“Friends” at 25 (Part I): The One with the Analysis
By: Richard Lebeau
Tags: Hollywood, Review, Media, Culture, Television

My Rebuttals to the Most Common Disparaging Claims Against Friends

Disparaging Claim #1: Friends had majorly messed up sexual and gender dynamics that make it “cringe-worthy” to watch in the present day.

Most of the commentaries disparaging Friends focused on the fact that the humor has aged poorly and most that make this argument cite outdated sexual and gender dynamics. These commentators cite the occasional gay panic humor, the fragile masculinity of the show’s men, and the portrayal of sexual and gender minorities. Sure, there is some humor that felt crass when it first aired and would definitely not sit well with the Twitterverse if aired today (like the fat jokes about Monica), but nevertheless these arguments have never convinced me that Friends was misogynistic, homophobic, or transphobic. Here’s why.

Exhibit A: The Women are Strong and Equal. Rachel, Monica, and Phoebe are fully equal members of the ensemble, which is in sharp contrast to many of the show’s contemporaries (e.g., Seinfeld, Frasier). The female characters are fully autonomous in their careers, powerful agents in their romantic relationships, treated as full equals by the male characters, and approach marriage and motherhood with an admirable mix of cautiousness and commitment.

Exhibit B: The Men’s Fragile Masculinity is the Subject of Derision not Celebration. Ross and Chandler are extremely insecure in their masculinity (most egregiously displayed when Ross refuses to hire a male nanny for Emma and any time someone thinks Chandler is gay). Sure they get uncomfortably teased by the other characters for being soft or effeminate by the other characters, but what is overlooked in this argument is that their fragile masculinity is the butt of the joke. It quickly becomes clear that Chandler’s use of humor as a defense mechanism against his intense fear of expressing vulnerability, Ross’s attempts to prove his manliness, and Joey’s hollow bed-hopping are huge liabilities that each character needs to overcome to have any shot at a happy ending. In fact, becoming emotionally mature men is the arc of all the male characters.

Exhibit C: The show not only portrayed sexual and gender minorities but portrayed them positively. Ross’s ex-wife Carol’s decision to leave him for another woman at first felt like a provocative plot twist, but when viewers were introduced to the same-sex couple what they did not see was an offensive caricature or the butt of a joke, but rather a healthy, stable relationship between two strong women committed to marriage and motherhood. They even got married in a particularly memorable and controversial episode that aired at a time when there were no regular gay or lesbian characters on a primetime network comedy (this was 2 full years before Ellen DeGeneres came out of the closet).

Undoubtedly more problematic was the portrayal of Chandler’s cross-dressing father. The fact that his father ran off with the pool boy and started an all-male burlesque show was frequently used to explain why Chandler was so damaged and insecure. Although that may sounds horrific to a 2019 reader, there are several factors that should be considered. First, everyone on the show came from a dysfunctional family (Monica and Ross’s parents were hypercritical and played favorites, Joey’s parents were engaging in extramarital affairs, Rachel’s parents went through an exceedingly nasty divorce, and Phoebe was raised by a single mother who died by suicide). It was hardly presented as the case that Chandler’s family of origin was dysfunctional because of his father’s sexual and gender identity, it was just an aspect of it. And that becomes increasingly clear when we meet his mother, the boundary averse romance novelist (played by Morgan Fairchild), and eventually his father (played by Kathleen Turner). Much outrage has been piled on the decision to cast a cisgender actress as his father, but it is important to note that transgender rights and transgender representation in Hollywood are a long overdue but nevertheless recent phenomenon. The very fact that the show had a (presumably) transgender character that was eventually humanized and accepted could be viewed as a positive step toward inclusivity.

Copyright: Warner Bros.

Disparaging Claim #2: The lack of racial diversity on Friends was unrealistic and offensive.

Other than Ross’s romances with a couple of women of color (most notably Aisha Tyler in the final two seasons), Friends was undoubtedly whitewashed. The homogeneity of the show was especially ridiculous when you consider that its setting was urban New York City in the 1990s. In many ways this is a valid criticism, but it overlooks an important contextual factor — network television as a whole was enormously segregated during this time period. Mixed-race ensembles barely existed with shows being either predominantly black (e.g., A Different World, Martin, Living Single) or all white. And of course, the all-white ones got more than their fair share of the acclaim. In fact, during the 10 years that Friends was on the air, a total of 13 series were nominated for the Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series —Friends, Frasier, The Larry Sanders Show, Mad About You, Seinfeld, 3rd Rock From the Sun, Ally McBeal, Everybody Loves Raymond, Sex and the City, Will & Grace, Malcolm in the Middle, Curb Your Enthusiasm, and Arrested Development. Of these 13 series, only 2 had cast members of color and neither were in a lead role. These exceptions to the all-white ensembles were Penny Johnson Jerald, who routinely stole scenes as Larry Sanders’s assistant, and Lisa Nicole Carson and Lucy Liu, who were Ally McBeal’s confidante and nemesis, respectively. (One could argue that Shelley Morrison and JB Smoove became regulars at some point on Will & Grace and Curb Your Enthusiasm, respectively, but they definitely weren’t part of the core, original ensembles of those series).

Although this is technically a valid criticism, it reflected the state of television at the time and singling Friends out as a particularly egregious offender is illogical.

Disparaging Claim #3: Friends was anti-intellectual.

The most ridiculous take I have seen on Friends was that it contributed to the downfall of Western Civilization by mocking intellectual pursuits and science. Yet somehow, this take nevertheless went viral. Ross was ultimately not mocked because he believed in science but because he was socially awkward, and annoying. The geekiness was just an easy target. Again, looking at the 13 series nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series during the 10 years Friends aired, 4 featured main characters with high brow professions requiring graduate degrees (Ross the academic on Friends, Frasier and Niles the psychiatrists on Frasier, Will the lawyer on Will & Grace, and the entire ensemble of Ally McBeal). In each these shows the high brow professions were mercilessly mocked. And, echoing what was said above about how any representation could be viewed as good representation, Ross was one of the only PhD academics on a comedy series until The Big Bang Theory rolled around.

Disparaging Claim #4: Friends was just frothy fun and had no substance.

Comedy series in the 1970s and 1980s tended to have serious undercurrents (e.g., the horrors of warfare on M*A*S*H, culture wars on All in the Family, ageism on The Golden Girls) or at the very least pause from the laughs frequently for very special episodes covering dramatic material (e.g., The Cosby Show, Roseanne, Murphy Brown). These were shows about something. Then the self-proclaimed “show about nothing” Seinfeld came along and provided a new and refreshing model. But to me, Friends was not a Seinfeld knockoff. It had far more emotional depth and was far more interested in human development and nuanced social relationships. I think it exists somewhere in between the extremes of being about something very serious and being about nothing. I could try to articulate my thoughts on this in my own words but why bother when it has already been said perfectly?

“No sitcom has ever been as deliberately self-effacing as Friends. The title, the theme song, the episode names (“The One Where…”) were self-explanatory at best, insipid at worst. They were friends; they were there for each other. Move along, nothing more to see. But it wasn’t just the sharp writing or the comic rapport that made Friends great. Its Gen-X characters were the children of divorce, suicide and cross-dressing, trying to grow up without any clear models of how to do it. They built ersatz families and had kids by adoption, surrogacy, out of wedlock or with their gay ex-wives. The show never pretended to be about anything weightier than “We were on a break.” But the well-hidden secret of this show was that it called itself Friends, and was really about family.” — James Poniewozik, Time Magazine

Disparaging Claim #5: Friends was a good television show — but only for the first few seasons.

I find this a particularly confusing argument, because to me one of the things that is most astounding about the show is how it forged such a unique trajectory in terms of quality. Typically shows go one of two paths — they start strong and eventually decline or they take a while to find their footing and then soar. The best seasons of Friends are its 4th and 8th, its worst are its 3rd and 7th, with its 1st and 10th seasons lying in between. After a strong 1st and 2nd season, it took a big hit quality-wise in its 3rd season, leading many to think it was heading to an early flameout. But then things got hugely rejuvenated in Season 4 when Phoebe became a surrogate, the guys and girls switched apartments, and Monica and Chandler began their secret affair. After a terrific 5th and 6th season, the show hits its low point with Season 7, which lacked interesting plot points, was overstuffed with guest stars, and featured the lowest point of Matthew Perry’s drug addiction. But then out of nowhere it bounced back in its 8th season with its Emmy-winning arc about Rachel’s unexpected pregnancy. The final two seasons declined a bit, but still had a number of masterful episodes that were on par with the best the show had ever done. The fact that Friends was so resilient following quality downturns is one of the things that makes it so singular in television history and such a joy to rewatch from start to finish.

Disparaging Claim #6: Friends was just not a good television show.

If you can strip away the baggage of its popularity and cultural impact, ignore its retrospective lack of “woke”-ness, and overlook the outdated technical aspects inherent in the multi-camera comedy, what you are left with is consistently hilarious character-driven comedy featuring clever writing and superb acting. Episodes like “The One with the Embryos,” “The One Where Everybody Finds Out,” and “The One with the Prom Video” are consistently and rightfully ranked among the best half hours of television comedy in history. The performances of the whole ensemble, particularly the Emmy-winning ones by Jennifer Aniston and Lisa Kudrow, are only more impressive upon repeated viewings. And even when it went off the rails with some truly bad episodes (don’t even get me started on episodes like “The One with Russ,” “The One with the Mugging,” or “The One Where Joey Speaks French”) it would get back on track with a gem in no time.

Friends was not the most consistent or refined comedy of all time and, like all comedies, the appeal of its humor and characters is subjective. (And contrary to popular belief, not finding a show’s style of humor or characters particularly appealing does not make it inherently or objectively poor in quality.) But there’s a reason why so many millions of people continue to love the show and why it was feted by the Emmys, Screen Actors Guild, and Golden Globes. And that reason is that it was a great television series. And if you agree with that statement, I assure you there is nothing to be ashamed about.