From wikipedia on the character of Archie Bunker:

Norman Lear originally intended that Bunker be strongly disliked by audiences. Lear was shocked when Bunker quietly became a beloved figure to much of middle America. Lear thought that Bunker's opinions on race, sex, marriage, and religion were so wrong as to represent a parody of right wing bigotry. Sammy Davis, Jr., who was both black and Jewish, genuinely liked the character. He felt that Bunker's "bigotry" was based on his rough, working-class life experiences, and that Bunker was honest and forthright in his opinions, showing an openness to changing his views if an individual treated him right. Davis in fact appeared on All in the Family to tell the Bunker character this.

If Norman Lear's objective was to have the audience hate Archie Bunker then he failed.

Do you believe that was Lear's objective? Obviously he wanted to create a great show, and he did. But as far as Archie's character goes do you think Lear wanted to make the audience hate him? And if so, did he fail?

From wikipedia on the character of Archie Bunker:



If Norman Lear's objective was to have the audience hate Archie Bunker then he failed.

Do you believe that was Lear's objective? Obviously he wanted to create a great show, and he did. But as far as Archie's character goes do you think Lear wanted to make the audience hate him? And if so, did he fail?

How did he fail if the show was number 1 for 8 straight years? This thread topic is a fail

How did he fail if the show was number 1 for 8 straight years? This thread topic is a fail

Read what I wrote:

I asked if Norman Lear failed if his objective was to have the audience hate the character of Archie Bunker.

The show was very successful, and I'm not disputing that. But was the show successful because the audience loved Archie Bunker -- something Lear didn't intend?

Read what I wrote:

I asked if Norman Lear failed if his objective was to have the audience hate the character of Archie Bunker.

The show was very successful, and I'm not disputing that. But was the show successful because the audience loved Archie Bunker -- something Lear didn't intend?


Why would he introduce a unlikable character and think the show would succeed??????????????????

So no his objective was not to have the audience hate Archie

Why would he introduce a unlikable character and think the show would succeed??????????????????

So no his objective was not to have the audience hate Archie

No, he probably wanted the audience to hate Archie. A show can succeed if they have a character that people hate so much that they tune into watch, like Simon Cowell from American Idol.

No, he probably wanted the audience to hate Archie. A show can succeed if they have a character that people hate so much that they tune into watch, like Simon Cowell from American Idol.


Since Archie never used the N-word then I say that Lear didn't want the audiences to hate him

I think I know exactly what the original poster means and I've said this for a long time.

Despite the fact that All in the Family was such a huge hit for so long and was unabashed left wing propaganda, the USA moved significantly to the right during the run of the show.

So in that sense, Norman Lear failed.

Norman Lear vigorously supported left wing causes all his life and like most of Hollywood, tried to influence America to be more liberal through his shows. Yet if you took Archie Bunker's political positions on various issues vs. Mike Stivic's political positions, more people would side with Archie Bunker even though Lear desperately tried to discredit Republicans through the cartoonish Archie Bunker and make Mike seem the more intelligent and thoughtful.

I don't know. I loved Norman Lear's shows and I'm not a liberal. I think Lear's objective was to entertain. His only show that I thought was far left was Maude and I even enjoyed that show. For AITF to be the success it was ,it had to appeal to all audiences. Even when the show was airing I heard people call Archie a luvable bigot. Shows that overly preach I'm not that interested in. Today's producers can learn a lot from Norman Lear.

I think I know exactly what the original poster means and I've said this for a long time.

Despite the fact that All in the Family was such a huge hit for so long and was unabashed left wing propaganda, the USA moved significantly to the right during the run of the show.

So in that sense, Norman Lear failed.

Norman Lear vigorously supported left wing causes all his life and like most of Hollywood, tried to influence America to be more liberal through his shows. Yet if you took Archie Bunker's political positions on various issues vs. Mike Stivic's political positions, more people would side with Archie Bunker even though Lear desperately tried to discredit Republicans through the cartoonish Archie Bunker and make Mike seem the more intelligent and thoughtful.

This is what I was trying to say. Thanks for saying it much better :)

Despite the fact that All in the Family was such a huge hit for so long and was unabashed left wing propaganda, the USA moved significantly to the right during the run of the show.

So in that sense, Norman Lear failed.

Norman Lear vigorously supported left wing causes all his life and like most of Hollywood, tried to influence America to be more liberal through his shows. Yet if you took Archie Bunker's political positions on various issues vs. Mike Stivic's political positions, more people would side with Archie Bunker even though Lear desperately tried to discredit Republicans through the cartoonish Archie Bunker and make Mike seem the more intelligent and thoughtful.

And throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. was fed a steady diet of conservative propaganda via shows like Father Knows Best and Make Room for Daddy, but then the nation elected Kennedy and Johnson, and the civil rights and women's liberation movements, followed by the antiwar movement, took the nation by storm. So what is your point? Did Danny Thomas also fail?

And throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. was fed a steady diet of conservative propaganda via shows like Father Knows Best and Make Room for Daddy, but then the nation elected Kennedy and Johnson, and the civil rights and women's liberation movements, followed by the antiwar movement, took the nation by storm. So what is your point? Did Danny Thomas also fail?

You mean they fed the audience old school virtues? Damn that conservative propaganda!

I am VERY skeptical of this wikipedia source. How could Lear possibly have intended audiences to hate Archie when he made him so very human, almost from the very beginning? You don't create a character who has a scene with his daughter after she's had a miscarriage for instance, like the one Archie had with Gloria, and intend that people hate that tender, loving father. It makes no sense and I don't believe it.

You mean they fed the audience old school virtues? Damn that conservative propaganda!

Yep, that's exactly what I mean. Danny Thomas repeatedly has episodes with the same theme: silly wife wants a career, wise Danny tells her that her place is in the home, she goes to work anyway, but in the end "wises up" and decides hubbie knows best and her place is in the home being "Mrs. Danny Williams" (with no name or identity of her own), doting on hubby and being the only adult in the house responsible for household duties and looking after the kids. I've seen this identical storyline repeated at least three times. Another one they did first with Terry, then Gina and then Kathy was where Terry/Gina/Kathy find they enjoy sports, but Daddy Danny tries explains to them that their lot in life is to be "like a flower" (Danny's words), to be super feminine, not play sports, and just dote on and build up the esteem of their boyfriend by telling him how big and strong and important HE is. They initially rebel against this idea, but in the end decide Daddy was right all along and give up any idea of being their own person.

The last episode of the series was all about some young disadvantaged kids. The message of the episode was that anyone can emerge from those circumstances with nobody's help and was clearly a political jab at Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Marlo Thomas has often said she was inspired to do That Girl! because of the book The Feminine Mystique. But I wonder if a big part of the reason was seeing the insufferable message her father's sitcom kept putting out. It's kind of like Patti Davis and Ron Reagan, Jr., who also grew up with a father (Ronald Reagan) who was imagining a very conservative world for them. But then they became adults and completely rejected the idea.

About Norman Lear, he got national conversations started about topics that had previously been considered taboo. He did so with humor and fictional characters because he thought that was the best way to engage people. It was pretty genius. And I think that the conversations that began on Norman Lear's shows paved the way for Phil Donahue to continue those conversations on his talk show with real people, starting in the early '70s. By the time Phil Donahue's show ended in 1996, there were dozens of shows just like his, including Oprah Winfrey's, which took the genre to a whole new level. So yes, I think Norman Lear succeeded in ways that even he could not have foreseen, and what he started then continues to impact the nation to this day.

Norman Lear and his shows were products of the time that pushed the sitcom forward and made them memorable.

This is what I was trying to say. Thanks for saying it much better :)


My pleasure.