Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Anna Pirogova

The Coexistence of Postmodernism and New Sincerity in the Modern-Day Sitcom as Exemplified by the TV Series Community Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Tomáš Pospíšil, Ph.D

2019

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author’s signature

1

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 3 Community ...... 6 A Brief History of the American Sitcom ...... 9 The 1950s – 1960s ...... 9 The 1970s ...... 12 The 1980s – 1990s ...... 13 The 2000s-Now ...... 16 Single Camera vs. Multi-Camera Sitcoms ...... 19 Postmodernism ...... 22 Intertextuality ...... 26 Parody, Pastiche and Homage ...... 29 Intertextuality and Community ...... 32 Metafiction ...... 46 Metafiction and Community ...... 49 Irony ...... 56 New Sincerity ...... 60 Community and New Sincerity ...... 65 The Importance of the Audience ...... 69 Conclusion ...... 75 Works Cited ...... 77 Primary Materials ...... 77 Secondary Materials ...... 77 Table of Figures...... 86 Abstract ...... 87 Anotace ...... 87

2

Introduction

Television has had encountered difficulties with being accepted as an art form. Even in the entertainment industry television has mostly been viewed as a ‘lower’ form of performance art. For an actor, director or a writer TV used to be the last place one would want to end up at. It was considered, by many, a place for those who did not make it in film. According to some, TV, by default, could never come close to movies in terms of creative expression.

As Andre Bazin said in 1953, “the television picture will always retain its mediocre legibility” (Butler, 2). It was not, and still is not by many, considered an art form.

However, the way of thinking has started to change. The rapid growth of cable channels and streaming services opened the doors for new, innovative creators and show runners.

As the competition became stronger, the need for original content forced the executives to take more chances on projects that, more likely than not, would have never been greenlit twenty years ago. This led to what is now commonly referred to as “The Second Golden

Age of Television” (Lawson).

As far as the academic interest in television as an art form, a huge progress has been made over the last couple of decades. The number of books, articles and research papers written on TV has been rapidly growing. Many prestige universities, not only film schools, are offering courses in TV studies, at times even dedicating a whole course to one TV series, proving that it is worthy of serious examination.

There is, however, one genre of TV that is still not considered to be up to par, the sitcom.

It is arguably one of the most criticized genres on television. In one episode of Seinfeld, arguably one of the best and undoubtably one of the most popular sitcoms of all time, the character of George tries to attract a woman’s attention by not so subtly mentioning that he

3 is developing a comedy pilot for NBC. After asking him in a shocked and disgusted manner: “a sitcom? How can you write that crap?” the woman and her girlfriend leave the bar laughing, leaving poor humiliated George alone in the bar in the position quite a few sitcom writers, directors and creators have occupied before (S4/EP9, 21:50). What might be the reason for that?

TV has often been criticized for repetitiveness in terms of style as well as storylines. Sitcom as a genre has taken, perhaps, the biggest hit for that, and, at times, not undeservingly so.

If you thinks about your favorite sitcoms, how many of them are about a group of young friends or a family? How many have a laugh track? In how many of them do characters frequently go the same bar or a coffee shop? It is very likely that multiple shows one could think of fit these categories. It is important to mention that it does not automatically make any sitcom that follows these trajectories a copy/paste of each other. Some of the most acclaimed sitcoms ever created have a laugh track or focus on friendships. However, it makes the genre of sitcom repetitive on paper.

From the sociopolitical point of view, sitcoms are often criticized for their clichéd, one dimensional characters. A stupid pretty girl, a jock, a nerd, a wise older character, a rebellious teen, a lovable fool, a jokester, a control freak, etc. The majority of sitcoms have at least one of these characters. Unfortunately, what they are criticized for is exactly what makes them valuable to the industry, namely their predictability. “They become codes that audiences can be expected to know and that writers can use to advance dramatic goals without having to explain. This is especially useful in a short form of drama like twenty- two-minute sitcom” (Butsch, 112). The situation is problematic since these kinds of characters are rarely allowed to evolve, since it would cease to make them familiar to the audiences.

4

The thesis argues that there is one sitcom that manages to stay inside the frame of the sitcom genre and, at the same time, reinvent it. Community (2009-2015) was not the most popular, well-known or critically beloved sitcom of its time, however, it could be argued that it managed to do what few have attemted to do and that is to constanly reinvent itself, not only in terms of character development, but also stylistically. The stylistic variety, as well as the show’s intertextual and metafictive nature contribute greatly to the thesis’s classification of Community as a postmodern show. However, the thesis also categorizes

Community as an example of the New Sincerity trend, which is often described as post- postmodernism. The examination of the aforementioned movements, as well as, the analysis of how the two movements manifest and coexist in Community is the main goal of the study.

The first chapter of the thesis describes the show itself, its broadcast history, as well as its plot and main characters. Moreover, the chapter touches upon the show’s postmodern nature. In order to correctly situate Community in history and comprehend why and in what manner the show, in this thesis, is considered to be unique. The second chapter presents to the readers a brief history of the American sitcom. In addition to that the examination of the differences and similarities between single camera and multicamera sitcoms is provided in order to prove that Community’s single camera format aids the show in the implementation of such postmodern tropes as pastiche, homage and parody. The subsequent chapter focuses on the examination of Postmodernism, its main characteristics, as well as, its most famous tropes, namely intertextuality and metafiction. Moreover, the chapter contains the examination of various Community episodes with well-defined intertextual and/or metafictive tones. Following that the thesis continues with the analysis of irony, a device crucial for the comprehension of both Postmodernism and New Sincerity.

5

The last chapter of the thesis focuses on New Sincerity, its history and main characteristics, as well as its connection to and significance for Community.

Community

Community (2009-2015) premiered in 2009 and concluded in 2015 with its first five seasons broadcasted on NBC and the final one on Yahoo! Screen. The show was created by Dan Harmon. Harmon’s personal experience of taking up classes at a community college at the age of thirty-two and befriending a group of unlikely individuals served as the inspiration for the show. Most of the main characters are, at least partially, based on real people (Community-Creator Dan Harmon (Paley Center, 2010), 00:03).

The show’s main protagonists are: Jeff (Joel McHale), a disbarred lawyer in his 30s who is forced to go to college to replace his fake bachelor’s degree with a legitimate one; Britta

(Gillian Jacobs), a 28-year-old high school drop out that spent most of her 20s traveling the world and forming protest groups; Shirley (Yvette Nicole Brown), a Christian housewife with two kids whose husband had left her for a stripper; Annie (Alison Brie), a straight A student that dropped out of high school due to her addiction to Adderall; Troy

(Donald Glover), a high school quarterback that lost his scholarship after sustaining an injury while doing a keg stand at a party; Pierce (Chevy Chase), a rich owner of a moist towelette company that has been married seven times and has been a student at Greendale for over a decade and Abed (Danny Pudi), a half Polish half Arabic TV fanatic that perceives life through the lens of pop-culture. The show’s supporting characters are, Senor

Ben Chang (Ken Jeong), Greendale’s only Spanish teacher and Dean Pelton (Jim Rash).

Community, as is evident from the description of the main characters, is a show with

6 multiple protagonists, which Harmon attributes to its success (Marc Maron interviews Dan

Harmon, 59:01).

Based on the description of the main characters one can see how they fit the descriptions of certain archetypes, e.g an alpha male, a jock, a womanizer, a good girl, an activist, etc.

However, under closer examination it becomes evident that the show negates the archetypes and as a result we get an alpha male with no authority, a jock that does not do sports, a womanizer that cannot get a woman, a good girl with a pill addiction and an activist that does not protest anything.

The show revolves around the seven main characters forming a Spanish study group at

Greendale Community College and gradually becoming friends. The premise is hard to call original, since hundreds of sitcoms before Community had focused on friendships, however the “execution [is] entirely fresh” (Austerlitz, 373). The creator’s inspiration behind the aesthetics of the show came from his passion project Channel 101, which gave him the idea of not treating genre as a constant. “Is it not great that these characters... and the premise are the only thing that is consistent, but the camera can just decide that this week it is a thriller?” (Marc Maron interviews Dan Harmon,1:30:25).

In his book The Condition of Postmodernity David Harvey reviews Jonathan Raban's publication Soft city, in which the author depicts the city (London) as “a series of stages upon which individuals could work their own distinctive magic while performing a multiplicity of roles” (Harvey 5). In other words, the city becomes whatever those living in it want it to become. It is accommodating. Similar description could be applied to

Greendale Community College. It is its creator’s sandbox. From episode to episode Dan

Harmon would decide what it would become, a crime scene (S3/EP17), a battle field

(S1/EP23), a political stage (S2/EP17), a film stage (S3/EP8) or even an epicenter of a

7 zombie attack (E2/EP6). The places and the setting in Community are explored as a flexible unity, capable of metamorphosis.

Community never managed to obtain a huge viewership, specifically for a Network sitcom, which the show often acknowledged on and off the air. Season one DVD includes a 10- minute cast evaluation video done by the creator of the show, Dan Harmon, that begins with following lines: “Hi, I’m Dan Harmon. I created NBC’s Community. Community has had its ups and downs this year. Its ups were the night we followed The Office (only the

Pilot episode) and people left their TVs on by accident. Its downs were the rest of the season” (Community Season One Cast Evaluations, 00:07). Post season one the viewership ratings continued to decline and after a series of scandals, departures of some of the lead actors and the replacement of the showrunner in season four, NBC canceled the show after five seasons, endangering the show’s motto “six seasons and a movie”. At the last moment it was picked up by Yahoo! Screen and renewed for the final sixth season.

Community is built on the foundation constructed by its multiple predecessors. The premise, the single camera format, the lack of laugh track, the pop-culture references, the combination of funny and heartfelt moments, relatable characters and the self-referentiality have all been done before. What Community brings to the table is the representation of the masterful symbiosis of all the aforementioned components. In order to comprehend how

Community developed and why the thesis considers it unique, it is important to explore its multiple predecessors.

8

A Brief History of the American Sitcom

The story of the sitcom is a capsule version of the twentieth-century arts-

realism giving way to modernism, and then to postmodernism, all between

the weeknight hours of 8:00 and 10:00 (7:00 and 9:00 central) (Austerlitz, 1).

This chapter tries to define what a sitcom is and give a brief overview of the historical development of a sitcom in the United States. It is important to mention that the chapter deals only with sitcoms produced in the United States. Furthermore, the chapter explores the differences between single camera and multicamera sitcoms, which is important for the correct comprehension of the analysis of postmodernism and its main tropes in later chapters.

According to Busch, “situation comedy is built around a humorous ‘situation’ in which tension develops and is resolved during the half hour. In episode after episode the situation is re-created” (111). It does not mean, however, that any humorous show with the runtime under 30 minutes should be considered a sitcom. A multitude of different comedy programs falls under these categories, e.g. a sketch comedy, a dramedy etc. It must be mentioned that in terms of classifying TV programs, the lines are, at times, blurred. Orange is the New

Black or Atlanta are good examples of this kind of fluidity of categories.

The 1950s – 1960s

Sitcoms are older than television itself. In a similar fashion to soap operas, sitcoms originated as radio programs and gradually moved from audio to visual medium (Butler,

173). The sitcoms of the 50s brought the US exactly what it needed at the time, stability

9 and structure (Austerlitz, 8). Some of the most popular sitcoms of the era are I Love Lucy

(1951-1957) and The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961-1966), with the former being a truly pioneering sitcom. It single handedly created the three-camera sitcom format (Austerlitz,

18).

The rise of the sitcom genre began, coincidentally, with the dwindle of the production of feature films in the 1960s. Subsequently, multiple movie stars, whose careers had begun to wane, decided to regain their popularity by appearing/creating/starring in a sitcom, resulting in multitude of talent being involved in the production of sitcoms (Marc, 2).

Moreover, from the onset sitcoms became incredibly popular amongst viewers. “More people watched “Lucy Goes to the Hospital”, to witness Ricky Ricardo Jr.’s arrival in the world, then tuned in to Dwight Eisenhower’s inauguration as president the next day”

(Austerlitz, 32).

Broadly speaking, the sitcoms of the 1950s-1960s paint a picture of a traditional nuclear family overcoming everyday obstacles (Butsch, 119). According to Austerlitz, many sitcoms of the type were produced as morality plays and had a hidden, generally not well hidden, message to the audience and could now be considered “the source of much deeply flawed wisdom” (53). Very little changes or happens in the episodes of, e.g. Leave It to

Beaver (1957-1963) and it was intentional. In the post war America what TV was needed for was the sense of comfort. “The sitcom was meant to soothe, not ruffle…”, and that is exactly what Leave It to Beaver and other sitcoms of its kind did (Austerlitz, 56).

It would be unfair, however, to say that the sitcoms of the 50s and 60s were boring and unimaginative. Interestingly enough, connections could be found between such shows as

Community, 30 Rock and I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners, mainly their obsession with television as a subject matter. The number of households owning TV sets increased drastically in the 1950s and sitcoms of the time were fascinated with its existence and the 10 role it played in the lives of American citizens. The first episode of The Honeymooners,

“TV or Not TV”, “was about a debate then taking place in millions of American homes: should the Kramdens buy a TV?” (Austerlitz, 31). In a way, it was the beginning of self- reflexivity in sitcoms. In an episode of Father Knows Best (1954-1960), called “Father Is a Dope”, the family gets together around their television to watch their favorite show,

Father Does it Again. The episode’s main source of humor comes from the family criticizing the show, with the main character saying – “Oh, these ridiculous TV family situation shows” (Austerlitz, 58). The show is winking at the audience, letting them in on the joke.

“TV had known that in some ways, its preferred subject was television itself…” (Austerlitz,

68). The title character of The Dick Van Dyke Show (1961-1966) is the head writer of a comedy show, the idea later elaborated on and adopted by multiple sitcoms, e.g 30 Rock

(2006-2013). His occupation gives the show and its characters a reason to frequently discuss TV and make it the sitcom’s central component.

Moreover, Marc argues that certain shows broadcasted during these decades should receive some credit for the innovative techniques they implemented in their run, which resulted in the transformation of the whole genre, e.g. The George Burns and Gracie Allen Show

(1950-1958) frequently broke the fourth wall. “In some ways, the 1950s were a time of experimentation and innovation because the rules had not been firmly established” (14).

As time went on, the home environment sitcoms were spiced up by unusual and often magical circumstances as in, for example, the shows Bewitched (1964-1972) and Dream of Jeanie (1965-1970) (Austerlitz, 86). Despite the fact, that the main female protagonists of the shows possessed superpowers, at their core they were the same upper-middle class kitchen-sink sitcoms. However, it is important to mention that the 1960s sitcoms were bolder than their 1950s counterparts in certain aspects, e.g. the Samantha and Darrin from 11

Bewitched were allowed to share a bed, unlike not as lucky Rob and Laura from The Dick

Van Dyke Show.

The 1970s

As the 1960s started to come to an end, the family values and superiority of adults over children in family set sitcoms began to alienate younger viewers. The era demanded changes. The family values and roles of women that many popular shows, such as Leave it to Beaver, promoted did not manage to stand the test of time (Kutulas, 21). In addition to that, during that time network executives realized that younger people were a gold mine.

As Kutulas puts it: “The spending possibilities of boomers as they moved into adolescence did not escape the TV industry” (20). That being the case, the sitcoms started to attempt to cater to younger audiences (Kutulas, 20).

Consequentially, the sitcoms of the era became bolder, edgier and more progressive. The

Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970-1977) depicts a single woman, working in a predominantly male environment. The show was intended for younger viewers, whereas preceding sitcoms catered to families and married women. Mary Richards is depicted as a self- contained, independent and happy to be single (Austerlitz, 105).

Other prominent shows of the era include The Bob Newhart Show (1972-1978) and All in the Family (1971-1979), latter of which broke multiple television taboos. It was one of the first sitcoms to acknowledge the political and social situation in the US at the time. Norman

Leer, one of the creators of All in the Family said: “We followed a whole bunch of shows like Father Knows Best, Leave it to Beaver, Green Acres, and other shows of the 60s. They were all fine shows, but you would think by watching them that America had no blacks, no racial tension, that there was no Vietnam” (Austerlitz, 115). The show openly discussed

12 racism, homophobia, miscarriages and many other topics. The show, by present standards, is extremely non-politically correct and “so much a product of its own time it is hard to watch today”, however, it paved the way for many shows to follow.

Another groundbreaking sitcom of the 70s, M*A*S*H (1972-1983), redefined the tone of the sitcom. It was one of the first to combine funny and serious moments. M*A*S*H showed the viewers that there is a place for heartfelt and even heartbreaking moments in a twenty-two minute comedy show with a laugh track. The same model was later on adopted by such sitcoms as Scrubs (2001-2010), Mom (2013-) and many others. It was a new pinnacle in sitcom realism, as the setting was inspired by true events (Austerlitz, 133).

Moreover, M*A*S*H is one of the first sitcoms to play with the form of a sitcom. The groundbreaking episode “The Interview” is shot in a mockumentary style (Austerlitz, 135).

“Point of View” is an episode shot from the viewpoint “of a wounded soldier, with surgeons and nurses crowded around the injured man, directly addressing the camera” (Austerlitz,

137). To add to the list of pioneering qualities, M*A*S*H is also one of the first sitcoms to kill off one of its main characters. This could be considered the moment when sitcoms stopped being safe and committed to never change, shock or surprise audiences (Austerlitz,

139).

The 1980s – 1990s

If there is one show to describe the 1980s, it is Cheers (1982-1993). Cheers, for better or for worse, is responsible for the creation of ‘will-they-won’t-they’ dynamic between the main male and female characters of a sitcom. This TV trope has since been so persistent, it would be difficult to find a sitcom post Cheers that has not utilized it (Austerlitz, 160).

The sitcom era of the 1980s could be described as return to safety. With the end of the innovatory 1970s, came the time of “a comfortable, audience-pleasing routine” (Austerlitz,

13

1965). Cheers is a great example of that. It aimed to please. Cheers, and most importantly, its idea of the artificial, substitute family is the inspiration behind such sitcoms as Friends and Community (Auterlitz, 167).

The Cosby Show (1984-1992) marked the sitcoms’ return to a family setting (Austerlitz,

177). The torch was later passed on to such shows as Roseanne (1988-1997, 2018) and

Married…with Children (1987-1997). Both sitcoms mark the era of bluntness and impoliteness in the sitcom. The Conners and Bundys are living hand-to-mouth, trying their best to survive and hardly ever winning in life, however, they are not ashamed of it

(Austerlitz, 194). They “were unapologetic for not being upper-middle-class and rather metaphorically thumbed their noses at those expectations” (Butsch, 127).

The 1990s brought the world one of the most innovative and influential shows ever created, the longest running sitcom ever, The Simpsons (1989-). The creators of The Simpsons took the familiar family setting and made it into whatever they wanted it to be, episode by episode (Austerlitz, 209). The Simpsons is one of the first shows to truly embrace pop- culture and use it to its advantage. The show is one of the first to not only mention other

TV shows, movies and other cultural phenomena, but to utilize it in forms of pastiches and homages. “The Simpsons was self-referential television with a vengeance. Everything was fodder for appropriation;” (Austerlitz, 211). The animation format allowed the creators and showrunners the liberty to turn the show into whatever they wanted to not only in terms of the subject matter, but also in terms of cinematography (Austerlitz, 214). Without The

Simpsons there would be no South Park, Arrested Development or Community (Austerlitz,

219). The Simpsons, The Larry Sanders Show and Seinfeld made the 1990s the decade of self-aware television. “What TV wanted, more than anything, was to talk about itself”

(Austerlitz, 218).

14

The Simpsons’ existence undoubtably contributed to the creation of such shows as South

Park (1997-) and Family Guy (1999-), shows almost completely devoted to commenting on pop-culture and socio-political changes. These sitcoms do not pretend to develop their characters. Instead, the characters act as empty vacuums that could be filled with their creators’ thoughts and ideas.

Seinfeld (1989-1998) will forever go down in history as the show about nothing. Seinfeld, comparably to Cheers or Friends, is a sitcom that follows adventures of a close group of friends. What makes Seinfeld stand out is its overwhelming self-obsession. The show overall, and its characters in particular, do not care about anything or anybody else, but itself/themselves. “Seinfeld is, in essence, ‘a long, boring story with no point to it’, at least as we generally understand ‘points’. Its plots don’t arc; its characters do not develop. The show’s unofficial mantra was ‘no hugging, no learning’, and it stuck to it assiduously for it nine seasons” (Austerlitz, 227). Seinfeld, as, e.g. Arrested Development, is a show which revolves around characters that are difficult to relate to and the fact that people kept tuning in for nine years is, partially, what makes the show genius. Any writer knows that if you are writing about nothing, it would better be written well, and Larry David and Jerry

Seinfeld deliver almost every time, with David taking it up a hundred notches after

Seinfeld’s demise and creating Curb Your Enthusiasm (2000-).

The Larry Sanders Show (1992-1998), similarly to Seinfeld, acquainted the audiences with deeply flawed, self-absorbed characters. The sitcom was one of the firsts to jump to cable.

HBO provided The Larry Sanders Show team with the unparalleled freedom of expression unknown to sitcoms produced by broadcast channels. Moreover, the sitcom’s single camera format and the lack of laugh track made it revolutionary and the inspiration for such sitcom as 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation and Community (Austerlitz, 249). Additionally, the show’s plot could be considered the new peak of self-absorbed, metafictional television. It

15 was the show about the making of a talk show “that was also, in some fashion, actually a talk show” (Austerlitz, 244).

Regardless of the groundbreaking Seinfeld, The Simpson and The Larry Sanders Show, probably nothing screams the 90s as loudly and clearly as Friends (1994-2004). The sitcom is not groundbreaking in its form (multicamera show with a laugh track), nor in its plot (a group of twenty-something friends experiencing life), nevertheless, it was one of the first sitcoms to focus on creating a personal relationship with their audiences and making it one of their main objectives. Austerlitz refers to it as a substitute relationship (260). “Friends collapsed the distance between television and real life, offering its passel of buddies as fill- in companions for a nation of stay-at-home television watchers” (Austerlitz, 269).

Community definitely took a page out of Friend’s book in that regard. It only truly works if the audiences like and care about the characters. Martin claims that the connection between audiences and sitcoms is stronger thanks to the fact that, generally speaking, comedic protagonists are much more down to earth and relatable than the dramatic ones and, furthermore, sitcoms usually revolve around an ensemble cast, making the odds of a random viewer association himself/herself with one of the main characters much higher

(22).

The 2000s-Now

Towards the end of the 90s and the beginning of the new millennium, the creators’ urge to experiment with the format increased and not always to the delight of mass audiences.

Freaks and Geeks (1999-2000), a cult favorite that managed to stay on the air for only one season, continued with the M*A*S*H’s tradition of mixing up humor and drama. Its 44- minute run time and lack of laugh track make it impossible to call it a sitcom, and even difficult to call it a comedy. However, it is important to mention, since Freaks and Geeks

16 enormously contributed to the blending of genres and further successes of such shows as

Gilmore Girls (2000-2007, 2016), Glee (2009-2015), Orange is the New Black (2013-),

Louie (2010-2015) and many others that are neither comedies, nor dramas. Sitcoms did not have to pick anymore. They could be both (Austerlitz, 303). They could be simultaneously sentimental, heartwarming, hilarious, corny, tragic and anything in between.

To continue with the line of critically beloved and almost completely ignored by mass audiences sitcoms, one has to mention Arrested Development (2003-2006, 2013-). The single camera show with occasional self-aware narration never managed to appeal to enough people to become a hit and was canceled after three seasons. The show’s self- awareness and metafictional humor stand out due to their boldness. The show is not winking at the audiences anymore, it blatantly tells them that they are watching TV.

“‘Please’, the narrator beseeches those of us who happened to be watching, ‘tell your friends about this show’” (Austerlitz, 328). The unlikable, selfish, privileged characters featured in the show also did not help to attract the viewers. At the end of the day there is almost no one to root for and when the Bluths family (the protagonists) fails over and over again, the audiences do not, nor should they, feel bad. Arrested Development, in a similar fashion to Curb Your Enthusiasm or Louie is there to make you uncomfortable, which, according to all previously established rules, is the opposite of what a sitcom is supposed to strive for (Austerlitz, 335).

Scrubs (2001-2010), arguably, could be considered the beginning of the New Sincerity movement in American sitcom. It is the comeback to likable, but more realistic, characters who try their best and who audiences can root for. ‘No hugging, no learning’ rule is left behind. Austerlitz refers to the show’s tone as “quirky-but-near-realistic” (363). The show’s protagonist, J.D, is the opposite of what most audiences except from a leading man.

He is gentle, not particularly popular with women, dorky and constantly seeking approval

17 from his supervisor and is completely comfortable being that. There was no shame, anymore, in being genuine.

The Office, in a similar fashion to Scrubs, depicts likable, flawed and quirky, but sincerely trying their best characters. The show continued the tradition of self-referential humor, enabled mainly by the mockumentary format that made it possible for the characters to address the camera directly (Austerlitz, 350). The Office’s success opened the doors for such shows as Parks and Recreation (2009-2015), a show about an idealistic, honest politician, Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) and her crew. The sitcom continues the path paved by Scrubs and The Office in portraying eccentric characters that are, at first sight, almost cartoonish. Constantly making scrapbooks Leslie Knope and clearly not understanding what sexual harassment is Michael Scott sound more like weird supporting characters from a B- romantic comedy. The quirky best friends of well-adjusted, handsome main characters. However, as the characters develop the audiences get to see them as kind- hearted, emotional, a little peculiar, but humane individuals.

Perhaps the most critically beloved sitcom of the 2000s, 30 Rock (2006-2013), similarly to

Community and Parks and Recreation, struggled with attracting the viewers throughout its whole run. 30 Rock is, following in The Larry Sanders Show’ footsteps, is a sitcom about the making of a television show, which greatly contributes to its meta humor and intertextuality. “The show’s character’s live in a TV-drenched universe” (Austerlitz, 365).

The vast difference between the two shows, however, is the tone. With the new millennium the cynical, sarcastic coloring was left behind. The characters of 30 Rock genuinely love television.

It could be said that sitcoms came full circle. They started off as unable or unwilling to comment on and/or discuss the outside world, so they focused on what they knew best, themselves. The 1970s brought up the desire and need to look outward and discuss socio- 18 political situation in the country. Gradually, after almost every taboo had been broken, the sitcoms got tired of discussing everyone and everything else and came back to its favorite topic, themselves.

Single Camera vs. Multi-Camera Sitcoms

The chapter’s purpose is to briefly describe the main differences and similarities between single camera and multicamera sitcoms. The distinction is vital to the correct comprehension of the thesis, since it will try to explain why Community’s single camera format is instrumental in its ability to adopt and utilize various postmodern techniques, such as pastiche, parody, homage etc. It is important to mention that the goal of this chapter is not to prove the superiority of one format over another, but to demonstrate how the single-camera configuration allows more freedom in deploying various postmodern tropes.

Single camera sitcoms have experienced a resurrection over the last decade with such shows as Scrubs, The Office, Parks and Recreation, The Middle or Community appearing on TV. Despite the fact that single camera comedies are not a new to the medium, hardly any were produced before the 1990s. One of the reasons for such popularity of multicamera sitcoms is money. Multicamera sitcoms are faster to shoot and to edit, hence the production is cheaper (Butler, Television Critical, 153).

The multicamera format has greatly contributed to the formation of the whole genre of situational comedy. For the longest time the two had been almost inseparable. However, it might also be considered one of the reasons why sitcoms have been heavily criticized for repetitiveness. All multicamera sitcoms look quite similar. They might be set in New York or Boston, be about a group of young friends or a family, one thing remains the same, all

19 of the houses, offices, bars and cafes depicted in multicamera sitcoms look alike. The reason for this type of “stylistic plagiarism” is mise-en-scène and lightening of multicamera sitcoms.

Any scene in a multicamera format show, to some extent, resembles a theatre stage. The absence of the fourth wall and the production setting, with most of the action taking place mainly in the foreground of the stage, unquestionably aids in the creation of theatre environment (Butler, Television Style 177). “I Love Lucy carried distinct reminders of vaudeville. Practically every episode would pause for a musical number…” (Austerlitz,

20). Moreover, multicamera sitcoms rarely, if ever, shoot on location and spend the majority of the runtime in one of multiple sets built on a sound stage. It is one of the reasons why sitcoms heavily rely on dialogue rather than action (Butler, Television Style, 191).

Single camera sitcoms stray further away from the theater environment and adopt a more cinematic look. Furthermore, according to Butler, “…the single camera aesthetic adds prestige to sitcoms as it associates them with prime-time dramas and theatrical releases…”

(Television Style, 215)

The lightening in multicamera sitcoms is broad and, as Butler refers to it, “high key”, meaning that it is very even and rarely, if ever, changes throughout the run of an episode, regardless of the space (outside/inside) or time of day (day time/night time). The reason for that is the simultaneous utilization of multiple cameras, which requires plain lightening

(Television Critical, 153). As a result, it is not used as a tool of storytelling. Whereas in single camera shows the lightening may change scene to scene, or episode to episode and might be used in cooperation with the plot.

The sound varies greatly between single-camera and multicamera shows. As Butler puts it,

“televisual programs like The Larry Sanders Show, The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm

20 are marked by an audacious use of silence, frequently awkward silence”, which is drastically different from the majority of multicamera network shows filled with laughter, applause and other forms of audience participation (Television Style,215). Moreover, the use of background music or score, apart from opening credits, is, more or less, absent in multicamera sitcoms, whereas single camera ones have the ability to convey mood and create certain atmospheres with the help of sound.

Stylistically speaking, single camera shows have a lot more freedom. They are not confined by the audience’s presence and, as a result, they are able to shoot on locations and/or create mise-en-scenes with more depth to them, in terms of the physical location of actors/props/furniture. Butler illustrates it with the sitcom Scrubs, which shot the majority of its interior scenes in a non-functioning hospital, which was made possible by the single camera format of the show (Television Style, 198).

It is important to mention that the multicamera format is arguably a perfect fit for a comedy genre. Laughter is a social phenomenon and people are less likely to laugh when they are by themselves. Moreover, “studies have shown that people are more likely to laugh in response to a video clip with canned laughter than to one without a laugh track… (Michel).

Additionally, the presence of an audience, their laughter, and other forms of audience participation fabricate the feeling of immediacy, on other words, “it encourages viewers to experience the program as if they were members of that audience that witnessed the program live” (Butler, Television Style, 194).

Single camera sitcoms lose these advantages, nonetheless, what they gain is the ability to employ lightening, varies camera techniques, score, music and editing more freely and that is, to a great extent, what allows Community to utilize various postmodern tropes. For example, according to Butler, despite the fact that pastiche is not new to the comedy genre, it is virtually non-existent in the multicamera sitcom format (215). It might be attributed to 21 the fact that pastiche, to a great degree, is created with the aid of music, lightening and camera work, which, as mentioned above, is, more or less, set in stone in a multicamera genre.

Postmodernism

One might argue that this chapter is completely redundant. The very word postmodernism has been around for so long that it seems as if there is no need for explanation. The sole number of books and articles written on the topic can fill a library. However, if one is asked to explain the term, the answers could be polarizing. It could be argued that the problem with the term postmodernism arises not from the lack of research, but from the abundance of it. It seems everyone has his/her own interpretation. When David Foster Wallace was asked to define postmodernism, his responded that “it’s a very useful catch-all term, because you say it and we all nod so as if we know what we are talking about and in fact we don’t” (David Foster Wallace in Conversation with Charlie Rose, 21:35). No wonder everyone is confused.

The purpose of this chapter, nonetheless, is not to explore in great details what postmodernism is, but to try to define its main features that will be beneficial for the correct comprehension of the thesis and will aid the understanding of the main tropes of postmodernism utilized by Community, such as intertextuality, metafiction, irony, pastiche and homage, which will be discussed in later chapters.

Postmodernism is a polarizing topic for academics. While some view it as era of destructive, negating ideas and shallowness, others, e.g. Jameson, McRobbie, perceive it as a movement that raises and tries to answer questions that had not been asked before

22

(McRobbie, 2). Moreover, McRobbie argues that the postmodern tendency of fragmentation could be perceived as a way to get deeper into each separate issue/question

(4). “It implicitly challenges the narrowness of structuralist vision, by taking the deep interrogation of every breathing aspect of lived experience by media imagery as a starting- point” (McRobbie, 13).

It is extremely hard to pinpoint exactly what postmodernism stands for. According to one of the most prolific postmodern scholars Hutcheon, postmodernism “takes the form of self- conscious, self-contradictory, self-undermining statement…Postmodernism’s distinctive character lies in that kind of wholesale ‘nudging’ commitment to doubleness, or duplicity”

(The Politics of Postmodernism, 1).

Lindas, in turn, refers to postmodernism as “an umbrella term”, meaning that it strives to incorporate a multitude of categories, rather than one specific element (4). Basing her research on works of Bran Nicol and Brian McHale, Lindas states that postmodernism, while an incredibly complex topic, could generally be described as a shift “towards a more deconstructed understanding of knowledge”. “Modernism asked how we know what we know, but Postmodernism asked what we can know” (5).

As its name suggests, postmodernism is the movement that follows modernism. All movements, generally speaking, have one thing in common, they are all a product of their predecessors. In other words, they emerge as a reaction to the existing climate.

Postmodernism is not an exception. It is a response to modernism. The correlation between modernism and postmodernism a topic of heated debate. Ziegler claims that postmodernism neither completely negates modernism, nor does it choose to follow in its footsteps, which also contributes to the growing number of polarizing views on the definition of postmodernism (285). One of the pioneers of the movement, Lyotard views postmodernism not as a separate entity, which followed modernism, but as “a more radical 23 trend concurrent with modernism” (Eyvazi, 154). Allen agrees with the view, claiming that

“modernism can never simply be opposed to postmodernism, since the latter movement continually relies on and exploits the former’s styles, codes and approaches, just as it relies on and exploits those of other historical periods” (188).

One of the few things almost everyone can agree on, regarding postmodernism, is the rejection of universal ideas and truths that the movement perpetuates. The world is not black and white, in fact, for postmodernists, it is anything but that (Harvey 9).

Postmodernism’s negation of grand-narratives enables the emergence of multiple points of view in a single work of art.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that postmodernism could be classified as ‘form- conscious’, in other words, postmodern art is as interested, if not more, in how something is presented as in what is presented. “Society demands with an intensity that is spiritual, yet totally secular, that we show ourselves, that we display “personality,” and this demand cannot be met except through impersonation” (Hartman). It manifests in postmodern art’s tendency to play with form.

Furthermore, it must be pointed out, that postmodernism is rooted in referentiality, as well as self-referentiality. It is heavily influenced by history, social and cultural norms, music, films, TV, advertisement etc. Any postmodern art must include some type of commentary.

It is observant and, at the same time, introspective. Postmodernism denies any possibility of art’s independence from other art, which is a classical formalistic approach (Hutcheon,

6). No piece of art is created in isolation from the rest of the world, as a result, it is virtually impossible for it not to be influenced by the said world. “The postmodern is self- consciously art "within the archive" (Foucault 92), and that archive is both historical and literary” (Hutcheon, 6). Moreover, Hutcheon claims that art in segregation would lose its meaning, since “it is only as part of prior discourses that any text derives meaning and 24 significance (7). Subsequently, originality as a concept and as one of the main goals in a creative process disappears (Hutcheon, 7). In a way postmodern art tells you upfront that it has no intentions of defending itself from being called unoriginal since it is very much aware of it and even proud of it. The point will be further discussed in chapters on metafiction and intertextuality.

In addition to that, it is important to note that postmodern art brings the relationship between an author and his/her audience to the periphery. Ziegler insists that postmodernists

(paper deals with writers) “by bringing the reader into the text and distancing the text from external reality - a reality naturally laden with ideology - the author tries to create a purely literary zone in which author and reader can meet free of contemporary constraints” (290).

Moreover, Ziegler claims that numerous postmodern authors wish to “redefine the role of the reader” (291). That is not to say, however, that postmodernists strive for the creation of a “good reader”, nor is it an attempt to place all responsibility of interpreting and/or understanding a text on the shoulders of a reader. Rather it is an attempt to get to a point where an author and a reader would be “jointly engaged” (291). In a way, it could be perceived as democratization of art. The author ceases to be god. Nicol claims that

“postmodern writing challenges us because it requires its reader to be an active co-creator of meaning rather than a passive consumer”, which many readers could find frustrating and

Nicol considers it one of the reasons for postmodern art (the paper mainly discusses literature) getting the reputation of being difficult, at times even impossible to understand

(xiv).

25

Intertextuality

In a nutshell intertextuality could be explained as using/echoing other texts/works of art in a new work of art. Roots of the expression could be traced back to the twentieth century

(Allen, 2). “The term intertextuality was initially employed by poststructuralist theorists and critics in their attempt to disrupt notions of stable meaning and objective interpretation”

(Allen, 3).

Kristeva explores intertextuality in terms of horizontal and vertical axes, with the horizontal one being between a subject and an addressee, while the vertical one implies the relations between text and context. According to her, the simultaneous occurrence of the two axes leads to the following conclusion: “each word (text) is an intersection of word (texts) where at least one other word (text) can be read” (Shakib, 1).

There are quite a few theories on how intertextuality came into being. In accordance with the Roman theorists, it derived from the process of imitation (Shakib, 2). It has to be noted, however, that intertextuality is not a copy-paste imitation and has to involve some kind of progress, alteration done to the original. A new work of art must be elaborative and use its inspiration from another work of art (hypotext) as a point of departure (Eyvazi, 156). Otherwise it is an imitation that could potentially be considered plagiaristic.

The number of types and categories of intertextuality varies greatly from one study to another. Shakib in his paper distinguished between two significant types of intertextuality, ekphrasis, which is a written description of a visual media and incotext, which could be described as a work of art, in which the visual and written media are inseparable (2). According to Miola, one could roughly distinguish three categories and

26 seven types of intertextuality. Under the first category fall such types as revision, translation, quotation and source. Under the second category one could find such types of intertextuality as conventions, configurations and genres. The last third category includes a single type of intertextuality, referred to as paralogues. It is not focused on the author’s input as much as it is focused on the reader’s interpretation of the work based on the conditions in which the work was read and/or presented to the reader (13).

Barthers classifies text as “a tissue of quotations drawn from innumerable centres of culture” and claims that “the writer can only imitate a gesture that is always anterior, never original” (315). According to Allen, the idea of intertextuality comes down to rejection of the notion of genuine originality and acceptance of the fact that the meaning of any text could only be derived from its connection to other texts (6). “Texts whether they be literary or non-literary, are viewed by modern theorists as lacking in any kind of independent meaning. They are what theorists now call intertextual” (Allen, 1).

Haberer supports Allen’s viewe and believes that the concept of intertextuality is inseparable from the concept of “death of the author” or, in other words, the tendency to perceive art as not belonging to the author, but as standing on its own merit and not belonging to anyone (58). Barthes, in turn, claims that the death of the author is inseparable from the notion of the reader being in charge. “The reader is the space on which all the quotations that make up a writing are inscribed without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin but in its destination” (316).

For the majority of the critics, the main problem with intertextuality is the implied inability to escape it. If everything has already be said, what is the point? Furthermore, if the only new way to say something that has already been said is by the means of parody or irony, how can anything be sincere? These questions will be further explored in later chapters. 27

Nonetheless, while intertextuality has been criticized for relying too heavily on the outside sources and, as a result, lacking originality, it has also gained a lot of defenders, as, for example, Haberer, who believe that intertextuality narrows the gap between fiction and reality and “can help us approach the truth of man’s relation to language and the real, and the cause of our love for literature and poetry” (61).

Other scholars, such as Hutcheon, claim that intertextuality allows to ‘situate’ a work of art in history, and by doing so gives it substance. “It is only as part of prior discourses that any text derives meaning and significance” (7). Besides, Hutcheon proposes that intertextuality is too narrow a term to fully grasp and explain how postmodernists find inspiration in other types of discourse, such as writing, visual art and various sociological disciplines and proposes the term “interdiscursivity” (12).

Postmodernism and intertextuality are closely entwined. The majority of postmodern works of art leans on referentiality (Hutcheon, 3). Intertextuality in postmodern age and art has become even more widespread. According to Allen, “our experience of modern art…increasingly comes to us in forms of reproduction…The ‘simulacrum’, the copy, comes to replace the ‘real’” (182). Film and, one could also say TV, media could be described as the most intertextual of all other artistic genres. “According to Metz, film, picture, color, sound, motion, and adaptation from literature, whether technological or mechanical, make film a sort of technical intertextuality” (Shakib, 3). Moreover, it could also be mentioned that film and television are quite young media and, as a result, it is virtually impossible for them not to draw inspiration from their ancestors, such as literature, paintings, poetry, etc., even if it is done accidentally and without author being consciously aware of it. After all, every author is a product of the historical, political and cultural climate he/she has been brought up in.

28

Parody, Pastiche and Homage

Parody is the forefather of all imitative techniques. It is “at least two thousand years older that pastiche” (Dyer, 40). Hutcheon defines parody as “a form of imitation…characterized by ironic inversion” (A Theory of Parody, 6).

Parody could be, and is, in this thesis, classified as a type of intertextuality, since at its core it is a type of relationship between two texts (Dentith, 5). “In this sense, parody forms part of a range of cultural practices, which allude, with deliberate evaluative intonation, to precursor texts” (Dentith, 6).

Parody is susceptible to criticism, as it is often viewed as derogatory, low-level humor, or mockery for the sake of mockery. It is important to mention, however, that while parody is viewed by some as a parasitical form of art, it does serve important functions. “Parody can act to preserve the very forms that it attacks” (Dentith, 37). Dentith, refers to the idea as “parodic paradox” (36). The view is further supported and elaborated on by Hutcheon, who claims that postmodern art (she specifically talks about literature) manages to make use of the art that precedes postmodern age by parodying it, which paradoxically is a way of criticizing it and paying it respect (14). Hutcheon describes postmodern parody as

“double-coded”, meaning that “it both legitimizes and subverts that which it parodies” (The

Politics of Postmodernism, 101).

The French word with Latin roots pastiche entered the English lexicon circa 1880s (Yen-

Mai, 1). The roots of pastiche are hard to trace, however, Hoesterey believes that pastiche (pasticcio) might have originated in the Italy in the sixteenth century, when the increased “demand for Renaissance art in Rome and Florence…led to a lively market,

29 which encouraged many average painters to produce covert imitations of High

Renaissance masters” (2).

As Dyer puts it, “pastiche is a kind of imitation that you are meant to know is an imitation” (1). It is partially why Dyer classifies it as “an aspect of irony” (3). That factor sets pastiche apart from other imitative techniques, such as plagiarism and forgery, with the latter ones being successful only if the imitation goes unnoticed (Dyer, 24). Another distinction, according to Dyer, is the degree of imitation. In other words, pastiche, while an imitation, has to have an original idea behind it. Pastiche embraces an original work of art and reshapes, reworks and/or transforms it to its own liking. Plagiarism, on the other hand, imitates an original to such a degree that it cannot be considered novel (26).

While the distinctions between such techniques as pastiche and forgery are, arguably, well- defined, the lines between such imitative methods as pastiche, homage and parody are less clear-cut. Relying heavily on the research done by Gérard Genette and Linda Hutcheon,

Yen-Mai comes to the conclusion that the dissimilarity between parody and pastiche lays in the level of transformation. While parody is a type of commentary that focuses more on the distinction between text A (original) and B (its parody), hence it is more transformative, pastiche “is an imitative technique, characterized by marking similarities rather than differences” (Yen-Mai, 3). Acccording to Dentith, pastiche “works by imitation rather than direct transformation” (11), while “parody involves the imitation and transformation of another’s words” (Dentith, 3).

According to Jameson, the difference between pastiche and parody is in the intention and ulterior motive. In his paper Jameson claims that any parody, regardless of the fact that a parodist must at least enjoy the original in order to make a parody of it, is always created with mocking, one can even say demeaning sub tones. In other words, a parodist, be it willingly or unwillingly, always demonstrates how he/she feels about a work of art that is 30 the object of parody. Pastiche, on the other hand, imitates while remaining impartial.

Jameson uses the phrase “blank parody” in order to explain it. In other words, pastiche does not manifest any appraisals, thoughts or feelings towards the original (Jameson, 16).

According to Dyer, both Yen-Mai and Jameson are correct in their theories and further concludes that “its (pastiche’s) very closeness to what it imitates prevents it from having the distance necessary to critique” (157). It further distinguishes it from parody, which is a form of evaluative discourse that is often used as a tool of criticism (Dentith, 32).

Apart from pastiche being criticized as unoriginal, Dyer mentions how and why pastiche could be considered elitist, due to the necessity from the side of the viewer/reader to understand that what is presented to him/her is in fact pastiche (3). Pastiche “imitates other art in such a way as to make consciousness of this fact central to its meaning and affect” (Dyer, 4). On the other hand, a chapter in Dyer’s book is dedicated to the emotionality of pastiche. According to him, even if the reader is aware that what is being displaced in front of him/her is a type of imitation, there is no reason why it cannot be moving and emotionally engaging (168). This goes against pastiche’s previous reputation as a snobbish, elitist trope.

The difference between pastiche and homage also lays in the viewpoint adopted by the techniques. Homage, according to Dyer, “expresses an attitude of admiration towards” a work of art, artist or genre it is attempting to imitate (35). Pastiche, as mentioned above, strives to remain impartial. (48). However, Dyer admits that the differences between the two are extremely difficult to pinpoint with complete certainty (48).

Resultantly, it is important to mention that the thesis, specifically in the chapter which discusses intertextuality employed by Community, relies on the following description of the three imitative techniques. “Homage and parody always imply, respectively, a positive or negative evaluation of their referent, whereas pastiche does not do so 31 necessarily, that is, by definition and a priori” (Dyer, 23). It must be noted, however, that the distinctions are, to a degree, subjective and could be debated.

One of the questions in connection to parody, pastiche and homage is why these tropes are so successful? One of the reasons for that must be recognition. We as viewers/readers/listeners recognize the undertones and references, which in turn makes us feel intelligent and quick. Another reason, according to Jameson, might be nostalgia. The hidden, or not hidden, allusions are capable of bringing us back to the good times, to the times when we enjoyed a particular piece of art (20). “Postmodern pastiche is about cultural memory and the merging of horizons past and present” (Hosterey, xi). The similar view is held by Wallace, who attributes the success of such postmodern TV traits as referentiality to familiarity. “Put simply, the pop reference works so well in contemporary fiction because (1) we all recognize such a reference, and (2) we’re all a little uneasy about how we all recognize such a reference” (166).

Intertextuality and Community

The chapter explores various examples of intertextuality that could be found in Community, mainly by examining separate episodes, which particularly stand out for its intertextual nature.

The episode “Investigative Journalism” contains a number of direct and indirect references to M*A*S*H, including the character of Jeff being compared to the character of Hawkeye.

The episode concludes with a freeze frame of the main characters. Yellow font end credits, senseless in this case, reminiscent of the ones used in the hit 70s sitcom and the M*A*S*H theme song playing in the background further aid the referentiality (S1/EP13).

32

Figure 1 Community S1/EP13 Credits, 20:15

Figure 2 M*A*S*H S10/EP14 Credits, 24:06

Community is not trying to be careful or secretive in its allusions. However, it is important to mention that each reference in the show is rarely used simply for the sake of it. It is a plot moving devise. In the case with “Investigative Journalism” the comparison to

M*A*S*H is way to show the audiences the importance of the roles assigned to each character, specifically Jeff’s position as the appointed leader of the group.

The episode “Contemporary American Poultry”, which plot revolves around the group cheating their way into the cafeteria kitchen and gaining power on campus using chicken fingers as their currency, is a pastiche of the mafia movie genre, specifically of such films as The Godfather (1972) and Goodfellas (1992). The effect is achieved though the implementation of voice over narration, done by the character of Abed - “as far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be in a mafia movie” (S1/EP21, 3:44), as well as cinematography and music. The director Tristram Shapeero makes use of freeze frames as well as tracking shots, comparable with the style of such directors as Martin Scorsese. The song Layla by Derek and the Dominos used in the episode evokes in a viewer the images

33 from the movie Goodfellas (1992). Furthermore, the episode’s themes, such as power, loyalty, greed and the desire to fit in bear striking resemblance to the themes frequently explored in mobster films. The episode ends with Abed’s explanation of why he, the executor of the plan, has been trying to keep the charade in operation. According to Abed, it allowed him to get closer to the group and the rest of the campus. “Everyone else needs my help…I need to be able to connect to people like you can, and then I can make everyone happy” (S1/EP21, 18:12). This is one of the many examples of Community using pop- culture and intertextual allusions, not as an easy way to get a laugh, but as a tool that helps to move the plot forward and/or explore the main characters.

It is important to mention the power of music in the creation of allusions in Community, since the use of Layla in “Contemporary American Poultry” is not the only example. To name a few examples, the dancing to the song We Are not Alone by Karla DeVito undoubtedly brings the audiences back to The Breakfast Club (1985) in the episode

“Communication Studies” (S1/EP16). The score is also instrumental in creating a menacing atmosphere, characteristic of many disaster films, such as Poseidon (2006) or

The Perfect Storm (2000) in the episode “Beginner Pottery”, which plot revolves around the group learning how to sail in a parking lot (S1/EP19).

“Epidemiology” is a Halloween episode, the plot of which revolves around an infection spreading around the campus during a Halloween party. It is a pastiche of a zombie-horror movie genre, with such movies as Alien (1979), Night of the Living Dead (1968), Men in

Black (1997), Star Track and Star Wars franchises serving as the inspiration and being directly or indirectly referenced. The episode is partially narrated by George Takei, who introduces himself to the viewers as George Takei, further adding to the intertextual feel of the episode. The episode achieves the feel of a zombie movie, partially thanks to cinematography, specifically the lightening and darker color scheme.

34

“Modern Warefare” is one of the first episodes of Community to truly embrace the idea of pastiche. It would be difficult to list all the films and TV shows the episode references or pays homage to. Die Hard (1988), Glee (2009-2015), The Simpsons (1989- ), Saving

Private Ryan (1998), Scarface (1983) (Austerlitz, 371). However, the episode does more than simply reference or allude to movies. It adopts and molds to its own liking the look, feel, and sound of the genre of action and apocalyptic movies. What starts off as a regular episode, turns into an action movie two minutes into it. The change is so drastic, that it becomes evident immediately, even before the characters utter a single word.

Figure 3 Community S1/EP23, 00:36

Figure 4 Community, S1/EP23, 02: 53

The color pallet, compared to the beginning of the episode, is muted and the crane establishing shot is reminiscent of an apocalyptic film. The episode was directed by Justin

Lin, mainly knows for directing multiple films of the Fast and the Furious franchise. The cinematography of the episode truly deserves attention. The camera changed the Greendale

Community College into a battle field, using crane and high angle shots, as well as choreographed battle scenes.

35

Figure 5 Community S1/EP23, 07:22

Figure 6 Community, S1/EP23, 11:25

“Intermediate Documentary Filmmaking” is an homage to the mockumentary style format, which gained popularity in the sitcom genre with the emergence of the both British and

American versions of The Office, as well as such shows as Parks and Recreations and

Modern Family. The plot of the episode revolves around Abed making a documentary about Pierce. The episode’s cinematography is distinctly different from the show’s previous episodes. The shaky hand-held camera technique resembles the cinematography of a documentary filmmaking, as well as the aforementioned sitcoms. Uncharacteristically for the majority of Community episodes, the characters directly address the camera, in the technique known as talking head. The episode begins with Abed explaining his motivation for doing the documentary. “I am excited about the narrative facility of the documentary format. It’s easier to tell a complex story when you can just cut to people explaining things to the camera” (S2/EP16, 00:50). Following that statement the camera cuts to the character of Pierce explaining the plot of the episode to the camera. “See, (camera is back on Abed) fish in a barrel” (S2/EP16, 1:27). The use of sound in the episode should also be noted. It is, overall, a much quieter episode, there is no background score music, except for the final

36 montage and the natural sounds of the hospital, on the premises of which the episode takes place, such as phone rings, chatter of the nurses, PA announcements. The sound, on a par with cinematography, aids in the creation of the atmosphere of realism that most mockumentary shows are trying to imitate. While it might seem that the mockumentary style is ridiculed in the episode and that it should be considered a satire, or at the very least a parody, the show does acknowledge its importance and effectiveness, which is why in the thesis it is considered an homage. The episode concludes with a montage accompanied by Abed’s voiceover narration:

I thought the documentary format would be like fish in a barrel, but, as is the

case with real barrel of fish after a while it can become cramped, chaotic and

stinky. Fortunately, if in the end your documentary is turning out just as

messy as real life, you can always wrap it up with a series of random shots

which, when cut together under a generic voice-over, suggest a profound

thematic connection. I’m not knocking it. It works (19:30, S2/EP16).

“Documentary Filmmaking: Redux” is the second documentary/mockumentary style episode of Community. The plot revolves around Abed shooting a documentary about the

Dean shooting a new commercial for Greendale, which leads to chaos. “As a student of character I have a feeling that trying to make this commercial may cost the dean his sanity.

My camera follows the fire, not the smoke. Ever seen Hearts of Darkness? Way better than

Apocalypse Now” (S3/EP8, 1:37). The episode, similarly to its predecessor, contains multiple shots of characters addressing the camera, as well as hand-held shaky camera shots, reminiscent of the documentary style filmmaking.

“Abed’s Uncontrollable Christmas” is the first Community’s episode to truly depart from the show’s usual style. The episode is stop motion animated and is shown from the point of view of Abed, who starts seeing the world in Claymation. According to the creator Dan 37

Harmon, the aim was to create a sad and melancholic Christmas episode (Creating

Wonderland, 1:38).The episode pays homage to the classic stop motion animated

Christmas episodes and also gets its inspiration from such movies as Willy Wonka and the

Chocolate Factory (1971) and The Wizard of Oz (1939) (Creating Wonderland, 3:29).

Figure 7 Community S2/EP11, 06:38

“Critical Film Studies” is an homage to the films My Dinner with Andre (1981) and Pulp

Fiction (1994). The episode begins with a voiceover narration by the character of Jeff, who explains that Abed invited him to a restaurant “for an important conversation” on his birthday, while the rest of the group waits for them for a Pulp Fiction theme surprise party.

(S2/EP19, 00:34). The majority of the episode is devoted to Jeff and Abed’s conversation, which mimics the movie. The homage is achieved via the voiceover narration, the wardrobe of the characters, as well as the use of music. Gymnopédie No.1 by Erik Satie is used in the episode as well as in My Dinner with Andre.

Figure 8 Community S2/EP19, 04:24

38

Figure 9 My Dinner with Andre, 09:35

The episode concludes with the reveal that Abed invited Jeff in order to create an homage to My Dinner with Andre.

Jeff: “I spent a week planning a party just to make you happy and then I bailed

on the party and ruined it, again, just to make you happy. Then it turns out

that while I was wasting my time trying to make you happy, you were making

yourself happy all over everyone else by doing yet another stupid movie

spoof” Abed: “I prefer the term homage” (S2/EP19, 17:14).

The episode “Basic Rocket Science” is an homage to the space adventure movies, such as

Apollo 13 (1995), Armageddon (1998) or The Right Stuff (1983). The effect of pastiche is achieved through the use of music and score, as well as cinematography and dialogue.

Figure 10 Community S2/EP4, 01:36

39

Figure 11 Armageddon, 1:05:03

The opening tracking shot of a man running to Dean Pelton’s office is reminiscent of the scene in The Right Stuff, in which a man is seen running down a hall to informs the president about the Soviet space program.

Figure 12 Community S2/EP1, 00:05

Figure 13 The Right Stuff, 44:19

Moreover, the episode is a half-hour commercial for KFC and the show does little to hide it. As Troy says, “there is a time and a place for subtlety and that time was before Scary

Movie” (S2/EP4, 15:38).

“Pillows and Blankets” is a pastiche of the documentary style filmmaking, specifically history documentaries. The pastiche is achieved with the use of voiceover narration provided by Keith David, an actor who previously narrated such documentaries as The War

40

(2007) a World War II documentary miniseries created by Ken Burns. The episode contains numerous still shots, maps, graphs, cell phone and security camera footage, slow motion shots, as well as interview scenes, all of which cinematographically aids in the emulation of the war documentary genre (Behind the Scenes of Community Pillows and Blankets,

00:58).

“The First Chang Dynasty” is a pastiche of various heist films, such as Ocean’s Eleven.

The plot of the episode revolves around the group trying to break into Greendale in order to save Dean Pelton. “The answer is simple. We just have to plan an elaborate heist”

(S3/EP21, 6:06). Such tropes of the genre, as narrating the master plan over a montage, which depicts the plan’s execution, impersonating other people and plot twists are explored in the episode. “The best part of the plan is that at a certain point it’s gonna look like the plan is failing. But that’s when it’s gonna turn out that the failing plan was all part of the plan” (S3/EP21, 11:11).

“Regional Holiday Music” is a parody of the show Glee (2009-2015), which could be considered one of Community’s favorite targets. The show is referenced in multiple episodes. Moreover, the characters frequently mention their dislike towards Greendale glee club. “Write some original songs!” (S1/EP23, 9:22). Community takes its own advice. All the songs performed in the episode are original. “Not liking Glee Club does not make us bullies. And implying that is reverse bullying!” (S3/EP10,9:22). The comment refers to

Glee’s creator, Ryan Murphy’s public criticism of the band Kings of Leon for not allowing

Glee to use their music on the show (Perpetua). The episode’s plot revolves around the group being gradually persuaded to join the glee Christmas pageant. The process of recruitment of each character is an allusion to Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978).

(Community: Inside Regional Holiday Music, 00:31).

41

Genres are classified for their similarities. In other words, enough features associated with a particular genre have to be present in a work of art for it to be assigned to the said genre.

Pastiche operates and is created with these identifying features in mind.

The Western is instantly recognizable, in its look (cowboys and Indians,

homesteaders, prairies and deserts, townships, ranches and saloons,

sometimes wagon trains, sometimes cavalry, Playbill lettering, certain stars)

and its sound (gunshots, horses’ hooves, the clink of spurs, laconic male

speech, distinctive musical scoring)…You won’t get all of these in one film,

but you will get enough to evoke a world and with that other expectations

(Dyer, 93).

The genre of Spaghetti Western, which Community pastiches in the two-part season two finale is in itself, according to Dyer, pastiche. “The spaghetti, pastiche sense of Europeans doing Americanness without quite inhabiting it is carried in the names of both the heroes and the actors playing them, as well as of other personnel” (103). It answers affirmatively to the question of whether pastiche itself could be imitated. “A Fistful of Paintballs” and its continuation “For a Few Paintballs More” (the titles directly reference the classic

Spaghetti Westerns A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and Fore a Few Dollars More (1965). One of the main themes of the episodes, loyalty, is frequently explored in Westerns. The opening credits, as well as each character’s introduction in the episode mimic the opening credits of various Western films, such as A Fistful of Dollars (1964). The score of the episode is inspired by the classical Western scores composed by Ennio Morricone. The characters’ wardrobe is also evocative of the Western genre, with hats, boots, spikes and ponchos appearing seemingly out of nowhere.

42

Figure 14 Community S2/EP23, 09:08

Towards the end the episode slowly departs from the Western genre and to the homage of

Star Wars (1977), which the second part of the finale “For a Few Paintballs More” embodies. The characters, at least the character of Abed, are aware of the change. “It seems that we have left the Western motif and are entering more of a Star Wars scenario”

(S2/EP24, 2:02). The homage is partially achieved with the text crawl used in the opening sequence.

Figure 15 Community S2/EP24, Opening Credits

Moreover, the plot of the episode which revolves around the students trying to defend the school from invasion in a game of paintball assassin, is reminiscent of the plot of various

Star Wars films.

“Basic Lupine Urology” is pastiche of the crime procedural genre. More specifically it is an homage to the TV series Law & Order. The resemblance is evident from the opening credits, done in style and accompanied by the score reminiscent of the famous drama.

43

Figure 16 Community S3/EP17, Opening Credits

The episode also makes use of the title cards, indicating the time and place, resembling the ones used on Law & Order. The episode’s plot revolves around the study group trying to find out who is responsible for ‘killing’ their yam, their project for biology class. The episode’s structure mimics the structure of a Law & Order episode, with its first half devoted to the investigation and the second one to the prosecution. The episode explores such clichés of the procedural genre, as chasing after a suspect, the stereotype of a bad and good cop, the fight between the prosecution and detectives and the idea of a cop breaking or not following the rules as the only way to get justice. The characters’ wardrobe, long black coats, leather jackets, pant suits etc, mimics the clothing worn by characters in a procedural drama. Moreover, the actress Leslie Hendrix, best known for playing a medical examiner on Law & Order, makes a cameo as the school’s botanist.

Figure 17 Community S3/EP17, 07:13

44

Figure 18 Community, S3/EP17, Closing Credits

“Basic Intergluteal Numismatics” is a pastiche of the psychological thriller genre, e.g.

David Fincher’s Zodiac (2007) or Seven (1995). The plot of the episode revolves around the group trying to identify and catch the “Ass Crack Bandit” that has been terrorizing the campus. The allusion to the thriller genre is achieved immediately with the opening shot, which depicts the exterior of the campus during a rainstorm that could be seen and/or heard throughout the rest of the episode, which could remind the audiences of such movies as

Seven. Moreover, from the opening shot the episode is noticeably tinted green, which is a trope frequently used by cinematographers to create an ominous and uneasy atmosphere.

Green color scheme could be seen in such films as Zodiac or The Matrix.

Figure 19 Community S5/EP3, 00:02

“Grifting 101” pays homage to the classic movie The Sting (1973). The homage is partially achieved with the use of music, Scott Joplin’s The Entertainer is used in the episode. The composition is also used in the aforementioned movie. “They definitely had a plan in The Sting. If anyone wants to watch it, it’s important you know it knocks out half a calendar day…Also be warned, 20% of the movie is hand

45 drawn” (S6/EP9, 14:48). Moreover, the use of illustrative seemingly hand-drawn title cards to mark the progression of the plot are used throughout the episode, further inviting comparison with the film.

Figure 20 Community S6/EP9, 03:02

Figure 21 The Sting, Opening Credits

It is important to mention that the episodes described in the chapter are selected on the basis of the prominence of use of various intertextual techniques. The chapter does not discuss all intertextual allusions employed by Community, mainly due to the fact that it would require an examination on a bigger scale and a longer thesis format.

Metafiction

The biggest thing for me that was interesting about postmodernism is that it

was the first text that was highly self-conscious. Self-conscious of itself as

text, self-conscious of the writer as persona, self-conscious about the effects

that narrative had on readers and the fact that readers probably knew that. It

46

was the first generation of writers who had actually read a lot of criticism –

David Foster Wallace (Charlie Rose interview 1997, 22.12).

Intertextuality is frequently described as a metafictive technique (Hotti, 20). Moreover, it would be fair to say that metafiction is the highpoint of introspection in artistic media.

Metafictive art consciously and deliberately draws attention to itself. “The principal topic of metafiction is fiction itself.” (Hotti, 3). “If realism called it like it saw it, metafiction simply called it as it saw it seeing itself see it” (Wallace, 161).

It is important to mention that in the thesis metafiction is considered to be one of the tropes tightly associated with postmodernism. That is not to say, however, that it had not been utilized before the age of postmodernism. According to Levine, the self-reflexivity in literature can be found in such publications as Cervantes’ Don Quixote (63). The correlation between postmodernism and metafiction is still a heated debate amongst academics. While such scholars as Patricia Waugh see the two concepts as virtually inseparable, others, e.g. Currie and Hallila, debate that the two are not as closely related as is perceived by majority (Hotti, 12). In other words, postmodern art does not need to be metafictive and vice versa (Hotti, 16). However, it would be fair to say that during the postmodern era the technique became more widespread, specifically in television.

According to Levine, metafiction is successful and appropriate provided that it is not infringing and aids in storytelling (65). In other words, it has to feel natural and not forced.

Levine recognizes that the idea is highly subjective and dependent on each reader’s interpretation. “Each reader contributes to the text by bringing an individual set of ideas, sympathies, and life experiences, thereby altering its meaning and the level of intrusiveness involved in authorial presence” (65).

47

Metafiction is not new to TV. However, as the number of programs released and the number of hours that people dedicate to watching TV has gone up, the amount of self- referencing has dramatically increased. Sitcoms, as any fiction media, rely on the audiences believing that the characters and situations presented to them are real. That is not to say that the audiences are actually expected to believe that the characters exist in reality.

However, they are presented as real and are presumed to be perceived by the audiences as verisimilitudinous, or plausible to be real. In other words, the audiences have to be able to suspend disbelief in order to be immersed by a show. Multiple scholars, e.g. Robert Stam refer to the practice as “illusionism”, which implies that a program “presents its characters as real people, its sequence of words or images as real time, and its representations as substantiated fact” (Garcia, 146).

That is why metafiction could be described as groundbreaking. It undermines the illusionism and draws audiences’ attention to the fact that what they are watching/reading/listening to is, in fact, fiction. This threat to the idea of ‘realism’ in fiction is often the basis for the criticism of metafiction. However, metafiction has also gained a lot of supporters, for instance, Levine argues that the criticism of metafictive art on the basis of it being unrealistic is a flawed one. “It is important to liberate this proposed field of criticism from the assumptions of realism, namely that any element which disrupts the illusion of fiction is a detriment, so that these works are evaluated fairly and not rejected out of hand” (64). Moreover, the defenders of metafiction argue that one of its purposes is to make readers (in our case audiences) more alert and attentive not only to a piece of art itself, but to “their existence, the world around them, their roles as readers” (Hotti, 10).

Furthermore, metafictive art could be criticized on the basis of it being self-obsessed. In the episode “Paradigms of Human Memory” the character of Jeff says: “Abed, stop being

Meta. Why do you always have to take whatever happens to us and shove it up its own

48 us?” (S2/EP21, 15:30). The sentence quite succinctly summarizes the grounds that some criticism of metafiction is based on. Metafictive art, is, by definition, self-centred, as a result, it is, arguably, at times justifiably, and at times not, described as self-absorbed and narcissistic.

Let us now take a look at reasons for metafiction’s widespread popularity in postmodern art, specifically in sitcoms. Metafiction is frequently used to create discourse. It could be used by authors as a new tool of storytelling. It enables authors/creators to walk a fine line between fiction and reality. Levine mentions Barth’s classification of the process as

“literature of replenishment”. “The replenishment is the process of recognizing the transaction of storytelling between reader and writer, as well as the transaction between reader and the field of literature, to create new forms of writing which are as psychologically mimetic as its modern and premodern ancestors” (Levine 66).

It is important to mention that metafictive art presupposes that a reader/viewer is aware of

“the field of fiction and uses this understanding in order to make its thematic points”

(Levine, 66). This presupposition is, simultaneously, the trope’s backbone and one of its main limitations. To which extent can an author rely on a reader’s/viewer’s knowledge of a genre, or a separate piece of work, in the creation of a piece of art? How wide of an audience can metafictive art have, if it caters to well-informed readers/audiences only?

Metafiction and Community

In Community Abed could be considered the audience’s guide into intertextual and metafictive tones and sub tones of the series. He is the most self-aware of all the characters on the show and, as coping mechanism, perceives real life and talks about it as if it were a TV show. He is often the puppet master of the series. “Abed, why are you

49 mining my life for classic sitcom scenarios?” –asks Jeff in the premiere of the second season. “I guess I am just excited about the new year. Looking for ways to improve things. I am hoping we can move away from the soapy relationship-y stuff and into bigger, fast-paced, self-contained escapades!” (S2/EP1, 5:43). Abed spends the whole episode trying to make it more exciting, manipulating the rest of the characters in order to make the episode more interesting, by his standards.

Abed perceives the study group and the situations and problems they encounter as plotlines and/or plot twists. At the beginning of the first season, while observing Pierce and Jeff arguing he comments: “Conflicts like this will ultimately bring us together as an unlikely family” (S1/EP2, 15:00). When Annie asks for his help with an experiment and says that they are friends, he responds with: “I didn’t realize we were really good friends. I figured we were more like Chandler and Phoebe. They never really had stories together” (S1/EP3,

3:57). While debating whether they should let another member into the study group Abed defends the idea, saying: “Buddy (the new member) might be a puckish agent of change that changes our lives for the better through musical montage” (S1/EP13, 6:50). The reference alludes to the trope of musical montage used by a multitude of films and/or TV shows as a way to show the audiences the passage of time and evolution of characters and their relationships. After Annie informs the group that she is leaving for the summer in the finale of season one, Abed views it as “a classic last-day-of-school plot twist” (S1/EP25,

8:17). Later one, the audiences see him repeatedly turn off the lights in the study room.

When confronted, he says that he was “giving things a finale vibe (S1/EP25, 11: 50). Abed freely admits that he can connect to people only through movies and television (S1/EP24).

Abed explains life with the use of pop-culture references. “Jeff protected my honor. It was like My Bodyguard, but I was the kid from Meatballs, Jeff was the guy from Full Metal

Jacket and the mustache guy was the brother of the guy in Entourage” (S1/EP12, 2:56).

50

Moreover, he explains and views others through the same lens. When Pierce is forced to leave the group, Abed is the first one to recognize his importance as the group’s scapegoat to the group’s dynamic and the reason why he recognizes it is, of course, because he perceives the dynamic of the group as a TV formula. “It’s very dangerous. We have lost our Cliff Clavin, our George Costanza, our Turtle, or Johnny Drama, or Eve. Man, that show was sloppy” (S1/EP22, 8:45).

That is not to say, however, that the show claims that Abed actually believes that he is a character on a TV show, despite the fact that other characters at times make such assumptions. “Abed, it makes the group uncomfortable when you talk about us like we are characters in a show you are watching” (S1/EP6, 3:16). “I can tell life from TV, Jeff. TV makes sense. It has structure, logic, rules and likable leading men. In life we have this. We have you” (S2/EP1, 15:11). However, the prism of pop culture allows the character to make sense of the world and communicate with others.

Community often refers to its sitcom structure in a metafictional way and even forms episodes around it. The episode “Cooperative Calligraphy” revolves around the group locking themselves in the study group in order to identify who stole a pen. The entire episode takes place in one room and the characters repeatedly refer to it as “a bottle episode”. “I hate bottle episodes. They're wall-to-wall facial expressions and emotional nuance. I might as well sit in the corner with a bucket on my head” (S2/EP8, 3:44). The term ‘bottle episode’ refers to an episode of television, with is shot on one stage and with the involvement of main cast members only. The concept has been utilized by various shows as a way to save money, since production costs are lowered by the use of single- location and limited, if any, background actors (Brown).

“Paradigms of Human Memory” is a humorous view on one of the most popular sitcom crutches, clip show. Generally speaking, a clip show episode mainly consists of 51 fragments/clips from previous episodes revealed to the audiences via flashbacks or characters remembering something from the past. The popularity of the technique, just as the popularity of bottle episodes, could be explained by monetary and/or time reasons. It is faster and cheaper to produce such episodes, since a substantial part of such episode usually consists of a montage of various shots/scenes from previous episodes. The plot of

“Paradigms of Human Memory” revolves around the group remembering best moments of the year. The moments are reveled to the audiences as flashback clips, however, all the clips used are new, specifically made for the episode. The fact defeats the very purpose of a clip show, since the production value is not decreased. Moreover, the episode parodies/pays homage to (depending on the way one looks at it) the shipping fan videos, which mainly consist of various clips assembled together over romantic music (S2/EP21,

10:16).

The show is also known to allude to the formulas on which a lot of TV shows and movies are based on. Towards the beginning of the third act of the episode “The Art of Discourse”,

Abed and Troy’s conversation suddenly turns into a fight that is almost immediately resolved. The fight is followed by Abed making the following mark in his notepad:

“ridiculous situation descending into heavy-handed drama for the illusion of story. Check”

(S1/EP22, 13:57).

“In metafictive literature, at least according to Waugh, what seems to be parodied often is an entire genre”, which, based on Community, could also be said about metafictive television (Hotti, 22). Episode “Epidemiology”, which is a pastiche, homage or parody, depending on one’s interpretation, of the horror movie genre, is also highly metafictional. The characters, at least some of them, seem to be aware that they are in a horror movie. After being chased by ‘zombies’ (their infected classmates), part of the group finds themselves in a basement. The character of Jeff comments : “oh, cool, a

52 dark basement. I was just thinking that we should be doing this in a dark basement

“(S2/EP6, 13:10). When Abed sacrifices himself to save Troy, his last comment is:

“Troy, make me proud. Be the first black man to get to the end” (S2/EP6, 15:32). The joke refers to the recurring practice of black characters being killed off in horror movies.

The show, on numerous occasions, acknowledges its own unrealism. At one point one of the supporting characters says: “we came so close to having one class that wasn’t all about them”, recognizing how improbable it is that everything that happens on campus involves the main characters (S2/EP22, 7:33).

The episode “Curriculum Unavailable”, in its metafictional fashion, addresses certain criticism of the show. When the psychologist asks why the characters have been attending

Greendale for three years, if most community colleges last only two, Jeff replies: “everyone is always saying that. The average community college student attends school five to seven years. Many offer four-year degrees!” (S3/EP19, 17:02).

In season four finale the character of Pierce says “I don’t get it. We just had Christmas and now it’s warm outside!” (S4/EP13). The comment refers to the fact that NBC delayed the premiere of the fourth season from October 2012 to February 2013, as a result all thematic episodes, including Christmas theme episode “Intro to Knots” aired in April. During the finale of season five Abed apologizes to Annie for not wishing her “a Happy Birthday, or

Halloween, or Christmas, or any specific calendar event” (S5/EP13, 20:10). The comment refers to the fact that season five did not include any thematic episodes, since during its production it was not clear when the episodes would air, and the production team probably wanted to avoid the situation with season four.

The episode “Pillows and Blankets” ends with the characters of Abed and Troy hosting a telethon, in order to raise money for ‘Greendale Campus Television’. The characters plead

53 for the audience’s support. “If you want to help us out, if you want Greendale Campus

Television to stay on the air, keep the lights on. We’re literally this close to losing our fund…” (S3/EP14, 21:06). The camera fades to black in the middle of a sentence. The sequence could be viewed as reference to the show’s low ratings and constant fear of cancelation that loomed over Community throughout seasons three to five.

The episode “Conventions of Space and Time” features a subplot of Pierce and Shirley participating in a test group organized by TV executives, who are trying to find out what

American audiences find confusing about Inspector Spacetime, in preparation of rebooting the series for American audiences. While Shirley is seen saying “I am friends with a couple of huge Inspector Spacetime fans and I think what they like about the show is that it’s smart, complicated and doesn’t talk down to its audience” (S4/EP3, 11:21). The comment could be considered a reference to NBC urging Community’s creator and producers to make the show more accessible to wider audiences.

Season five premiere “Repilot” marks the return of Dan Harmon, who was rehired by NBC as the show runner. The episode features the return of the main characters to Greendale

Community college. Consistently with the rest of the series, Abed seems to be aware of what is happening behind the camera. “We can repilot. This could be like Scrubs, season nine, a revamp a do-over” (S5/EP1, 5:42). The comment refers not only to the episode, but to the rest of season five, which mostly ignores the events of the fourth season, the only season to not feature Dan Harmon as the show runner. Moreover, the characters repeatedly refer to the season as the “gas leak year”.

During its final sixth’s season, the show underwent some major changes. After its cancelation by NBC the show moved to Yahoo Screen, what is more, several main actors, including Donald Glover and Yvette-Nicole Brown, left the show in its fifth season.

Moreover, new characters, e.g. Frankie (Paget Brewster) and Elroy (Keith David), are 54 introduced in the season. Fans’ and critics’ concerns about the future of the show are addressed in Abed and Frankie’s conversation in the premiere of the season, specifically in Abed’s monologue:

My umbrella concern is that you as a character represent the end of what I

used to call 'our show' which was once an unlikely family of misfit students

and is now a pretty loose knit group of students and teachers none of whom

are taking a class together in a school which, as of your arrival, is becoming

increasingly grounded, asking questions like "How do any of us get our

money?", "When will any of us get our degrees?" and "What happened to the

girl I was dating?", as opposed to questions I consider more important like

"What is real?", "What is sanity?", "Is there a God?", "Where's that Pierce

hologram?". Jeff said last year he saw a Pierce hologram. None of the rest of

us have ever seen it so if there's a Pierce ghost on campus I'd like to get a

head start on busting it (S6/EP1, 8:39).

According to Levine, Community manages to exploit metafiction and critique it at the same time (68). In order to illustrate his point Levine refers to episode 5 from season 2,

“Messianic Myths and Ancient Peoples”, the plot of which revolves around the characters of Abed, who, as it has been mentioned earlier, is the most self-aware and metafictive character of the series, trying to create a movie about Jesus in order to attract young people to Shirley’s church. “Abed recognizes that the story of Jesus “has been told to death,” and that he “wants to tell the story of Jesus from the perspective of a filmmaker exploring the life of Jesus… in the filmmaker’s film, Jesus is a filmmaker trying to find God with his camera… And the movie’s called ABED. All caps. Filmmaking beyond film. A metafilm.

My masterpiece.””, to which Shirley responds that it “sounds very appealing to filmmakers”. After watching the finished version Abed recognizes that the movie does not

55 live up to the hype that has been created around it, calling it “the worst piece of crap I have ever seen in my entire life… it’s a self-indulgent, adolescent mess.” (Levine, 68).

It could be argued that Community’s metafictive subtones contributed to its struggles with finding wider viewership, however, that is open to doubt. Instead of using self-awareness as a punch line, although it does so frequently and unashamedly, Community manages to intertwine it into the plot and instead of an occasional comment or wink at a camera

Community perceives self-awareness as its backbone. However, at the same time, it is not all in has to offer. There is a plot and character development and conflict resolution in every, or almost every, episode, which results in the show working on multiple levels. One does not have to understand every inside joke or pop-culture reference in order to enjoy it, despite the fact that it does add to the enjoyment factor.

It could be argued that metaficiton in Community works, due to its subtleness. The sitcom does allude to its fictitiousness and employs it as a storytelling technique; however, the characters never cease to be themselves. At no point does the director say “cut”, the actors stop pretending and the camera pulls back to reveal Greendale Community College to be a sound stage. The characters do not break the fourth wall after every joke. Some level of verisimilitude is always preserved, which enables the audiences to connect to the characters and storylines and remain invested in them.

Irony

It could be argued that one of the most prominent traits of postmodernism is irony. What is more, irony is a device closely examined by New Sincerity, which makes its comprehension crucial for the correct understanding of the thesis.

56

Irony seems to be equally beloved and hated by scholars. Its defenders claim that it is a tool of resistance against the norms, as well as a source of humor, while the con team cites its excessiveness in the culture as one of the reasons for its sanitization. Moreover, irony is often perceived as frivolous (Hutcheon, 18).

Let us first take a look at what irony is. Being ironic is saying the opposite of what you mean. (Kőrösiová, 7). It is the most succinct and one of the most universally used explanations utilized by such scholars as Muecke, Barbe, Giora, and Colebrook

(Kőrösiová, 7).

Irony, which could be compared to humor in this regard, is built on a reader/viewer/listener recognizing some kind of incongruity between an utterance and its intention (Knežević, 232). It is possible thanks to language’s ability of operating on multiple levels and human’s ability of recognizing and distinguishing these levels

(Eyvazi,162). At its core, irony is based on contradiction and on the humans’ ability of noticing it (Colebrook, 166). In other words, if an ironic expression is taken seriously, it is unsuccessful. “Ultimately, irony tends towards recognition; in seeing ourselves as effects of language and time we posit ‘a’ time or temporality of rhetoric from which we emerge” (Colebrook, 138).

Let us take a look at an example of verbal irony. The character of Britta says to Chang after hearing his keytar skills: “Yeah, music lessons would be great for you.” to which Chang genuinely responds – “Oh, thanks Britta” (S1/EP24, 18:37). This is a clear example of saying the opposite of what you mean. Britta is being ironic. It is communicated through non-verbal cues, facial expression and voice inflection. It is important to mention that despite the fact that the character of Chang does not recognize the irony, it does not make the expression not-ironic, since he is not the one who is supposed to recognize it, the audience is. Hutcheon refers to the role of Chang in this scenario as “the addressee” and 57 the audiences as “the interpreter” (Irony’s Edge, 11). As long as the audience deciphers the message correctly, it is a successful use of irony.

The concept of irony as a literary concept goes back to Plato, as a result we cannot call it a postmodern creation, however, according to Knežević, due to postmodernism’s inclination towards denial of universal concepts, irony became much more widespread and crucial to discourse during the time of postmodernism (230).

Multiple scholars fight the notion that irony is nothing more than frivolous and/or humorous language tool. In his research paper on irony Ziegler starts with Friedrich

SchlegeI’s outlook on the subject, who claims that iron is proof of humans ’capability of self-reflection (283). Colebrook refers to irony as “the elevation of an idea to an infinite principle – the words we say can have a meaning that goes beyond what we intend” (136). Additionally, irony offers an author the possibility of simultaneously being on both sides of an argument. “Only irony can, at one and the same time, judge the tyranny and moralism of a certain context and display its own complicity in that tyranny” (Colebrook, 120).

Furthermore, Hutcheon argues that critics of postmodernism, in a away, oversimplify it, by categorizing postmodern art as insignificant and not serious only on the basis of its ironic nature. Hutcheon claims that it is a one-dimensional view of the complex writing (In the essay Hutcheon mainly deals with literature) that consists of multiple layers and is capable of being funny and serious, trivial and important at the same time (19). “It is not that modernism was serious and significant and postmodernism is ironic and parodic, as some have claimed; it is mode that postmodernism’s irony is one that rejects the resolving urge of modernism toward closure or at least distance” (Hutcheon, The Politics of

Postmodernism, 99).

58

Nicol further fights the notion of postmodern irony as a shallow, cynical outlook on life and culture and claims that it is a tool of conveying awareness. “Irony is therefore not just cynical, not just a way of making fun of the world. It demonstrates a knowingness about how reality is ideologically constructed” (13). Furthermore, Nicol claims that in postmodern art irony functions as a link to the past and/or preceding works of art by enabling an artist to say “something new, but only by acknowledging that it has already been said” (14). In other words, irony, in a way, warrants the use and/or reinvention of ideas, plot lines, archetypes, which had already been used.

It is arguably difficult to envision postmodern art without thinking of irony, specifically in connection to movies and television. One might argue that the reason for that is irony’s ability to act as a tool of manifesting self-reflection, and as it has been discussed before, postmodern art is highly self-aware. Colebrook claims that “how we understand and value postmodernism depends very much on our definition and evaluation of irony”. According to Colebrook, we, as postmodern society, can either “embrace” or “redefine” irony, and its total acceptance, as claimed by Colebrook, will lead to the societies recognizing that the idea of “an ultimate real” is a misconception that does not exist in reality (153). Colebrook views being ironic in postmodern society as recognition and acceptance of the inevitability of all art being connected through intertextuality (154). “Irony allows us to inhabit our own context, acknowledge the existence of other contexts and enable our own context to be open, fluid and creative” (Colebrook, 155).

Postmodernism has taught people to see irony in everything, and, according to some, it is not unwarranted. “All speech is haunted by irony. Not only can we question whether what is said is really meant; any act of speech can be repeated and quoted in another context, generating unintended forces” (Colebrook, 165). It is not to say that any utterance is at its core ironic, however, according to Colebrook, any utterance has a

59 potential to be viewed as one. The theory reinforces the idea of a reader/viewer being an active participant, as well as, the concept of a piece of art not belonging to anyone – the death of the author.

New Sincerity

It is important to mention that the thesis’s aim is not to conclude whether postmodernism is behind us. Moreover, despite the fact that the thesis argues that New Sincerity stems from Postmodernism, the work does not suggest that the era we are living in now is the one of New Sincerity, nor is the goal to imply that New Sincerity is the only movement to derive from and/or come after postmodernism. The thesis is only interested in the main tropes of postmodernism as well as the main characteristics of New Sincerity, which influence, the thesis argues, could be noticed in Community.

New Sincerity would arguably be better classified as a trend, not a movement. In his 2010 review of visual arts exhibitions of the season, Saltz mentions that he has taken notice of a new viewpoint from young artists. “At once knowingly self-conscious about art, unafraid, and unashamed, these young artists not only see the distinction between earnestness and detachment as artificial; they grasp that they can be ironic and sincere at the same time, and they are making art from this compound-complex state of mind—what Emerson called

‘alienated majesty.’” (Saltz).

Jesse Thorn, a radio host and a self-proclaimed follower of New Sincerity has contributed greatly to the popularization of the term. In 2006 he posted A Manifesto for The New

Sincerity, in which he claims that now is the time to embrace sincerity and all it entails.

60

“What is The New Sincerity? Think of it as irony and sincerity combined like Voltron, to form a new movement of astonishing power.”

According to Morris, the term New Sincerity is highly under researched. Moreover, the information that could be found on the topic often comes from unreliable and/or controversial sources, such as blogs or posts. Morris claims, however, that New Sincerity could be roughly summarized as rejection of cynicism and a careful approach to irony (2).

“In popular usage, the contemporary turn to sincerity tends to be regarded as a sturdy affirmation of non-ironic values, as a renewed taking of responsibility for the meaning of one’s words” (Kelly, New Sincerity, 198).

Sincerity of the millennial’s era, at least of the American culture, has gradually become inseparable from David Foster Wallace. There is virtually no essay written on the topic that does not refer to the writer, his most famous novel, Infinite Jest, or his essay “E Unibus

Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction” .In the essay Wallace tries to prove that while “irony and ridicule are entertaining and effective…at the same time they are agents of a great despair and stasis in U.S culture, and that for aspiring fictionists they pose terrifically vexing problems” (Wallace, 171).

Wallace claims that television’s shift towards postmodernism was accompanied by the loss of sincerity in the medium. “As Mark C. Miller puts it, contemporary television ‘no longer solicits out rapt absorption or hearty agreement, but-like the ads that subsidize it-actually flatters us for the very boredom and distrust it inspires in us’” (Wallace, 178). In order to illustrate his point, Wallace draws a comparison between the depiction of power figures in the shows of the 60s and 70s, such as Star Trek or Partridge Family, and the shows of the

80s and 90s, such as The Simpsons or Married, with Children (180). The latter present the main authority figures without any solemnity. They are not praised or held in high regard.

They are ridiculed, often for the sake of ridiculing. “In fact, just about the only authority

61 figures who retain any credibility on post-eighties shows…are those upholders of values who can communicate some irony about themselves, make fun of themselves before any merciless group around them can move it for the kill…” (Wallace, 180).

Wallace further draws the readers’ attention to the brilliancy of such an approach. If TV executives can assure a viewer that they understand how stupid TV is by themselves making fun of it, they not only get the viewer to keep watching, but also praise his intelligence for comprehending their “true” feelings and thoughts on the subject (180). It is a form of flattery. “Show after show, for years now, has been either a self-acknowledged blank, visual, postmodern allusion-and attitude-fest, or, even more common, an uneven battle of wits between some ineffectual spokesman for hollow authority and his precocious children mordant spouse, or sardonic colleagues” (Wallace, 179).

Wallace mentions that the idea behind irony in postmodernism was a romantic one. It was believed that it would shed the light on the problems of society, politics, culture and by doing that initiate change. However, with time, the use of irony in culture has become superabundant (Wallace, 183). Wallace claims that irony in and of itself is incapable of change. It has the ability to point out some issues, but that is it. “Irony’s singularly unuseful when it comes to constructing anything to replace the hypocrisies it debunks”. Moreover, since irony is composed of contradiction, it is virtually impossible to decipher what it actually supports and what it disapproves of. “Most likely, I think, today’s irony ends up saying: ‘How very banal to ask what I mean’” (Wallace, 184).

According to Wallace, TV has gotten immune to criticism of its apathy creating behavior in viewers. More than that, it often celebrates it (171). One of the reasons for that is irony.

TV makes fun of itself before anyone else can. TV, over the years, has learned to use any criticism of itself to its own advantage. “Television’s managed to become its own most profitable critic” (157). Sensing certain disdain towards TV, it started to make fun of itself. 62

TV got in front of the conflict. You cannot mock something which mocks itself. “We can solve the problem by celebrating it” (Wallace, 190).

Moreover, Wallace frequently talks about how the cultural environment of his time assisted in the creation of anxieties linked to any displays of vulnerability. “If the greatest sin in the past was obscenity or shock, the greatest sin now is appearing naïve or old-fashioned, so that somebody can give you a very cool arch smile and devastate you with an extraordinarily crafted line that puts a hole in your pretentious balloon” (David Foster

Wallace interview with Terry Gross (03/1997) NPR's Fresh Air, 10:15).

It is crucial to mention that Wallace was not against postmodernism, or irony, as concepts.

On the contrary, he confessed to being a fan of many postmodern writers, however, he believed that the techniques used by postmodern artists had ceased to be effective and instead became clichés. According to Wallace, the elements of postmodernism that used to shake up the culture, such as irony or cynicism are “now part of whatever it is that is enervating in the culture itself” (Charlie Rose interview, 22:59). In other words, what is left if everything is negated? “How do you rebel against anarchy?” (David Foster Wallace interview with Terry Gross (03/1997) NPR's Fresh Air, 9:02).

Morris, as Wallace did decades before, draws the readers’ attention to the TV’s oversaturation with irony and the negative consequences of it. “Where irony as a rhetorical strategy is aimed at exposing hypocrisy, irony as a cultural norm allows hypocrisy to flourish, nourished by conditions of widespread complacency, cynicism, and what amounts to a lot of really lazy thinking” (Morris, 10). The similar stand is taken by Wampole in her

NYT article, which states that “the ironic frame functions as a shield against criticism. The same goes for ironic living. Irony is the most self-defensive mode, as it allows a person to dodge responsibility for his or her choices, aesthetic and otherwise” (Wampole).

63

In her essay, Wampole defines irony as the opposite of seriousness, or at the very least, the two terms are presented as mutually exclusive. “What would it take to overcome the cultural pull of irony? Moving away from the ironic involves saying what you mean, meaning what you say and considering seriousness and forthrightness as expressive possibilities, despite the inherent risks”. It could be argued that the stand paints culture as one-dimensional. In other words, Wampole believes that if someone/something wants to be serious and, more importantly, taken seriously, he/she should abstain from using irony or being ironic altogether.

Wampole’s position is negated by Morris. “Sincerity wants to be recognized as sincerity, and irony wants to be recognized as irony. For this reason a communication can be simultaneously sincere and ironic: sincere in that the message that it conveys comes from a place of deeply felt belief, but ironic in the language that it uses to create that message”

(49). In other words, New Sincerity embraces the symbiosis.

It is crucial to mention, that despite the fact that some ideas behind New Sincerity go against postmodernism, “Wallace (a pioneer of New Sincerity) does not postulate a return to naivety or even a renunciation of metafiction” but stresses the importance of being actively conscious of its imperfections (Drąg, 116). According to Kelly, Wallace, as the rest of followers of New Sincerity, do not propose to back in time to pre-postmodern time or ignore postmodernism altogether. “For Wallace, any return to sincerity must be informed by a study of postmodernist fiction, in order to properly take into account the effects wrought by contemporary media, particularly TV and advertising” (David Foster

Wallace 2010, 134). New Sincerity propagates an enlightened form of sincerity.

64

Community and New Sincerity

It might be difficult to look at Community, which, as discussed in previous chapters, is filled with pop-culture references, ridiculous situations, over the top scenarios and see sincerity, however, it is there. According to Dan Harmon, “Greendale is a crazy place where crazy stuff can happen, because it is sort of a purgatory, like in Midsummer’s Night

Dream or As You Like It. The woods are magical, but the people are real, their relationships to each other have to be real” (Community Cast Interview: Paley Center,13:14). In other words, the characters’ feelings and their interactions are based on sincerity, despite the fact that the situations they encounter are, more frequently than not, far-fetched.

Despite the fact that initially the characters are thrown together by various external circumstances, throughout the series, they repeatedly make intentional choices in order to stay together. One of the main themes of the sitcom overall is the importance of friendship and community. The show’s title is not coincidental. Dan Harmon was highly discouraged from using it by the business and marketing sides of NBC. “I was urged to call it

Community College. They did testing and said that the word ‘community’ is never going to trend on Twitter and that people are not going to remember it. It means nothing” (Marc

Maron interviews Dan Harmon, 48:50). Harmon, however, was confident in his choice of the title.

Moreover, it is important to mention that the characters are not afraid to show vulnerability and their emotions, at least in front of one another. “I prefer to hang out with cool people.

People so cool, they care” (S2/EP2, 19:25). Gradually, as the series develops, the characters realize that being emotionally invested in people, though risky and difficult, is gratifying.

“Caring about a person can be scary. Caring about six people can be a horrifying,

65 embarrassing nightmare. At least for me. But if I can't say it today, when can I say it? I love you guys” (S2/EP15, 19:52). The show is filled with hope that people can change, evolve and learn to be and do better.

In addition, it is important to mention that the characters on Community are reprimanded and/or punished for their amoral/immoral actions. The show makes it clear, that unlike the character of Jeff, who at the beginning of the series believes there is no such thing as right or wrong, it does realize that actions have consequences and there is such a notion as doing the right thing. While trying to win over judges with his charm in a debate, Jeff fails, with the judges saying: “it is debate, not American Idol”, and is forced to prepare in order to win (S1/EP9). Trying to pass Spanish by becoming friends with the teacher backfires

(S1/EP10). Any attempt to sign up and pass a ‘blow off class’, ends in a disaster. That is not to say, however, that the show is trying to be a moral and/or cautionary tale, as the aforementioned sitcoms of the 1950s-1960s. It is not trying to teach its audiences a lesson, however, it does let them know that the show takes a stand and believes that immoral behavior should not be celebrated.

What is more, the characters are depicted as being comfortable in their own skin. When confronted by the rest of the group for being shy and insecure, the character of Annie fights back saying: “I like being repressed. I am totally comfortably being uncomfortable with my sexuality” (S1/EP11, 15:27). When the rest of the group tries and fails to change Abed’s personality in order to make him more attractive to women, Abed informs them that he was willing to change in order to make them happy, “because when you really know who you are and what you like about yourself, changing for other people isn’t such a big deal”

(S1/EP17, 14:29).

Dan Harmon has mentioned on multiple occasions that it was incredibly important for him to portray Abed, the character closest to Harmon, in a positive light, since people with 66

Asperger’s, or in any way offbeat or different, has been frequently portrayed on television as someone that needs to be fixed. “He doesn’t have self-esteem issues…he likes being the way he is. He is just frustrated with his alienation. He loves people” (Dan Harmon interview with Kevin Pollack, 8:10). In the episode “Introduction to Film” Abed, via creating a short film about his life, convinces his father to allow him to pursue a degree in film studies. “My son is hard to understand. If making movies help him be understood, then I’ll pay for the class” (S1/EP3,18:38).The show does not view his viewing life through the prism of pop-culture as something negative, or something that needs to be changed or eradicated from his personality, but as his talent or a special skill, which he cultivated out of need to communicate with others.

Wampole views pop-culture references and inside jokes, as ‘empty’ language and urges people to turn away from the outside influences and learn their own, individualistic voices.

However, what if it is simply a new, other type of voice? A new category of discourse?

What if it aids people, not all people, but certain groups of people, in communication and creation of their own networks? In the conclusion of the episode “Critical Film Studies”

Abed explains why creating the homage to My Dinner with Andre was important for him.

“I chose My Dinner with Andre, because it is about a guy who has an unexpectedly enjoyable evening with a weird friend he’s been avoiding lately” (E2/EP19, 17:36). The homage is Abed’s way of bringing him and Jeff closer.

Community is, at times, ironic, however it is not cynical. It is not mean or derogatory. The show manages to employ various post modernistic tropes, while at the same time exploring emotional sides of the characters. The episode “Abed’s Uncontrollable Christmas” is a great intertextual and metafictional work, which, at the same time, is not afraid to be sincere and even sentimental. The characters show their willingness to help each other and, what

67 is more, are frequently shown making personal sacrifices for the good of those close to them.

The first character, and the obvious choice for a protagonist, that audiences encounter is

Jeff Winger, a former lawyer in his thirties who got caught practicing law with a fake bachelor’s degree. It is important to mention that Jeff is the only one of the seven characters who, at the beginning, does not want to be there. He is an unwilling participant, who is forced to attend college by external circumstances. The character of Jeff is presented as morally ambiguous and his outlook on life seemingly postmodern. “I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I can make anything right or wrong. So, either I am god, or truth is relative” (S1/EP1,6:48).

Jeff is the perfect example of Community not being afraid to evolve its main characters.

Throughout the series, Jeff not only comes to terms with not having his previous life, but also becomes aware of the fact that being in Greendale, surrounded by people who care about him made him a better person. His outlook on the idea of truth in the Pilot is drastically different from the one he expressed in the finale of season three:

Guys like me, we’ll tell you, there is no right or wrong. There’s no real truth

and as long as we all believe that, guys like me can never lose. Because the

truth is, I’m lying when I say there is no truth. The truth is, the pathetically,

stupidly, inconveniently obvious truth is: Helping only ourselves is bad and

helping each other is good… You just stop thinking about what is good for

you and start thinking about what’s good for someone else. And you can

change the whole game with one move (S3/EP22, 15:52).

68

The Importance of the Audience

“Television, unlike film or literature, requires the active cooperation of a mass audience in order to exist” (Austerlitz, 326). While discussing the differences between creating television and films in an interview with Marc Maron, Dan Harmon mentions that “you have to admit to yourself when you get out of bed in the morning that the whole reason you are doing this (creating television) is that you want everybody to be happy” (Marc Maron interviews Dan Harmon, 1:24:35).

The importance of the relationship between an author and a reader/audience member is a cornerstone for New Sincerity. “The key split in the authorial consciousness dramatized in these texts is therefore not between artist and agent, but between writer and reader” (Kelly,

David Foster Wallace, 125). Moreover, Kelly mentions how “the fiction of the New

Sincerity is…structured and informed by this dialogic appeal to the reader’s attestation and judgement” (David Foster Wallace 2010, 145). Furthermore, Kelly speaks of the danger of sincerity being perceived as ironic and/or calculating and comes to the conclusion that

“sincerity depends not on purity but on trust and faith” (New Sincerity, 201). In other words, sincerity is in the eye of the beholder. The idea further advocates the idea of a conscious, active reader (viewer in our case).

According to Kelly, sincerity in fiction would lead to a discussion between an author and a reader (the essay deals mainly with literature), “the primary aim of which would be to make the reader and writer feel less lonely in the face of the contemporary world” (New

Sincerity, 200). Kelly claims that “the fiction of the New Sincerity is…structured and informed by this dialogic appeal to the reader’s attestation and judgement” (David Foster

Wallace 2010, 145). The idea is further supported by Drąg, according to whom, what the fiction of New Sincerity aspires to, is to have a communication with its audiences. “Its

69 followers have the – hopelessly old-fashioned, as the previous literary generation would say – wish, or ambition, to convey something to the reader which would be of use to them”

(115).

In spite of the fact that Community never achieved high ratings for a network sitcom during its original run, it has since gained the status of a cult favorite. What does it mean exactly?

Quite a number of shows over the past two decades have been described as cult hits, such as, e.g. Firefly, The Wire, Freaks and Geeks, The X-Files etc. At first glance there seems to be very little these shows have in common. However, there is one similarity, namely loyal fans. Reeves et al. distinguish between three types of viewers: a casual viewer, a devoted viewer and an avid fan. Casual viewers perceive a show as a trivial event, as just something else to watch on TV. They do not rush home in hopes of catching a new episode.

Moreover, during the watching process it is quite possible that they are not devoting their attention to the fullest extent. Devoted viewers do not miss a single episode and regard it as a “special event” that should not be missed. Avid fans consider a show to be something more than just entertainment. This is the most hard-core category. For them “the show is not only a special event but also a major source of self-definition, a kind of quasi-religious experience”. Those are the viewers that have seen every episode multiple times and can quote their favorite passages on the spot. They are the ones to create fanfiction, participate in public viewings and buy the merchandise. What distinguished a cult show from a more mainstream one is the number of avid fans (26). This point brings us back to Community.

It is not a universally watched or beloved show, however, those who love it, truly engage with it.

Walker mentions how, despite the fact that Community was an NBC sitcom, it only catered to small, dedicated audiences. The approach allowed the show to develop its characters, which, as mentioned in the first chapters, goes against one of the main rules of sitcoms,

70 namely, making sure that the characters remain as static as possible. Broadcast networks, generally speaking, cannot rely on the audiences following and remembering each scene or episode, as a result “every episode…had to be capable of functioning as a self-contained unit, presenting its characters in the kind of broad, unchanging strokes that creates[d] a comforting feeling of immediate familiarity” (Walker, 183). Thanks to the fact that

Community did not try to appeal to a vast viewership and understood its target audience as avid fans, the show could rely on their audience following the evolution of the characters.

Moreover, Community’s belief in the attentiveness of its audience, allowed the show to play with its metafictional/intertextual structure without fearing that any jokes or small puns would go unnoticed by the viewers. As an example, Wallace refers to the appearance of Beetlejuice on the show, after his name is said three times. The name is mentioned in the episodes 1.16, 2.8. and 3.5. “When Annie says the word “Beetlejuice” again in the opening moments of “Horror Fiction in Seven Spooky Steps” (Episode 3.5) an extra dressed as Beetlejuice can briefly be seen walking through the hallway behind her” (186).

It was a pun three years in the making. “Getting the joke here relies on not just watching the show, but actively engaging in a communal response to the show – that is, reading (and likely participating in) the reviews and commentary responding immediately to each episode in the online environment” (186). Another example could be the hidden plotline in the episode “The Psychology of Letting Go”. Throughout the episode attentive viewers might notice Abed’s character interacting with a pregnant student and at the end of the episode delivering her baby. The storyline is not referred to or discussed by any of the characters and is only noticeable under close examination.

When the show was pulled off the air in its third season for an unspecified amount of time, fans declared it “the darkest timeline” (reference to the episode “Remedial Chaos Theory”) and organized flash mobs in front of NBC’s Rockefeller Center (Krempels). Hashtags

71

#SaveCommunity and #darkesttimeline and #sixseasonsandamovie appeared on twitter during this time. The same reaction followed after Community’s cancelation by NBC in

2014.

An art show, created specifically in order to display Community fan art, was organized by the fans and funded by Kickstarter, with more than one hundred artists participating and the creator, writers, directors and the cast, as well as hundreds of fans visiting it. The art show consisted of an exhibition of paintings, dolls, sculptures, boardgames and even video games created by the fans of Community. When asked about the motivation for the creation of the exhibition the curator of the art show, Mark Batalla said : “we were there to showcase the fans and their relationship to the show” (Six Seasons and A Movie, 23:43).

In an interview conducted for the documentary depicting the fan art show, Suzanne Scott, a critical studies professor, mentions the importance and peculiarities of the communication between the fans and the creators of Community. “There is a sense that the people who create the show actively love the show and are the kinds of people who watch the show, so there is this real kinship that exists between people that create it and the people who watch it” (Six Seasons and A Movie, 1:24). In the same interview the creator Dan

Harmon said: “I always had a theory that the audience is not bad, stupid, naïve, sheepish.

I always wrote that show to the assumption that everyone watching it was me”, thereby confirming Scott’s theory. (Six Seasons and A Movie, 25:34).

The importance of the sitcom-audience relationship is prioritized by several scholars.

Martin, for instance, believes that the value of sitcoms nowadays is not in its quality, but in the bond between a sitcom and its viewers, which, according to Martin, is much tighter that between a drama and its viewers. “The sitcom slowly, almost imperceptibly, invites the audience to become part of its constructed community” (20). A similar view was expressed a decade earlier by David Foster Wallace, who claimed that the repetitive 72 structure of television produces in the viewers a sense of order and comfort. “Art-wise maybe it’s not the greatest art, but the function that it provides is deep, in a certain way…The art finds a way to take care of you” (David Foster Wallace & David Lipsky,

8:04). The view is supported by Community itself. In the series finale, the plot of which revolves around the characters pitching their ideas for the seventh season that never happened, Abed mentions what makes TV magical, namely that “it has to be joyful, effortless, fun. TV defeats its own purpose when it's pushing an agenda or trying to defeat other TV or being proud or ashamed of itself for existing. It's TV, it's comfort. It's a friend you've known so well, and for so long you just let it be with you. And it needs to be okay for it to have a bad day, or phone in a day” (S6/EP13, 13:56).

All of the examples provided in the chapter prove that Community could not have existed and developed the way it did without its fans. The communication between television and its audience has ceased to be one-sided.

The extent and strength of the impact of the New Sincerity on contemporary culture is up to a debate. According to Wampole, it failed to “banish irony” and gave way to what she refers to as “the new age of Deep Irony”. Wampole’s article is criticized by Jonathan D.

Fitzgerald, author of Not Your Mother’s Morals: How the New Sincerity is Changing the

Culture for the Better, for taking too narrow of an approach to the idea of irony and its influence on the culture. Fitzgerald claims that despite that fact throughout the last decades the use of irony in culture has been excessive, it is not defined by it. Moreover, Fitzgerald negates Wampole’s claim of New Sincerity being over and, essentially, a failure.

Furthermore, it could be argued that New Sincerity’s goal is not to “banish irony”, as

Wampole suggests. Irony is a useful tool and doing away with it altogether is, arguably, not the best solution, nor the one people should aspire to. One might say that what New

Sincerity aims to do is moderate the use and omnipresence of irony, as well as its acidity. 73

If Community was not ironically self-aware about its format as a sitcom, it would not have had the possibility to play with it and reinvent it. However, this irony does not define the show, but is merely a part of it.

Community is a manifesto for human connection. The connection between the characters, between the creator and the show and, most importantly, between the show and its audience. Community’s final scene depicts a fake commercial for the board game called

“Community”. The commercial ends with a monologue read by Dan Harmon, which at first sight might seem like a metafictive speech, which sums up the history and the main points of the show, however, what it turns into is Harmon’s profession of love towards the audience.

Dice not included. Some assembly required. Lines between perception,

desire, and reality may become blurred, redundant, or interchangeable.

Characters may hook up with no regard for your emotional investment. Some

episodes too conceptual to be funny, some too funny to be immersive, and

some so immersive they still aren't funny. Consistency between seasons may

vary. Viewers may be measured by a secretive obsolete system based on

selected participants keeping handwritten journals of what they watch. Show

may be cancelled and moved to the internet where it turns out tens of millions

were watching the whole time. May not matter. Fake commercial may end

with disclaimer gag which may descend into vain Chuck Lorre-esque rant by

narcissistic creator. Creator may be unstable. Therapist may have told creator

this is not how you make yourself a good person. Life may pass by while we

ignore or mistreat those close to us. Those close to us may be those watching.

Those people may want to know I love them, but I may be incapable of saying

it. Contains pieces the size of a child's esophagus. (S6/EP13, 25:56).

74

Conclusion

As mentioned in previous chapters, Community is, arguably, not the first show that comes to mind when the word sitcom is uttered. It was moderately successful amongst both wider audiences and critics and was not the first postmodern show on television, nor was it the first to turn to New Sincerity. However, what makes the show exceptional is its ability to multitask. It masterfully employs various postmodern techniques, such as pastiche, homage, parody, while at the same time remaining invested in the evolution of its characters. In contrast with other postmodern shows, such as South Park or Family Guy, the main characters in Community are not empty vessels, used by creators for social, cultural or political commentary with the use of intertextuality or metafiction, but developed and evolving characters. However, it would be wrong to say that Community is trying to go back to the time of Leave it to Beaver, when the sitcoms would intentionally choose to be oblivious towards the outside world. Community embodies the best of the both worlds. It is introspective and, at the same time, socially conscious. It is funny and heartfelt, silly and serious, ironic and sincere. Community proves that television, specifically sitcoms, do not have to be one-dimensional. They can have it all. Community is not a pioneering show in terms of postmodernism or New Sincerity. Multiple predecessors of Community have played with the format of the sitcom, employed intertextuality and metafiction, and based their shows around a relatable group of friends. However, Community is, arguably, the first to so successfully combine the two elements. Community proves that it is possible to create relatable, humane characters while retaining a complex and clever structure.

In the end Community did what very few shows have managed to achieve. It lived up to its name and managed to create a community of fans who continue to support the show even years after its conclusion and hope for the promised movie to be released someday. Wallace

75 classifies TV amongst addictive substances, similar to alcohol or tobacco, and claims that

TV, as anything pleasurable, is dangerous in high dosages. The cruelty of television is that it offers a solution to a problem, which it itself creates. Those seeking human connection and a sense of community are able to find it on television. At the same time, the amount of time spend watching TV is capable of preventing a person from forming any actual human connections “with real 3D persons” (164). Community did what David Foster Wallace had hoped television would be able to achieve, it made people talk to each other. Online communities dedicated to the show continue to be active. In order to visit and help to create the Six Seasons and a Movie art exposition people traveled from different states. The show has generated discourse. Admittedly, it might be quite a naïve view on television industry, however, perhaps reclaiming some level of naiveté is not uncalled for these days.

76

Works Cited Primary Materials

Community. Created by Dan Harmon, Krasnoff Foster Entertainment and Harmonious

Claptrap production, 2009-2015

Secondary Materials

Armageddon. Directed by Michale Bay, Touchstone Pictures, 1998.

Austerlitz, Saul. Sitcom: A History in 24 Episodes from “I Love Lucy” to “Community”.

Chicago Review Press, 2014.

Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author”. Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader:

Third Edition. Edited by David Lodge and Nigel Wood. Routledge, NY,2013. pp. 313-

316.

Behind the Scenes of Community Pillows and Blankets. Youtube. Uploaded on

21.08.2012. Last viewed on 27.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXZSS39dmFI

Brown, Justin. “Now Binge This: 7 of the Best Bottle Episodes on Netflix”. Prime

Magazine. Last viewed on 28.04.2019. Available at: https://www.primermagazine.com/2018/live/best-bottle-episodes-netflix

Butler, Jeremy G. Television Style. Routledge, New York, 2010.

Butler, Jeremy G. Television: Critical Methods and Applications, Third Edition.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007.

77

Butsch, Richard. “Five Decades and Three Hundred Sitcoms About Class and Gender”,

Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary Television Genre Reader. Edited by Gary R.

Edgerton and Brian G. Rose, UPK, Kentuky, 2005.

Clark, Travis. “The 7 Most Popular TV Shows of the Year, According to Nielsen

Ratings”. Business Insider, 26.10.2018. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/most-watched-tv-shows-of-2018-nielsen-ratings-2018-

10

Colebrook, Claire. Irony: The New Critical Idiom. Routledge, Abingdon, 2004.

Community - Creator Dan Harmon (Paley Center, 2010). The Paley Center for Media,

Interview. Youtube. Uploaded on 22.10.10. Last viewed on 29.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWf5A8P-NOw

Community Cast Interview: Paley Center. Youtube. Uploaded on 6.12.2010. Last viewed on 30.03.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEytPYseCjg

Community Season One Cast Evaluations. Youtube. Uploaded on 5.11.2016. Last viewed on 29.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ_wDKpFeK4

Community: Inside Regional Holiday Music. Youtube. Uploaded on 13.10.2013. Last viewed on 27.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfKDC_W3gCI

Creating Wonderland (DVD Extra about the Creation of the episode ‘Abed’s

Uncontrollable Christmas’). Youtube. Uploaded on 9.09.11. Last viewed on 30.03.19.

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBG6dqEdpEk

Dan Harmon interview with Kevin Pollack. Youtube. Uploaded on: 14.02.2014. Last viewed on 7.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emo-OT3RzQc

78

David Foster Wallace & David Lipsky, interview recording. Youtube. Uploaded on

19.04.2017. Last viewed on 7.04. 2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYAQP6qpCvs

David Foster Wallace interview on Charlie Rose (1996). Youtube. Uploaded on

6.12.2018. Last viewed on 8.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3qjCvkQWvs

David Foster Wallace interview on Charlie Rose. Youtube. Uploaded on 28.11.2018.

Last viewed on 8.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GopJ1x7vK2Q

David Foster Wallace interview with Terry Gross (03/1997) NPR's Fresh Air. Youtube: uploaded on 12.12.2018. Last viewed on 7.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Mz0ghXnxo

David Foster Wallace on Gen X, "Infinite Jest" and a life of writing (1996). Youtube: uploaded on 26.06.2014. Last viewed on 8.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm_u3YoL8s8

David Foster Wallace in Conversation with Charlie Rose. Youtube. Uploaded on

20.08.2018. Last viewed on 18.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW0CQPMYFtY

Dentith, Simon. Parody: The New Critical Idiom. Routledge, London, 2000.

Drąg, Wojciech. “Cutting to the Chase: Microfictions, Empathy and the New Sincerity”.

Brno Studies in English. Volume 44, No. 1, 2018.

Dyer, Richard. Pastiche. Routledge, Abingdon, 2007.

79

Eyvazi, Mojgan et. al. “Evaluation of Intertextuality and Irony in Jean Rhys’s Wide

Sargasso Sea: A Postmodern Outlook”. International Journal on Studies in English

Language and Literature (IJSELL), Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2014, PP 153-164

Fitzgerald, Jonathan, D. “Sincerity, Not Irony, Is Our Age's Ethos”. The Atlantic.

Published on November 20, 2012. Last viewed on 28.03.19. Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/sincerity-not-irony-is-our- ages-ethos/265466/

Garcia, Alberto N. “Breaking the Mirror: Metafictional Strategies in ‘Supernatural’”. TV

Goes to Hell. An Unoficial Road Map of ‘Supernatural’, edited by David Lavery and

Stacey Abbot, ECW Press, Toronto, 2011. pp. 146-160.

Graham, Allen. Intertextuality: The New Critical Idiom. Routledge, London, 2000.

Haberer, Adolphe. Intertextuality in Theory and Practice. LITERATÛRA, ISSN 0258–

0802, 2007. pp. 54-67.

Hartman, Geoffrey, H. “Sincerity and Authenticity”. The New York Times, review,

February 4, 1973. Last viewed on 29.03.2019. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1973/02/04/archives/sincerity-and-authenticity-mind-in-the- modern-world-the-1972.html

Harvey, David. The Condition of Postmodernity: A Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural

Change. Blackwell Publishers, Massachusetts, 1990.

Hoesterey, Ingeborg. Pastiche: Cultural Memory in Art, Film, Literature. IUP,

Bloomington, 2001.

80

Hotti, Katja. Life was a fiction anyway: Metafiction and Ian McEwan’s “Sweet Tooth”.

MA Thesis: University of Tampere School of Language, Translation and Literary

Studies, April 2015.

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms.

UOIP, Urabana and Chicago, 1985.

Hutcheon, Linda. Historiographic Metafiction: Parody and the Intertextuality of History. n.d. pp. 3-32.

Hutcheon, Linda. Irony’s Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony. Routledge, London,

1994.

Hutcheon, Linda. The Politics of Postmodernism. Routledge, London, 1989.

Jackson, E and Nicholson-Roberts, J. “White Guys: Questioning Infinite Jest’s New

Sincerity”. Orbit: A Journal of American Literature, 5(1): 6, 2017. pp.1–28.

Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society”. Modernism/Postmodernism.

Edited by Peter Brooker, Longman, NY, 1992. pp. 163-179.

Kelly, Adam. “David Foster Wallace and New Sincerity Aesthetics: A Reply to Edward

Jackson and Joel Nicholson-Roberts”. Orbit: A Journal of American Literature, 5(2):4,

2017. pp. 1-32.

Kelly, Adam. “New Sincerity”. Postmodern, Postwar and After: Rethinking American

Literature. Edited by Jason Gladstone, Andrew Hoberek, Daniel Worden. UIP, Iowa

City, 2016. pp. 197-208.

Knežević, Mirjana M. Postmodern Irony and Humor in “Catch-22” by Joseph Heller and Their Parallels in Postmodern Music and Art. Belgrade BELLS, n.d. pp. 229-247.

81

Kőrösiová, Andrea. Irony as a Pragmatic Concept. Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis, Masaryk

University, Faculty of Arts, Department of English and American Studies, 2013.

Krempels, Henry. ““6 Seasons And A Movie”: Community Fans Flashmob 30 Rock”.

Observer. Published on 22.12.11. Available at: https://observer.com/2011/12/6-seasons- and-a-movie-community-fans-flashmob-30-rock/

Kutulas, Judy. “Who Rules the Roost? Sitcom Family Dynamics from the Cleavers to

Modern Family”. The Sitcom Reader, Second Edition: America Re-viewed, Still Skewed.

Edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura R. Linder, Sunny Press, 2016. pp. 17-30.

Lawson, Mark. “Are we really in a 'second golden age for television'?”. The Guardian.

Uploaded on 23.05.2013. Last viewed on 29.04.2019. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2013/may/23/second-golden- age-television-soderbergh

Levine, Jeremy A. “Metafiction as Genre Fiction”. Scholarly Undergraduate Research

Journal at Clark. Vol. 1, art. 8, 2015.

Lindas, Julie.“Engaging with Postmodernism: An Examination of Literature and the

Canon”. Undergraduate Honors Theses, CU, 2013.

Marc, David. “Origins of the Genre: In Search of the Radio Sitcom”. The Sitcom Reader,

Second Edition: America Re-viewed, Still Skewed. Edited by Mary M. Dalton and Laura

R. Linder. State University of New York Press, Albany, 2016. pp. 1-12.

Marc Maron interviews Dan Harmon. Youtube, uploaded on 16.10.2016. Last viewed on

18.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGThSCq6vQU

Martin, Jake. Why Sitcoms Matter:The importance of being funny. Books &Culture,

America Magazin, November 14, 2011. pp. 19-23.

82

M*A*S*H. Developed by Larry Gelbart, Twentieth Century Fox Television, 1972-1983.

McRobbie, Angela. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. Routledge, London, 1994.

Michel, Aleksandra. “The Science of Humor Is No Laughing Matter”. APS Observer.

April 2017. Available at: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-science-of- humor-is-no-laughing-matter

Minow, Newton N. "Television and the Public Interest." Federal Communications Law

Journal, Vol. 55: Issue 3, Article 4, 2003. pp. 395-406.

Miola, Robert. S. Seven types of intertextuality. n.d. pp. 13-25.

Morris, Elizabeth Janette. Communication Therapy: David Foster Wallace and the New

Sincerity in U.S. Fiction. Department of English and Comparative Literature University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Thesis, 2014.

My Dinner with Andre. Directed by Louis Malle. Janus Films, 1981.

Nicol, Bran. The Cambridge Introduction to Postmodern Fiction. CUP, UK, 2009.

Perpetua, Matthew. “‘Glee’ Creator Lashes Out Against Kings of Leon and Slash”.

Rolling Stones. Uploaded on 26.01.2011. Last viewed on 11.04.2019. Available at: https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/glee-creator-lashes-out-against-kings- of-leon-and-slash-249074/

Reeves, Jimmie L. Mark C. Rogers and Michael Epstein. “Rewriting Popularity: The Cult

Files”. Deny All Knowledge: Reading The X-Files. Edited by David Lavery, Angela

Hague and Marla Cartwright. SUP,1996. pp.22-35.

83

Saltz, Jerry. “Sincerity and Irony Hug It Out”. New York Magazine. Published on

27.05.2010. Last viewed on 30.03.2019. Available at: http://nymag.com/arts/art/reviews/66277/

Seinfeld. Created by Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld, Castle Rock Entertainment, 1989-

1998.

Shakib, Mohammad Khosravi. “Inevitability of arts from inter-textuality”. International

Journal of English and Literature,Vol. 4(1), January 2013. pp. 1-5.

Six Seasons and A Movie - A Community Art Show, Documentary. Youtube. Uploaded on

19.10.2012. Last viewed on 7.04.2019. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDL7LFosd0E

The Right Stuff. Directed by Philip Kaufman, The Ladd Company, 1983.

The Sting. Directed by George Roy Hill, Universal Pictures, 1973.

Thorn, Jesse. “A Manifesto for The New Sincerity”. Maximumfun. Posted on 26.03.2006.

Last viewed on 8.04.2019. Available at: https://www.maximumfun.org/blog/2006/02/manifesto-for-new-sincerity.html

Urban, Timothy. Liberating Irony: Investigating Postmodern Techniques in David Foster

Wallace’s Short Fiction. Bridgewater State University, Thesis, 2016.

Vermeulen, Timotheus and Robin van den Akker. “Notes on Metamodernism”. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture. Vol. 2, Issue 1, 2010. pp.

Walker. Joseph S. “Community’s Communities: Bringing the Fan to the (Study) Table”.

A Sense of Community: Essays on the Television Series and Its Fandom. Edited by Ann-

Gee Lee. McFarland, 2014. pp.181-196.

84

Wallace, David Foster. “E Unibus Pluram: Television and U.S. Fiction.” Review of

Contemporary Fiction, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 1993. pp. 151-194

Wampole, Christy. “How to Live Without Irony”. The New York Times. Published on

November 17, 2012. Last viewed on 25.03.19. Available at: https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/how-to-live- withoutirony/?module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress®io n=FixedLeft&pgtype=Blogs

Yen-Mai Tran-Gervat. “Pastiche”. The Sage Encyclopedia of Humor Studies, 2014. pp. 1-

9.

Ziegler, Heide. Irony, Postmodernism and the “Modern”. Stuttgart, 1991. pp. 283-293

85

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Community S1/EP13 Credits, 20:15...... 33

Figure 2 M*A*S*H S10/EP14 Credits, 24:06 ...... 33

Figure 3 Community S1/EP23, 00:36 ...... 35

Figure 4 Community, S1/EP23, 02: 53 ...... 35

Figure 5 Community S1/EP23, 07:22 ...... 36

Figure 6 Community, S1/EP23, 11:25 ...... 36

Figure 7 Community S2/EP11, 06:38 ...... 38

Figure 8 Community S2/EP19, 04:24 ...... 38

Figure 9 My Dinner with Andre, 09:35 ...... 39

Figure 10 Community S2/EP4, 01:36 ...... 39

Figure 11 Armageddon, 1:05:03 ...... 40

Figure 12 Community S2/EP1, 00:05 ...... 40

Figure 13 The Right Stuff, 44:19 ...... 40

Figure 14 Community S2/EP23, 09:08 ...... 43

Figure 15 Community S2/EP24, Opening Credits ...... 43

Figure 16 Community S3/EP17, Opening Credits ...... 44

Figure 17 Community S3/EP17, 07:13 ...... 44

Figure 18 Community, S3/EP17, Closing Credits ...... 45

Figure 19 Community S5/EP3, 00:02 ...... 45

Figure 20 Community S6/EP9, 03:02 ...... 46

Figure 21 The Sting, Opening Credits ...... 46

86

Abstract

The thesis aims to examine the TV series Community and its place in the sitcom genre.

Specifically, the thesis is trying to prove that Community is an example of both Postmodern and New Sincerity movements. The thesis begins with the examination of Community, the history of its development and its main characteristics. The second chapter examines a history of the American sitcom. The examination is necessary for the correct comprehension of what Community is built upon and why in the thesis it is considered to be distinctive from other sitcoms. Moreover, the chapter contains a study of similarities and differences between multicamera and single camera sitcoms and illustrates why

Community’s single camera format assists it in the implementation of various postmodern techniques, such as pastiche, homage and parody. The chapter is followed by an examination of postmodernism and its main tropes, namely intertextuality and metafiction.

Moreover, the chapter contains the examination of various Community episodes, distinctive for their metafictive and/or intertextual nature. Following that, the thesis surveys irony, an important device for the comprehension of both postmodernism and New Sincerity. The last chapter of the thesis is dedicated to the trend of New Sincerity, its main characteristics, as well as its connection to Community. The thesis concludes that while Community is not a pioneering postmodern sitcom, nor is it the first example of New Sincerity on television, the masterful way in which the show combines both movements is worthy of serious examination.

Anotace

Tato práce se zabívá zkoumáním televizního pořadu Community a jeho místo v žánru sitcomu. Konkrétně se práce snaží dokázat, že Community je zároveň příkladem hnutí postmoderna a nové upřímnosti. Práce začíná zkoumáním Community, historií jeho vývoje

87 a jeho hlavními charakteristikami. Druhá kapitola zkoumá historii amerického sitcomu, což je nezbytná pro správné pochopení toho, na čem je Community postavena a proč je v práci považována za odlišnou od ostatních situačních komedií. Tato kapitola navíc obsahuje porovnání mezi multikamerovými a jednokamerovými situačnimi komediami a ilustruje proč jednokamerový formát vypomáhá při tvorbě různých postmoderních technik, jako je pastiche, homage a parodie. Po této kapitole následuje zkoumání postmodernismu a jeho hlavních tropů, konkrétně intertextuality a metafikce. Kapitola dále obsahuje zkoumání různých epizod Community, které vynikají svou metafiktivní a/nebo intertextovou povahou. Následně práce zkoumá ironii, důležitý termín pro správné pochopení postmodernismu i nové upřímnosti. Poslední kapitola práce je věnována trendu nové upřímnosti, její hlavním charakteristikám a také její souvislostí s Community. Práce dochází k závěru, že zatímco Community není průkopnická postmoderní situační komedie, ani není prvním příkladem nové upřímnosti v televizi, mistrovský způsob, jakým sitcom kombinuje obě hnutí, je hodný seriózního zkoumání.

88