*hypocritical Friends*

In past reviews, television critics have said Friends reflected everyday situations that "young Gen Xers" go through. However, that was something that neither the show's creators, producers, writers nor the cast wanted to espouse in the beginning of the show. According to Rob Owen's book GenX TV: Brady Bunch to Melrose Place (1997), Marta Kauffman--one of show's creators--felt that the Gen X label would be detrimental to the show's ratings and appeal. No one affiliated with Friends wanted the program to end up with the perception of being associated with the "slacker" label (112). However, Kauffman felt that the show dealt with "realistic" aspects of life (113).

What a difference three years make.

In the January 24, 2000 People magazine, Executive Producer Kevin Bright stated that the show "holds up a mirror to the life of gen Xers who are still deciding about careers and what's important to them." (Bright, qtd. in Chin 99). So, are they trying to backtrack with their earlier comments about the show's tone and appeal? Most likely. After all, Friends finds itself consistently at the top of the ratings. It won its time slot this week. It was the number two prime time program in the 1998-1999 season (World Almanac and Book of Facts 2000 190). The show has also recently won a People's Choice Award. Success changes opinions. So, how do you make sense of a show that seems very comedic, but arid at the same time? That question is still up in the air. I still can't figure out what makes these vapid characters aimiable.

Going back and reading Douglas Coupland's 1991 book Generation X has fielded some clues. Within his text, he created characters who were scarred by their experiences in the real world from family life, work and social situations. Dag, Andy and Claire--the three titled characters in the book--found out ungracious truths about life as it really is. And of course, Coupland wrote of these characters trying to navigate a "wasteland" filled with cynicism and passionlessness. Therefore, their solution within the novel is to move to the desert and try to make some sense of their lives. On Friends, there's a less remote solution to the problems of trying to formulate some sense of well-being. Instead of the desert, Ross, Chandler, Monica, Phoebe, Joey and Rachel go to Central Perk or Monica's apartment to commiserate about all the happening in their lives. But that's not all. Throughout all the mind-numbing antics they commit, the only thing that remains is the strong attachment between all of the characters. Not even affairs, botched marriages, juggled rooming arrangements and a cast of new characters can break the chemistry between each of the main principles of the cast. But even despite that, the show still leaves a vacant taste in my mouth.

Although the show does try to deal with "real life" in all its permutations, who's life are they really portraying? A young hip crowd that seems rooted in their neurosis and self-centeredness? Is it the fact that their everyday antics seem to even paint another view of Generation X that seems still contrived?

Well, rest easy. Friends is one step better than the constant melodramatic machinations that would befall on Undressed or The Real World. The problem with MTV's "mockumentaries" is that these programs are synonymous in trying to stage "life experiences"and inject them with a sense of realism. And it doesn't help that the lives of the beautiful make television so compelling. But, I digress. If you want something that is comedic eye-candy, well too bad. Melrose Place is gone. And Friends has now taken its place. But this show--despite the accolades--is far from what makes television so bad that its good.

What fascinates me is that people just like the show because it has a "hot cast" . In my point of view, this is the new show about nothing. Its aura meanders along the inane storylines that poke fun at the substantial while highlighting and praising the inconsequential. There isn't a sense of depth. Just lightweight froth from week to week. Because Monica, Rachel, Ross, Chandler, Joey and Phoebe act so idiotic in everyday situations, the show seems to state that they are trying to distance themselves from anything profound. It figures. These six characters are trying to just live their everyday lives within the panorama of a few, high-rent apartments in New York. The only thing that is good about the show is that their entire view of life seems to revolve around each other.

Other than that, the six characters superficially go about their life as an obnoxious laugh track plays in the background. The strength of their friendship revolves around this idea of acting witless under the guise of being "cool. In fact, they only know how to survive by trying to act on instances of desire. Human desire-- romantic or otherwise--seems to generate the plots in each episode. What bothers me about Friends is this persistence to show shallowness to the point that it is ingratiating. What scares me about Friends is that people identify with them. Yeah, yeah. The critics say that the show allows the audience to watch them "grow up". But of course, the problem with this is that they still act the same way that they did in the first episodes. However, maybe the thing that makes people laugh is the capacity of each of the characters to be so surface-oriented. You make the call.

Ultimately, the occurrences on the top-rated program don't really reflect all life experiences. Friends only depicts a narrow lifestyle clouded by references to "popular culture". Their experiences are only glamorized to make it seem like the characters are like the average Joe or Jenny. All of the happenings on Friends are exaggerated. Therefore, the show really reflects falsity and flakiness--all the while trying to make the viewer laugh. Friends is really a sappy show that tries to ooze charm. What else is there?