All in the Family Essay Example

share ideologies that differ from his. While Mr. Bunker is clearly shown to lack social grace, he is never condemned for his actions outright. In fact, the characters do not change in response to the events of an episode. They begin in their stereotypical roles and continue to remain in those roles for the remainder of the series. This was strange because the show decided to venture into real-life topics and yet it did not have real-life consequences besides many an awkward situation.

For this reason and more, this show was begging to be talked about, and it surely got its wish. When the show first aired, reviews were vastly mixed. Some praised it as a great show that pushed boundaries. Others, generally of more conservative backgrounds, thought that Archie's views were unfairly squashed. Still others thought it did not go far enough to show that Archie's views are not acceptable. This large dichotomy of opinions fueled the energy with which it was critique. Not only was this polarizing, but it drew critics in with its social and political nature.

Everybody wanted a stake in the conversation about the new level of candidness that was entirely unprecedented for its time. Howard Prouty, of Variety Television Reviews, was excited to hear about the show's release. He saw this show's ability to bring the inner monologue of an older generation to the surface as a change to the overly beaten path of American television programming. In his Variety Television Review, he states that All in the Family “is a broad, sharp, double-edged sword sliced right and left, and the ultimate effect is one of deep

pleasure and relief. ” (Prouty 27).

His critique states that the show adequately acknowledged both sides of the arguments of old and new ideologies, in that it showed each side of the social and political arguments fairly. Prouty then acknowledged that it was as close to real life as TV had gotten at that point, demonstrating “basic reality” through its “performers and the setting. ” (Prouty 28). The main method in which this article establishes the credibility of All in the Family is by comparing it to The Honeymooners, a show that was held in high regard. Whether the creators of these two programs would see eye to eye is a matter of a different debate.

Still, not all critics were thrilled to see this new kind of show. Many articles, like John Leonard's “Bigotry as a Dirty Joke,” which appeared in Life Magazine, posited that this show's pseudo-realism was flawed on multiple counts, calling it a “double-edged lie. ” (Leonard 10). According to Leonard's article, the show devalued the opinions of the working class man by portraying Archie simply as a “mindless bafoon” and that “his opinions, unlike ours, are unrelated to social, psychological or physical conditions. ” (Leonard 10).

In a different way, it does not do justice for viewers who agree with the show's general anti-bigotry tone. While Mr. Bunker is clearly shown to be stubborn and socially wrong in most situations, he is never condemned and never faces any real consequences other than many an awkward moment. Archie is continually portrayed as “charming. Forgivable. Purely a premise, a given, in no way dangerous. ” (Leonard 10). According to

Leonard, this portrayal suggests that Archie's antiquated views are harmless. By being able to say these terrible things without even a slap on the wrist, the writers suggest that this behavior is acceptable.

Leonard's main problem with the program is that it cannot seem to commit to a viewpoint, and thus has a shallow dip into both old and new ideologies. Despite the highly involved social conversation that was centered around All in the Family, some critics tried to look for its meaning through incredibly in-depth analysis. Chilton Williamson, Jr. 's article, entitled “All in Your Family,” analyzed the show not from the typical Archie-centric view, but in a view that takes all characters and motives into perspective.

This 1975 National Review article posited that this show was not just a social commentary on the ridiculous nature of Archie's bigotry, but a satirical analysis in how each character has formed a definition of success and how each character stands by their viewpoint. Williamson states that All in the Family “is saying that middle class decencies, the Ten Commandments, and a number of the civil statues make sense, though they have been imperfectly taken to heart by people who were but recently working for 25 cents a day, drinking too much, pilfering bakeries, and going on strike at every possible opportunity. (Williamson 402).

Because Archie holds strong to these beliefs, he fears that submitting to his daughter and son-in-law's progressive ideas will turn his way of life upside down. Edith, the “Dingbat,” only desires peace in her home, and this is why she is willing to be complacent. Archie's daughter, son-in-law, and many

other characters in the show view success as a societal progression into a new way of thinking. When Archie's antiquated views interfere with this forward progression, the show's progressive thinkers are compelled to argue with him in their own terms in order to assert their own validity.

Williamson then goes on to discuss how their goals vary so much that is near impossible to reconcile their differences and until they reach out to appeal to each other's views, not much growth or change can happen as a result. This is the reason for the prominent featuring of Lamont. Satirical, witty, and black, Lamont often sarcastically agrees with Archie, giving him a false sense of security. It is only in the moments in which Archie feels like he is not being antagonized that his character traits start to differ. Clearly, All in the Family had a massive impact on the media and on the social landscape in which it took place.

Following in it's wake, other shows took up the bigotry-hating banner, such as Sanford and Son (Jones 74). It sparked conversations on culture, change, and varying mindsets that previously mostly took place in people's minds, and this was the intent of the show runners. They wanted to bring topics that couldn't be talked about before to light so that they could be openly discussed. Many mark this show as the first major step towards a progressive TV environment. Despite varying viewpoints, this was a conversation that needed to be had and this show acted as a lubricant that enabled social change through public dialogue.