Modern Family- Page 17

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 10:24pm

Just caught up and I think this season is stronger than last season.

I liked last season, but I thought the characters were becoming a little predictable. Of course, that's inevitable with a series, but they should still be capable of surprising you, and I think they recaptured that in these first three episodes.

Usually when people start having kids it's the death of comedy. But of course, "family" is baked right in to the title. Gloria's pregnancy and

*SPOILER ALERT*

the possibility that Claire and Phil might consider having another one are exactly what a show about family needs.

I'm really happy with the fourth season so far.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/11/12 at 10:53pm

I totally agree, Reg. Both episodes last night were great.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/12/12 at 12:27am

Fantastic. All of Cam and Pam's interactions were hysterical. I had to pause their scenes literally every 5 seconds because I was laughing so hard.

"We look forward to your frittata."
"Oh why? Are you visiting us in 2008?"

[The Josh]

Posted: 10/15/12 at 1:11pm

Jesse Tyler Ferguson tweeted this today. Possible spoilers.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 10:46pm

"And balance is restored."

[Jon]

Posted: 10/17/12 at 11:20pm

Had to post the link below because Ariel Winter is awesome.
Ariel Winter as Dora

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 10/18/12 at 2:14pm

Broadway actor Colin Hanlon will return to the show in a recurring role.


Twilight's Colin Hanlon Will Return to ABC's "Modern Family" in Recurring Role

[nygrl232]

Posted: 10/18/12 at 6:45pm

Pretty much how I feel about the show, too

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 10:18pm

"Nice try. I'll be back for that compliment later."

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 10:51pm

nygrl, that's how I feel about it, as well. Interestingly, this week the New Yorker's TV critic, in a piece on sitcoms and a review of Parks and Recreation in particular, said some similar, but briefer, things:

atching “Modern Family” sweep the Emmys, last month, I felt a spike of fury. I knew that this was an absurdly out-of-proportion response: just three years ago, the show struck me as charming and innovative, a mixture of old-style family comedy and modern mockumentary. The story of a blended family in California, it included stepparents, adoption, a gay marriage, and a May-December interracial couple. I was relieved to be able to love a sitcom that was also a hit, its demographic reach spanning TV nerds and third graders, Romneys and Obamas alike.

But, as the seasons passed, my doubts grew. Beneath that dewy skin, “Modern Family” has some surprisingly retro bones. Were we really supposed to root for Jay, a wealthy codger grumbling at his trophy wife, Gloria? Isn’t it a little creepy how Jay’s ex-wife was first demonized, and then disappeared? What differentiates Gloria from a nineteen-sixties coochie-coo stereotype, aside from the charisma of the actress who plays her—and is it really that hilarious to portray a poor Latino birth family as telenovela characters? Do Mitch and Cam, the gay couple, even like each other? What’s with all those women-getting-their-period jokes? When I squint and reimagine “Modern Family” as a harsh multi-cam series rather than an urbane mockumentary, its gags tend to shrivel like slugs under salt.

A decade ago, I might not have minded: the Emmys are nonsense, and better to have a sweet sitcom, whatever its flaws, win than a sour one. But low expectations no longer make sense, not when the sitcom is exploding with possibilities. This is true even if you disregard the remarkable comedies on cable, which include “Girls,” “Louie,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “Archer,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” and “Enlightened.” These shows are transcendently cool, and often more experimental than the dramas that surround them, but they’re made under very different circumstances: dozen-episode seasons, creative independence, and lower pressure for ratings. From my (admittedly specific) perspective, America’s greatest heroes are its network sitcom writers, at least the good ones, those who make shows like “Parks and Recreation”—which I’ll come back to in a moment, if you’ll indulge a bit more ranting. Sure, they’re well compensated, but, creatively speaking, they’re coal miners: producing twenty-two or more episodes each season, bombarded with network notes, harassed with overnight numbers. Maybe there should be a special award—the Emmy for originality under duress.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/television/2012/10/22/121022crte_television_nussbaum#ixzz2ABI7WTPT

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 11:51pm

Girls. Jesus.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/24/12 at 11:55pm

I overall really liked Girls, and yet I understand the majority of the criticsm it got.

As for Modern Family--I like it too. I think it's just the fact that it is *so* praised (which, to be fair, is why this small backlash is inevitable, especially post Emmys), that I feel a bit defensive about the elements I don't like. But, I also have to admit, it's never been must see TV for me--so I was never an uber fan.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 9:03am

The episode where the Dunphy women were all on the same cycle was genius.

That New Yorker writer needs to get that pretentious stick out of their ass. Doubtful, though, since it IS The New Yorker.

Why must Modern Family maintain a groundbreaking status? It has earned the right to just be a well made sitcom. It doesn't have to change the formula or break the mold. Simply funny. And I think it is still VERY funny.

[singtopher]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 9:31am

I still enjoy the show, but I don't find it as funny as it has been, and sometimes the gravitas is too pushed.

Also, when are Cam and Mitch going to teach their daughter to not be a complete snot?

I did enjoy last night's episode (I generally enjoy their Halloween episodes)

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 9:34am

I feel like that "New Yorker" article, while striving to be contrarian, misses or misconstrues each of its own points.

1. "Were we really supposed to root for Jay, a wealthy codger grumbling at his trophy wife, Gloria?" You're supposed to root for Jay who, after a bad marriage, found the woman of his dreams, and even though this second stage of his life is not how he imagined it, he grows and changes with each new thing he's confronted with.

2. "Isn’t it a little creepy how Jay’s ex-wife was first demonized, and then disappeared?" No, she's portrayed as a consistent, though mostly absent, character who has been the center of two very funny episodes. It's no creepier than not seeing Lucy Ricardo's mother week after week.

3. "What differentiates Gloria from a nineteen-sixties coochie-coo stereotype?" The fact that, if you're paying attention, Gloria is actually the mother figure for the whole familiy. She's often the one who--in one episode literally--takes the other characters' heads to her bosom, explains to them why they're feeling what they're feeling, and comforts them.

3A. "and is it really that hilarious to portray a poor Latino birth family as telenovela characters?" I never got that they were meant to be poor. Maybe I missed that, or maybe the writer hears "Mexican" and thinks "poor." The grandmother, at least, looked fairly well-to-do to me.

4. "Do Mitch and Cam, the gay couple, even like each other?" This one I agree with, and I'm afraid it's Will Truman Syndrom: the show doesn't trust us to accept gay men as affectionate and (gasp) possibly sexual.

5. "What’s with all those women-getting-their-period jokes?" Meaning all the ones in a single (very funny) episode? Have there been others?

On the other hand, comedy is so subjective, and if someone doesn't enjoy the show, I wouldn't argue they were wrong. And I liked season 3 less than the prior two, but I think the show has really come back strong this season.

All just my opinion, of course.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 11:44am

It will always be better than The New Normal.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 1:43pm

I didn't think the synced cycles ep was funny at all. All the Dunphy women shrieking like that--that was just weird.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 2:03pm

As I said, comedy is subjective.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 2:19pm

I sort of get the criticism about Gloria being sort of a hoochie-coochie stereotype or whatever, but since everything I've seen about Sofia Vergara seems to indicate she's much like Gloria (the thick accent, the loudness, the malapropisms) makes me the think the real criticism (if there is one to be had, which I really don't) is more that she's playing a version of herself.

I agree with your rebuttal to the New Yorker article, Reg.

Updated On: 10/25/12 at 02:19 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 2:26pm

Also, I think part of the point of the show--and here's where MF has it all over New Normal--is that yes, these characters have stereotypical characteristics (hoochie mama, uptight blond lady, queeny showtune lover, etc.) but not only are they far greater than the sum of their parts, they're family, which means loving and accepting even them if they're not what you had in mind.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/25/12 at 5:18pm

I actually don't find Nussbaum's TV reviews for The New Yorker particularly pretentious at all, but I admit I'm probably way too used to how pretentious the magazine *can* get since my family's had a subscription since I can remember (she's better than tv critics they've had in the past, who wouldn't even review mainstream shows, it seemed--I admit she also won my favour when she counter-argued the New York Times review of Season 2 of Game of Thrones when they said that the show would only appeal to Dungeons and Dragons, sex obsessed, male nerds, even while she dd point out the obvious fanboy service).

That said, I don't agree with everything she says, and she definitely exagerates her points.

I *did* find the "synched cycles" episode lazy though--but as Reginald says comedy is subjctive. To me it felt like a cliche, which is fine but IMHO they didn't treat the cliche in any new way. It probably doesn't help that I have many close female friends, and grew up in a house largely with women, and never experienced anything close to that--aside from some complaints of cramps, I don't think I was ever even aware when anyone was on their period.

I do think one fault with the show (and maybe what Nessbaum, in her exagerated way is getting at), is something that happens to so many shows, particularly sitcoms where the status quo is more important, at this stage in their lives. The characters' key traits and foibles seem to become exagerated, and to define the characters more and more (their "shtick" I guess--people discussed this in the Friends forum). That said, Modern Family has dealt with it far better than most sitcoms (and as Nessbaum says, it's WAY harder to do this on a 22 episodes a year network sitcom than it is with a cable comedy). I think the show does do a fine job--still--of balancing the pleasures of a traditional family sitcom, with more innovative and experimental elements.

But, Reginald, I think all of your points are valid, and I can see where you're coming from (and I'm glad you agree re Cam and Mitch--I'm not sure what can be done there, but I almost feel like they've had the least growth and the writers are the most stuck with their familiar shtick). And yeah, the telenovela comment was dumb--I thought they were meant to largely be well off, if anything (the majority of characters in cliche telenovelas--save for the poor maid who becomes rich, or whatever) are wealthy, just like on most American soaps.

And yeah, the show still does a very good job of giving you the feeling these characters do cae about each other (obviously, unlike The New Normal which, somewhat inexpelicably to me, it's so often now being compared to--I'm glad the critical Salon piece made it clear that The New Normal is far beneath it).

One complaint I have with the show currently, and this is probably just me. It seems like increasingly it's become obsessed with the clever oneliners it has always had--some scenes and situations seem almost now to be written because the writers thought up of a dumb/funny thing Phil, for example, could say.

[nygrl232]

Posted: 10/26/12 at 12:00pm

I agree-the syncing was played way over the top, and was one of those moments that made me think that the show said, "act shrill and you get the nice paycheck." I grew up in a household of mostly women, and there wasn't anything remotely like that going on. If someone was in pain, she took an aspirin or something. Nothing like that screaming stuff. Male writers who give Al Bundy a trophy wife are not reconciled to the fact that women are human.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 10/26/12 at 3:15pm

Diva said:
"It will always be better than The New Normal."

So will Webster.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/26/12 at 3:54pm

Male writers who give Al Bundy a trophy wife are not reconciled to the fact that women are human.

Because women who chose men on something other than looks are inhuman?

[nygrl232]

Posted: 10/26/12 at 4:19pm

In the writers' minds, they are.