The structure of situational comedy

In previous posts we identified several fundamental aspects of comedy theory, including definitions of superiority theory, the position of class and characterisation in Blackadder and the ideas of an object of ridicule and butt of the joke. We will now focus on the structure of situational comedy, including equilibrium and disequilibrium, and the importance of spatial awareness within a studio-filmed television show, which is how Blackadder II, Blackadder the Third and Blackadder Goes Forth were filmed. This will aid us in identifying how power relations and spatial awareness were so important to Blackadder Goes Forth.

There are several integral aspects of comedy which must work together closely for success, such as the form of comedy, the format for the series, setting and spatial relationships. Leo Charney (2005, p. 586) outlines the “highly ritualized form” of television sitcoms: “a half-hour time frame; a setting in a home and/or workplace; a set of four to eight recurring characters, each defined by fixed character traits that generate predictable reactions and ritualized conflicts; and three genres: family comedy, friends-as-family comedy, and workplace comedy.”

This typically occurs within an “adapted form of Todorov’s equilibrium-disequilibrium-new-equilibrium model of narrative – a movement, not towards a new equilibrium but rather to a forceful restatement of the existing equilibrium, a narrative status-quo-ante.” (Langford, 2005, p. 17, their emphasis). Blackadder challenges these narratives through conflict within a workplace comedy with a familial overtone, especially in Blackadder Goes Forth where the dugout is their home and workplace, and in Blackadder the Third where you never see Blackadder’s servant quarters – a concept I will return to later.

Stephen Wagg (1998, p. 3) discusses the “broadly agreed characteristics” of situational comedy, which include “hav[ing] a form of dramatic plot” with “each programme ha[ving] a self-contained plot”; and “familiar scenery and sets”. Characters must operate within a comedic or dramatic (often both) situation with each new show vying to produce the most laughs. The episodes will start with a disequilibrium – the presentation of the plot, or conflict, with the characters engaging in various shenanigans throughout the episode failing to accomplish their task until they finally do so and restore the equilibrium at the end of the episode.

It isn’t particularly that these situations are unimaginable in everyday life, but rather the way in which they escalate out of control is unimaginable. Del Boy being mistaken for Mafia Boss Don Vincenzo Occhetti in Only Fools and Horses (Sullivan & Dow, 1991) is perfectly believable, but not the way in which he has no control over how it escalates; Howard rushing to develop a fix for his special toilet in place on the International Space Station in The Big Bang Theory (Lorre et al., 2009) is believable, but not the way in which his mother’s meatloaf is launched into the ceiling when they test the repairs; or Roy desperately trying to find a window-cleaner who left his ladders at his flat in The IT Crowd (Lineham, 2010) is believable, but the exaggeration of the fact and his complete lack of control over the situation is within the realms of unbelievability. However, the resolution of the problem at the end of the episode is inevitable, thus allowing a new story to be told in episodes to come.

Mick Eaton (1981, p. 37), notes the different paradigms of situational comedy, “The necessity for the continuity of character and situation from week to week allows for the possibility of comedy being generated by the fact that the characters are somehow stuck with each other”. They continue by pointing out that in workplace situational comedies, “At work it usually turns around the possibility that we can choose our jobs, but not the people we work with [. . .] It is as if the formal necessities of the series provide the existential circle from which the characters cannot escape.” (p. 37). This is an important observation, as it helps to structure and provide continuity to the story, especially for a workplace comedy.

As a series progresses, patterns may form where one character can be expected to always fail at their task, and the way they fail could be predicted, such as Raj Koothrappali’s failure to keep a girlfriend in The Big Bang Theory (Lorre et al., 2007-2019) or Jake Parolta’s repeated and failed attempts to capture Doug Judy in Brooklyn Nine-Nine (Goor et al., 2013-2021). Blackadder fits this template as, setting aside the production differences of The Blackadder compared to later series, the series typically has the same cast of characters in different groups, with Blackadder being accompanied by Baldrick and Percy, the Prince Regent or George (in Blackadder II, Blackadder the Third or Blackadder Goes Forth respectively).

Particularly, Blackadder’s group find themselves in situations which escalate based on loss of control and misunderstanding, but the concept of not being able to choose the people you work with remains the same. It could be argued that Blackadder could easily choose not to work with Baldrick, as in “Bells” he fires him to replace him with Bob, but when Baldrick offers to work for even less than the zero pennies he is currently paid, Blackadder finds himself unable to get rid of him.