So when did 'All in the Family' turn puke?

[Deja Q]

I say season 4. Carroll O'Connor, a devout liberal :applause: had "creative differences" between Norman Lear. Norman Lear ultimately won, but Carroll did walk out a few times. O8)

Season 4 also sees new and contrived reasons for why Archie hates Mike (essentially Mike got to go to college, which alone is apparently why Archie and Mike always have fights on every single issue - uh-huh, that reeeeally explains it :eyes: ), Mike's beliefs becomes a target for belittling in a few episodes (see 'The Games Bunkers Play' for an example) when his character otherwise turns shallow ("Edith's Converstion" and many others), some in-program advertising is done ("The Games Bunkers Play" and "Edith's Conversion" are two such episodes), and the plots overall change from discussing societal issues to issues more introspective of the family itself.

Season 4 still has many good moments, but the changes are definitely made. By season 5, we also see how Michael can't get a job because of Affirmative Action, amongst other conservative-friendly viewpoints...

[Magrittes Pipe]

1. Norman Lear = also liberal.

[Deja Q]

2. He also made a lot of money off of it. Money made from a program

that was British in origin.

Did he make a cut with the BBC?

Did he donate any of his profits? (not that it's a requisite, but it would reinforce his ideals no end and dissuade the belief he's no different from anyone else with lots of money.)

[mitchum]

14. Didn't Lear found and fund People For The American Way?

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. Interesting POV. There was a definite change in the show.....

... I thought of it in terms of from "funny" to "unfunny" and from Archie going from being an obnoxious, but scathingly funny, buffoon to being Mr. Not-So-Nice Guy to , finally, Mr. Nice Guy.

But you bring an interesting political interpretation that seems valid, now that I think about it. Lear, the creative force, coontinued to be identified with liberal positions long after the show ended... so it's a bit of a mystery.

All I know is the show got increasingly unfunny when Mike and Gloria left the house and was excruciatingly flat by the time Martin Balsam and Anne Meara joined the show.

[Deja Q]

11. By the 9th season, they never bothered with studio audiences. Also,

in the 4th, I could even hear a stock laugh track of the time being used. (there's always one laugh that's the SAME; a person's laugh will always sound similar, but never identical. And laugh tracks were so common in the late 60s/70s that it's unmistakeable.)

[TlalocW]

4. Yeah, but...

Wasn't it normally Archie's pig-headedness conservatism that would make things not work out for him? I've only seen a few episodes when I was younger.

In any event, it was interesting when O'Connor started doing, "In the Heat of the Night." He would get death threats from racist Archie Bunker fans because his sherrif character was dating a black woman in his new series.

TlalocW

[ghostsofgiants]

6. Clearly those fans missed the point of All In The Family completely

Great show, though I haven't really seen enough of it to vote on when it "turned puke".

[Deja Q]

12. Carroll O'Connor had nasty letters sent to him during AitF too.

The show, even as it rolls on, is often still pro-liberal, but the changes are present and the tones softening up and the plots more centralized on characters' lives rather than talking what's wrong with society.

It turned into a normal sitcom and some plots spoke the antithesis of liberal ideals. I doubt O'Connor AND Lear liked them, and were probably told those scenes had to happen. (again, Michael not getting a job due to Affirmative Action is one, but from season 4 onwards there are many more.)

[Ray Arias]

5. I'm afraid I must abstain from voting

Though I am familiar with "All in the Family" as a TV show. I have only a passing acquaintance with watching it on late night local TV reruns which don't really show the episodes in order or tell you which season a particular episode came from. As a consequence, I can only discern from which general era in the Bunker family's saga the episode originates. Such as, I know an older episode that includes the Jeffersons as neighbors from a later one in which the Bunkers have a little girl living with them (...and I can't off the top of my head remember her name, for crying out loud), but I don't know which season is which. Having said that, I guess I can concede that, in general, and, with a few exceptions, the show tended to go south as time wore on, but from my frame of reference, I have no way of knowing whether there was a specific point at which this happened, let alone where that point was. Therefore, since I don't have enough information, I'm not voting.

Ray :)

[Left Is Write]

8. The little girl's name was Stephanie.

Portrayed by Danielle Brisebois. She was a relative of Edith's.

[Kat45]

7. It didn't.

I know AITF very well. Of course, the shows were the best in the early years. It was a totally new thing, breaking new ground in what a TV show focused on. They couldn't continue rehashing the same old arguments forever. The reason for why Archie hates Mike was Edith's take on it; she's just looking at the personal issues, she doesn't get involved in the political. Though Mike had great liberal beliefs, he was also a pompous ass. And he could be shallow. In the "Games.." episode, he was being childish, which he sometimes was. His (political) beliefs weren't being belittled; his personality/character was. For example, Lionel was right on target with his comments about Mike re: black folks. I'm not sure what problem you have with "Edith's Conversion." I don't recall problems with Mike in that one.

As for the episode regarding affirmative action when Mike was up for a job, the episode was pro-affirmative action. It just showed how although Mike was a liberal who would normally praise AA, when it became personal, involving a job for him, he got defensive and critical of it. But the arguments continued to be made to him about the good of AA, and he eventually was happy for his black friend for getting the job.

As I said, I know AITF very well.

[Deja Q]

16. You're right., but

I maintain the series doesn't feel right and Michael is being wrongly written.

I am a liberal and am for Affirmative Action (AA) and if I didn't get a job because I was white, well I wouldn't be defensive or critical. How could I be? For many reasons, the non-white deserves it (just as qualified if not more and we need more non-whites in those positions because it does far more good all around for society and for the self-image of the ethnic groups whites have historically exploited and hurt - that is the point of AA). Mike, being 500 times more vocal and spoken on his beliefs, sure as hell shouldn't have been so defensive. I find that a load of bunk writing on the part of the writer. Making Michael (initially, until he has to think about it for several minutes no less! :puke: ) a hypocrite was not a good move. They weaken Michael as a character and denounce LIBERALISM at the same time.

"Edith's Conversion" has the hilarious sub-plot of horse meat. Pity Archie never finds out. Michael seems overly appalled over the idea of TRYING A NEW THING. Michael, up to that point, had always been hyping up trying new things and bashing Archie for being closed-minded. This episode makes Mike a hypocrite. Or appearingly. Gloria had to surruptitiously feed him the meat. He did NOT try it willingly; he became oblivious to what was in front of him during his silly "I won't eat horse!" tirade. This is a very minor issue when you think about it, but the goal was to reduce Michael's credibility that had been extremely strong over the last 3 years' worth of episodes.

"The Games Bunkers Play" tries to justify this and while I begrudgingly half-agree with it, it still seems forced. Indeed, the whole episode may be a gigantic in-joke as Michael screams "everybody is ganging up on me" when the surrounding episodes seem to do the same thing, albeit not so straightforwardly. Also doing an extended product advertisement like this is also a non-liberal concept and future episodes are far more blatent about peddling some horrible product. I recall a Christmas episode where Archie buys Joey a game that Mike deems violent. Next thing we know, the camera has a whackin' close-up of this game in action for about ONE MINUTE. :puke: This isn't All in the Family. It's a petty advertisement in a well known and popular program with a gigantic audience. It's a sell-out. And it's obvious.

I still don't like how the show changed its format in season 4 and I don't see why Michael would take things so personally as those are the things he supported (hence my claim the show had some puke influence.)

On the other hand, as Mike and Gloria make and raise Joey, the show also (but unwittingly) points out why society stopped thinking about social issues and allowed what is now the neocon movement to take over.

[Kat45]

20. I guess we just perceived the AA story differently.

I didn't find it odd that Mike would act that way. A lot of people believe in something, and talk about it a lot, but then when it hits them personally, they react differently. I honestly didn't see it as denouncing liberalism.

As for "Edith's Conversion," I had forgotten that the horsemeat subplot was in that episode. I don't see it as reducing Mike's credibility. I remember when meat was really expensive and horsemeat came into play. A lot of people have a similar sickening reaction to the thought of eating horse as they do to the thought of eating dog. It's a beloved animal, like when Mike said he didn't want to eat "Mr. Ed." I find that a fairly normal reaction.

The game: is that the one with the two figures boxing? Did they say what the name and brand of the game were? If they did, I don't remember it and I apparently didn't notice it. And as for the 'group therapy' game, IIRC that was a popular game back then and I don't think of the episode as advertising it. I didn't like that game myself--I remember getting stuck playing it one time with my friends.

I guess you and I just looked at some of these episodes differently, and that's ok. I'm curious--did you watch it when it was out or are you a younger person who watched it later in reruns? Sorry if I get passionate about this show, but it is my all-time favorite TV show, quite a groundbreaking show, and I've watched it so many times that I can parrot the dialogue while watching. As a matter of fact, usually within a minute of putting the show on, I know which episode it is.

[hippiechick]

9. I don't think it ever 'turned Puke'

... in fact, I think that show was one of the building blocks of my critical thinking/ideological foundation. Carroll O'Connor's character bears more than passing resemblance to my dad, and everyone who knew me then (and now) says I bear intellectual/ personality resemblance to Rob Reiner's character (altho I was and am still female :) ).

[SmileyBoy]

10. When Mike and Gloria moved and that stupid little girl came in.

That's when it went downhill.

[mitchum]

13. When it became "Archie Bunker's Place"

a waste of the talents of both O'Connor and Martin Balsam

[CanuckAmok]

15. It had a left-leaning theme, to be sure, but...

What I always got out of the show's overall message was that both Archie (conservative) and Meathead (Liberal) could be equally irrational and hypocritical. Mike could be very sexist and intolerant.

I think that was the point, beyond showing that post-Kennedy America was becoming an increasingly multicultural/progressive society (makein the Archies of the US obsolete); the point was that there are no absolutes...that American society of the Sixties/Seventies didn't exist in a vacuum, it was an organic, evolving system with failings and successes on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Deja Q]

17. Good point.

There were times I was disagreeing with Michael as well; even in the first three seasons.

But the format, now more introspective than looking outward, is still a change. But then, how long could they retain the season 1-3 format and, of course, societal change you'd mentioned?

I'll admit I was being extreme in my comments, but the episodes just don't feel right.

[CanuckAmok]

19. It had a gradual shark-jumpiness to it.

One of the reasons was that is was such revolutionary TV, that as other programs of the era (many also created by Lear, ie Maude) caught up, AiTF became less relavent.

There is only so much that can be accomplished within the confines of any story's basic structure. AiTF is an extremely simple theme; progress versus conservativism. There can only be "X" number of plotlines which can entertain within that structure, and they pretty much exhausted them all.

When you think about 'key' episodes, they addressed the 'taboos' of the day; anti-semitism, gun control, homophobia, racism, pacifism, menopause, rape, child abuse, US imperialism, unionism. Once addressed, there's nothing to do but readdress them. And if the writers' viewpoints remain unchanged, that ultimately becomes boring and predictable.


That's when sharks start jumping, and cute new characters start to appear.

AiTF should have ended when Edith died. There was no "family" left at that point; just Archie in his compromised world of American dreams that never were.

[R. A. Fuqua]

18. When Carroll O'Conner

died a few years ago, I saw a great special on Nick at Nite--it included a lot of old interviews with Norman Lear and O'Conner and everyone involved with the show.

The overall theme of the show from beginning to end (according to those responsible for the show) was that O'Conner's character was threatened by a rapidly changing society--one that he had trouble understanding. That is why he was threatened by the college educated Michael character. He also felt threatened by every "new" idea that came along--such as affirmative action etc. It was all part of the overall theme to have these things happen.

IMHO, the writing was quite brilliant--and the show was a ground breaking satire on how society was changing in the 1970's era and also the fears of those who were resisting those changes.

The only problem is that O'Conner (a flaming liberal) was such a fantastic actor that he actually made his unlovable character quite sympathetic at times.

Slightly off-topic--According to O'Conner's friends, he played the role so well, that many people actually believed he was Archie Bunker in real life--and he HATED it when they tried to relate to him as if he were Archie. Reminds me of that character from LA LAW 5(I can't remember his name, but he played a mentally challenged character) when he goes out on the town in LA there are still people who treat him as if he is mentally challenged because he did such a great job with the character. He is NOT mentally challenged --and he hates being treated like that--just as O'Conner hated being treated like a racist male chauvinist! O'Conner was actually a Mensa member--a genius IQ, a great actor, and a reliable liberal.

[ghostsofgiants]

21. Haha, your last paragraph...

Reminds me of Garden State. The scene when Natalie Portman's character asks if Zack Braff's character was "really retarded" because he played "the retarded quarterback".

[WI_DEM]

22. it lost its edge when Mike and Gloria moved next door

and I think it "jumped the shark" when Archie bought that damn saloon.