In the
lead-up to its premiere on Tuesday I truly did not know how to feel
about the twenty-years-belated tenth season of Roseanne, or
what to expect. The original Roseanne was a legitimately
important TV show, well deserving of its status as one of the classic
American sitcoms: beneath the familiar surface of a family-centered
comedy it was a deceptively intelligent, thoughtful, groundbreaking
show which sought to deconstruct the myths and stereotypes about
blue-collar middle-America, and tackle real issues that average
people faced. It was also a very progressive, socially-liberal show,
with themes of LGBT rights, birth control and abortion rights, and
feminism. Taking on these topics at all was pretty radical for a
sitcom in the late-80s or early-90s, let alone taking them on in a
show about a blue-collar family who represented a slice of America
typically stereotyped as socially-conservative Republicans. That was
a huge part of Roseanne Barr's goal, to deconstruct those stereotypes
while speaking out on these issues she felt passionately about to an
audience who might not otherwise be receptive to the social arguments
she was making, especially when it came to her LGBT advocacy. All of
this is why I felt shocked and disappointed when Barr turned into a
Trump supporter (despite still claiming to hold those same
socially-liberal values): she sounded a bit unhinged at best in her
“burn it all down” attitude and embracing of conspiracy theories,
and at worst seemed like she had outright betrayed the progressive
philosophies that had been a huge part of the thematic richness and
social importance of her show.
Hence why, as a liberal appreciator of
the original series with a great disdain for the views and public
persona that its creator/star had taken on in recent years, I was
deeply skeptical about Roseanne's revival season, and nervous
about what it would do to the show's legacy (which is saying
something, since we are talking about a series whose bizarre,
shark-jumping last season turned out to have all been a fictional
novel within the world of the show itself). Still, I hoped for the
best, particularly upon learning that Barr's Trump-supporter views
would be counterbalanced by Sara Gilbert (a liberal, gay, political
activist, in addition to the show's own Darlene Conner) not only
being one of the new season's producers, but actually the one whose
idea it was to make this revival happen in the first place. I'm so
glad that I went into Tuesday's hour-long season ten premiere with an
open mind: I was greeted by genuinely very good television which is a
successful return to form for the show's thoughtful dissection of the
crises facing middle-America. This is not a conservative show, nor is
it a liberal show, but a show born of the tensions between the two:
equal parts Roseanne Barr and Sara Gilbert, working in a writer's
room with liberal and conservative voices on a show that doesn't shy
away from their deep philosophical differences, but works them into
the material. The result is a very honest look at a middle-class
family split down the middle by the tense and bitter political
landscape, but still having to fight it out and love each other
anyway (or at least coexist in a truce) at the end of the day. If
your extended or immediate family is likewise split between those who
love Trump and those who absolutely hate him, the dynamic of the
Conner family in 2018 will feel extremely familiar. While you're
undoubtedly going to sympathize the most with the characters whose
views line up most with your own (whether you see the show as
existing at center-left or center-right will likely depend on your
own political views, as the material itself tries to stay balanced
and let both camps duke it out, except for on a few issues), the show
rejects stereotypes in the way that it always has, and builds a cast
of characters who are all sympathetic, fully-realized people who are
more three-dimensional than just who they voted for. It isn’t
aiming to glorify one side or vilify the other, but to start
long-avoided conversations among viewers who disagree, especially in
divided families like the Conners. With these themes allowing the
show to directly engage with the world of 2018, this becomes a reboot
that isn't just a nostalgia trip or a return to a past ratings
success, but that actually has a well-thought-out thematic reason to
exist; the anti-Fuller House.
 |
| Honestly, who hasn't wanted to do this when going over to that relative's house? |
One of the things that won me over the
most in the new Roseanne, despite my skepticism, is that the
show's positive LGBT themes appear to still be fully intact, as best
evidenced by the plotline of Darlene's son Mark (whose name will
allow fans of the original series to guess at some of the events from
the years between the old show and now). His gender-nonconformity is
portrayed not just respectfully, but thoughtfully, and the script
gives him some speeches about gender performance and being
comfortable and authentic in your identity that are pretty darn
philosophical for a sitcom kid. Darlene is awesomely supportive, and
while Roseanne and Dan are clearly confused and a bit weirded out at
first, their character arcs of trying to understand modern
philosophies of gender and do a better job of being good, supportive
grandparents are quite well-written. Equally well-written is how all
four of these characters deal differently with the tough reality that
a genderqueer middle-schooler is going to be treated a lot
differently and more unfairly in blue-collar Lanford than in a
liberal neighborhood of Chicago.
 |
| "I ain't bowling on the Shabbos, Roseanne." |
Of course, one could make an argument
that having Roseanne and Dan come around so fast on gender issues lets
them off the hook too easily when it comes to having voted for the
blatantly bigoted, anti-gay Trump administration, and it's a fair
criticism: it doesn't ring true that Darlene wouldn't call them out
on this hypocrisy. But the show is called Roseanne, so it
isn’t surprising that it takes a kind view of its title character;
and it is all about dispelling blue-collar stereotypes, and one of
those stereotypes is definitely the generalization that all
Republican voters are bigots. That it lets them grow and admit that
they were wrong is significant, and might persuade viewers to
reconsider their stances on gender-related issues as well (as I’m
sure is the whole point), so this plotline is handled quite well in
that regard. It is also where Darlene comes into her own as a main
character on equal footing with Roseanne, and counterbalancing her.
The scenes in which she schools the old-school Dan on the idea of
gender as a spectrum are pretty great, both in their philosophy and
in their development of her as a strong character who has grown up
wonderfully in the past twenty years. There are hints in the episode
that this may not be the only LGBT-centric plotline that Darlene gets
this season, and it will be very interesting to see how that side of
the show plays out.
Of course, in addition to the
social/political aspects which are undoubtedly getting the most
attention, there's also the more obvious (and at least as important)
question of how well Roseanne still works as a sitcom after
twenty years. The answer to that is very well indeed. The season
premiere sees the series almost immediately return to top form, back
on par with the stronger eras of its first run, and way better than
its bizarre, baffling final stretch. It really does feel like a
natural re-entry into the same world two decades later, as time has
kept progressing while we were away. The almost completely reunited
cast still has fantastic chemistry, and feels very much like a family
indeed, which makes perfect sense, since the actors who play the
three Conner kids literally grew up on this set with Barr and John
Goodman as their TV parents. The resulting easy, natural dynamics
between them feel very real, especially between Barr and Goodman, who
still very realistically channel the dynamic of a long-married couple
in ways both sweet and acerbic, and between the strong-willed,
often-exasperated Darlene and her parents. Gilbert has grown up into
a solid actor, and the material allows her to show her range very well. It is also particularly
great to see John Goodman back as Dan: if we doubted whether any of
the main stars would return, it was surely him, both because he went
on to have by far the most successful film career of anyone on the
show, and because the original series famously ended with Dan being
dead (don’t worry, they do address that continuity problem).
Goodman truly is one of the great character actors in modern American
cinema; no one plays an endearingly cranky, larger-than-life
eccentric quite like him, and Dan Conner remains one of the
quintessential John Goodman roles. It’s great to see him step back
into the role so comfortably, and great that, according to Gilbert,
he was very excited about returning to the role that put him on the
map despite how far his career has gone since; the show just wouldn’t
be right without him (yet another reason why that last season jumped
the shark).
 |
| Or maybe this revival was just created to finally get the two Beckies together in one scene... |
Also returning is the show’s snarky
postmodernism, which was one of the original series’ most
unexpected and hilarious qualities. The season premiere makes
recurring jokes of the original’s more dubious bits of continuity,
opening with a pretty fantastic way to address the whole “why is
Dan not dead?” question. The new season also finds a (different)
role for “Second Becky” Sarah Chalke, and has some fun with the
opportunity to put both Beckies on-screen at the same time. Pretty
much everything else stylistically about the show is the same too, to
an impressive degree: the Conner’s house set looks identical down
to every noticeable detail, the same couch with the same quilt is
still the centerpiece of the set, and (in a rare move these days) the
show is filmed multicam in front of a live studio audience. The way
in which they tried to replicate the technical aspects of the old
show’s production to make it feel as much like the same world as
possible is pretty admirable, and it definitely works to build the
connection between the old and new series. Plenty of people have been
calling this a reboot, but that term doesn’t really fit it at all;
this is definitely season ten of the same show.
All in all, the revived Roseanne
is not only a good sitcom, but a surprisingly thoughtful, relevant
show looking at divided middle-America in the age of Trump. It is
easy to lump the show in with the real-life Roseanne Barr's weird and
upsetting personal politics, and I understand why plenty of liberal
viewers considered this revival guilty by association, because I too
was really worried how the cringey ways in which she has changed in
recent years would tarnish the show. But it is important to keep in
mind that she is far from the only voice guiding the new season (and
not even really the primary voice), and other revival co-creators
like Gilbert are there to counterbalance Barr. It is a mistake (and
simply incorrect) to write the show off as conservative propaganda;
this isn't Last Man Standing.
The goal of the season, as voiced by both Barr and Gilbert, is to
accurately portray political divisions in middle-class American
families, and by giving both sides of the political spectrum equal
footing in the conversation, hopefully spark further conversations
among viewers. A reasonable, and admirable, goal in a time when most
people are becoming increasingly comfortable with just digging their
trenches and blasting the other side. The show really does seem to
want to do what All in the Family did
in the equally politically fraught Vietnam era, and while it is yet
to be seen how well the season will do that in the long run, it is
off to a pretty good start. Not to mention, disagreements over Trump
aside, the show's progressive attitudes towards social issues like
LGBT and reproductive rights seems to still be intact, and seems to
have evolved in the issues it plans to address since it went off the
air in the mid-90s. The new Roseanne is
much more complex than meets the eye, and doesn't deserve to have the
real-world craziness of its eponymous actress/creator held against
it. As a liberal who went into the season premiere very much needing
to be convinced, I can safely say that it won me over. Plus, it is
genuinely refreshing when, in this age of needless reboots and
cash-ins on past success, a much-belated sequel/revival is made not
just to make money or jump on the nostalgia bandwagon, but because it
genuinely has points to make about the modern world, and a reason for
coming back at this particular time.
-
Christopher S. Jordan
Don't
let this article die like Dan apparently didn't after all – share
it!