The Death of a Sitcom Character

Last night I discovered that the actor who plays my favourite character on one of my favourite British sitcoms has left the show.

.

The show is Coupling. Here is a brief synopsis of the show. Basically, the sitcom is a British version of Friends but with much better acting and significantly better writing. This past fall NBC attempted an Americanized version of the show that bombed and was quickly cancelled. It was truely dreadful. It was like watching amateur Shakespeare. You can see the brilliant writing behind the mediocrity but cringe at the ineptitude of actors and directors who do not understand the material with which they are attempting to work. Similar catastrophes have occured with regards to Americanized versions of Red Dwarf and Fawlty Towers.

Richard Coyle plays a character on Coupling named Jeff Murdock. It is quite difficult to explain the character of Jeff; he is somewhat of a cross between Seinfeld's George Castanza and Night Court's Dan Fielding.

The British have an extraordinary ability of creating unusual characters for their sitcoms. I am not exactly sure why this is the case. Starting with Fawlty Towers, the British comedic industry began to develop sitcom characters who had absolutely no redeemable qualities save for a sharp wit. Look at Fawlty Tower's Basil Fawlty. Look at Red Dwarf's Arnold Judas Rimmer. Look at Black Adder's Edmund Black Adder. Absolutely Fabulous's Edwina Monsoon and Patsy Stone. The list goes on and on. This is quite a risky feat, creating characters who lie, cheat, steal, and act the Machiavellian only to be loved by the audience for their humour and wit.

I speculate that this view of character creation stems from Shakespeare. The Bard is well known for creating villains who are loved for their wit: Richard III, Iago, Aaron the Moor, and, to some degree, Falstaff. All of them are villains, or at least, in Falstaff's case, a scoundrel, but all of them share the commonality of being light years ahead of the heros in wit and intelligence. Basil Fawlty, Black Adder, Arnold Rimmer, and Jeff Murdock are all either villains and scoundrels out to cheat, lie, and misuse their way through life but each contains a certain amount of humour to make up for their immorality in the minds of their audience.

For their part, the American sitcoms have not yet ventured much into the area of perverse character constructions. I can recall Taxi's Louie Depalma, News Radio's Bill McNeal, the four main characters of Seinfeld, and, of course, Night Court's uber-scoundrel, Dan Fielding.

Something has ot be said about Dan Fielding. While the British create lovable scoundrels most often and with greater degree of acceptability, no character either British or American has yet surpassed Dan Fielding in terms of utter villainy and wit and subsequent likability. He is sex-obsessed, greedy, back-stabbing, abusive, uncaring, and a host of other things. But we still like him as a character. Why? Because he is witty.

Dan Fielding may be the endgame of sitcom hero-villains but there are still many more writers wishing to create the next Basil Fawlty and Edmund Black Adder.

Which brings me back to Jeff Murdock and Coupling. I was much grieved to find that a great character to be recently established on British TV is, for the meantime, gone. The actor, Richard Coyle decided that he is "not too keen to do a fourth series." That is his decision and I do not knock him for it, however disagreeable I may find the decision. Who I do knock is the series creator and writer, the superbly talented Steven Moffat. I cannot understand the wish to continue on without such a character. I have already decided that I will not watch another series of Coupling without the character of Jeff. The show can only go downhill. Look at the season of News Radio without Bill McNeal. Look at Are You Being Served? without Mr. Lucas. It is never the same.

Look at Henry V. The actor who played Falstaff in both parts of Henry IV left Shakespeare's company. Obviously, the Bard could not invision any other actor in the role of Falstaff and decided to kill the character off in a flash back in Henry V. Now, the play itself is quite good, don't get me wrong, but it remains hollow without Falstaff. There seems to be a monstrous void in Henry V. There is not the wit and over-powering presence of Falstaff, a colossus straddling the stage.

I do not know what will happen to Coupling. Richard Coyle may be lured back four a future season. Who knows? I do know that without him the show will decline in both artistic standards and viewership. I imagine that many viewers, like myself, who watch the show for the creativity will be turned off and will turn off the show. I am not saying that Steven Moffat will lose his creativity, though he might. What I am saying is that the show's dynamic will have changed and watching the show will be like watching amateur Shakespeare, or, at best, Henry V.

Most people will think that I am making too much over such a little thing, and, perhaps, I am.
Perhaps all this is striving after wind. What does it profit me? I do enjoy creativity and I do like to see people succeed in their creative endeavours, especially if it entertains me whole-heartedly; I am an American after all. But it is just a sitcom and there will be more.
Perhaps all is vanity. In the end, Christ will return and all sitcoms will be null and void and forgotten, except, hopefully Fawlty Towers.

.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.