of a male rather than a female surgeon to perform an

appendectomy on Mike. Finally, in "Mike and Gloria Mix It Up” (O4l6),

Mike criticizes Gloria for being too aggressive in sex, although he

claims that they have a "fifty-fifty" marriage. Both become angry and

Mike is ultimately led to admit that Gloria has an equal right to be aggressive.

In spite of his faults, Kike often serves as an intellectual norm in All in the Family, in complement to Edith's function as a moral or emotional norm. Mike is a voice of social conscience, and he is used by the various writers to express their thinking on many subjects: pollu­ tion, government corruption, bureaucracy, social injustice, etc. This function becomes most evident in relation to the Presidential elections of 1972. In the weeks preceding the election, the series demonstrated a decided pro-McGovern and anti-Nixon bias. Archie's defense of Nixon was not, for the most part, allowed equal weight with Mike and Gloria's disparagement of Nixon and praise of McGovern. The following dialogue occurs in a segment that was first broadcast three days before the elec­ tion:

Archie: I can tell you McGovern's message in three words— Mike: What? Archie: "I wanna be President"? Gloria: And he should be. Nixon hasn't kept any of his promises. He promised to end the war, to stop inflation, and to reduce unemployment. Archie: Fly-specks. People in this country don't pick a President over ’em things. I’m tryin’ to make an important point, here. The fact is, McGovern don't stand a chance. People won't vote for a guy keeps changing his mind all the time. Let me tell you somethin’ about Richard E. Nixon, he don’t change for nothin'. Mike: That's right, Arch. He keeps making the same mis­ takes over and over again. (0310, 16) 110

In these battles between Mike and Archie, Gloria generally takes

Mike’s side. The character of Gloria has been criticized as not being

developed fully by the producers and writers of All in the Family. One

commentator has opined that,

... Archie, Edith, and Mike are clearly defined, meaty roles an actor can get his teeth into. Gloria Is an acces­ sory. Mostly she reacts to what’s going on, rather than initiating the action. Most professionals would agree that overall it’s a 'nothing part,’ and the actress who plays it is condemned to be overlooked.5

In the several years that have passed since this comment was made, the

role of Gloria has changed considerably. In fact, the character of

Gloria has grown in more overt ways than that of any of the other family

members. Early in the series Sally Struthers described the character

'jshe portrays as

. . . used to being babied. She likes it. That’s the reason she doesn't move out with Michael. If she and Mike ,got tnerr , own apartment she'd have to keep house and grow up. J

It is doubtful whether Miss Struthers would still call the character

childish, as Gloria has had a job in a department store since episode

0301 and is more willing to assert her rights in her marriage. She is

also more independent in her opinions, slowly freeing herself from the

influence of both Mike and her father.

Gloria is vivacious, playful, pretty, and like her mother, open

to new experiences. This is demonstrated by her willingness to pose in

the nude for an artist friend. She is also depicted as an emotional per­

son, crying easily when upset and, like her father and husband, easily

angered. It is in episode 0324, "The Battle of the Month," that Gloria

displays the ability to censure so often shown by Mike and Archie. First 111

she criticizes her father:

Gloria: Oh, daddy, anything about sex upsets you because you're narrow-minded and puritanical. Archie: V/hat? Gloria: That’s right, you’re just plain stupid. . . . (0324,12)

Then she argues vehemently with Mike:

Mike: (Running after her) Gloria, what’s the matter with you now. I said I forgive you. Gloria: (Livid) You forgive me!!?? You pick me up like a child, drag me upstairs against my will, and you forgive me? Mike: Gloria, if you knew anything at all about the psychol­ ogy of the male ego . . . • Gloria: Don* t you talk down to me !!! . Mike: I'm not talking down to you. You're just being plain stupid! Gloria: Oh, now I’m stupid? But I’m smart enough to bring home the paycheck, aren’t I? Archie: (To Edith) She got him there. (0324, 31-32)

Gloria’s anger here is supposed to be motivated by her having her monthly period. Even though she is growing more independent, Gloria is often shown as being a victim, controlled by her body or by others. In this sense she fits a standard stereotype of women in the popular arts: the notion that men are free but women are essentially enslaved and help­ less. This notion is summed up in the title of "Gloria, the Victim"

(0323) in v/hich she is attacked and nearly raped by a man in the street.

While this episode is an honest attempt to deal with a serious problem, it should be noted that Gloria is the loser. Edith first convinces her to testify, but Mike and Archie decide against it and do not allow her to press charges, fearing that the court appearance will be humiliating.

Gloria’s relationship with Mike serves as a counterpoint to Edith and Archie’s marriage. Gloria is gradually trying to establish a more open and equal sort of relationship, while Edith is mostly content to 112

leave her marriage as it is. As Stein has noted, "Gloria and Mike are

cast as capable of insight into their own participation in traditional roles and expectations in which they are unconsciously caught and hence can proceed from such insights into a more mature and differentiated 5 selfhood and relationship." The difference is shown in the way Edith and Gloria handle marital problems. Edith tends to be conciliatory and indirect, but Gloria wants to confront problems directly and talk them out. The steady viewer is thus given a view of the contrasting relation ships. For example, in one episode Mike is sexually excited by Gloria's wearing of a wig. When she realizes this, she is angry, accuses Mike of loving the wig and not her, and forces him to sleep on the sofa. This is typical of those episodes focusing on Mike and Gloria, many of which deal with sexual matters or jealousy. These include "Gloria Poses in the Nude" (0201), "Mike's Problem" of impotency (0208), "Gloria, the

Victim" (0323), "The Battle of the Month" (0324), and "Mike and Gloria

Mix It Up" (O4l6).

For a long time Gloria’s relationship with her parents was not developed in any depth; she was her mother and father’s "little girl."

But in the fourth season there are several episodes that change this comfortable but constricting arrangement. One of these, "Archie and the

Kiss" (0406), marks the first show in which the central conflict is be­ tween Gloria and her father. Gloria is given a reproduction of Rodin's statue "The Kiss” by the neighbor Irene Lorenzo, but Archie gives it back, calling it indecent. Gloria’s anger at this is a surprise to

Archie:

Archie: (He closes door and turns around to see Gloria) Oh, that was Frank Lorenzo. Just left. 113

Gloria: (Pulling herself together) I could see that. And you gave him my statue too, didn't you? Archie: Yeah. Well, he come in and said it v/as only a loan, so he took it hack. Gloria: That's a lief Archie: You're callin' me a liar! Your own father! Gloria: Yes, (04J6, 16-17)

Archie finally tries to apologize, and Gloria tells him that she still

loves him. In another fourth-season episode, "Gloria Sings the Blues"

(0422), she is depressed and confides her marital dissatisfaction to her mother. Here Gloria and Edith seem more like friends than mother and daughter:

Edith: ... I looked at /Archie/ and all of a sudden he was a stranger. I-didn’t know him no more. And what's even worse, I didn't wanna know him. Gloria: Ma, I think the same thing's happened to me. And you knew it! Edith: Yeah, it wasn’t hard to figure out. When you told Mike to go fishing. Your face looked the way I felt that day with Archie. Gloria: Well, it didn’t happen just then. It started two nights ago. I woke up in the middle of the night and looked over at Michael, and there he was asleep grinding his teeth like he always does,—and mom, I didn't recognize him. It was like I v/as sleeping with a stranger------Edith: And you was scared you didn’t love him no more. Gloria: That’s right. Ma, what if I don’t get over it? Edith: All I can tell you Gloria—I got over it. The next day Archie came home and said, "Hello. Get me a beer." And I was in love!

Edith: That’s the way it happened. You know 1 think a lot of marriages break up because people don’t wait till they recognize each other again, (0422, 33-35)

Gloria’s most usual function in the series is still to react to what­ ever is going on with the other family members. She does this by taking sides, commonly with Mike, in the constant arguments. Here she serves as a sort of chorus commenting on the action, adding emphasis or voicing 11k

disbelief at the absurdities of the others. Sometimes, as in "Gloria,

the Victim," she serves as a rather passive sounding board for the

opinions of the others. She is a pawn in the rhetorical games. In

short, she is seldom a major voice in the series, as the best lines go

to Archie, Mike, and Edith. But Gloria’s role has expanded from that

of the decorative ingenue to that of a more mature, more decisive woman.

These four—Archie, Edith, Mike, and Gloria—constitute the family,

and every episode involves at least one of the four. There are many secondary characters, however, that are important to the show, a few of whom appear with some regularity and who when not seen are often referred to. The secondary characters provide contrast with the family, introduce new ideas and differing social backgrounds and values, and offer comic

effects. Those characters that have appeared more than once, in contrast with secondary characters in many television series, are individual, unique, and memorable. A testimony to the strength and complexity of the secondary characters is that Cousin Maude and the Jeffersons have gone on to their own successful comedy series.

Outside the family, the neighborhood is the most important unit, and the neighbors are the most significant secondary characters. The first neighbor to be seen in the series is Lionel Jefferson, who appears in the very first episode. Lionel is a young black who is a friend of

Mike and Gloria. He is a friendly person who likes the Bunkers and sees

Archie as foolish but not vicious. Mike Evans, who plays Lionel, says:

"As Lionel, I’m obliged to say something for my own head and also for the other people around me. I want them to realize that I know that a g lot of what Archie says is ridiculous." One method Lionel uses to 115

demonstrate Archie's ignorance is teasing him or mocking him by appear­

ing to encourage Archie's bigotry, as in this dialogue:

Lionel: I remember one of the first heart transplants they did in South Africa. Archie: Yeah, the one with the Jewish dentist!! Lionel: No, this was another one. Remember, they put the black man's heart in the white body? Those poor blacks in South Africa don't have their civil rights the way we do here—you see things are still very segregated there—so can you imagine that poor white body -walking around with that black heart! The poor man wouldn't even know what restroom to use! Archie: (Surprise) I never thought of that. (0105, 29-30)

Therefore Lionel's role is to counter Archie’s prejudice with the real

image of an intelligent black who does not fit Archie's stereotype.

Lionel also softens Archie’s bigotry, because Archie usually does not

condescend to Lionel but treats him as an equal being. Lionel likewise

acts as a balance to Mike’s sometimes patronizing liberalism. Lionel is

most often used in those episodes or parts of episodes that deal with

bigotry. Although at the beginning of the series he was considered to

be a regular member of the cast, he appears only infrequently in later

episodes.

Also appearing with some regularity are Lionel's mother, father,

and uncle. His mother, Louise Jefferson, is Edith’s counterpart, pri­

marily defined as a housewife and mother. Like Edith, she is tolerant,

sympathetic, generally easy-going, a truth-teller. Unlike Edith, how­

ever, she snaps back and puts down her often outspoken, impolite, and

bigoted husband, George. One of Louise’s main roles is to comment on

the behavior of others, particularly Edith and her husband. Louise is

quick to see and remark on Edith’s good qualities and equally quick with a smart remark or a roll of the eyes to comment on her husband’s faults. Louise also serves as a moderator between her husband and her brother-

in-law.

George and Henry Jefferson are both as bigoted against whites as

Archie is against blacks. Thus any confrontation between either of

these two and Archie is comic and explosive. There is the first season

episode in which Archie and Lionel’s uncle Henry (labeled as George

because Archie thinks he is talking to George) argue about the color of

God.

Archie Every picture I ever seen of God, He was white. George Maybe you were looking at the negatives. Archie (Building a case) Wait a second. You say God is black. Now if he was black, that’d mean His Son was black too—and you ain’t telling me that Jesus was black! (Smiles triumphantly) Ge orge (Slaps him on the back) No;/ you’re catching on! It’s been proven that Jesus was an Ethiopian. Archie Look, you say he’s an Ethiopian. The Presbyter­ ians say he’s a Presbyterian. But no matter what He was, He wasn't black. George Listen, if God wasn't black, why’d he make us so much better than you? Archie V/hat?? George Well, lookit how it is, man. Take us outta foot­ ball, take us outta basketball, take us outta the Olympics . . . and whatta you got? I can’t think about it . . . It’s pathetic!

Almost defeated, Archie makes a point about the lack of black astronauts

and makes George angry The exchange concludes this way:

George: (Rising) Before I came over here I promised, no matter what, I wouldn’t lose my temper. (He blows a raspberry into Archie's face) You know what that is? That’s the sound of me breaking my promise! (0113? 39-4l)

Henry appears in the series more often than George, who does not want to set foot in a white home. George and Henry's black racism acts as a mirror image of Archie’s bigotry and both kinds of prejudice are 117

shown to he ridiculous in the process. One result of the parallel is that their bigotry is shown as being a generational phenomenon; Archie,

George, and Henry are equally set in their ways and resistant to change.

Because of this, they sometimes find themselves united on certain issues. One incident that arouses the ire of both Archie and Henry is

Lionel’s dating of Archie’s niece Linda. Later in the series, George and Archie have this revealing conversation after they discover that the father of Lionel’s fiancee, Jennie Willis, is white; The scene is

Lionel and Jennie’s engagement party.

(George and Archie are standing at the bar drinking and staring glumly at the dancers. He has a drink in his hand. George stares uniiappily at the dancing for a beat, then turns to Archie)

George: Bunker ... Archie: Yeah. George: What's this world coming to? Archie: I know what you mean, Jefferson. (Raises his drink' in a toast) Here’s to yesterday. (Jefferson raises his drink—they toast) (Fade out) (0420, 46-47)

On another occasion, Archie and George agree in trying to prevent a

Puerto Pican couple from moving in next door to the Bunkers.

Early in the fourth season of All in the Family, Henry Jefferson moves out of his brother’s home. The next episode, "We’re Having A Heat

Wave," introduces a new set of neighbors, Frank and Irene Lorenzo.

Frank and Irene are very different from Archie and Edith—that they are

Italian and Catholic is only the beginning of the difference. Frank is an exuberant, wise-cracking extrovert, while his wife is a liberated woman who is better than either Frank or Archie at fixing household appliances and doing other practical jobs. Whereas the Jeffersons repre­ 118

sent a black parallel to the Bunkers, the Lorenzos represent a sort of reversal, as they have rejected the culturally-defined sex roles.

Frank is emotional, his gestures are effeminate, and he cries and dis­ plays kinds of sensitivity usually associated with women—all of which make him suspect in Archie’s eyes. Frank is domestic: he likes to stay home, clean house, and do the cooking. Irene is aggressive and career- oriented: she likes to be out working or having fun. Archie, of course, thinks they are very strange people. Here is his first reaction to the new neighbors:

Edith: Bo you like the Lorenzos Archie? Archie: Well, he’s a little faggy and she’s a regular Josephine the plumber, but outside of that they’ve got two big things goin’ for them, Edith—they ain’t spades and they ain’t spies! (0403, 44)

The Lorenzos show the viewer an alternative to the traditional marriage exemplified by Archie and Edith. By comparison, even Mike and Gloria are traditional in their notions about marriage and sex roles. The

Lorenzos are placed in the series as a means for generating nevz ideas, new contrasts, and nevz comic subjects.

Following the neighbors in importance as secondary characters are the family’s various relatives. None of these has been a major force in

All in the Family, but many are memorable. In episode 0213, Edith’s cousin Maude makes her first appearance when she arrives to help Edith care for Archie, Mike, and Gloria, vzho all have the flu. Maude’s out­ spoken liberalism is the polar opposite to Archie’s unregenerate con­ servatism, and the two of them argue incessantly while she is on the scene:

Archie: All right, here we go. This here country was ruined 119

by Franklin Delano Roosevelt! (There’s a beat as Maude reacts) Maude: You1 re fat! Archie: Vhat’s that got to do with anything? Stick to Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Edith: Archie, you promised never to say that name again in front of Maude. Archie: Franklin Delano Roosevelt! Edith: Archie, please! He don't mean nothing, his whole family was for Roosevelt. Archie: For two terms only, but that was it! That guy was hangin’ on like a Pope. Maude: He hung on to save his country. He was a Saint. The people loved him. That man had charisma! Archie: I don’t care how sick he was! His mouth was always working pretty good with ’em phony Fireside Chats. Maude: Listen, those Fireside Chats kept this country informed! And one "My friends" was worth a barrel of "Let me make this perfectly clear." (0213, 30-31) .

Archie’s dislike of Maude is typical of his attitude toward his and

Edith’s relatives; he sees all of them as selfish and intolerable. His aversion is motivated largely by envy, as most of the relatives are more prosperous than the Archie Bunker household. On one occasion, Edith is given a mink coat by her rich cousin Amelia, but Archie wants her to re­ turn it, saying he won’t accept charity from relatives. When the coat is ruined by the cleaners and a $300 insurance payment is offered, Archie wants the money. But v/hen Amelia’s husband Ross learns of this, he de­ mands the money himself. Cousin Amelia appears again in "Class Reunion," a story which shows how different Edith’s attitude toward the relatives is from Archie’s. Edith thinks fondly of cousin Amelia, as she does of all the relatives, but Archie mutters before he opens the door to greet

Amelia and Russ, "I hate them people" (0220, 22).

Mike’s only relation shown in All in the Family is his uncle Casmir, who is occasionally mentioned following his appearance at Mike and 120

Gloria's wedding. Uncle Casmir is a large man, of Polish extraction,

who is a florist. Archie says to Mike: "A florist! YZhat does a Polack

florist sell? Weeds?" (0311, 16). Archie and Casmir argue over whether

Gloria and Mike will he married “by a Protestant minister or a Catholic

priest. In the end, they are married by a Polish judge.

Mike's uncle performs a function that is typical of those secondary

characters who appear in only one episode: providing a human context in

which the Bunkers exist. They give body and life to the world outside

the Bunker home. Some of them, such as Archie's co-worker Stretch Cun­

ningham, serve to make a specific outside setting real, in this case

the factory where Archie works. Others, such as policemen, serve to

make us realize that a complex society exists outside the home.

Authority figures are a common type of secondary character. They

include the clergymen Father Majeski and Reverend Felcher, various policemen, FBI agents, bureaucrats such as Internal Revenue Service agents, lawyers, and doctors. Archie is almost invariably thwarted or defeated in his confrontations with these rather remote representatives of a system of power and authority. He is defeated because of his inabil­ ity to handle the situation, because of his basic powerlessness, or be­ cause the authority figure is simply more intelligent; these problems are discussed in more detail in the next chapter.

Some secondary figures are important in an individual episode, even though they are not important to the series as a whole. These outsiders generally remain outsiders, acting as instigators or complicators of a particular situation. In "The Bunkers and the Swingers" (0306), for example, Edith unknowingly invites a mate-swapping couple, the Rempleys, 121

to spend an evening with her and Archie. As the story turns out, the

Rempleys’ unhappiness points up the stability of Edith and Archie’s mar­ riage. As with many of the outsiders who appear in All in the Family, the Rempleys operate as a mirror to the family. When they leave, the stability and normality of the Bunkers is reaffirmed. Or, as Archie says, "I don’t want no sickos, wierdos, creepos, sexos freaks in my house” (0306, 33).

The secondary characters are another key to learning the success of the series. These outsiders, no matter how briefly they appear, are always presented as individuals as well as representatives of a particu­ lar profession or other grouping. They supply a social context that provides the program with a setting of great density and complexity. 122

NOTES FOR CHAPTER SIX

Howard F. Stein, "All in the Family as a Mirror of Contemporary American Culture," Family Process, 13_:3 (Sept. 1974), p. 309- 2 Quoted in Marcia Borie, All You’d Like to Know About All in the Family (Lincolnwood, Illinois: Fawcett, 197lT? P- 38. 3 Louis Solomon, TV’s First Family (New York: Scholastic Book Services, 1973), p. 6^ 4 Quoted in Borie, p. 51* ^Stein, p. 292. g Quoted in Borie, p. 63. 123

CHAPTER SEVEN

ELEMENTS OF SUCCESS: ISSUES AND THEMES

All in the Family quickly became known, and has continued to attract attention, for its willingness to raise issues or topics that had never before been dealt with on television, and certainly not in the context

of a television comedy series. The series has, in most cases, handled these new and sometimes controversial topics in a comedic manner but usually also with respect for the essential seriousness of the problem.

At the same time the series has propounded a view of life with which many in the audience can identify. It might be an exaggeration to say that the program has a "philosophy." As Hodgart points out, "Comedy is a self-contained system, even when it reflects social norms; it offers a style of living, not a philosophy." The style of living offered by

All in the Family reflects the tried-and-true theme of moderation, the

"golden mean." It is the blend of interesting, sensational, or contro­ versial issues with themes that are commonplace and commonsensical that helps account for the- success of the series. Once again we find that the program has combined the conventional and the original to appeal to a broad audience.

The first episode of All in the Family to attract attention because of its major issue is 0104, which deals with homosexuality. This seg­ ment attempts to contradict stereotyped notions about homosexual behav­ ior by revealing an apparently "masculine" friend of Archie's as being a homosexual. Since this program, first broadcast in 19711 there have been many other dramas and discussions on television concerned with homo- 124

sexuality, but All in the Family seems to have been one of the first to raise the issue. (

In the first four seasons of the series, there have been more epi­ sodes about sexual behavior and related topics. "Mike’s Problem" (0208) deals with the difficulty of sexual impotency brought on by anxiety over his.studies. In "Edith's Problem" (0214) we see Edith experiencing the pains and emotional instabilities of menopause. In episode 0223, "Archie is Jealous" when he learns that Edith 25 years before spent a weekend with a boy at a cabin In the country. "The Threat" (0304) reverses the situation, as Edith,is jealous when she thinks a young woman spending the night with the Bunkers is trying to seduce Archie. "The Bunkers and the Swingers" (0306) poses another sort of problem when Edith un­ knowingly invites a mate-swapping couple to spend an evening with her and Archie. Archie is jealous again in "Class Reunion" (0310) when he hears Edith’s former high school classmates talking about her infatuation I with a school hero. Gloria is shown in a foul mood because of having her menstrual period in "The Battle of the Month" (0324). "Black is the

Color of My True Love’s Wig" (0411) finds Mike sexually aroused by

Gloria’s new wig, and Gloria is dismayed and angered by this show of fetishism. "Mike and Gloria Mix It Up" (O4l6) when Mike accuses Gloria of being too sexually aggressive. The foregoing list illustrates the variety of topics dealt with and the intricacy of the problems.

In these shows with sex-related topics, the conflicts are both in­ ternal and external. For example, in the several episodes involving jeal­ ousy, the one who is jealous is in a state of emotional turmoil while the other partner is usually unaware of the problem for some time. 125

Eventually, however, the jealousy becomes known to all and suspicion

must be allayed. The usual resolution to the problem is simple under­

standing. The jealousy is shown to be unwarranted once the feeling is

made known and therefore opened to discussion. One value consistently

expressed in the series, then, is the importance and necessity of stat­

ing one's thoughts and feelings openly. Even though open expression of

feeling may initially cause conflict, the ultimate result of openness is I a more healthy, more stable,^relationship. I The theme of moderation is demonstrated here as tolerance of the I i others in the family, especially the immediate partner. Such tolerance I is based in a faith in the ¡essential trustworthiness of the other, a I faith which is never seriously betrayed. Thus All in the Family re­ affirms a fundamental belief in the conventional single-partner mar- i riage; at the same time itjadvocates tolerance of homosexuality and I other forms of socially unconventional behavior. The institution of I marriage is shown to be capable of weathering the problems.of jealousy, i impotence, and emotional instability. These problems can be overcome by love and understanding,t There are, however, differences in the ways I the problems are handled jin the two marriages, reflecting perhaps genera- " I tional differences. Archie and Edith resolve their misunderstandings by indirection and by playing out traditional sex-roles, while Mike and

Gloria attempt to work toward new patterns in their marriage through direct confrontation and mutual discussion of problems. There is a dif- I ference also between the two marriages in that there is little question I that Archie and Edith will stay together, while there is a sense of the possibility of a breakdown in the marriage of Mike and Gloria. In both 126

marriages, though, the values of moderation and honesty are affirmed.

A related issue in the series is that of "women's liberation," or

the growing awareness on the parts of Edith and Gloria that new modes

of thought and behavior are possible and desirable. Archie is clearly

repressive toward women in general and Edith in particular, shouting at

her to "stifle" herself and fetch him a beer. A careful reading re­

veals, however, that Edith's downtrodden status is often more apparent

than real. As has been discussed earlier, -Edith is sometimes able to

prevail over Archie by manipulating him indirectly toward her more reason­

able point of view. In a sense, Archie’s male chauvinism is more easily

dealt with than Mike’s more subtly expressed sexism. As it is Gloria who

is the outspoken feminist in the household, many of the episodes which

take sexism as a major subject revolve around her provocations. In the early episode 0111, Gloria has been reading several books on women's liberation, and she is voicing doctrinaire feminist views which seem more intellectual than genuinely felt. An argument between Mike and Gloria ensues, and Gloria angrily leaves the house. The two partners are rec­ onciled at the end of the episode by admitting their love and need for one another. On the one hand, the resolution of this show sidesteps the serious basic questions of sexual equality; on the other hand, what is more important is that such questions are clearly presented here in a mass media context.

Y.hether the series equivocates or simply shows the difficulty of the practical application of the principle of sexual equality depends on the attitude of the viewer. Since the purpose of comedy is to display all kinds of human folly, it may be expected that there will be no strict 127

adherence to a particular dogmatic viewpoint. In episode 0303, Gloria

poses this riddle: ""

Gloria: Okay ... A father and his son are driving in a car and the car crashes. And, the father is killed ... Edith: Oh, that’s so sad!! Archie: It's only a story, Edith. Gloria: Anyway, the father is killed and the son is badly injured, so they rush him to the hospital and take him into the operating room. The surgeon comes in, takes one look at the boy and says, ’I can’t operate on that boy—he’s my son!’ How come? (0303, 11-12)

The entire show is built around this one joke, a joke v/hich involves the audience in trying to find an ansv/er, and thus may point up narrowness of thinking in the audience at large as well as in the Bunker family. (In­ cidentally, the doctor is the boy’s mother.)

The folly of sexism is made more explicit in 0307, "Mike's Appen­ dix," in which Archie and Mike resist the idea of using a female surgeon.

As it happens, the appendectomy is a complete success and Dr. McKenzie, whom everyone thought to be a man, indeed turns out to be female. Addi­ tional segments primarily concerned with sexism are O4l4, "Archie is

Cursed," and O4l6, "Mike and Gloria Mix It Up." The first of these is especially interesting because it involves the challenge of a game of pool between Archie and Irene Lorenzo. Archie, who is scornful of women’s sports ability and thinks of pool as a masculine sport, learns to his chagrin that Irene is a championship player. Though All in the

Family is at times seemingly sexist and reactionary, in tone there ap­ pears to have been a trend in the series toward stronger advocacy of the equality of women in all areas of life. This has been accomplished less through the arguments between characters than through dramatic represen­ 128

tation of the foolishness of sexual discrimination. It should be noted

that in the fifth season of the series, with which we are not primarily-

concerned here, Irene Lorenzo has become one of Archie’s co-workers at the plant.

There has been even stronger advocacy of a particular viewpoint on the issues of gun control and social violence. Apparently Lear and the

others connected with the series believe that the private possession of handguns is totally incompatible with the humanistic ethic of the pro­ gram as they define it. The issue is first raised in episode 0204, in which Archie spends $35 out of the "family pot" to purchase a handgun for protection against intruders. Later in the episode the Bunkers re­ turn home to find themselves threatened by two burglars, one of whom is brandishing Archie’s new gun. Of course Archie is unable to see the irony of the situation, but the point is made clear to everyone else.

The series returns to the same issue in the next season with 0301, "Archie and the Editorial," wherein Archie appears on television to give a man- in-the-street editorial against gun control, saying that handguns are essential to law and order and the protection of the nation. As in the previous episode on this subject, the tables are turned when the Bunkers are robbed at Kelsey’s Bar by a gun-toting thief. The robber, who has just seen Archie’s editorial, congratulates him on his stand and pro­ ceeds to divest the Bunkers of their jewelry and their money. In both of these shows the issue is treated comically, but there is no equivoca­ tion: private possession of handguns is clearly shown to be a danger to all, including those who advocate such possession.

An unusual episode of All in the Family that moves beyond comic 129

treatment is 0314, "Archie is Branded." Here Archie is puzzled and angry when he finds a swastika painted on his door. A young man named Paul, who is a leader of an organization called the Hebrew Defense Association, arrives to tell the Bunkers that the threat was likely intended for a

Jewish home down the street. Paul delivers several tirades in favor of vigilante violence as a defense against the violence and prejudice of others. Archie is much impressed by Paul's case, but Mike voices pas­ sionate concern about the futility of such action. The bulk of the show is composed of this dispute. The situation Is resolved not comically, but tragically, as Paul leaves the Bunker home and an explosion is heard.

The Bunkers rush to their front door and Archie says, "That v/as Paul.

They blew him up in his car" (0314, 38). The episode ends at this point with no tag scene, no sort of comic relief. This segment might be criti­ cized as a violation of the comic conventions and therefore an unfair . betrayal of audience expectations. It would be difficult to deny, though, that such a reversal of expectations, used sparingly, can have enormous emotional impact.

Almost none of the numerous episodes in the series concerned with racial discrimination has treated the problem with the same degree of seriousness. For this decision to show racism as foolish rather than truly ugly the series has been criticized. Laura Z. Hobson was vehement in her accusation that the show was soft-pedaling bigotry:

I don't think you can be a bigot and be lovable; I don't think you can be a black-baiter and lovable, nor an anti- Semite and lovable. And I don't think that the millions who watch this show should be conned into thinking that you can be• • •

There are other critics who have praised the series as an honest portrayal 130

of the most common sort of bigotry. These writers point out that Archie

Bunker is a more typical representative of bigotry than he would be if

presented as a fire-breathing, hate-filled monster.

As noted earlier, Archie’s racism is founded in fear rather than

simple hatred. One aspect of this fear is the alarm he exhibits when he

feels that his territory is being invaded by outsiders of any sort. His

territorial defense extends to the neighborhood beyond the confines of

his own house. Thus he tries without success in episode 0108 to prevent

a black family, the Jeffersons, from buying the house next door. A few years later, he teams up with George Jefferson in keeping a Puerto Rican

couple from moving into the house on the other side of his own. In this

instance, as in many others, black racism is shown to be as wrong-headed as white racism.

The folly of Archie’s bigotry is pointed up in at least two main ways in the program. First, his stereotypes are often so clichéd as to be patently foolish: that all blacks have natural rhythm, are natural athletes, eat nothing but fried chicken and watermelon, are naturally lazy, etc. Sometimes these absurdities are allowed to fall by the weight of their own exaggerated ignorance. Other times, Mike or someone else is there to contradict or moderate. A second technique for punctur­ ing Archie’s bigotry is to show that it is ineffectual or counterproduc­ tive, that Archie hurts only himself by it. In "Archie and the Bowling

Team" (0315), for instance, he wants to join the Cannonballers team X largely because he thinks they are all like himself, as he boasts to

Mike:

Archie: The Cannonballers don’t keep nobody out because of 131

what he is—only because of what he ain’t. If he ain’t a good bowler he don’t belong and if he ain’t white and Protestant. Now what could be fairer than that? (0315, 11)

To his surprise, a black man is chosen for the team instead; the men he had supposed to be as prejudiced as he is are in fact changing with the times, while Archie appears as a throwback to an earlier time that is gone:

Moose: Look, Arch. I don’t like this any more than you do. But you can’t fight it—the world is changin'. Archie: And every time it’s changin’ it gives me a new kick in the butt?! (0315, 37)

Archie’s bigotry is consistently presented as self-defeating, even though he persists despite all the evidence that his narrow-mindedness is only leaving him increasingly alone in a world that is no longer his. There is pathos in this paradox: that he thinks of himself as a voice of the majority, a "real American," when in fact he is rapidly becoming the out­ sider and the loser.

Archie's folly is comic, and his character is filled with a tough­ ness and gusto that triumphs over adversity because of, not in spite of, his essential role as the irrepressible buffoon. But there is a core of sadness too in his impotence, a sense of powerlessness that is akin to that expressed by Charlie Chaplin’s figure of the little tramp. Both

Charlie and Archie are continually defeated in their confrontations with a social system which they can neither control nor understand. A sur­ prisingly large number of episodes deal in one way or another with this conflict between Archie and the social system. His opponents include lawyers (0103), company bosses (0110, 0211, 04-18), morticians (0202), nuns and priests (0207, 0409), blockbusting realtors (0209), insurance 132

agents (0210, 0309), F.B.I. agents (0216), the police (0217, 0309,

0413), businessmen (0222, 0308), Internal Revenue Service agents (0302), doctors (0316, 0421), repairmen (0321), and computers (0407).

"Archie's Fraud" (0302) is typical of many of these encounters with the powers-that-be. Because Archie fears that the Internal Revenue

Service is going to send him to jail for not reporting $600 he earned driving a cab, he and Edith visit the I.R.S. office, where Archie plans to lie about the income. While waiting to see the examiner Archie has a better idea—he will bribe the agent, "give him the old shmear."

Edith: The old shmear? What's that? Archie: Sshhhssshh!! Sort of like a present. I slip him a little somethin' on the side to shew him I appreciate what he's gonna do for me. Edith: That don’t sound too honest. Archie: Oh, Edith . . . It's the way of the world. Every­ body does it. Edith: Archie, I can't believe that nobody’s honest. (0302, 27)

Because of the attempted bribe, the examiner tells Archie that his tax returns for the last three years are going to be audited.

Archie: The last 3 years! Bid ya hear that, Edith?—Oh, holy cow. Edith: Oh, don't feel too bad about it, Archie.— (Archie stares at her) Edith: At least you found an honest man. (0302, 37)

In a similar incident Archie’s scheming gets him in trouble with the police in 0413, "The Taxi Caper." When Archie is robbed of his wallet and fifty dollars by a cab fare, a young boy, he at first urges the police to apprehend the thief. But when they do, Archie drops the charges be­ cause the boy’s father, a wealthy politician, has offered Archie a bribe of $100 to keep quiet. On his next visit to the police station Archie's wallet is returned to him—empty—by the police, he gets a ticket for 133

illegal parking, and his cab is towed away from a "no parking" zone.

Thus the police, who know of the bribe, get their revenge for Archie’s corruption. As in every one of the many cases in which Archie plots to make money by illegal or unethical means, he ends up losing more than he gains. The overt message in these shows is that honesty is the best policy when dealing with the authorities as well as with family, friends, and neighbors. In a sense, then, the series seems to support the estab­ lished social structure, saying "you can’t fight city hall," at least not by Archie’s methods of petty deception and subterfuge.

All in the Family does, however, appear to favor social change through working within the system. On the simplest level, there is at least one episode in which the message is the importance of voting. This is dramatically presented in 0206, "Election Show," broadcast shortly before the November elections of 1971. In this show Gloria and Mike are campaigning vigorously for a liberal candidate who is a woman. Archie vows to fight against their candidate, hut when he arrives at the polling place he finds that he cannot vote because he has not registered before­ hand. This episode is particularly didactic in its plot; the humor is mainly dependent on the dialogue. Another second-season segment, "Archie in the Lock-up" (0205), shows Archie thrown in jail when he tries to re­ trieve Mike from an anti-Pentagon demonstration at the United Nations.

Ironically, Archie is bailed out with money from the protesters* Freedom

Fund. Again the emphasis is on comedic conflict, but the program also presents peaceful protest as a legitimate activity. There is little doubt that All in the Family favors a liberal political viewpoint, but the real message is considerably broader—that social involvement is good, no 134

matter what one’s particular views may he. The political arguments be­

tween Mike and Archie serve at least to make one aware of differing

opinions on various issues, even if the views are presented in exagger­ ated comic form. Again the fundamental theme of moderation is implicit

in that the truth or the right way generally lies somewhere between the excesses of both Archie and Mike. Comedy in general tends to a prag­ matic view of things; it . considers not the extreme value of good 3 and evil, but the pure-action mean of best policy."

The episodes that deal with personal problems within the Bunker family take a similarly pragmatic view. Most notable here are the sev­ eral shows that deal, with death and aging. The subjects of sex and politics, which had previously been considered taboo in television comedy series, had been successfully presented in the first season of All in the

Family. Lear chose to begin the second season with a show that would break open another taboo topic: death. It has been said that death is to our age what sex was to an earlier age—the dirty little secret that no one talks about. In "The Saga of Cousin Oscar" (0202) Mike discovers

Archie’s freeloading cousin dead in the bedroom. The viewer experiences vicariously the shock, disbelief, and confusion of the Bunkers as they work through the situation. In this dark comedy, Archie is seen arrang­ ing for the funeral, struggling with miserly relatives and an unctuous, avaricious undertaker. After scheming to find a cheap Way to dispose of

Oscar, Archie relents and pays for a $600 funeral. This episode is more biting in its humor than many others, with its satire on the funeral in­ dustry and on the ambivalence and embarrassment of all concerned with the fact of a relative’s death. 135

Even more filled with a blend of humor and pathos are the shows that

treat of aging. "Archie in the Hospital" (0316) and "Class Reunion"

(0319) tangentially pertain to this.issue, but "Edith Finds an Old Man"

(0405) treats the problem directly. An 83-year-old man, Mr. Quigley,

is found by Edith on the Bunkers’ doorstep; he has escaped from a rest

home because he is bored. Quigley surprises the Bunkers with his vital­

ity and zest for life, especially when they discover that he is planning

to live with a 70-year-old woman—with no intention of marriage. The

show exposes the problems of growing old, its hardship and loneliness.

Mr. Quigley, who is fond of jokes and word-play, leaves on this sardonic

note;

Quigley: (Stops and turns) Oh, one last piece of advice. Archie: Yeah! Quigley: (To Archie) This one is just for you, sonny. (Smiling) Something my father once said to me, ’Son, don't ever grov/ old.’ But that’s one piece of advice you can't take. Archie: Then what are you telling me for? Quigley: You'll find out. (0405, 38)

Archie himself is soon faced with the problem of aging in 0417, "Archie

Feels Left Out," when he becomes depressed about being fifty years old.

He tries to avoid the birthday party Edith has arranged for him by taking refuge in Kelsey's Bar. Mr. Quigley, who has been invited to the party,

goes to the bar and revives Archie's spirits by pointing out that age is not so much a fact as a state of mind. Quigley proudly announces that he himself will be 83 the next day and is going to start learning French.

Finally, when Quigley refers to Archie's generation as "You young sprigs,"

Archie feels complimented and says, "Yea . . . well I guess there's no sense in lookin’ backwards. You gotta move with the times!" (0417, 36). 136

It is an almost impossible task to identify and discuss all of the

issues presented throughout All in the Family. One reason for this dif­

ficulty is that the individual episodes often touch on a number of

topics. Rare indeed, for instance, are the shews that have no comic repartee between Archie and Mike on various issues of contemporary inter

est. Another reason is that certain episodes have as their main sub­

jects matters of topical interest or interpersonal conflict that do not fit into neat categories. Examples here are "Edith, the Judge" (0222),

"Archie Goes Too Far" (0318), and "Archie Eats and Runs" (0421). With the number of episodes to be produced under intense pressures of time, one could hardly expect every story to be significant and provocative.

Nor is there any reason why every episode should be; sometimes it may be enough simply to entertain. A recent critic of comedy has said:

Comedy ignores the most paralyzing sorrows; tragedy ignores most of the world’s merriment. A work of art is not required to ask every question or canvas every possibility. The artist consciously restricts himself to questions appropriate to the form in v/hich he has chosen to work.""

In light of this statement, it seems that All in the Family has in fact attempted to stretch the limits of the comedic form, particularly the restrictions of television domestic comedy, a genre which many thought to be dead-ended in formulaic trivialities and meaningless pratfalls.

S There are at least two episodes of All in the Family that deserve special mention for their skillful handling of delicate subject matter.

The first of these is "Edith Gets Ready" (0415), in which Edith’s doc­ tor finds a lump in her breast which must be removed. Since it is the

Christmas season and she does not want to spoil everyone’s merriment,

Edith keeps her secret from Archie and Mike but eventually tells Gloria 137

and Irene Lorenzo. Gloria is sympathetic, but Irene is even more help­

ful, as she tells Edith that she herself has had a mastectomy and re­

lieves some of Edith's fears and worries. When Archie discovers the

situation he rushes to the hospital, and the episode concludes in a

comic but tender mood:

Archie: They told me you had cancer! Edith: Oh. I thought I did too, Archie. But it was just a little cyst. The surgeon got rid of it just like that. Archie: So what are you doin’ lyin' here? Edith: Well, when they told me everything was alright, I jumped off the examining table and broke my ankle. Archie: (Happy) You mean all you done was you broke your ankle? Edith: Yeah, that's all. Archie: A broken ankle is all you got. Ah gee, Edith. (Hugs Edith) Oh, Edith, Edith . . . Edith: Oh, Archie. (04-15, 37-38)

’’Edith Gets Ready" performs a valuable public service in making the audi­

ence aware of yet another relevant problem. It has been unofficially

reported that the rate for requests for breast cancer check-ups increased 5 substantially in the weeks following the broadcast of the episode.

The second segment of note, also in the fourth season, involves

"Gloria's Boyfriend" (04-19), a likable young man named George who is retarded. This episode also exposes a topic that could easily be done in poor taste, but again the show is a success because it presents a serious problem with both respect and humor. Gloria, Mike, and Edith treat

George with a minimum of condescension. Archie, by contrast, says George is a "nut case" (04-19, 3), a "crazy" (0419, 13), and is patronizing and rude. When Archie sees George lifting Gloria up to help her reach a high 158

v

shelf, he is alarmed, immediately assuming George is a sex maniac:

Mike: C’mon, Arch, it doesn’t mean the same thing to George. Archie: Listen wise guy, them people don’t have much of a mind hut what mind they got is all on one track. Edith: What do you mean, Archie? Archie: This ain’t for you, Edith. Mike: He’s talking about sex. Archie: Ssssshhhh! In front of Edith. Mike: Arch, it’s a myth. Retarded people actually have less of a sex drive than other individuals. Archie: Oh yeah? Then how come you’re on Automatic all the time? (0419, 17)

Archie finally insults George by calling him a dummy, which upsets George so that he runs out of the house shouting, "I’m gonna show you all"

(04-19, 21). Because of his dallying at the Bunkers, George loses his job at the supermarket, but he reappears with a sign for Archie to read:

"Every man is my Superior in that I may learn from him" (0419, 35)*

George proves the point by fixing a wood plane that Archie and Mike had bungled in trying to shave off a door. The final irony is that George has found a new job, working on a loading dock. Edith says, "The load­ ing dock. That’s the same work Archie does" (O419j 37)-

The many themes both explicit and implicit in All in the Family are as difficult to summarize as are the many issues presented, but certain values do seem to be consistently expressed in the dialogue and action of the program. Among the values affirmed are: moderation, honesty, love, family, the importance of knowledge and education, egalitarianism, toler­ ance, the necessity of standing up for one’s beliefs, and the integrity of the individual. Such a summary reduces a complex continuing series of dramas to a rather simplistic view of life. Trite but true, this is the stuff of comedy, for in comedy there is a fundamental celebration of humanity in all its occasional wisdom and frequent folly. Comedy is 139

. . • recurrent, always coming around, like ritual, to where it was and ought to he, where we want it to he. Its endings are always beginnings, or re-beginnings.

This optimism, this sense of human endurance and renewal, is expressed even more succinctly by none other than Edith Bunker:

But life goes in circles . . . and when things get wrong enough, then they start gettin1 right again. (0204, 33) 14o

NOTES FOR CHAPTER SEVEN

^Matthew Hodgart, Satire (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), p. 196.

^Laura Z. Hobson, "As I Listened to Archie Say Hebe,” New York Times, 12 Sept. 1971, reprinted in Louis Solomon, TV1s First Family (New York: Scholastic Book Services, 1973), P- 86^ 3 Albert Cook, The Bark Voyage and the Golden Mean (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1949), P- 3^. ^William G. McCollom, The Bivine Average: A View of Comedy (Cleve­ land, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, 1971), p. 33* 5 Interview with Virginia Carter, Executive Assistant to Norman Lear, May 1974. g James L. Calderwood and Harold E. Toliver, "Introduction to Comedy," Perspectives on Brama, eds. Calderwood and Toliver (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 171. 141

CHAPTER EIGHT

COMEDY HIGH AND LOW

The previous chapters have explored, primarily through analysis of

the scripts, some of the factors in the success of All in the Family.

The mode in which this art form is presented, its realism, needs to "be

re-emphasized. The series expresses itself for the most part in what

Northrop Frye has called the "low mimetic": "In low mimetic modes char­

acters are usually presented as they appear to others, fully dressed

and with a large section of both their physical lives and their inner

monologue carefully excised." Frye further points out that most

domestic comedy operates in this mode. All in the Family is not, how­

ever, limited to this mode, as it often' verges into an ironic kind of

expression, the sort of comedy that focuses on driving out a figure

from society; Frye says: "Ironic comedy brings us to the figure of the

scapegoat ritual and the nightmare dream, the human symbol that concen- 2 trates our fears and hates."

We may be able to understand the fascination of the figure of

Archie Bunker to a large audience by recognizing how he exists in ten­ sion between these two poles. Perhaps the audience has a love-hate re­ lationship with Archie and to a lesser degree with the other members of the Bunker family. The audience can see a part of themselves or their own relatives or others in the Bunkers. This identification operates in a different way than in most television domestic comedy. The world of

Father Knows Best and that of the multitude of programs like it is largely a fantasy world; into this fairy-tale creation the audience may project 142

themselves—their wishes, hopes, dreams. The world of All in the Family,

by contrast, does not allow projection but instead may force a recogni­

tion that is generally amusing and may be disturbing. There is some part

of these characters in all of us: Archie, with his useless scheming,

his ignorance, his bigotry, his boasting, and his reactionary stance;

Mike, with his self-styled intellectualism, his knee-jerk liberalism, his

gluttony, and his lack of self-awareness; Edith, with her fuzzy-minded-

ness, her servility, and her simple sentimentalism; Gloria, with her

naivete, her flightiness, and her lack of experience.

Why, in the face of this array of ignorance and foolishness, do we laugh? Possibly we laugh precisely because we do see ourselves, our

friends, our family reflected here in exaggerated, distorted form. What we are seeing is realistic but not real; it is a play and it is play— within the experience of the drama we are freed from the restrictions of

ordinary work-a-day reality. We can laugh at Archie’s stupidity but not at the same ignorance in a real boss or spouse or father. We can feel superior to Edith when she fails to get a joke. At times, too, we can feel for the characters; v/e know Mike’s pretentiousness, Archie’s frus­ trations, Edith’s slowness of mind. We can like them because they are like us and they are also larger than life. In this drama, this created microcosm of the life of our society, we can see played out (without danger because it is a fiction) many of the conflicts, controversies, frustrations, and idiocies that are enacted in reality every day in our families and in the world at large. All in the Family is a game that is sometimes serious and often funny but one that is never really played

"for keeps." 143

Comedy celebrates life over' death:

Destiny in the guise of Fortune is the fabric of comedy; it is developed by comic action, which is the upset and recovery of the protagonist’s equilibrium, his contest with the world and his triumph by wit, luck, personal power, or even humor­ ous, or Ironical, or philosophical acceptance of mischance.5

Comedy is not "escapist" in any disparaging sense of that word; it

". . . is an image of human vitality holding its own in the world amid 4 the surprises of unplanned coincidence." This is not to say that the

Bunkers triumph over all odds. Much is being lost, especially the past

and many of its values, those that Archie and Edith cling to for their

very lives. What is preserved is the family itself, marooned in a small

worn-down house in the depths of a city and a society that has little re­

gard for this tiny group, a society in which there is corruption and dan­

ger and no clear standard of action. This faith in family is not limited

to television domestic comedy, as is often thought, but is characteristic

of comedic forms in general: "The unit in tragedy ... is man alone; in

comedy, the family." Comedy is not concerned with the heroic scale of

things but with "the smallness that survives as against the greatness

that is scarred and destroyed."

All in the Family is characterized by tension between the conven­

tional and the controversial, between comfort and upset, between conform­

ity and chaos. The attentive viewer is captured in the verbal and visual

barrage and must either work toward some stability on his or her own or be left dangling In mental space. Maybe a deeper secret of the program’s

success is this tension and the sense of edginess that the pull and tug of

opposites creates. The balance is pulled one way then the other, creating

excitement, even though we are fairly certain that the equal forces will 144

maintain the status quo.

The conflicts in All in the Family are many: the family versus the

world outside, Archie versus Edith, Edith versus Gloria, Mike versus

Gloria, and even occasionally Archie versus Gloria. But the most im­

portant of these conflicts is Archie versus Mike. This ongoing struggle

has been discussed before in political and personal terms. Let us

briefly consider the possibility of a significance in the conflict that

goes deeper than ideology. Archie and Mike are locked in a battle be­

tween father and son; this generational conflict is almost mythic in pro­

portion. Archie is a senex iratus, a "heavy father” who "with his rages

and threats, his obsessions and gullibility, seems closely related to 7 some of the demonic characters of romance, such as Polyphemus." Archie

is "king" of his castle, his home, v/hich he will defend with all his wit and power. Mike, the son, is an eiron figure, the young hero who must try to overthrow the king or father. The youth represents the possibil­ ity of a new and more open society over against the closed society created and maintained by the father-figure. In romantic comedy the son is usually triumphant and, according to Frye, "the society emerging at the conclusion of comedy represents a kind of moral norm, or pragmati- g cally free society." But in All in the Family this movement from bond­ age to freedom does not occur in the same clear sense. Though the Bunkers are freed from the specific trial or problem at the end of each episode, there is no final resolution of conflict. Indeed, in their egoism and pride, everyone in the family may feel that he or she is the victor.

Similarly, whatever the viewer’s sympathies may be will largely determine his/her perception of the conclusion of each drama. 14-5

The clash between Archie and Mike is further complicated in that

Mike is not just a son-figure but also in fact a son-in-law. The threat he presents Arehie is the theft of Archie’s "little girl" Gloria, the princess of the castle. On one level Mike steals away some of Gloria’s affections from her father to himself. On another level there is a con­ stant contest between Mike and Archie that is a mostly-unconscious sexual rivalry in which Gloria is both arbiter and prize. The contest is fought not with swords but with words—wit, repartee, and boasting. As it hap­ pens, Gloria’s intellectual sympathies usually lie with Mike, which fur­ ther enrages Archie, but she is also careful to establish her love for her father.

The many sexual and scatological references in the program are partly explained by this idea of a contest between the two men. Obscen­ ity or its suggestion is of course a basic source of much humor gener­ ally; it is a satirical technique that is reductive. "It reduces men to 9 equality, humbling the mighty." Obscenity is usually associated with farce, with its gross incongruities and wild horseplay.

It would be unfair and untrue to say that All in the Family is simply a farce-comedy, although one vzriter notes that "'low’ comedy is as legitimate as ’high.’ In fact, the lower the range, the more authen- 10 tic the comsdy may be." But as has been shown throughout this study, the program is eclectic in its origins ana unique in its execution. It combines the slapstick of farce, the melodrama of sentimental comedy, and the social satire of the comedy of manners. All in the Family is comedy both high and low: high in its ethical implications and its exposure of folly; low in its boisterous tone, coarse jesting, and buffoonery. 146

It is most important, however, to recognize that All in the Family

and television domestic comedies in general are not some strange aberra­

tion of the electric age but a distinct if new part of a long comedic

tradition. Indeed, the tension between comic modes v/e have seen in the

figures of Archie Bunker and his family is part of the magic behind a variety of the greatest of comic creations, such as Falstaff, Bon

Quixote, and Lemuel Gulliver. For this reason it is legitimate to use the insights gained from studying the literature, especially the comic drama, of the past. The critic who applies these insights to television comedy drama will, of course, have to adapt his or her methods to the peculiarities of the medium, but television comedy may be analyzed and understood in terms of age-old patterns of artistic expression. 147

NOTES FOR CHAPTER EIGHT /] Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism (1957)î rpt. New York: Atheneum, 1967), p. 50. 2Ibid., p. 45.

Susanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form (New York: Scribner’s, 1953), p. 331. 4 Ibid. '^Albert Cook, The Dark Voyage and the Golden Mean (Cambridge: Harvard University Press*} 1949) , p. 3^7 g Louis Kronenberger, The Thread of Laughter (New York: A. A. Knopf, 1952), p. 2. ?Frye, p. 172. Q Ibid., p. 169. ^Matthew Hodgart, Satire (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969), P- 30. 1O Wylie Cypher, Comedy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1956), p. 207. 148

BIBLIOGRAPHY

List of Works Consulted

All in the Family, Episodes 0101-0424. Scripts provided by Tandem Pro- ductions, Inc. , Los Angeles, California, to the Center for the Study of Popular Gulture, Bowling Green, Ohio. "All in the Family. " Review in Broadcasting, 18 Jan. 1971, P- 44. "All in the Family. " Review in Variety, 13 Jan. 1971, P* 48. "All in the Family. " Review in Variety, 20.Sept. 1972, p. 38. Amory, Cleveland. "All in the Family." Review in TV Guide, 27 Feb. 1971, p. 18. Arlen, Michael J. Living Room War. New York: Viking, 1969. _____ . "The Media Dramas of Norman Lear." The New Yorker, 10 Mar. 1975, pp. 89-94. Arnheim, Rudolf. "A Forecast of Television," in Film as Art. 1935; rpt. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957- "As We See It." TV Guide, 27 Feb. 1971, P- 1- Barber, Rowland. "Bellowing, Half-baked, Fire-breathing Bigotry." TV Guide, 29 May 1971, PP- 28-35- "Blacks in the Media Divided. . . ." Variety, 27 Jan. 1971, PP- 26 8c 40. Bluem, A. William, and Roger Manvell, eds. Television: The Creative Experience. New York: Hastings House, 196?- Borie, Marcia. All You’ d Like to Know About All in the Family. Lincoln­ wood, Illinois: Fawcett, 1971- Bower, Robert T. Television and the Public. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973- Brockett, Oscar G. The Theatre : An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19&9* Brown, les. Television: The Business Behind the Box. New York: Har­ court Erace Jovanovich, 1971- Burgheim, Richard. "Television Reviewing." Harper’s, Aug. 19&9» PP* 98-101. Calderwood, James L., and Harold E. Toliver, eds. Perspectives on Drama. New York: Oxford University Press, 1968. Carpenter, Edmund. Oh, What a Blow that Phantom Gave Me! 1973; rpt. New York: Bantam Books, 1974. Cassirer, Ernst. An Essay on Man. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1944. "CBS Bigot Sitcom Fails to Light up Switchboard." Variety, 20 Jan. 1971, P- 29. "CBS Bigot’s Double Exposure." Variety, 13 Jan. 1971, P- 48. Cook, Albert. The Dark Voyage and the Golden Mean. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19^9- Current Biography 1972. Currie, Rolf Hector. "The Stylization of the Television Dramatic Image." Diss. Stanford University, 1962. Deeb, Gary. "Sorry, Archie, But You Are to Blame." Chicago Tribune, 21 Feb. 19/4, section 5, p- 13* 149

DeFleur, Melvin L. Theories of Miass Communication, 2nd. ed. New York: David McKay, 1970. Dresser, Norman. ’’What is a TV Critic Made of?" Toledo Blade, 4 Dec. 1973, P- 4. Eastman, Max. The En joyment of Laughter. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1936. The Eighth Art. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Esar, Evan. The Humor of Humor■ Nevz York: Horizon Press, 1952. Feibleman, James. In Praise of Comedy. New York: Russell and Russell, 1962. Feinberg, Leonard. Introduction to Satire. Ames, lova: Iœa State University Press, 1967. Ferretti, Fred. "TV:• Are Racism and Bigotry Funny?" Nevz York Times, 12 Jan. 1971, p. 70. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism. 1957ï rpt. Nevz York: Atheneum, 1967. Gould, Jack. "Can Bigotry Be Laughed Away? It’s Worth a Try, New York Times, 21 Feb. 1971, section D, p. 15. Green, Timothy. The Universal Eye. Nevz York: Stein and Day, 1972. Greenberg, Daniel A. "Television—Its Critics and Criticism (A Survey and Analysis)." Diss. Wayne State University, 19^5* Greene, Hugh. The Third Floor Front: A Viev; of Broadcasting in the Sixties. London: The Bodley Head, 19o9- Gumpert, Gary. "Television Theatre as an Art Form." Diss. Wayne State University, 1963- Hall, Stuart, and Paddy Whannel. The Penula?» Arts. 1964; rpt. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967. Hano, Arnold. "Can Archie Bunker Give Bigotry a Bad Name?" Nevz York Times Magazine, 12 Mar. 1972, pp. 32+. Harrington, Stephanie. "The Message Sounds Like ’Hate Thy Neighbor.*" New York Times, 24 Jan. 1971, pt- II, p. 17- Hazard, Patrick D., ed. TV as Art: Some assays in Criticism. Cham- paign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1966. _____ . "TV Criticism—a Prehistory." Television Quarterly, Fall 1963» pp. 54-6?. Hodgart, Matthew. Satire. Nevz York: McGraw-Hill, 1969- Hoggart, Richard. Speaking to Each Other; Volume One: About Society. Nevz York: Oxford University Press, 1970. _____ . The Uses of Literacy: Changing Patterns in English Miass Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. Jones, D. A. N. "Old Contemptible." The Listener, 10 Aug. 1967, pp. 163-164. Kronenberger, Louis. The Thread of laughter. Nevz York: A. A. Knopf, 1952. Langer, Susanne K. Feeling and Form. Nevz York: Scribner’s, 1953- Lauter, Paul, ed. Theories of Comedy. Garden City, Nevz York: Anchor Books-Doubleday and Co., 1964. Levy, Frank. "In Defense of Prejudice. . . ." Nevz Republic, 5 & 12 Aug. 1972, pp. 25-26. "London Critics Rap ’All in the Family’ as Too Tame Vis-a-Vis Prototype." Variety, 21 July 1971» P- 31* 150

Lynch, James E. "Seven Days with 'All in the Family.'" Journal of Broadcasting, Summer 1973, PP* 259-274. Mandel, Oscar. "What’s So Funny: The Nature of the Comic." Antioch Review, Spring 1970, pp. 73-89* Mast, Gerald. The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1973* Mayer, Martin. About Television. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. McCollom, William G. The Divine Average: A View of Comedy. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, 1971* McLuhan, H. Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 1964; rpt. New York: Signet-New American Library/ 1964. Mendelsohn, Harold. Mass Entertainment. New Haven: College and Uni­ versity Press, 1966. Miller, Karl. "Till Death." The Listener, 22 Feb. 1968, p. 229- Muggeridge, Malcolm. "The Anotheosis of Alf Garnett.” New Statesman, 15 Dec. 1967, P* 843- Muir, Frank. "Under the Influence." The Listener, 10 Aug. 1967, PP* 161-163. - Musel, Robert. "A Situation Comedy About a Bigot?" TV Guide, 30 Dec. 1967, p. 16. Newcomb, Horace. TV: The Most Popular Art. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press-Double day, 197*77 Nye, Russel. The Unembarrassed Muse. Nevz York: Dial Press, 1970. O'Hara, Robert C. Media for the Millions. New York: Random House, 1961. Olson, Thomas. "A Basis for Criticism of the Visual Esthetic Elements of Television." Diss. Wayne State University, 1966. Priestly, J. B. The English Comic Characters. 1925; rpt. New York: E. P. Dutton, 19687 Rollin, Roger B. "All in Families: Television’s Re-Invention of Comedy." Paper presented at 1975 meeting of the Popular Culture Association, St. Louis, Missouri. Rosenblatt, Roger. "All in the Family." New Republic, 24 May 1975, pp. 30-31. Rubenstein, Eli A. "The TV Violence Report: What’s Next?" Journal of Communication, 24:1 (Winter 1974), pp. 80-88. Salerno, Henry R., and Conny E. Nelson. Drama and Tradition: The Major Genres. New York: American Book Company, 19687 Sanders, Charles L. "Nation's New Hero is a Beer-bellied Bigot with 60 Million Fans." Ebony, June 1972, pp. 186+. Scher, Saul N. "The Role of the Television Critic: Four Approaches." Today's Speech, Summer 1974, pp. 1-6. Shayon, Robert Lewis, "Love that Hate." Saturday Review, 27 Mar. 1971', p. 20. . Open to Criticism. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. Shulman, Milton. The Least Worst Television in the World. London: Barrie and Jenkins, 1973* Solomon, Louis. TV's First Family. New York: Scholastic Book Services, 1973- Stasheff, Edward, and Rudy Bretz. The Television Program: Its Direction and Production. 4th Ed. New York: Hill and Wang, 1968. 151

Stein, Howard F. "’All in the Family’ as a Mirror of Contemporary Ameri­ can Culture." Family Process, Sept. 1974, pp. 279-315- Steiner, Gary A. The People Look at Television. New York: A. A. Knopf, 1963- Stephenson, William. The Play Theory of Mass Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago PresF^ 1967- Sypher, Wylie, ed. Comedy. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1956- "The Team Behind Archie Bunker 8c Co." Time, 25 Sept. 1972, pp. 48+. Terry, Carroll. "The New Trend in TV Comedies." Good Housekeeping, Sept. 1972, pp/78 Sc 81. Till Death Us Do Part, Second Series, Programs 3 and 8. Scripts pro­ vided by A.L.S. Management, Ltd., 67 Brook Street, London, to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Bowling Green, Ohio. "Till Death Us Do Part." Films and Filming, Mar. 1969, PP- 5^-55- "Till Death Us Do Part." Monthly Film Bulletin, Feb. 1969, P* 36. "Till Death Us Do Part." Times, 17 Feb. 1968, p. 8. "Till Death Us Do Part." Variety, 18 Dec. 1968, p. 26. Times, 7 June 1966, p. 14. Times, 25 July 1966, p. 10. TV Guide, 12 Jan. 1971, P- A56. "TV: Speaking About the Unspeakable." Newsweek, 29 Nov. 1971, PP- 52+. Whitehouse, Mary. Who Does She Think She Is? London: New English Library, 1971- Whitfield, Stephen, and Gene Roddenberry. The Making of Star Trek. New York: Ballantine Books, 1968. The Wit and Wisdom of Archie Bunker. New York: Popular Library, 1971- Worsley, T. C. Television: The Ephemeral Art. London: Alan Ross, 1970- Wright, Charles R. Mass Communi cat i on: A Sociological Perspective. New York:1 Random House, 1959- Wright, Edward A. A Primer for Playgoers. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958. 152

APPENDIX

DESCRIPTIVE LISTING OF ALL IN TriE FAMILY PROGRAMMING

EPISODES 0101-0424

Note: The information on episode numbers, show titles, taping dates, and personnel has been obtained from scripts provided by Tandem Productions, Inc., Los Angeles, California, to the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, Bowling Green, Ohio. The dates of first scheduled broadcast have been obtained from TV Guide, Detroit edition. Discrepancies in the sequence of either taping dates or broadcast dates may be accounted for by such factors as production problems or network postponements. Epi­ sode 0112 is the only titled segment of the first season; episodes 0201- 0424 are all titled. The plot summaries are my own, based on a reading of the above-mentioned scripts, in most cases the final or "as broad­ cast" versions.

I. The First Season. Producer: Norman Lear. Director: John Rich.

#0101 Taped: Dec. 15, 1970. First broadcast: Jan. 12, 1971* Written by Norman Lear.

It is Archie and Edith’s anniversary, and Mike and Gloria want to surprise them with a Sunday brunch. The show establishes the charac­ ters, particularly argumentative and bigoted Archie. Lionel, the black friend of Mike and Gloria, also appears.

#0102 Taped: Dec. 22, 1970. First broadcast: Jan. 19, 1971* Teleplay by Paul Harrison, Lennie Weinrib, Norman Lear. Story by Lee Erwin and Fred Freiberger.

Upon learning that Mike has written a letter to President Nixon, Archie becomes so upset that he writes a letter of his own. Archie is concerned because he thinks that Mike’s letter, dealing with pollution, inflation, and the Vietnam War, is insulting to the President.

#0103 Taped: Jan. 5? 1971- First broadcast: Jan. 26, 1971- Written by Stanley Ralph Ross. Script supervision by Norman Lear.

Archie is suspicious of Jews because he believes they are shrewd and devious; for that very reason, he engages a Jewish law firm to win him a large settlement when he claims to have injured his neck in a slight auto accident. Archie’s plan falls apart when the law firm sends 153

their "house gentile” to represent him, and later when it is revealed that Archie was at fault in the accident, which was witnessed by a station wagon full of nuns.

#0104 Taped: Jan. 12, 1971« First broadcast: Feb. 2, 1971. Written by Burt Styler. Script supervision by Norman Lear.

Archie and Mike exchange accusations about the masculinity of each other's friends. Archie says Mike's friend Roger is a homosexual. But, Archie is appalled when his friend Steve, with whom he arm-wrestles in the tavern, admits his homosexuality.

#0105 Taped: Jan. 19, 1971- First broadcast: Feb. 9, 1971- Written by Norman Lear.

In a discussion between Archie and Mike about donating blood, Archie says that he doesn't believe the blood of one race can work in the body of another race. Archie agrees to give blood to prove he isn't afraid. At the blood bank, he meets Lionel, vzho teases Archie by appearing to agree with his views on transfusions and heart transplants.

#0106 Taped: Jan. 26. 1971- First-broadcast: Feb. 16, 1971* Writer not identified.

Archie is outraged when he learns that Gloria is pregnant, especi­ ally since Mike has no means of supporting a child. Mike is goaded into getting an apartment for himself and Gloria. Archie has a change of heart, .though,- and he is saddened to find out that Gloria has had a mis­ carriage .

#0107 Taped: Feb. 9, 1971- First broadcast: Feb. 23, 1971- Written by Philip Mishkin, Rob Reiner, Bryan Joseph, Don Nicholl.

Mike invites a young couple to spend the night at the Bunkers' house. Archie objects to Mike’s guests because of their unorthodox appearance and becomes outraged when he learns that the visitors are not legally married.

#0108 Taped: Feb. 16, 1971. First broadcast: Mar. 2, 1971* Written by Don Nicholl and Bryan Joseph.

Archie attempts to buy out the black family planning to move in down the street. lie asks Lionel to convey the offer because Archie is nervous about doing it himself. He is surprised to learn that the new neighbors are Lionel's parents, vzho intend to stay. 15^

#0109 Taped: Feb. 23, 1971* First broadcast: Mar. 9» 1971* Written by Susan Harris, Don Nicholl, Bryan Joseph.

Edith accepts a call to serve on a jury hearing a murder case that may keep her away from home for weeks. Edith is the lone juror who holds out for acquittal, despite tremendous pressure to convict. It turns out that Edith was right when another man confesses the crime.

#0110 Taped: Mar. 2, 1971* First broadcast: Mar. 16, 1971« Teleplay by Norman Lear, Don Nicholl, Bryan Joseph. Story by William Bickley, Jr.

Archie gets word that his company is about to lay off personnel, and he begins a night-long vigil waiting to hear whether he has lost his job. His watch leads to chaos when it attracts the curiosity of his family, the neighbors, a cop on the beat, and a drunken caller. He finally learns that he is to report to work.

#0111 Taped: Mar. 9, 1971- First broadcast: Mar. 23, 1971- Written by Norman Lear.

Gloria moves out of the Bunker household after an argument with Mike over women’s liberation; she demands to be treated as an equal, and Mike hedges. At first Mike is too proud to give in, but when Gloria returns he confesses that he needs her, and they are reconciled.

#0112 "Success Story" Taped: Mar. 16, 1971- First broadcast: Mar. 30, 1971- Written by Burt Styler, Don Nicholl, Bryan Joseph.

An old friend of Archie, a wealthy California car dealer, arrives in town and Archie plans a reunion with some of their Army buddies. Archie envies and admires his prosperous friend until the fast-talking, practical-joking car dealer reveals himself as a troubled, unhappy per­ son.

#0113 Taped: Mar. 23, 1971- First broadcast: Apr. 6, 1971- Written by Jerry Mayer.

Edith accepts an invitation to have dinner with Lionel’s parents, but Archie refuses to go because he has tickets to a baseball game. Archie tries to get out of going by claiming that Edith has a sprained ankle, but Lionel’s parents respond by bringing the dinner to the Bunkers. Archie and Lionel’s "father" end up in a confrontation over religion and race. Archie’s humiliation is complete when he learns that Lionel's father is really his uncle; the father refused to eat with whites and went to the baseball game instead. 155

II. The Second Season. Producer: Norman Lear. Director: John Rich.

#0201 "Gloria Poses in the Nude" Taped: July 2?, 1971- First broadcast: Sept.'25, 1971- Written by Michael Ross, Bernie West, Norman Lear.

Gloria agrees to pose nude for an artist friend of Mike’s. Archie dislikes the situation, but Mike claims that it doesn’t bother him. Later, however, Mike is forced to admit that he is jealous.

#0202 "The Saga of Cousin Oscar" Taped: Aug. 3, 1971- First broadcast: Sept. 18, 1971- Teleplay by Burt Styler and Norman Lear. Story by Burt Styler.

Just as Archie decides to get rid of his free-loading cousin Oscar, Mike discovers him dead in the bedroom, and Archie has to arrange and pay for the funeral. After trying to find a cheap way to bury Oscar, Archie relents and arranges for a $600 funeral.

#0203 "Flashback—Mike Meets Archie" Taped: Aug. 10, 1971* First broadcast: Oct. 16, 1971- Written by Philip Mishkin and Rob Reiner.

The first wedding anniversary of Mike and Gloria prompts a flash­ back to Mike’s first meeting with Archie. They argue about Vietnam and dissenters, causing Mike to walk out while Archie sings "God Bless Amer­ ica." Mike returns, they argue further, and finally Archie is told Mike and Gloria are going to get married and live with him and Edith.

#0204 "Edith Writes a Song" Taped: Aug. 17, 1971- First broadcast: Oct. 9, 1971. Written by Lee Kalcheim.

Mike and Gloria urge Edith to spend the $35 in the Family Pot to publish a song which she has written, but Archie wants to spend the money for a gun for protection against burglars. In the second act, two black burglars hide out in the Bunker home and enjoy themselves by "put­ ting on" both bigoted Archie and liberal Mike.

#0205 "Archie in tlie Lock-up" Taped: Aug. 24, 1971- First broadcast: Oct. 2, 1971. Written by Paul Wayne, Mickey Ross, Bernie West.

Archie goes to retrieve Mike from an anti-Pentagon demonstration at the United Nations and ends up getting thrown in jail himself, along with hippies, blacks, and a Jesus freak. Mike and Gloria bail Archie out with money from the protesters’ Freedom Fund* 156

#0206 "Election Show" Taped: Aug. 31, 1971. First broadcast: Oct. 30, 1971* Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Gloria and Mike are campaigning for a liberal candidate who is a woman. Archie discovers that he can't vote because he isn't registered.

#0207 "Edith's Accident" Taped: Sept. 14, 1971* First broadcast: Nov. 6, 1971* Written by Michael Ross, Bernie West, Tom and Helen August.

When Archie discovers that honest Edith has dented a parked car with her shopping basket and left a note, he is afraid they will receive a bigger bill than they deserve. His fears are confirmed when he calls the repair shop and learns the bill is $197. But the man who owns the car, a priest, arrives to tell them the bill is only $14. Archie's elaborate plans for fighting the bill are all for nothing.

#0208 "Mike's Problem" Taped: Sept. 21, 1971. First broadcast: Nov. 20, 1971* Written by Alan J. Levitt and Philip Mishkin.

Mike's worry over his upcoming exams makes him temporarily impotent, and Gloria seeks advice from her mother and from a doctor. After taking his exams, Mike goes to Kelsey’s Bar to ask Archie's advice; Archie is embarrassed but reassures Mike, who goes home to find the problem has solved itself.

#0209 "The Blockbuster" Taped: Sept. 28, 1971. First broadcast: Nov. 13, 1971* Teleplay by Michael Ross, Bernie West, Austin and Irma Kalish. Story by Austin and Irma Kalish.

Archie is ready to sell his house when he is offered $35,000 by a black block-busting real estate man. But when he finds out that Cousin Randy, with whom he and Edith plan to live in California, expects Archie to loan him $20,000 and live in the garage, Archie changes his mind.

#0210 "The Insurance is Canceled" Taped: Oct. 5, 1971. First broadcast: Nov. 27, 1971- Written by Lee Kalcheim, Michael Ross, Bernie Vest.

Archie's insurance is canceled because the company says he lives in a "high-risk neighborhood." Ironically, he is being subjected to the same kind of arbitrary discrimination that he inflicts on others. For example, he is forced to choose one of his subordinates to be fired, and he chooses Little Emanuel, a hard-working Puerto Rican, rather than Stretch Cunningham, a lazy white.

#0211 "Christmas Day at the Bunkers" Taped: Oct. 12, 1971- First broadcast: Dec. 25, 1971* Written by Don Nicholl. 157

On Christmas Day, Archie is acting like Scrooge; he was not given a Christmas bonus because he made a mistake at work. Archie takes out his frustrations on his family and others, including the Jeffersons and the milkman who wants his Christmas tip.

#0212 "The Man in the Street" Taped: Nov. 2, 1971. First broadcast: Dec. 4, 1971- Teleplay by Don Nicholl, Paul Harrison, Lennie Weinrib. Story by Paul Harrison and Lennie Weinrib.

Archie is scheduled to appear on a CBS news interview about the views of "the man on the street" on Nixon’s politics, but the television is broken and Archie can’t fix it. Finally the family troops down to Kelsey’s Bar, but just as Archie is about to appear on-screen, the show is interrupted by a special message from the President.

#0213 "Cousin Maude’s Visit" Taped: Nov. 9, 1971. First broadcast: Dec. 1T, 1971- Written by Philip Mishkin, Michael Ross, Bernie West.

Edith’s cousin Maude arrives to help Edith care for Archie, Mike, and Gloria, who all have the flu. Archie and Maude battle over politics, especially F.D.R., whom Maude reveres and Archie despises. Later, Edith and then Maude get the flu themselves.

#0214 "Edith’s Problem" Taped: Nov. 16, 1971. First broadcast: Jan. 8, 1972. Teleplay by Burt Styler. Story by Burt Styler and Steve Zacharias.

Edith is acting sweet one minute and grouchy the next. The family learns that she is going through menopause. Archie is advised by the gynecologist to be understanding and concerned, but his kindness is taken by Edith as a sign that he doesn’t love her any more. When he finally explodes and acts normally, she is reassured.

#0215 "The Elevator Story" Taped: Nov. 23, 1971. First broadcast: Jan. 1, 1972. Written by Alan J. Levitt.

Archie gets stuck on an elevator between floors with a black lawyer, a high-strung woman, and a Puerto Rican couple* The Puerto Rican woman gives birth in the elevator and Archie is both embarrassed and joyful.

#0216 "Archie and the F.B.I." Taped: Dec. 7, 1971- First broadcast: Jan. 15, 1972. Written by Michael Ross, Bernie West, Susan Harris.

Archie turns on his old friend and coworker Grundy when 'a govern­ ment investigator who Archie thinks is from the F.B.I. appears and asks a lot of questions about Grundy. V/hen Archie hears that he too is being investigated, he gets very nervous and argues with Grundy. The problem 158

is resolved when they find that the Air Force is investigating the plant workers because of a defense contract for work finished long before.

#0217 "Archie Sees a Mugging" Taped: Dec. 14, 1971- First broadcast: Jan. 29, 1972. Teleplay by Philip Mishkin and Don Nicholl. Story by Hank Garson.

Archie is witness to a robbery but doesn’t want to get involved. When he is forced to admit his knowledge, he tells the police the mugging was a Mafia execution attempt. After the newspapers print his story, Archie becomes frightened and finally tells the truth to the police: the mugger was a young blond kid.

#0218 "Mike’s Mysterious Son" Taped: Dec. 21, 1971- First broadcast: Jan. 22, 1972. Written by Warren Murray.

When a strange woman leaves a four-year old boy at the Bunker’s door with the message that he is Mike’s son, the household is thrown into con­ fusion. Mike is amused, however, until he sees a picture of the boy’s mother and recognizes her as an old flame. The whole family stays up all night discussing the problem. The woman returns the next morning to admit the child is not Mike’s. A divorcee, she left the boy with the Bunkers so that she could make a better (childless) impression on her date.

#0219 "Archie and Edith Alone" Taped: Jan. 11, 1972. First broadcast: Feb. 5, 1972. Teleplay by Lee Kalcheim, Michael Ross, Bernie West. Story by Tina and Les Pine.

Alone for eight days while the kids have gone visiting, Edith and Archie have an argument the first day. Archie says Edith is too perfect, "not human." Edith is hurt and gives Archie the cold, shoulder for the next eight days, waiting for him to say "I'm sorry." He cannot bring himself to say it but offers his apologies by buying Edith a new razor.

#0220 "Edith Gets A Mink" Taped: Jan. 18, 1972. First broadcast: Feb. 12, 1972. Teleplay by David Pollock, Elias Davis, Don Nicholl. Story by David Pollock and Elias Davis.

When Edith is given a mink coat by her rich cousin Amelia, Archie insists that she return it, because he won’t accept charity from rela­ tives. After spilling food on the coat, they send it to the cleaners; there the fur falls out, and the Bunkers are due to collect $300 insur­ ance from the cleaners. At this news, Archie changes his mind, deciding to keep the money. Cousin Amelia and her husband Ross arrive, and when they learn of the accident, Ross demands the money. The resolution comes when Edith presents the insurance check, which is made out to Amelia. 159

#0221 "Sammy’s Visit" Taped: Jan. 25, 1972. First broadcast: Feb. 19, 1972. Written by Bill Dana.

Sammy Davis Jr. visits the Bunker house to pick up a briefcase he left in Archie’s cab. The visit is chaotic, with the neighbors all find­ ing excuses to look in. One of the highlights of the episode occurs when Archie will not drink out of the same glass as Sammy Davis, who has proposed a toast to friendship.

#0222 "Edith, the Judge" Taped: Feb. 8, 1972. First broadcast: Feb. 26, 1972. Written by Lee Kalcheim.

Edith is asked to arbitrate a dispute between Archie and Zaky Girgis, the Syrian owner of a laundromat. Archie wants to sue Girgis because a washing machine broke and ruined the clothes he was washing. Girgis, however, insists that Archie overloaded the machine by five pounds. Judge Edith turns out to be the one at fault; she set back the bathroom scale on which Archie weighed the laundry by five pounds to make Archie feel better about his weight.

#0223 "Archie is Jealous" Taped: Feb. 15, 1972. First broadcast: Mar. 4, 1972. Written by Rod Parker.

Even though it happened twenty-five years ago, when Archie finds out that Edith once spent a weekend with another fellow at his parent’s cabin in the country, Archie walks out of the house. He returns later in the evening, and Edith promises not to keep any more secrets from him.

#0224 "Maude" Taped: Feb. 22, 1972. First broadcast: Mar. 11, 1972. Written by Rod Parker.

Archie and Edith go to attend the wedding of the daughter of Edith’s cousin Maude. The wedding is canceled, partly due to Archie’s . meddling. The episode serves to introduce Maude’s family—husband Walter, daughter Carol, and Carol’s son Phillip—all of whom would appear with Maude in her own comedy series the following season.

III. The Third Season. Executive Producer: Norman Lear. Producer: John Rich.

#0301 "Archie and the Editorial" Taped: July 18, 1972. First broadcast: Sept. 16, 1972. Directed by Norman Campbell. Written by Don Nicholl.

Archie appears on a television editorial to speak against gun con­ trol after Mike dares him to do so. Later the Bunkers are robbed at i6o

Kelsey’s Bar by a gun-toting thief who has seen Archie on TV. Subplot: Gloria gets a job to help bring in more money.

#0302 "Archie’s Fraud" Taped: July 25, 1972. First broadcast: Sept. 23, 1972. Directed by Norman Campbell. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Because Archie fears the Internal Revenue Service is going to catch him for not reporting $600 he earned driving a cab, he and Edith visit the IRS office where Archie plans to lie about the income. When he gets there, he has an even better idea; he tries to bribe the IRS agent. For his troubles, the agent tells him his tax returns for the last three years will be audited.

#0303 "Gloria and the Riddle" Taped: Aug. 1, 1972. First broadcast: Oct. 7, 1972. Directed by Bob Livingston. Written by Don Nicholl.

Gloria fools the family with a riddle that shows up their anti­ feminist attitudes. While they try to get the answer, they argue about abortion, women leaders, and other feminist issues. Edith finally comes up with the right answer.

#0304 "The Threat" Taped: Aug. 8, 1972. First broadcast: Sept. 30, 1972. Directed by John Rich. Written by Michael Eliss and Lila Garrett.

Bobbie Jo, the second wife of Archie’s Air Force buddy, is staying overnight with the Bunkers. She is young and sexy, and Archie is visibly attracted to her. V/hen Edith overhears Archie bragging to Mike and Gloria that Bobbie Jo made a pass at him, Edith asks the woman to leave her home.

#0305 "Lionel Steps Out" Taped: Aug. 15, 1972. First broadcast: Oct. 14, 1972. Directed by Michael Kidd. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

The Bunkers are surprised to learn that Lionel is dating Linda, Archie's niece who is visiting for a week. When Archie finds out, he is incensed and argues with everyone about the matter. Lionel’s uncle Henry is equally upset.

#0306 "The Bunkers and the Swingers" Taped; Aug. 29, 1972. First broadcast: Oct. 28, 1972. Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Norman Jonas.

Edith answers a magazine ad and inadvertently invites a mate­ swapping couple, the Rempleys, to spend an evening with her and Archie. Vlien the Rempleys arrive, they try to convince Archie and Edith to join them in "swinging." Edith doesn’t learn the truth until Louise Jeffer­ son tells her; Archie guesses it v/hen Rempley shows him nude photos. In 161

the ensuing discussion, the seemingly joyous Rempleys admit their mar­ riage is empty.

#0307 "Mike’s Appendix" Taped: t Sept. 5, 1972. First broadcast: Dec. 2, 1972.' Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Mike needs an appendectomy, and Gloria wants to call a female sur­ geon she knows, but Archie wants to call a doctor he has heard is good. To Gloria's disgust, Mike agrees with Archie. After the operation it is learned that the doctor whom Archie called was indeed a woman.

#0308 "Edith Flips Her Wig" Taped: Sept. 12, 1972. First broadcast: Oct. 21, 1972. Directed by Hal Cooper. Written by Sam Locke, Olga Vallance, Lon Nicholl

When Edith is arrested for shoplifting a wig, she worries that she is a kleptomaniac. She talks to Father Majeski about it, and then real­ izes she has a witness and it was all a mistake. Meanwhile Archie gets into an argument with the store manager.

#0309 "The Locket" Taped: Sept. 19, 1972. First broadcast: Nov. 25, 1972. Directed by Hal Cooper. Written by Robert Fisher and Arthur Marx.

When Edith has an heirloom locket stolen, Archie has plans to buy a color TV with the $300 insurance money. After he reports the loss, the necklace is recovered by the police. He tries to keep this news from the insurance agent, but Edith tells the truth and Archie loses the money.

#0310 "Mike Comes Into Money" Taped: Sept. 26, 1972. First broadcast: Nov. 4, 1972. Directed by John Rich. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Having inherited some money, Mike decides to give $200 to the McGovern Presidential Campaign. Archie, who is furious, demands the money for himself and causes Gloria to fix separate meals for Mike and herself for two weeks. Meanwhile, Mike is working nights to pay Archie, which he does at the end of the episode.

#0311 "Flashback—Mike and Gloria’s Wedding" (Part I) Taped: Oct. 3, 1972. First broadcast: Nov. 11, 1972. Directed by John Rich aid Bob LaHendro. Written by Rob Reiner and Philip Mishkin. *

Gloria and Mike's second anniversary is the occasion for a flash­ back to their wedding. This first of two segments centers on Archie’s "Polack" insults and the arrival of Mike's uncle Casmir, a large man who is a florist. Casmir, Mike, and the Bunkers discuss wedding plans; Mike 162

storms out of the house when Archie and Casmir argue over whether Gloria and Mike will be married by a Protestant minister or a Catholic priest.

#0312 "Flashback—Mike and Gloria’s Wedding" (Fart II) Taped: Oct. 17, 1972. First broadcast: Nov. 11, 1972. Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Rob Reiner and Philip Mishkin.

Archie and Mike’s uncle Casmir agree to Mike and Gloria’s demands for a civil wedding service. Archie tries to discuss the wedding night with Mike; Edith does the same with Gloria. Then Archie has a heart-to- heart talk with Gloria. The episode ends with a return in time to Mike and Gloria’s second anniversary.

#0313 "Edith’s ’Winning Ticket" Taped: Oct. 24, 1972. First broadcast: Dec. 9» 1972. Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Don Nicholl.

While Archie and Mike argue about religion and art, Edith discovers she has a 10-month old lottery ticket worth $500. Edith bought the ticket from the Jeffersons and wants to return it to them, but Archie tries to keep it. When the Jeffersons arrive, Archie argues with Uncle Henry, and Edith gives the ticket to Louise.

#0314 "Archie is Branded" Taped: Oct. 31, 1972. First broadcast: Feb. 24, 1973* Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Vincent Bogert.

A serious program about prejudice and violence. Archie finds a swastika on his door, but a young man, Paul, who is a member of the Hebrew Defense Association arrives to tell Archie the swastika was meant for another house. Archie agrees with Paul’s advocacy of violence as a defense against violence, but Mike is outraged by this attitude. The episode ends as the young man leaves the Bunkers—an explosion is heard offstage, and Archie looks out the door and says, "That was Paul. They blew him up in his car."

#0315 "Archie and the Bowling Team" Taped: Nov. 14, 1972. First broadcast: Dec. 16, 1972. Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Allan Katz and Don Reo.

Archie wants to get on the Cannonballers bowling team because they’re good and because he thinks they are right-wingers like himself. In competition for the position, he ties with Charlie Green, a black. To Archie’s surprise, Green is chosen because the Cannonballers need a black on their team. Subplot: Gloria buys Mike a purse.

#0316 "Archie in the Hospital" Taped: Dec. 12, 1972. First broadcast: Jan. 6, 1973« Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Don Nicholl. 163

In the hospital with an aching back, Archie shares a room with Jean Duval from Martinique who has a French accent. Since a partition sepa­ rates them, Archie doesn’t know his roommate is black, and Lionel, Louise, Edita, and Mike all visit Archie without telling him this fact. Duval and Archie become good friends, and Duval makes Archie realize his back trouble is psychosomatic. V/hen Duval walks out from behind.the partition, Archie is surprised and embarrassed and suddenly well.

#0317 "Oh Say Can You See” Taped: Jan. 9, 1973. First broadcast: Jan. 20, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Jess Oppenheimer, Michael Ross, Bernie West.

Archie is worried about getting old, especially after he meets an old high school classmate in Kelsey’s Bar, Bill Mulheron, who looks much younger. Archie is envious of Mulheron, who says the secret is to exer­ cise and "think young." But v/hen Archie learns that the young woman Mulheron is with is not his wife but a prostitute, Archie is more satis­ fied with his own life.

#0318 "Archie Goes Too Far" Taped: Jan. 1o, 1973- First broadcast: unknown. Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Austin and Irma Kalish.

Archie invades Mike’s privacy by finding in Mike’s closet a love poem he wrote to an old girlfriend. Mike gets angry and walks out. Archie also insists he has the right to read Edith’s diary, but Edith refuses to give it to him. Edith and Gloria are angry and go together to the apartment of one of Gloria’s friends. Alone, Archie is flustered and tries to find where they have gone. Finally Archie finds Mike and the women and reluctantly admits he'was wrong.

#0319 "Class Reunion" Taped: Jan. 23, 1973- First broadcast: Feb. 10, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Den Nicholl*

Archie goes reluctantly to Edith’s high school class reunion. He becomes increasingly jealous when people at the reunion talk about Edith’s past infatuation with Buck Evans, a school hero. He is mollified, though, v/hen he meets Buck, who is now fat and bald. But he is mystified when Edith sees Buck as handsome as ever.

#0320 "The Hot Watch" Taped: Jan. 30, 1973- First broadcast: Feb. 1?, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Sam Locke and Olga Vallance.

Archie is proud of his new $300 watch which he bought for $25, but he becomes worried when Mike and Gloria suggest the watch is stolen. The watch breaks down, and Archie is afraid to take it to a jeweler. He is both relieved and disappointed when he learns that the watch is really an $8 imitation of the expensive watch.

#0321 "Everybody Tells the Truth" Taped: Eeb. 13, 1973- First broadcast: Mar. 3, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Don Nicholl.

Archie and Mike relate two entirely different flashback versions of the same event, the breakdown of the refrigerator and the visit of two repairmen. In Archie’s eyes, he is a saint. Mike is a fool, and the black repairman is a knife-wielding black activist. In Mike’s version, equally distorted, Archie is a monster, Mike is long-suffering, and the blank repairman is a nice guy. Edith finally tells her version of the incident, which is fair and without distortion.

#0322 "Archie Learns His Lesson" Taped: Feb. 20, 1973- First broadcast: Mar. 10, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Archie is trying to get his high school diploma to get a better job. Because he is having trouble with his American History course, he decides to cheat on the exam, but Edith pastes his crib notes on a large board, and he has to take the exam without them. He passes the course anyway but he doesn’t get the job he wanted.

#0323 "Gloria, the Victim" Taped: Feb. 27, 1973- First broadcast: Mar. 17, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Austin and Irma Kalish, Don Nicholl.

Gloria is attacked and nearly raped on the street. Archie calls the police, but Gloria doesn’t want to talk about the incident. After a policeman tells them how Gloria will be humiliated in the courtroom, Mike and Archie don’t want her to testify. Edith, however, reveals to Gloria that the same thing happened to her years before, and Gloria then decides she should testify, but her husband and father win out, and she drops the complaint.

#0324 "The Battle of the Month" Taped: Mar. 6, 1973. First broadcast: Mar. 24, 1973- Directed by John Rich and Bob LaHendro. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Gloria is having her period and is in a bad mood. She calls her father "stupid" and her mother a "zero." Her ill temper climaxes in a tremendous midnight argument with Mike. Finally Edith steps in and recon ciles them by pointing out that such bitterness could ruin their marriage 165

IV. The Fourth Season. Executive Producer: Norman I^ar. Producer: John Rich. Directors: John Rich and Boh LaHendro.

#0401 ’’Archie the Gambler" Taped: July 24, 1973* First broadcast: Oct. 13, 1973* Teleplay by Michael Ross and Bernie West. Story by Steve Zacharias and Michael Leeson.

Archie comes home happy because he has won some money by betting on the horses, despite a long-standing promise to Edith not to gamble. When Edith finds he has broken his promise, she becomes angry enough to slap his face. After a day of coldness, Edith produces the note Archie wrote 20 years before promising not to gamble, and she gets him to up­ date the promise.

#0402 "Henry’s Farewell" Taped: July 31, 1973* First broadcast: Oct. 20, 1973- Written by Don Nicholl.

Louise Jefferson is giving a farewell party for her brother-in-law Henry, who has been living with them for several years. Because George Jefferson refuses to have the party at his house, it is moved to the Bunkers, over Archie’s protests. The party begins happily, but soon Archie gets everybody into an argument over race, women’s rights, etc. George gives in by coming to the party and toasting his brother.

#0403 "We’re Having A Heat Wave" Taped: Aug. 7» 1973* First broadcast: Sept. 15, 1973* Written by Don Nicholl.

The show opens with everyone complaining about the heat and Archie and Mike arguing about Watergate. Archie and George Jefferson agree on something for once: keeping a Puerto Rican couple from moving in next door to the Bunkers. When the couple decides not to move in, the house is bought by the Lorenzos, Frank and Irene. Frank is an exuberant extro­ vert, while his wife is a practical feminist.

#0404 "We’re Still Having A Heat Wave" Taped: Aug. 28, 1973- First broadcast: Sept. 22, 1973* Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Edith is becoming good friends with Irene Lorenzo, and Irene volun­ teers Frank Lorenzo’s services in cooking a gourmet meal at the Bunkers. Archie doesn’t like the Lorenzos or their cooking, but Edith insists that he try to behave himself.

#O4C5 "Edith Finds an Old Man" Taped: Aug. 21, 1973* First broadcast: Sept. 29, 1973» Teleplay by Michael Ross and Bernie West. Story by Susan Harris. 166

Edith brings home a lively old man who has run away from a rest home because he was bored. The old man surprises the Bunkers with his vitality and warns them against the loneliness and hardship of old age. The family is amazed when his future roommate appears—a ?0-year-old woman.

#0406 "Archie and the Kiss" Taped: Sept. 4, 1973* First broadcast: Oct. 6, 1973- Written by John Rappaport.

Irene Lorenzo gives Gloria a reproduction of Rodin’s "The Kiss," but Archie gives it back to Frank, calling it indecent. Gloria becomes angry and refuses to speak to Archie, who finally tries to apologize by buying her an ugly statue. Archie is embarrassed when he realizes everyone is making fun of his bad taste, but Gloria tells him she loves him anyway.

#0^7 "Archie and the Computer" Taped: Sept. 11, 1973- First broadcast: Oct. 27, 1973- Written by Lloyd Turner, Gordon Mitchell, Don Nicholl.

Because of a computer error, Edith has received some $50 worth of quarters from a prune company. Archie wants to keep the money, but Edith insists on sending it back. The computer theme continues with Edith’s receipt of a letter informing her of Archie’s death. Now Archie is no longer amused by computer mix-ups and is nearly ready to agree with Mike’s pronouncements about 1984.

#0408 "The Games Bunkers Play" Taped: Sept. 25, 1973- First broadcast: Nov. 3, 1973- Teleplay by Michael Ross and Bernie YZest.

Mike and Gloria play a new game called Group Therapy with Lionel, Edith, and the Lorenzos. Mike becomes upset when the game reveals his prejudices and faults, and he ends up in an argument with the others. There is a lot of truth-telling in the story; Mike is shown to be much like Archie in his anger and stubbornness.

#0409 "Edith’s Conversion" Taped: Oct. 2, 1973- First broadcast: Nov. 10, 1973- Written by Ray Taylor and Don Nicholl.

When Edith begins attending Mass with her friend Irene Lorenzo, Archie is worried that she is going to convert to Catholicism and tries to put a stop to it. In the meanwhile, to save money, Gloria fixes horsemeat steaks for supper, but she doesn't tell the family what they are eating.

#0410 "Archie in the Cellar" Taped: Oct. 9, 1973- First broadcast: Nov. 17, 1973- Written by Don Nicholl. 16?

After Edith, Mike, and Gloria leave for the weekend, Archie acci­ dentally gets locked in the cellar for two days. The heat goes off, so Archie drinks a bottle of vodka to keep warm and gets drunk. Believing he is dying, he recites his "last will and testickle" into a tape re­ corder and is also visited by the fantasy figures of Mike, Gloria, and Edith. He is finally freed by the oil man, who is black, and whom Archie momentarily thinks is God.

$)411 "Black is the Color of my True Love's Wig" Taped: Oct. 16, 1973- First broadcast: Nov. 24, 1973- Written by Michael Morris.

Mike is "turned on" by Gloria's wearing her new brunette wig. Home alone, Mike suggests they go to bed. When Gloria comes to bed sans wig, Mike becomes upset and asks her to put it back on. An argument ensues in which Gloria accuses Mike or loving the wig, not her. Mike sleeps on the couch, but the next day explains to Gloria’s satisfaction that the wig alone didn’t turn him on; it was Gloria wearing the wig.

#0412 "Second Honeymoon" Taped: Oct. 30, 1973- First broadcast: Dec. 1, 1973- Written by Warren S. Murray, Michael Ross, Bernie West.

Edith surprises Archie by planning a second honeymoon in Atlantic City on their 25th anniversary. But Archie has already planned to go to a basketball game. Edith prevails, however, and the two spend a senti­ mental weekend.

#0413 "The Taxi Caper" Taped: Nov. 6, 1973- First broadcast: Dec. 8, 1973- Written by Dennis Klein.

Archie is robbed of his wallet and fifty dollars by a cab fare, a young white boy. Archie urges the police to catch the criminal. But when they do, Archie drops charges because the boy’s father, a politi­ cian, has his lawyer offer Archie a $100 bribe. Archie’s wallet is returned to him by the police—empty—and he gets a ticket for illegal parking and his cab is towed from a "no parking" zone outside the police station.

#04l4 "Archie is Cursed" Taped: Nov. 13» 1973- First broadcast: Dec. 15, 1973- Written by John Rappaport.

After a heated discussion about women in sports, Irene Lorenzo challenges Archie to a game of pool at Kelsey’s Bar. After Frank Lorenzo kiddingly puts an Italian curse on him, Archie slips and feigns a bad back. At Kelsey’s Bar, Irene, who Archie has discovered is a pool champ­ ion, calls off the game because of Archie's injury. But when Irene drops some money, Archie quickly picks it up—and the game is on. 168

#04l5 "Edith Gets Ready" Taped: Nov. 20, 1973* First broadcast: Dec. 22, 1973* Written by Austin and Irma Kalish and Don Nicholl.

Edith finds a lump on her breast, and her doctor says it must be removed. Edith tells Gloria, Mike, and Irene, but she doesn't want Archie to know. Edith worries that if she has a mastectomy Archie won’t love her any more, but Irene allays her fears. Archie accidentally finds out that Edith is in the hospital and rushes to her side. She doesn't have breast cancer.

#O4l6 "Mike and Gloria Mix It Up" Taped: Dec. 4, 1973* First broadcast: Jan. 5, 1974. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Though Mike claims he and Gloria have a "fifty-fifty" marriage, he is disturbed because Gloria is too aggressive in the bedroom. Gloria and Mike argue and both stomp out of the house. Gloria returns several hours after Mike does. Mike explains that he went to a party where he met an understanding girl; Gloria says she met a sympathetic man at a restaurant. It turns out Mike really went to a movie, but he didn’t know Gloria was sitting a few rows behind him. They make up, and Mike agrees that "it doesn’t matter who starts things, as long as they get started."

#D4l7 "Archie Feels Left Out" Taped: Dec. 18, 1973* First broadcast: Jan. 12, 1974-. Written by Paul Lichtman, Howard Storm, Don Nicholl.

It’s Archie’s 50th birthday, but he won’t admit to it. He insists he is only 49 until Mike produces his birth certificate. Depressed about getting old, Archie doesn’t show up for the "surprise" party Edith has planned for him, heading for Kelsey’s Bar instead. Edith finds him there and sends in Mr. Quigley, who is 73, to talk to Archie. Archie perks up and the party members join him at Kelsey’s.

#04l8 "Et Tu, Archie" Taped: Jan. 10, 1974. First broadcast: Jan. 26, 1974. Written by Mickey Rose and Lila Garrett.

Joe Tucker, a former co-worker of Archie’s, returns to town. He’s out of work and Archie comes to believe Joe is after his job. When Archie is asked by the plant personnel manager to recommend Joe, Archie gives faint praise and also lets slip that Joe goes to a psychiatrist. Joe gets the job, as Archie’s boss, because of Archie’s recommendation, and he promises Archie he is going to do his job well—no more loafing on the dock! 169

#0419 "Gloria’s Boyfriend" Taped: Jan. 17, 1974. First broadcast: Feb. 2, 1974. Written by Bud Wiser and Bon Nicholl.

Gloria befriends George, a retarded young man who works at the grocery store. Archie thinks George is dangerous and doesn’t want him near Gloria, so he complains to the store manager, causing George to lose his job. When George disappears, his father looks for him at the Bunkers and tries to correct some of Archie’s misinformation about the retarded. George appears with a maxim for Archie and with a new job.

#□420 "Lionel’s Engagement" Taped: Jan. 24, 1974. First broadcast: Feb. 9, 1974. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Lionel and Jennie Willis are engaged and the Bunkers are invited to the engagement party. At the party the arrival of Jennie’s parents causes a stir—Mr. Willis is white. Equally prejudiced—and equally astonished—Archie and George comment on the situation and long for the old days.

#0421 "Archie Eats and Runs" Taped: Jan. 31, 1974. First broadcast: Feb. 16, 1974. Written by Paul Wayne and George Burditt.

After Archie eats stew containing mushrooms he learns that a brand of mushrooms has been recalled. Convinced that he is poisoned, Archie rushes to the hospital for the antidote. Once he returns home, he decides to sue the mushroom company, but his plans are thwarted when Edith happily announces that the brand of mushroom she bought wasn’t the brand recalled.

#0422 "Gloria Sings the Blues" Taped: Feb. 2, 1974. First broadcast: Mar, 2, 1974. Written by Michael Ross and Bernie West.

Archie and Mike are planning a fishing trip. Meanwhile Gloria is depressed, asking "Is this all there is to life?" When the men are gone, Edith describes to Gloria similar feelings that she has had, especially the feeling of suddenly no longer loving your mate. She explains that the mood is temporary, and when Mike returns home, Gloria is more cheer­ ful.

#0423 "Mike’s Graduation" Taped: Feb. 21, 1974. First broadcast: Mar. 16, 1974. Written by Don Nicholl.

Archie is looking forward to Mike’s graduation because when Mike and Gloria move out, Archie plans to make their bedroom a den. Mike, feeling he has failed, nervously awaits his grades, and his nightmares seem to come true when he is asked to report to Professor Blake’s office. 170

At home, the mail arrives and Archie opens Mike’s letter, learns that Mike passed, and thinks the den is his. Gloria and Mike return from a talk with the professor with good news: Mike is going to go to graduate school. They will he living at home for another year.

#0^24- "Pay the Twenty Dollars" Taped: Feb. 28, 197^. First broadcast: Mar. 9, 197^« Written by Robert L. Goodwin and Woody Kling.

Archie unknowingly passes a counterfeit twenty-dollar bill to George Jefferson, which precipitates an argument between them. In an effort to reconcile the two men, Edith only makes matters worse by try­ ing to give George a genuine twenty dollars. Finally, in a complicated and farcical series of money changes, Mike manages to relieve the con­ fused Archie of an additional twenty dollars.