American Television History

For my final project, I will be comparing Columbo (1971-1998) to Poker Face (2023–), both “whodunnits” which subvert the genre. In the traditional “whodunnit,” the murderer remains as mysterious to the audience as to the detective, and we are fed the same clues as our investigator. Thus the thrill of the viewing experience is predicated on discovering the killer before the detective–truly finding who has done it. Columbo, which first premiered in 1968 with a one-off  1 hour and 40 minute pilot, completely broke the formula. Instead of a quick-witted detective and a bumbling murderer, we are introduced to a sloppy, fumbling police lieutenant with stains on his coat and a cigar. But what’s truly subversive is that before we even meet Columbo, we meet the murderer. The audience knows exactly how the crime was committed, and who the perpetrator is, which in Columbo fashion, is typically a petit bourgeoisie genius. The killer always breathes a sigh of relief when the seemingly incompetent Columbo arrives at the scene, but quickly grows fearful as Columbo “just one more question”s his way to solving the crime. In this formula, viewer enjoyment is derived from the cat and mouse game Columbo plays with his killers, and the clever traps he devises to break their alibis. Poker Face stars pseudo-detective Charlie Cale, whom creator Rian Johnson (of Knives Out whodunnit infamy) has characterized as a modern day Columbo. As it is heavily inspired by the Columbo format, Poker Face follows the same subversive formula: the audience knows who the killer is before Charlie, and the thrill of the episode is watching Charlie persistently uncover their lies. However there are key differences between these shows that reflect the eras they are the products of–particularly in gender, class, and format. 

As identified in one of my sources, “Cops & criminals: Representations of masculinity in 1970s crime television,” Columbo’s “hegemonic” representation of masculinity is a direct response to rising anti-feminist sentiment in the late 60s and 70s. Indeed, women play a very limited role in the Columbo series, so much so that there’s a running gag of Columbo’s wife never actually being shown on screen. We do get some iconic femme fatales that execute brilliant murders, but like all of the Columbo killers, they are still portrayed as inferior to Columbo’s genius. Poker Face obviously flips this dynamic on its head with its triumphant female lead, but there are still odes to the traditional masculinity of Columbo. Charlie (like her name) is a very androgynous character, dressing in more masculine styles while still participating in femininity. There are many episodes where it is her friendship with another woman that guides Charlie to solve and/or discover the mystery. One of my major criticisms of Poker Face is that, unlike Columbo, Charlie has a “superpower”. While Columbo’s intuition stems from his hidden genius, Charlie has the innate ability to detect “bullshit” –in her words. This creative choice, while incredibly convenient as a plot device, undermines Charlie’s intelligence and autonomy. 

For the final project, I would next analyze in length the differences in class representation between Columbo and Poker Face. Columbo is part of the institution, while Charlie is a disenfranchised and hunted cocktail waitress. Columbo is always the cat in his game of cat and mouse, while Charlie is a cat operating from the position of a mouse. Charlie is both chased and chasing down killers, and she has none of the institutional protection that Columbo has. Justice is not always served through the system of law in Poker Face, unlike the more procedural format Columbo draws from. While Columbo is part of “the system,” through his humble demeanor he represents a more working class mindset/character. Thus when he is constantly pitted against successful and wealthy doctors, lawyers, inventors, trust fund kids, rich wives, etc, the audience is meant to root for Columbo–the underdog. Likewise, Charlie is always playing the underdog, but because she is in a position of so little power compared to Columbo, her adversaries are less powerful as well. Her killers are often working class or down on their luck. Some examples include the son of the owner of an autobody shop, a washed up rocked band, a senior citizen in a nursing home, and in one case even a child in elementary school. Exploring these dynamics I will reference the book chapter “Columbo: Class Struggle on TV tonight” by Lilian Mathieu. 

Finally, I will also explore differences in format. Columbo episodes were mini movies, with the first season featuring emerging directors such as Steven Spielberg and Jack Smight. Each episode had a different director and at the very least featured a different writer. This is in contrast to Poker Face where Rian Johnson is creator, producer, writer, and director. This is sometimes shocking due to the incredible consistency in character that Peter Falk retains throughout the series, but as one of my New York Times articles identifies, Columbo and Poker Face are often more about the character work than the mystery itself. That is not to say that the mysteries are not incredible, and Columbo often elevated writers in a manner similar to the anthological telefilms of the 50s. Thus for this portion of my final project I will reference the Boddy reading on live television. I will also reference the Newcomb western reading, as I would argue that Poker Face calls heavily back to the traveling western format. With many episodes set in middle of nowhere America, Charlie is not much different than the lead characters of Kung Fu or Have Gun Will Travel. 

*Throughout this project I will also reference articles written by the New York Times about Columbo/Poker Face, especially one where they interview Natasha Lyonne and Rian Johnson asking about which episodes of Columbo have the largest influence on Poker Face. I also have articles from the New Yorker, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter. 

*Preliminary thesis is in bold

List of Sources: 

Boddy, William. “Live Television.” Fifties Television: The Industry and Its Critics.  Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992.  

D’Addario, Daniel. “Natasha Lyonne’s ‘Poker Face’ Review: Peacock’s New Mystery Soars.” Variety, 25 Jan. 2023, variety.com/2023/tv/reviews/poker-face-review-1235493644/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.

Fienberg, Daniel. “‘Poker Face’ Review: Natasha Lyonne in Rian Johnson Peacock Series.” The Hollywood Reporter, 25 Jan. 2023, www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-reviews/poker-face-review-natasha-lyonne-rian-johnson-peacock-1235309159/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.

Itzkoff, Dave. “Natasha Lyonne and Rian Johnson Trace the TV Origins of ‘Poker Face.’” The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/arts/television/rian-johnson-natasha-lyonne-poker-face.html.

Kang, Inkoo. “It’s Sunny with a Chance of Murder in Natasha Lyonne’s ‘Poker Face.’” The New Yorker, 30 Jan. 2023, www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/02/06/its-sunny-with-a-chance-of-murder-review-natasha-lyonne-poker-face-peacock-paul-t-goldman. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.

Kirsch, Melissa. “Rian Johnson’s New Old Show.” The New York Times, 21 Jan. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/01/21/briefing/poker-face-streaming.html.

Lentz, Kirsten. “Quality versus Relevance: Feminism, Race, and the Politics of the Sign in 1970s Television.” Camera Obscura 15.1 (2000), 45-93. 

Mathieu, Lilian, and E.J. Brill. Columbo : Class Struggle on TV Tonight. BRILL, 2022.

Minton, Matt. “Poker Face Finale Explained: How Alex, the Iguana Killer, Fools Charlie.” Variety, 10 July 2025, variety.com/2025/tv/news/poker-face-finale-explained-alex-iguana-killer-fools-charlie-1236450229/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2025.

Newcomb, Horace. “From Old Frontier to New Frontier.” In The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties Television and Social Conflict, edited by Lynn Spigel and Michael Curtin.  New York: Routledge, 1997.

Peale, Jana Alyce. Cops & Criminals: Representations of Masculinity in 1970s Crime Television. 2016. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Poniewozik, James. “Review: ‘Poker Face’ Is the Best New Detective Show of 1973.” The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/arts/television/poker-face-review.html.

This paper compares I Love Lucy (1951-1957) and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel (2017-2023) to trace how television’s treatment of gender and ethnicity has evolved from mid-century domestic comedy to contemporary period dramedy. Though not within the same subgenre, both series position women at the forefront of comedy in the 1950s – I Love Lucy from within its original cultural moment and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel as a retrospective interpretation.

My analysis focuses on how each show uses humor and visual form to navigate women’s ambition and identity in male-dominated entertainment industries. I Love Lucy’s “The TV Commercial” (1952) utilizes exaggerated physical comedy and the show’s static, multi-camera setup to reflect early television’s containment of female rebellion within domestic and slapstick boundaries. Lucy Ricardo (Lucille Ball) slurs her words and forgets her lines after several spoonfuls of Vitameatavegamin – unaware that it’s 23% alcohol – turning her into the butt of the joke. She’s portrayed as a fool, reinforcing the stereotype of the overambitious woman whose attempts at performance end in failure. In contrast, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel’s “Marvelous Radio” (2019) uses fluid camerawork, vibrant production design, and stylized dialogue to reframe similar tensions with a modern feminist lens, foregrounding autonomy, language, and professional aspiration.  The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel presents Miriam Maisel (Rachel Brosnahan) and her agent Susie Myerson (Alex Borstein) as women who openly mock how radio advertising reduces women to housewives. Yet, even as they critique the system, they choose not to rebel outright, aware that doing so could jeopardize their precarious success. 

The paper situates both shows within the historical contexts of their production and reception: I Love Lucy negotiating postwar ideals of domesticity alongside representations of Cuban ethnicity, and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel reimagining that same era through contemporary understandings of gender, Jewish identity, and performance. By juxtaposing these television shows, I argue that television comedy has shifted from subtly encoding feminist and ethnic critique to explicitly using humor and storytelling as tools of social commentary.

For my final paper I want to explore the evolution of the police genre by contrasting the classic procedural Dragnet (1967) with the modern workplace sitcom Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2013-2021). I believe this pair offers a critical lens through which to analyze how television’s representation of law enforcement has fundamentally shifted. Dragnet established the template of the stoic, impersonal, and procedure-obsessed detective, treating the police precinct as a sterile bureaucracy dedicated to a knowable truth. Brooklyn Nine-Nine, while operating within a comedic framework, uses its humor to systematically deconstruct this archetype. I will argue that the evolution from Dragnet to Brooklyn Nine-Nine represents a move away from the myth of the infallible institution and toward a humanized, emotionally intelligent, and community-focused model of policing, reflecting profound changes in both television aesthetics and American cultural values.

The core of the analysis will look at Dragnet’s serious, docudrama tone, with its authoritative voiceover and “just the facts” ethos. Which, I will contrast against Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s sitcom structure, which uses rapid-fire jokes, cutaway gags, and absurdist humor to undercut the traditional gravitas of the police genre. Additionally, I will look at the show’s vision of law enforcement.  Dragnet embodies a Cold War-era ideology that positioned the police as an unimpeachable, neutral force for moral order. While Brooklyn Nine-Nine, is more of a product of its time, reflecting 21st-century values around diversity, workplace culture, and a more critical view of policing.

Potential Source List:

1. Mittell, Jason. Television and American Culture – essential for understanding genre theory, particularly how sitcoms and procedurals operate with different narrative conventions and cultural functions.

2.  Spigel, Lynn. Make Room for TV – context for the early domestic medium into which the original Dragnet was born, establishing a baseline for television’s role in shaping cultural ideals of order and authority.

Potential Trade Journal Articles:

https://variety.com/2021/tv/columns/brooklyn-nine-nine-season-8-premiere-review-recap-1235040522/https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/andre-braugher-brooklyn-nine-nine-1234770581/

https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/andre-braugher-brooklyn-nine-nine-1234770581

This paper will compare and contrast The Dating Game (1965-1999) and Love Island (2015-Present), which are two pivotal shows in dating show history and can help trace the evolution of the dating show genre. I will analyze with a critical analysis of the shows’ formal elements, like visual style, narrative structure, acting, set design, camerawork, and also the similarities and differences in the broader social, cultural, and historical themes and concerns negotiated in the shows.

Critically, the paper will examine how the genre has morphed through time. In The Dating Game, the sets are static with bright lights and the show has a much more scripted feel. On the other hand, Love Island has fluid and dynamic sets, and it has a high-production, surveillance style aesthetic. Additionally, the narrative structure is different in The Dating Game, which consisted of brief, scripted games or Q and A formats, from Love Island, which involves continuous storylines strung together from practically continuous footage, real drama and social interaction, and dynamic casts. Really, it shifted from a sort of game show to a drama series. Lastly, the camera work is also quite different. Although largely a product of the technology available at the time, it still plays a key role in the look and feel of the show. The Dating Game involves static cameras, whereas Love Island utilizes drone shots, handheld (mobile) cameras, and more dynamic scenes. 

Culturally, the shows function as barometers for prevailing societal views on gender, expectations around dating, and even privacy and surveillance. Furthermore, the analysis will incorporate the historical precedent of the quiz show genre—specifically the quiz show scandals of the 1950s—to argue that the shift in the dating show’s format from a scripted game show to an unscripted, high drama produced reality series is part of a larger, industry trajectory away from format transparency and towards perceived authenticity and complete documentation.

For my final paper, I will compare the 1963 sci-fi horror anthology, The Outer Limits, with the 2018 sci-fi drama Maniac. Maniac is a limited series on Netflix starring Emma Stone and Jonah Hill, with 10 episodes ranging from 26 to 47 minutes. The show is about two people who meet at a pharmaceutical trial in a retro-futuristic New York City, where you can pay for things by letting a person read you ads, and you can hire fake friends to hang out with you. A company is trial testing a pill that can cure you of any mental ailment. After a scientist dies from using the pill recreationally, a troubled scientist is hired back to run the trial alongside a grieving computer. The show follows the fraught family/interpersonal relationships of the characters, along with the struggle to get out from under the computer’s control as it continues to grieve its loss.

Though Maniac is not an anthology series, both shows are science fiction dramas, giving them a lot of content and stylistic similarities. I will be able to compare formal elements that the shows use to create suspense, but also common themes such as family, technology, and reality. My thesis is that modern science fiction television has moved away from representations of the electronic nowhere to instead represent the current technological anxieties of the power of artificial intelligence, technology-facilitated loneliness, and not being able to tell what is reality. As the power and spread of technology have grown, we have become less worried about the oblivion of television and more about the control over our minds and daily lives that comes with computers and the internet.

SOURCES:

Sconce, Jeffrey. “The Outer Limits of Oblivion.”  In The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties Television and Social Conflict, edited by Lynn Spigel and Michael Curtin. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Newcomb, Horace. “From Old Frontier to New Frontier.” In The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties Television and Social Conflict, edited by Lynn Spigel and Michael Curtin.  New York: Routledge, 1997.

Worland Rick. “‘Sign-Posts up Ahead: ‘The Twilight Zone,’ ‘The Outer Limits,’ and TV Political Fantasy 1959-1965’” Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 23, No. 1, SF-TH Inc 1996

Poniewozik, James. “Netflix’s ‘Maniac’ Is a Hallucinatory, Emotional Dream Machine.” New York Times, 2018.

ABC. “A Face Only Millions of Science Fiction Fans Could Love.” Variety, 1963.

For my final essay, I will compare The Outer Limits (1963-1965) to Black Mirror (2011-2025), both of which are science-fiction programs. These shows are similar in their unsettling nature and relevance to current societal fears. The Outer Limits instilled fear in the audience through tackling anxieties about space travel and the development of technology. Black Mirror takes a similar approach, covering topics audiences are already worried about, such as technology evolving in harmful ways. Black Mirror episode “Nosedive” (2016) has themes of technological development similar to that in “The Bellero Shield” episode of Outer Limits. The episode explores a future in which everyone has a rating that is determined by other people’s perceptions. These ratings impact which stores or places you can enter and the overall quality of life. This storyline reflects modern day fears of technological development and the impact of social media on well-being. 

In terms of critical analysis, I will compare the shows’ narrative structure and visual experience through closely analyzing how these elements impact the viewing experience. The cultural impact of these shows are similar, both of which deal with real anxieties of the audiences during that time. Fear of technological development is a theme these shows share, but they differ in how that theme is explored depending on the cultural context of the time they premiered. 

The course readings I will discuss are “The ‘outer limits’ of oblivion” (Sconce) and “White Flight” (Spigel). Sconce’s article discusses the cultural impact of Outer Limits as well as the targeted audience for the show. Spigel’s piece focuses on societal worries about space travel, in particular how space travel was a method of perpetuating existing racial discrimination. Next, I will include an article from The Hollywood Reporter titled, “Bryce Dallas Howard Says Her ‘Black Mirror’ Social Media Nightmare ‘Is Happening Already’” (Strause) which interviews the star of “Nosedive” and discusses her opinion on the relevance of this topic in the modern world. An academic article I will include is a piece titled, “Social Media as a Cause of Emotional Distress and Insecurity in ‘Nosedive’ from Black Mirror” (Bhatt) which explores how social media ties into the idea of societal distress surrounding new technology. Finally, an opinion piece from The New York Times compares “Nosedive” to real-life rating systems such as Uber, further exploring the cultural context of the episode (Paul). Together, these sources illustrate the historical context of Outer Limits and the modern implications of Black Mirror.

Bhatt, Preeti. “Social Media as a Cause of Emotional Distress and Insecurity in ‘Nosedive’ from Black Mirror.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video, vol. 41, no. 8, 2024, pp. 1520–35, https://doi.org/10.1080/10509208.2023.2219089.

Paul, Pamela. “Opinion | It’s All Good, and You’re Perfect.” The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2025. Opinion. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/23/opinion/gen-z-positivity-politics.html.

Sconce, Jeffrey. “The ‘outer limits’ of oblivion.” The Revolution Wasn’t Televised : Sixties Television and Social Conflict. Routledge, 1997.

Strause, Jackie. “Bryce Dallas Howard Says Her ‘Black Mirror’ Social Media Nightmare ‘Is Happening Already.’” The Hollywood Reporter, 26 Oct. 2016, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/bryce-dallas-howard-talks-black-mirror-season-3-social-media-cyber-attack-941327/.

Spigel, Lynn. “Part II: White Flight.” Welcome to the Dreamhouse, Duke University Press, 2001.

For my final paper, I will be comparing the 1960s CBS television show The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis and the 2020s Netflix teen comedy Never Have I Ever. I plan to focus specifically on how both “coming-of-age/romantic” comedy shows challenge conformist ideas of identity and family dynamics, even though their struggles reflect the cultural norms of vastly different eras. This paper will compare the characters Dobie Gillis, who is a white, male teen living in suburban 1950s America, and Devi Vishwakumar, who is an Indian-American teenage girl born to immigrant parents in the 2000s. These differences will be relevant in the main points of my essay, but importantly manage to push back against societal expectations despite their differences. 

In terms of their similarities, both shows use romantic comedy as a vehicle for moral and emotional growth, dealing with vulnerability in a more digestible way for the audience by balancing it with irony and romance. We can even follow the characters’ growth through their prospective romantic obsessions; Dobie loves a different girl in each episode and it is clear that his identity crisis is driven by this romance, while Devi’s crushes structure each season and are tied to her grief and realization of self-worth. These characters are meant to be funny, and behave as such, but they still touch on the complexity of teenage years. Additionally, we can see their growth through self-conscious narration. Dobie Gillis often breaks the fourth wall to reflect and speak directly to the audience, while Devi’s narration is done by John McEnroe, who tends to call out her blunders and self-absorbed tendencies.

These shows also challenge conventional family dynamics but in pretty different ways. In the Dobie Gillis episode “The Flying Millicans,” the show portrays an overly stable nuclear family in a mocking way, where the close and inseparable Millicans end up making matters worse for Dobie’s romantic situation with the daughter. It fights back against the nuclear family ideal by showing dysfunctionality within an exaggerated, model family. However, in Never Have I Ever, Devi’s family is unconventional, as she is raised by a single Indian immigrant mother living with her grandmother after the death of her father. Even though the show is transparent about Devi’s complications and struggles, it emphasizes the importance of her family in her personal growth and shows that they don’t need to be “normal” to work. 

Lastly, I plan to touch on the clear cultural differences between the two shows. I will talk about the racial and familial aspect, but I really want to focus on how the shows reflect the shift from male fantasy to female empowerment in the romantic comedy genre. Dobie’s romantic pursuits are episodic, shallow, and centered on himself, where each girl represents an ideal instead of a person. These girls exist as lessons for Dobie’s own personal growth. He is also allowed to be experimental and take his own agency whereas teenage girls in the 1950s are meant to be stable and show restraint. In Never Have I Ever, Devi drives her own narrative as a teenage girl in America. She is allowed to be messy, angry, and ambitious, and has successful female role-models in her life, such as her mother Nalini. 

The comparing and contrasting outlined above will hopefully be useful in understanding The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis’ societal achievements, as well as its limitations.

Project Proposal 

Ian Morgan

Proposed Shows:

• The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour (1967-1969)
• Jimmy Kimmel Live! (2003-ongoing)

Preliminary Thesis: Utilizing similar television techniques to air political satire both The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and Jimmy Kimmel Live! found their way to the wrong side of network censors. While the Smothers Brothers show ended up permanently canceled with only minor outcry from underground newspapers, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, in a new era of globalization, social media, and subscription TV, was able to return to the air due to public protest. 

Comparisons and Contrasts:

• Both shows utilize humor as a method of political speech, commenting on contemporary times. For example, the Smothers Brothers discussed topics like the Vietnam War and Jimmy Kimmel spoke about current affairs like governmental deportation policy and tariffs. 
• Both shows engage in musical numbers, monologues, and invite various guests on. It is clear that The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was a precursor to late night shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, SNL, The Daily Shows, and others. Based on the variety-type format these shows also exhibit some Vaudeville-like tendencies in the form of entertainment.  
• Both shows utilize the “narrowcast” technique of targeting a specific audience that was first really developed by The Ernie Kovacs Show. The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour was placed counter to NBC’s western Bonanza and was meant to capture a younger audience. Jimmy Kimmel Live! is meant for a broader audience than the Smothers Brothers, but still focuses its main base on certain political issues. 
• The main difference in the shows arises from The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour’s permanent cancellation and Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s temporary cancellation but then reinstation. At the time of the Smothers Brothers the outcry of their cancellation was contained to a few underground newspapers. In contrast, Jimmy Kimmel Live!’s temporary cancellation occurred in the era of the internet, where people were able to voice their opinions much easier and to a wider audience. In addition the financial element introduced by streaming services allowed people to protest by canceling their subscriptions, a technique that was not present in the 1960s. 

Sources:

Carr, Steven Alan. “On the Edge of Tastelessness: CBS, the Smothers Brothers and the Struggle for Control.” Cinema Journal 31, no. 4 (1992): 3–24. https://doi.org/10.2307/1225168.

Bodroghkozy, Aniko. “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and the Youth Rebellion.” In The Revolution Wasn’t Televised: Sixties Television and Social Conflict, edited By Lynn Spigel and Michael Curtin, 199-219. New York: Routledge, 1997. 

Spigel, Lynn. “Silent TV: Ernie Kovacs and the Noise of Mass Culture.” In TV by Design: Modern Art and the Rise of Network Television, 178-212. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

Freeman, Marc. “How the Smothers Brothers Embraced the Counterculture, Defeated the Censors and Set the Stage for ‘Saturday Night Live’.” The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation, December 29, 2023. https://www.hollywoodreporte r.com/tv/tv-features/tom-smothers-tribute-cbs-censor-battles-snl-1235776628/. 

Weprin, Alex. “There Goes the Jimmy Kimmel Boycott: Nexstar, Sinclair Fold as Late Night Show Returns.” The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation, September 26, 2025. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jimmy-kimmel-live-retur ning-to-stations-nexstar-sinclair-1236378740/. 

Huamani, Kaitlyn. “Jimmy Kimmel Returns to ABC with Emotional Monologue Defending Free Speech: ‘We have to stand up’.” Los Angeles Times. California Times, September 23, 2025. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2025-09-23/ jimmy-kimmel-returns-monologue-abc-suspension.  

Maglio, Tony. “Jimmy Kimmel Gets Back to Normal on Late Night, Tearing Trump a New One.” The Hollywood Reporter. Penske Media Corporation, September 25, 2025. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/jimmy-kimmel-back-to-late-night-kimmel-live-trump-1236385488. 

Koblin, John. “Jimmy Kimmel’s Return Draws 6.2 Million Viewers, Ratings Show.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, September 24, 2025. https://www.ny times.com/2025/09/24/business/media/jimmy-kimmel-ratings.html. 

Schneider, Michael. “Jimmy Kimmel Rose to the Occasion in His Late-Night Return, Reminding Us Why We Have to Speak Out Against Tyranny.” Variety. Penske Media Corporation, September 23, 2025. https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/jimmy-kim mel-late-night-return-review-suspension-1236527655/. 

Preliminary thesis: As cop shows geared towards a young audience, both The Mod Squad (1968-1973) and Brooklyn 99 (2013-2021) play a balancing act as they attempt to pander to a liberal young audience while simultaneously defending the historically racist and corrupt setting of a police department. Both shows feature diverse (for their respective time periods) casts that act as foils against the bad examples of both corrupt cops and wild law-breaking youth in order to push the image of the “good cop” and encourage youth to work with the system rather than against it. However, the prevalence of social media during Brooklyn 99’s run brought the show’s contradictions to the forefront and forced the show to abandon its message of political assimilation and the idea of the “good cop” all together during its final season.

Summary: I am going to write about how The Mod Squad and Brooklyn 99 address counterculture while taking place in an environment that actively fights against counterculture’s existence. Actors and producers on these shows split in their perceptions of the show as either a bridge between the cultural and counter-cultural or as “just entertainment” (Clarence Williams III in Telling it Like it Isn’t, to be cited properly). I will explore and add to the discussion of these shows as pioneers in diversity and as conservative pro-cop propaganda or “copaganda.” The main differences between these two shows are their genres as cop-drama and cop-comedy (The Mod Squad and Brooklyn 99 respectively) as well as Brooklyn 99’s broader reach in a time of social media and streaming. These differences force Brooklyn 99 to choose between their conservative and liberal audiences and abandon their centrist viewpoint. Though The Mod Squad did face criticism for their unrealistic portrayal of the self-contradictory “hippie cop” character, the show stays in a kind of a bubble as it envisions itself to have little effect on the real world.

Sources:

• If You Think the NYPD is Like Dunder Mifflin, You’ll Love ‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine’
• No, Brooklyn Nine-Nine Isn’t Conservative Propaganda
• Groove Tube: Sixties Television and the Youth Rebellion, Chapter 5:HowThe Mod Squad Played the Ideological Balancing Act in Prime Time
• Abolitionist Laughter: The Joint Movement to #StopCopCity
• Telling it Like it Isn’t  
• Brooklyn Nine-Nine: The end of a ‘powerful’ and ‘relatable’ show

‘Brooklyn Nine-Nine’ Review: More Than Ready to Say Goodbye

This research paper will compare and contrast the sitcoms, All in the Family (1971-1979) and Curb Your Enthusiasm (1999-2024) and will examine the changes in tone, theme and characters presented in two ensemble-cast sitcoms in two different eras of television. Both programs feature large casts and are led by pessimistic, middle-aged White men. Both comedies have addressed a number of social problems and dilemmas, including racism, homosexuality, anti-semitism, and divorce. However, the ways in which both shows address these themes are both similar and different, and reflect the time periods of both shows. I will compare and contrast the ways in which these themes are addressed and depicted.

Both sitcoms use different forms of language and setting to address these issues, which will be highlighted in the essay. I will compare and contrast other elements such as the programs’ tones, styles and other filmmaking elements such as the shows’ mise-en-scenes and set designs. These filmmaking elements are the basis for which the sitcoms address and present real-world struggles and problems. Both shows are reflections of the time periods in which they take place, and address societal problems and current events but in completely different ways.

The difference between the two shows is highlighted with the programs’ leads. Archie Bunker, the lead of All in the Family, is a “lovable bigot,” who even in the first episode insults the people of color and women who surround him. The show uses Archie’s bigotry as a form of social commentary and despite his shortcomings remains a loveable character. Curb’s lead Larry David, however tends to punch down on those around him, yet is not a bigot. Larry believes that he is persecuted by his friends, peers and even service employees as he calls out the unwritten social rules around him. Bunker is less self-indulgent, yet more ignorant to others, whereas David is accepting of others, yet insults others frequently.

Both shows feature serious themes, some of which are prevalent in both shows, including social problems including infidelity and divorce, as well as societal issues like racism and anti-semitism. The ways in which both shows address, however these issues are inherently different. All in the Family uses its comedic setting to address societal problems head on, and comment on the real world. Jokes are made about the subjects, but the real-world-issues are taken seriously. In Curb, however, these real-world problems are all the butt of the joke. Topics such as racism and divorce are both satirized and mocked, as the show uses its cast of characters to make fun of the real world.

I have not finished researching yet, but I have compiled a number of different articles that provide insight to my essay. I plan on using a few of the readings we had in class such as Vast Wasteland, to give context to the programs, but did not include them here.:

Heritage, Stuart. “The End Is Nigh for Curb Your Enthusiasm – One of the Greatest Comedies Ever.” The Guardian, The Guardian, 15 Dec. 2023, www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/dec/15/the-end-is-nigh-for-curb-your-enthusiasm-one-of-the-greatest-comedies-ever. Accessed 2 Nov. 2025.

Provides information about the Curb’s history, style and background. Similarly discusses how the sitcom is different from other sitcoms.

Poniewozik, James. ““Curb Your Enthusiasm” Made Something out of Nothing.” The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/02/02/arts/television/curb-your-enthusiasm-made-something-out-of-nothing.html. Accessed 2 Nov. 2025.

Discusses Curb’s status as a representative of the 21st century and how the program addresses real world issues and current events. The show discusses how it, and lead Larry David differ from other programs. 

Brownstein, Ronald. “The Show That Changed Television Forever.” The Atlantic, 23 Mar. 2021, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/03/how-all-family-changed-american-tv-forever/618353/. Accessed 2 Nov. 2025.

Discusses how All in the Family transformed television through its addresses of real-world social problems and delivered messages to the general public. The show had to fight significant battles in order to be aired on television in the first place. 

Gray, Tim. ““All in the Family” 50th Anniversary: The Show Left an Enduring Legacy.” Variety, 12 Jan. 2021, variety.com/2021/tv/spotlight/all-in-the-family-50-year-anniversary-1234878168/. Accessed 2 Nov. 2025.

Provides context to All in the Famiy’s differences to other programs and shows, particularly about Archie Bunker and how he differs as a protagonist to other sitcom protagonists. Also references the themes and social issues addressed throughout the show.