Friends and the Golden Age of the Sitcom - Joanna Hagan - ★★.½

AUTHOR: Joanna Hagan

GENRE: Nonfiction

PUBLICATION DATE: September 30, 2024

RATING: 2.5 stars

In a Nutshell: A seasonal analysis of FRIENDS, and the other sitcoms and shows before and during the “golden age”. The focus is not just on sitcoms, the feedback is not just positive, and the approach is more like a hindsight-analysis with 2024-glasses on. I'm a FRIENDS superfan, so some (actually, most!) of this review comes from biased eyes. Take it with a pinch of salt!

As a FRIENDS fanatic, I have watched the show umpteen times, I can still watch any episode any day in any random order without any confusion, and I can even quote lines from multiple episodes. So when I saw this title listed on NetGalley, my reaction obviously was, “Could I BE more excited?” The execution of the book, however, has left me with mixed feelings.

FRIENDS is not the only hit sitcom of its time, but it's probably the only one that still has a loyal fanbase not just from its original viewership but also among the younger generation, thanks to OTT channels. Because of the latter factor, it has also been subject to intense modern scrutiny, and isn’t always able to match current inclusivity standards. The book covers all this and more.

The content provides not just a generic analysis of FRIENDS but also a season-by-season assessment. It even has an in-depth evaluation of the changing dynamics of shows over the last three decades on television, and the impact of the entry of OTT channels and the modified viewership habits on TV shows.

You don’t require a comprehensive knowledge of American sitcoms to grasp the analytics provided. My knowhow is limited to iconic sitcoms from the “golden era” such as Seinfeld, Frasier, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Everyday Loves Raymond, Dharma and Greg, and That 70s Show. While the book covers many more shows (sitcoms and more), I didn’t find myself struggling to comprehend the information.

Each chapter is cleverly titled in the FRIENDS episode title format: “The One Where/With...”. There is also some smart chapter numbering, with chapters one to ten corresponding to seasons one to ten, even though there are fourteen chapters in all.

The book starts off quite well. The initial two chapters (which highlight the then status quo of TV viewership and the early sitcoms that paved the way towards FRIENDS) set the right foundation for the book. Even the first chapter, that highlighted Season One and how the cast and the rest of the team came together, is superb. FRIENDS fans might already know many of the details, but this book provides them in a structured way.

Things start going downhill from the second chapter onwards, when the focus shifts more towards a clinical approach, with loads of data about other shows, TV ratings, network positions, and so on. This becomes too tedious after a point. The FRIENDS-related information is intriguing, what with a proper exploration of each season’s focal point, the dynamics of the six friends, and the season finale. However, the rest of the data dulls the impact of the FRIENDS content. As a FRIENDS fan, I was interested in knowing more about the show and its competition, but not in such a dry manner.

What bugged me the most during the season-focussed chapters was the constant criticism about how FRIENDS hasn’t aged well. Yes, we fans know that it doesn’t completely pass muster in today’s world. But if a programme has to be analysed, it has to be seen not from NetFlix-generation opinions but from the original 90s viewpoint. When FRIENDS was produced, its creators wouldn’t have thought, “Hmmm, let’s ensure that we can satisfy the viewers watching our show thirty years hence.” The show was made for the people of the 1990s by people of the 1990s, and was partly based on the (white) creators’ post-college experiences. As David Schwimmer said in a 2020 interview to ‘The Guardian’, “A lot of the problem today in so many areas is that so little is taken in context. You have to look at it from the point of view of what the show was trying to do at the time.”

That said, FRIENDS still broke the mould by showing a lesbian relationship & wedding (Carol & Susan), having a Black actor (Aisha Tyler as Charlie) and a POC actor (Lauren Tom as Julie) in a key role – nine and seven episodes respectively – AND having a transgender character (Chandler’s dad Helena Handbasket, though the casting of Kathleen Turner in this role is somewhat questionable.) The other shows of the era didn't do any of this, with the only prominent exception being Will & Grace and its two homosexual main characters, though one of them – Sean Hayes’ character Jack McFarland – was an extremely camp portrayal of a gay man. Why call it the golden age of the sitcom era and then go to bash the show for things the entire television business was guilty of?

I disagree with the author that calling something "of the era" is a lazy way of justifying it. No, calling something “of the era” is a way of acknowledging that we know there were mistakes made in the past, that the work doesn’t hold to modern standards, and that we shouldn’t repeat those errors in future. It indicates that this knowledge has come to us in hindsight, and hence we need to learn from those mistakes, not castigate those who were reflecting prevalent social trends and the systemic racism without even realising it. (Aren’t shows guilty of the same even today, though awareness is so much greater? You think the storyline of Raj Koothrappali of The Big Bang Theory is a genuine Indian representation? Think again! I’d rather not have our representation on shows than to have such stereotypes perpetuated.)

Some of the points of criticism were just silly. Like saying that the use of pagers and answering machines places FRIENDS firmly in that era. Of course, it does! You think modern audiences don't realise that it's a thirty-year-old show? There has been so much technology that has come and even gone in the interim, so tech shouldn't be used to judge the timelessness of any show! Almost every show is OF ITS ERA when it comes to technology, and this cannot be used as a shortcoming.

The proceedings improve to a great extent from Chapter Ten (focussed on Season Ten) onwards. The tone in these final three chapters is more enthusiastic and nostalgic, and reminded me of why I had opted for the book in the first place. If only that same impartial and wistful approach had been retained throughout the book, this would have been an easy winner.

There are some photos at the end of the book, but all of them are stock pictures that are easily available on the internet. I found nothing striking, innovative, or memorable in the chosen photos.

All in all, the nerd in me did like the analysis of the TV trends and the final three chapters were exactly what I wanted, but the FRIENDS fan in me was mostly disappointed with the remaining writing choices. With such a title, I would have appreciated seeing a bit more warmth and enthusiasm and a little less data and unwarranted criticism throughout. FRIENDS is celebrating the 30th anniversary this year, marking three decades since the pilot episode aired on September 22, 1994. In such a momentous month, I’d rather have read something that celebrated its longevity than reproved it for not doing better.

I am not sure whom to recommend this book to, as non-FRIENDS-fans won’t be interested in this kind of topic, and FRIENDS fans won’t be that happy with it. I guess it might work for those who are interested in studying TV trends as the insights on this specific topic are engaging enough.

My thanks to Pen & Sword for providing the DRC of “Friends and the Golden Age of the Sitcom” via NetGalley. This review is voluntary and contains my honest opinion about the book.