Why the Laugh Track Won’t Die

by

It’s been quite a while since you pondered over the concept of sitcom laugh tracks, possibly even decades. Many people believe that sitcoms featuring canned laughter have essentially been extinct or on their way out for an extended period. However, much like the villager in Monty Python and the Holy Grail who insisted “I’m not dead yet!”, this format continues to resurface, showing a remarkable resilience.

One could view traditional laugh track sitcoms as if one were a curious anthropologist: Here is a half-hour show, complete with pre-recorded laughter in its usual airtime setting, which has been dwindling since the 1990s due to the rise of another form, the single-camera comedy. In 2021, various media outlets declared this format extinct when not a single new multi-cam sitcom premiered during the fall season and two critically acclaimed shows (Disney+’s Wandavision and AMC’s Kevin Can F—k Himself) deconstructed the genre.

Interestingly enough, let me share this with you: It seems that there’s a higher number of multi-camera comedies with canned laughter on broadcast television compared to single-camera shows (7 vs. 5), and these shows are actually doing quite well. In spite of the criticism and the changes in audience preferences, a new Chuck Lorre sitcom this season called “Georgie & Mandy’s First Marriage” has made it into the top 5 Nielsen ratings for broadcast. While many newer streaming comedies are single-camera, they often struggle to compete with reruns of classics like “Friends” and “The Big Bang Theory” in terms of viewership.

For decades, sitcoms featuring canned laughter have been criticized as gaudy, commercial forms of entertainment, often accused of being a form of manipulative joke propaganda. A study revealed that laugh tracks increase viewers’ perception of jokes as funny and stimulate a mirrored reaction, much like how yawning is contagious (I hope this doesn’t make you yawn; it’s not my intention). Laugh tracks have also been referred to as a tool for systemic sexism, where an unidentified middle-aged white man adds laughter to the oppressive behavior of sitcom fathers, such as Ralph Kramden in “The Honeymooners” (apologies for bringing up Alice and Ralph; it’s just an example).

Over the past few years, television has undergone such a dramatic transformation that it could be said we should reconsider our appreciation for it during this period of Peak Realism. For instance, FX’s series The Bear, which has set Emmy records, is so realistic that each character seems as miserable as working in an actual restaurant. Currently, the most popular genre show is HBO’s The Last of Us, where even a typical zombie apocalypse scenario feels authentic enough to witness a likeable character die almost every week. Similarly, HBO’s hit medical drama, The Pitt, offers an unflinchingly accurate portrayal of hospital staffing problems. Even the Disney Star Wars show, Andor, takes its space war so seriously that a recent episode included an Imperial officer attempting to assault a Rebel (I predict the finale will introduce a terminally ill Ewok). Despite being known as an escape from reality, modern TV seems to enjoy pushing real-world issues back at us; in fact, it’s not uncommon to hear showrunners talk about “grounding” their productions. These shows may be excellent, but they have turned television into a mirror that reflects our own struggles.

As a dedicated viewer, I must admit that I’ve found myself captivated by the charm of laugh track sitcoms, with their exaggerated characters who seem to have an endless supply of perfect hair and sunlit living rooms. The laughter in these shows, detached from any physical source, gives them a dreamlike quality that sets them apart. In fact, I believe this stylized format, which stands in stark contrast to the raw authenticity we see everywhere else, lends an artistic edge to these shows. After all, isn’t there something undeniably peculiar, and thus, inherently artistic, about the weirdness of these productions?

YouTubers have created videos that removed the laughter from series such as “Friends” and “The Big Bang Theory,” resulting in a strikingly awkward impact (“It seems like they genuinely dislike each other when you remove the laugh track,” one viewer commented). However, a comedy with audience laughter forms a unique entity, blending seamlessly to bring joy. Laughter feels comforting, its tone is bright and uplifting; a gentle, yellow sound. Watching Jerry and Elaine isn’t just a solitary experience, it’s like watching them alongside a crowd of people. On the other hand, the silence in “The Office” when Jim and Pam appear can feel chilly and isolating. The laugh track provides a sense of companionship, helping us feel less alone.

In the past, a device called the Laff Box was used to add canned laughter to TV shows. This box, which dated back to the 1950s, contained around 320 different laughs recorded during that era. For many years, this “Ark of the Comedy Covenant,” filled with chuckles and giggles, was utilized extensively in sitcoms. Even today, some sitcoms still use laughter tracks from past decades. This might sound strange, but it means that programs were often created using an audience whose reactions had been previously recorded. In essence, the Laff Box and its successors captured moments of humor and stored them for endless reuse, turning them into a perpetual chuckle machine.

Discussing: In the world of television production, there’s a difference between using genuine audience laughter recorded live in the studio, completely pre-recorded laughter (also known as “canned” laughter), and a mix of both, which is commonly used nowadays even in multi-camera shows due to some scenes being filmed outside. Filming before a live audience is generally considered superior because it helps actors with their joke delivery and allows producers to modify dialogue and offer suggestions for future takes based on the audience’s reaction. There are instances where an actor might struggle to maintain composure when a joke really resonates with the audience, creating spontaneous and entertaining moments. In essence, having a live audience provides a more humorous experience during filming. However, for our purposes, we grouped them together because, from a sound quality perspective, they are essentially identical. If you can’t discern one from the other, then is there really a difference? The only exception being that a significant portion of the audience may be fake (I apologize if that sounds too blunt).

This tale was initially published in the May 7 edition of The Hollywood Reporter’s magazine. To get the magazine delivered to you, simply click [here to subscribe].

Read More

2025-05-09 16:24