Seth MacFarlane: Comedic Parody At Its Finest

Seth MacFarlane, best known for his creation, executive producer role, and writing work on Family Guy and American Dad, certainly has a signature style when it comes to the series he creates and plays leading roles in producing. Since his works consists entirely of animated series however, they are not classified by camera angles and lighting, but by the highly recognizable, overtly-parodist tone, his fond use of musical numbers, and the fact that no walk of life is safe from satire. MacFarlane has definitely created a name for himself in the world of animated television and beyond.

Seth MacFarlane was born and raised in Kent, Connecticut. Being raised in New England, MacFarlane integrates a distinctive East Coast humor to many of his later creations. Early in his childhood, he began showing an interest in animation, drawing well-known characters such as Fred Flintstone and Woody Woodpecker, even creating a comic strip character for his local newspaper. MacFarlane later attended the Rhode Island School of Design where he studied animation, got his Bachelor of Fine Arts, submitted his thesis film entitled “The Life of Larry” which his professor submitted to Hannah-Barbera where he was hired in turn. Early in his career he worked as a writer for Cartoon Network series such as Cow and Chicken, Johnny Bravo, and Dexter’s Laboratory. MacFarlane then went on to create his own series, Family Guy, which was cancelled due to low ratings and brought back due to high consumer demand. MacFarlane created a distinct image and hugely recognizable brand with Family Guy (and later American Dad and the Cleveland Show).

MacFarlane often integrates his love of music by including humorous musical numbers in his shows. Also a voice actor, MacFarlane does many of the voices in his series. I think it’s safe to say that Seth MacFarlane has created not only a distinctive set of animated series, but injected an insanely unique sense of culture into the world of television.

In Seth MacFarlane’s series, there are three very distinct thematic motifs that appear in nearly every episode. A thematic motif is a recurring theme, moral, or story across several episodes and even several series. The three that I found to be most prominent in MacFarlane’s work are the random installments of musical numbers into the storyline, the integration of cut-aways, and an ending “moral” that is almost always satirized.

The first motif, the use of musical numbers, is perhaps one of the most prominent, recognizable, and memorable things about MacFarlane’s shows. One blatant example is the opening themes. Family Guy, American Dad, and The Cleveland Show all have very distinct opening theme songs that give you a sense of the quirkiness that lies in the show ahead, all very satirical (Family Guy’s pays tribute to the 70s-80s sitcom cliché of the husband and wife sitting around a piano during the opening sequence, American Dad delivers an overly patriotic air in it’s opening sequence, a definite theme throughout the entire series, and the Cleveland Show’s opening theme rips off a 70s beat and neon lighting). Aside from opening themes, the show that uses the musical number the most often and definitely the most cleverly in my opinion, is Family Guy. Countless times has a musical number randomly popped up in an episode when you least expect it, often when it’s totally unnecessary (which makes it all the better). Songs ranging from Peter’s rendition of MC Hammer’s “Can’t Touch This” in an early season episode to the more recent Season 7 episode that boasts an overly cheerful song about legalizing marijuana called “A Bag O’ Weed.” MacFarlane seems to masterfully place these songs into the plot where you would least expect (or want) it, but for some odd reason you get sucked into loving the song because of the oddity of where it’s placed and it’s overly satirized subject matter. Perhaps the best part is how these musical numbers make it seem okay to laugh at things that society generally doesn’t find humorous..

Another thing that MacFarlane has made painfully tied to his creations is the use of cut-aways. A cut-away, as defined by dictionary.com is “a switch from one scene to another for showing simultaneous or related action, creating suspense, or abruptly introduces content, scenery, etc., away from the central action.” I find it near impossible to find one example that’s better than others in MacFarlane’s work simply because they pop up so frequently, usually tens of times in one episode. In each of his shows, characters are often reminded of events that had happened to them earlier in their lives by events that are currently going on, which is where the cut-away comes in. As soon as a character utters “That reminds of the time when…” you can be sure the screen is going to go to a shot of said event (though MacFarlane pokes fun at himself in this respect when in an episode of Family Guy Stewie recalls a past event and pauses waiting for the scene to cut away. When nothing happens he nervously says “Oh, no footage for that one..? Okay..”) These cut-aways, often with no relevance to the storyline, only enhance the often skittish and fast paced nature that MacFarlane portrays in his shows.

Last, but certainly not least, is the type of animation that MacFarlane chooses to integrate into his show. He has created a highly recognizable image with the animation he uses. Family Guy, American Dad, and the Cleveland Show all boast highly exaggerated human features. A very prominent example: both Peter (Family Guy) and Stan (American Dad) have overly-accentuated jaw-lines, much too accentuated to even air on the side of realistic. On a simpler note, with MacFarlane’s animations if you’re fat, you’re really fat; if you’re skinny, you’re deathly skinny; if you’re attractive, you’re overtly attractive; if you’re unattractive, you’re gruesomely unattractive; etc. As a consumer of MacFarlane’s product however, viewers of these shows have come to know and love the type of exaggerated animation that he chooses to use. This type of animation only accentuates the culturally satirical nature that MacFarlane portrays in his works.

I think it’s safe to say that Seth MacFarlane has created an image all his own when it comes to animated television, or television in general for that matter. More specifically, the use of musical numbers, cut-aways, and highly unique/recognizable animation styles have made his shows something all his own that society has come to know and love as “his”.

Works Cited:

IMDB. "Seth MacFarlane." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Web. 17 Oct. 2009. .

"Seth MacFarlane -." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Web. 16 Oct. 2009. .

MacFarlane, Seth, prod. "Family Guy." Family Guy: Seasons 1-7. FOX. Santa Monica, CA. Television.

MacFarlane, Seth, prod. "American Dad." American Dad: Seasons 1-5. FOX. Santa Monica, CA. Television.

MacFarlane, Seth, prod. “The Cleveland Show.” The Cleveland Show: Season 1. FOX. Santa Monica, CA. Television.

What I'm Servin' Up at the Critics Table

Criticism is kind of like a snowflake, no two opinions will be exactly the same. In my world, criticism is an opportunity to put knowledge I've accumulated to the test and a chance to really relate, capture, and perhaps even stir up your audience. To me, TV as an object of study is much different than TV as an object of leisure. TV is the leisure field is simply just that, something you kick back and enjoy after a long day at work. As an object of studious sorts however, TV must be looked at with a more critical eye, and this is where I plan on bringing acquired knowledge in order to both persuade and inform my audience, whom I plan on relating to in a very low key, accessible manner. I never want my audience to feel like they're being belittled. I want my audience to be able to pick up on what I'm saying as well as be able to dish out their own opinions in response.

As stated, my goals for doing TV criticism are twofold: put my critical knowledge to the test as well as try and be accessible to my audience as best as possible. On the latter, Brunsdon brings up a helpful term regarding audiences (in her case, it's feminists vs. normal women, here we can replace that with critic and ordinary viewer). She uses the term "transparent" to define a critic as seeing him/herself as an ordinary viewer (Brunsdon, 312). I agree with this standpoint because in order to relate with an audience, you cannot try and be above them; bringing yourself to their level, to me, is the best way to relate and get a point across.

Also, in O'Donnell's piece, she talks about being aware of the "lense" your audience is looking through as well as being mindful of different cultures as your doing your criticism (O'Donnell, 8). I find this to hold true because unless you can understand that not everyone is coming from the same direction, you might never be able to accurately portray your views to them and relate to them on such a level. On the other hand however, though a critic may try as hard as they may in order to relate to an extremely broad spectrum of viewers, it is near impossible to relate to every group, type, class (etc) of people that may encounter your criticism. So, in saying those last two statements, I think it's important that as a critic I keep a watchful eye on different cultures and how others may interpret a text differently than myself, but at the same time not be afraid to voice my opinion, even if it means not being able to relate to as broad of an audience as I had hoped.

Aside from how I/we view television, sometimes how we don't view it is just as important in shaping our criticisms. Until pointed out, I had never thought of this point before. Both Butler and O'Donnell acknowledge this point in their readings, saying that criticism is "partial", meaning one may not watch an entire series, but a single episode, leaving out useful information (O'Donnell, 6-7). Butler also points out that we interrupt TV simply by changing a channel or getting up to go to the bathroom (11-12). I think these points make TV as an object of study rather interesting. Simply viewing an episode of a TV show leaves out so much; much more than I might have assumed, perhaps making it difficult to draw conclusions and therefore making it difficult to write an informed piece of criticism. As I go on in this course however, I'm sure these things will come more easily to me. I'm sure I'll learn how to deal with the interruptions and the flow of TV and perhaps even use them to my advantage in making criticisms. Also, it may be hard for me to begin viewing television as something other than a leisure object, something I've done my whole life. Looking at television through an academic eye, as well as applying knowledge I've acquired, will definitely be a challenge compared to simply watching it for the heck of it.

Last, but certainly not least, is how I plan on acknowledging and relating to the reader. In this point, I think Corner makes a good point, similar to that of O'Donnell: different people bring many different meanings to a television program, and that is something I plan on being mindful of in my future criticisms. I think trying to appeal to a broad array of readers is key, though, as I stated above, it's near impossible to relate to EVERYONE. A goal of mine however is to try and view television through not just my own "cultural lens", but through the as the lens of others as well. In doing this, I hope to gain credibility, cooperation, and interest with my readers. Another great point, made my Gronbeck, that I think can really make or break a critic's relationship with the reader is the "because clause". Simply stating my position is informational, yes, but does nothing to engage the audience or to get them thinking. Simply inserting the word "because" after you've made a point leads you to provide reason for your decision, which is where I see the interaction happening between critic and reader. All of this stated, my main point with the reader is to try and get them engaged and interested as much as possible, I want them to feel like reading my criticisms is not only informational, but engaging and accessible as well.

So to tie everything together, criticism, to me, is all about taking what you've learned and applying it in order to better relate to your reader. Taking the opportunity to look at a text through an eye other than your own is also important, making for a much more engaging and interesting experience for all involved.