Chuck Lorre

Chuck Lorre was born on the coast of Long Island New York in 1952. He attended the State University of New York at Potsdam but then dropped out. For several years Chuck worked as a song writer for many artists including Debby Harry. In 1986 he changed his focus from music to television. He began writing animated scripts for companies like Marvel Productions and slowly worked his way up to being a creator, executive producer and writer for over twenty years. He has worked on shows such as Two and a Half Men and Dharma and Greg. He is currently married to Karen Witter and has two children. Chuck Lorre, the creator, executive producer and writer for both Two and a Half Men and Dharma and Greg has a specific signature to his shows that include the sequence in which the episode airs, uses family as the subject line, and uses editing and camera shots to tell the story.

Chuck Lorre uses similar relationships in Dharma and Greg and Two and a Half Men which is part of his signature. These two shows have characters that complement each other by being different. Alan from Two and a Half Men and Greg from Dharma and Greg are similar in the way that they are both very type A personality and want to have everything done in a specific way. They are anal retentive and always strive to achieve success. The mannerisms between these characters are also similar in the way that they walk around busily looking for something to do and always want to have their ducks in a row. Dharma from Dharma and Greg and Charlie from Two and a Half Men are free spirits. They constantly do what they feel is best for them no matter how it effects other people in their lives. They also both are very blunt with the people in their lives and have chosen to live doing things they love like grooming dogs and playing music. These two characters are constantly seen relaxing around their homes doing things they enjoy.

Secondly, Chuck Lorre uses family and family problems as a thematic motif in both Two and a Half Men and Dharma and Greg. Two and a Half Men and Dharma and Greg are similar in the way that there is always a new or recurring conflict that is always being attempted to be solved. Both shows have mother characters that are wealthy and harsh to their sons. They have the same short bob for a haircut and also wear the same dress and pant suits. Both mothers also have a sarcastic humor to them making it hard to tell if they are ever being serious. There are characters who do not hold back anything on their minds such as Dharma who refuses to tell a lie and Charlie who has usually been drinking therefore having no inhibitions. Both shows surround themselves in the families’ homes with everyday situations like going to soccer games and whether or not to shower or take a bath. Part of Chuck Lorre’s signature here is that he is using family and their conflicts during every episode.

Lastly, Chuck Lorre uses similar relationships between parents and children. Since the mother characters in each show are the same, there has been a same result in the relationships that the mothers have with their children. In Two and a Half Men the mother treats her children like they don’t know anything. They came from money so she expects a certain attitude from them. The banter between the mother and her children Alan and Charlie is sarcastic and appeals to a more adult audience. They constantly use jokes that have a smart ass connotation to it. In Dharma and Greg Greg’s mother is also wealthy and expects her son to act like he is wealthy also. Her comments to him are always smart ass and sort of back handed. The relationships between the parents and the children in these shows are the same while the reaction the children have to their parents is not.

Chuck Lorre uses thematic motifs in his television shows to mark his signature. Such motifs include relationships with mothers, parents and children, and the similarity between the main characters. Lorre uses these things to connect with his audience and make them like his shows.

Sources: http://www.natpe.org/conference/speakers/bios/index.jsp?speaker_id_string=3854:K3Xm7v7ldM$Wbu42XN$-KA**

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Chuck_Lorre

Who am I?

I’m writing this blog for my Television Criticism class. Why should you care? After all I am just a student. In this blog I would like to persuade you to think that my thoughts funny enough to make you laugh and more importantly make you think. We had to read various readings for class in the last two weeks by John Butler, John Corner, Charlotte Brunsdon, Victoria O'Donnell, Malcolm Sillars & Bruce Gronbeck. I would like to say that I can identify or strongly disagree with O’Donnell, Butler, Gronbeck and Sillars, and Corner but most of all I mostly agree with the style of writing that O’Donnell wrote because it is relatable to me. In this blog I will briefly discuss each author(s) saying why I agree or disagree, then what my goals are as a critic, how I view television as an object of study, and how I can make my audience relate to me.

While I agree with Gronbeck and Sillars that ‘The environments around you – political, economic, social, ethical – are constructed and maintained through a variety of communication practices and media’ (pg. 3&4, Gronbeck and Sillars) there is so much citing of other readings and things they say but put in citations that I can’t concentrate on what they are saying. Why do you have to say something to us in a citation when you could just put it in a sentence? On one page for example they cite Havelock, Preface, Muse, 1331b, and Rhetoric 1362a. I don’t even know what any of that means! The language used is also boring and makes me feel uninvolved because I cannot relate to a bunch of citations.

I found Corner’s reading to be super lame because of the large meanings behind the large words being used. It took explanations from Kristina for me to comprehend that ‘centripetal’ meant to disperse meaning through television and ‘centrifugal’ meant to unify all the meaning in the world into one source called television. Either I should have known what these words meant by seventh grade or Corner could have just explained it exactly in those simplified terms. I’m sick of reading things that take me googling words to get through. I’m in college I don’t have time for that shit.

‘Television is dead’ (pg. 3, Butler). I disagree. It’s sitting in my room; it is turned on and very much alive inviting me to watch intently or to fall asleep to the nothingness that I found not entertaining. I don’t want to use a lot of theory crap in my writings because it is boring to me. If I find it boring then I will use the little logic God gave me and assume that other people also find it boring. I don’t need to hear how TV is dead. It isn’t. And we haven’t replaced it, we have enhanced it.

I like O’Donnell. O’Donnell wants me to ‘make informed judgments’ (pg. 3, O’Donnell). I want this too. I really like all the references to Law and Order, X-Files, and CSI. Why? Because I watch this crap. Television most of the time is for pure entertainment. You are supposed to get lost in it. It is supposed to capture you and sometimes if you are lucky, you learn a little something. O’Donnell talks to me like we are friends. We are buds, comrades. She says things to me in a way that she knows I’ll understand, because I do understand.

From these four readings I have derived goals for this blog and for myself. I do not want to cite unnecessarily because I don’t want my blog to be full of citations as my audience is trying to read my blog. I want to use everyday language so the audience can easily understand and comprehend what I’m trying to say. I do not want to babble about theories…this is a fun blog! I want to talk about topics I can relate to like examples from my favorite TV shows like Top Chef, Real Housewives of Atlanta, Keeping up with the Kardashians and many others shows. I want to talk to my audience like were friends, because that’s where my sense of humor really comes out. Lastly, even thought this is my blog, I want to have conversations with people about their thoughts as well.

Specifically I am constantly looking at a few things when I am watching television. First, how is television representing women, gender, and sexuality? I’ve taken quite a few women’s studies courses and I can pick up on when something just isn’t quite right with a show. For example the show The L Word. While this show is commendable for its lesbian portrayal in a groundbreaking way, most the characters are thin, white, mid to upper class women. In the segment from the show below you can see what I mean:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BBaIGgoehs

Second, I want my shows to be relevant to what is going on in our culture right now. Does everyone live an upper class lifestyle like they do on Gossip Girl? No, some of us grew up in small towns and graduated with 69 kids in our class. Is it relevant? Also, does it captivate me? Why do I like shows that sometimes are not relevant at all to my life?

How am I going to relate to you? I certainly hope my goals of language use and speaking like we are friends will help that. I will be able to connect with you only if you also share your thoughts so we can have an open honest conversation about what we are seeing in our culture on television.







Bibliography
Butler, J. (2002). Television: Critical Methods and Applications (2nd ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Corner, J. (1999). Critical Ideas in Television Studies. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Donnell, V. (2007). Television Criticism. New York: Sage.
Sillars, M. O. and Gronbeck, B. E. (2001). Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

I made a blog!