Charlie Douglass, RIP

Sometimes laugh tracks can be overdone. The prime example is "Everybody Loves Raymond." A once very enjoyable show, it now seems to be a vehicle for the extensive use of the laugh track. The person operating the machine must be getting overtime pay. Material that rates just a chuckle brings forth gales of laughter that go on so long that you forget the point of the joke.

Too bad the late Mr. Douglass's son can't persuade CBS, NBC and ABC to use laugh tracks for the antics of Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Christiane Amanpour and the like. Those folks take themselves far too seriously. With laugh tracks they could give Saturday Night Live a real run for its money in the ratings.

It's difficult to believe that someone other than a network executive would defend canned laughter. For me at least, a laugh track makes a show wholly unwatchable. I've never seen a Seinfeld episode for this reason. It is also why the laugh trackless Larry Sanders Show is the only sitcom of the last 30 years to which I would give a passing grade (A).

What I hate most about canned laughs is that 98% of the alleged jokes and gags they are intended to highlight are not the least bit funny.

TV stinks, mostly, but if I were a snob, would I think, as I do, that Paul Lynde, Rose Marie and Charlie Weaver, appearing on the pre-Whoopi, Hollywood Squares show, were about as funny as TV ever got?

I have enjoyed almost every article from The Wall Street Journal, this being the rare exception. Frankly I can't stand all that fake laughter. To me canned laughter is an insult to intelligence. That's the major reason I stopped watching sitcoms. I am surprised to read that a Wall Street Journal editor can find value in a fake, phony, deceptive phenomena.

"Present mirth hath present laughter, what's to come is still unsure." Shakespeare thought we ought to grab our laughs wherever and whenever we can get 'em, who knows, we may not get another chance. Sounds like good advice to me, canned or otherwise. A roomful of like-minded fans who've made the effort to attend a comedy show in hopes of having a few laughs is a form of artificial canning itself, isn't it? Canned laughs really point up how bad some shows are, that's the real reason it gets dissed.

What made me laugh just now is you guys at WSJ, and the odd-angled interesting articles you keep sending us, that's a pretty funny thing all by itself. Thanks!

The laugh track isn't used enough. When I read the article I started thinking of some of the times when the laugh box should have been turned on, for instance when Dan Rather asked "President Saddam" about his election with a 100% turn out. The only problem there is, would you turn on the laugh box for the question or the answer?

Of course, using the laugh box with some one like Saddam could get dipped into the acid bath in his master bath room and using it with "the Dan" would likely get you fired. The diplomatic front has its own special questions and answers that would bring out deserved laughter, can you imagine asking Mr. Chirac about the oil deals, the weasel passports that he gave to the cutthroats in Syria just lately.

I can think of a question that I would like to ask with the box ready to go, "Mr. Chirac, did Saddam or any one in the Baath Party have something on you of an embarrassing nature that makes you turn cartwheels for some of the last Nazi's on earth?

When he says "non" just like a Frenchman who has never seen action in Vietnam, the laugh box is turned on, you throw all of the howls, the guffaws, the hyena laugh, giggling and gasps of air on loud but of course with Mr. Chirac you don't really need the box, every ones is laughing already.

Just this week it was promised to Mr. Powell that Syria would never again harbor murderers, cutthroats, assassins or car thieves, Mr. Powell could have whipped out the box and turned it on loud if he had known what was happening with the French weasel passports. It not that the laugh box is used to much, it's because it's not used enough.

Yes, but it is fraud, nevertheless, just like raising the sound level for commercials, or subliminal messages would be. All sitcoms should be required to perform before live audiences. Then, we wouldn't have to endure them for so long. Yes, it does work. Canned laughter perpetuates the myth or the big lie depending on your point of view. Canned laughter is what happens when an industry regulates itself. It lowers our expectations and serves to enhance the gross.

The canned laughter used during sitcoms has never bothered me. To the contrary, it helps one get in the mood when viewing programs alone. I think I'd feel a bit silly if I were seen watching a program by myself and was caught laughing like a hyena at some of their jokes.

Another plus is that canned laughter can be used as a cue, lest one laugh too long and miss the next line. When the canned laughter stops, you know it's time for the next line and you should stop laughing in order to catch the next zinger.

What I do find rather juvenile is the canned Awwws when Chachi kisses Joanie or the canned cheers when each cast member enters stage right, or when Archie gets his just desserts at the end of each show. The cheering does, however, bring back the old days, when all of us kids in the neighborhood would gather at the local movie theater to watch the Saturday matinee. We would arrive early in order to ensure that we could sit in the front rows. While watching the movie we would sit quietly while munching on popcorn or Good and Plenty candy as the wagon train was being attacked by Indians, all the while listening for the sound of the bugle blowing a charge, which was our cue that the cavalry had arrived to save the day, whereupon we would all clap and cheer loudly as the Indians beat a hasty retreat.

Ah, yes, those were the days.

I find the laugh track very objectionable. I don't need someone to tell me when to laugh or if this is funny. For that reason, I don't watch situation comedies.

Canned laughter works? Not on me. I make a policy of never watching any show where the producers assume that I am too stupid to get the jokes and have to be told when to laugh. If the jokes are funny, I'll laugh. If they aren't I won't.

That incessant, disgusting, artificial snicker over dumb jokes and contrived situation "humor" that don't deserve so much as a momentary grin is one of the reasons I'd rather read.

For a laugh that means something try one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books instead of giggling over nothing in obedience to the laugh machine's cues. For that matter try watching the commercials during a Winston Cup race.

Though "I Love Lucy" was filmed before a live audience, it's interesting that on multiple episodes we hear the same woman's voice, with exactly the same tempo and inflection in each instance, holler "uh-oh!" when it's apparent an unforeseen circumstance is about to erupt. Or was that one-time recording simply added to Lucy's live-audience track?

Sometime when a sitcom with canned laughter is on TV, go to a nearby room and occupy yourself with some small task. With the volume set just right, all you will be able to hear from the TV room is the laugh track. You'll be amazed how idiotic and annoying it sounds just by itself.

Good points on laugh tracks. They also have an effect on the actor in front of the camera. They improve the timing as you can time the delivery and receive a response (a double edged sword) and they also ease the anxiety when even canned laughter will make a nervous actor ease up slightly.

I would mention that CNN, NBC, ABC and the BBC have gone one better and have invented and implemented the canned leftist track. Whenever the Bush administration succeeds, they push the keys and pointless criticisms and whining issue forth. I believe the prototype was built in France.

The laugh track is a perfect supporting character when it comes to a show. However, it can only play an auxiliary role. For, the times when a supporting actor is given a starring role, the results tend to be not that pretty. So, a laugh track does help--but woe unto those who think it can substitute for poor writing and/or acting.