Leave it To Beaver

Every time a person mentions Leave It to Beaver in order to summon images of stilted '50s beliefs and conventional sitcom hokeyness, I always remember Slavoj Zizek's notion of public behavior in laissez-faire Western societies. Where those in tyrannical autocratic regimes must abide by the dictates of political compliancy in public spaces, their private spaces may be opened up to functions of undisclosed change, insurgence and misdemeanor. In modern Liberal society, conversely, we presently see the reverse; the public personality is distinctive by images of contravention, self-expression and individual liberation. While back in clandestine spaces, the habitual conservative societal structures remain secretly uncontested.

In this light, conceivably Leave It to Beaver's dilemma in present day society is not that it no longer fits modern public concerns, but somewhat it does so too openly. God forbid a modern hipster ought to let free a chuckle at one of Wally and Beaver's brotherly misfortunes and consequently indisputably concede dull suburban roots or ambitions! For instance, Entertainment felt the complete force of this change and tainted to have room for the modern ways of young people in terms of how they interacted with the opposite sex, to their friends and peers, and the way they fully clad and consumed all changed radically. On the other hand Girls clothing did not transform as significantly. Even though they began wearing outfits that defined their figure, they exposed more cleavage and often exposed their shoulders and upper arms. Leave it to Beaver portrayed teenagers dress like their parents (Kassel, 2005, p.30).

Obviously, life is not and will never be like Leave It to Beaver; essentially the world will never experience anything like the life portrayed in that show, but it is probably closer to real life for bounty of modern media consumers than they would like to acknowledge.

Examined more directly, rather than through the mask of modern TV's panacea nervousness and normalcy-anxiety, Leave It to Beaver is neither exceedingly ideologically affected nor particularly common as a sitcom. Its rapidity is unhurried and fascinating and its straightforwardness, while it might be seen by some as a pessimistic, comes from its clear perceptive of exactly what it is. Rather than pile on sitcom jokes, Leave It to Beaver tries to capture directly and sincerely that bizarre childhood point of view that's just beginning to make sense of the world, despite the fact that the logic it makes isn't the similar as any anyone else's. Leave It to Beaver is not radical, but it all the time knows what it is about and manages to keep its focal point (MacFarlane, 2010, 1-3).

Contrasting with those sitcoms that strive for events, Leave It to Beaver distinguishes that children are recurrently in conflict with just about the whole thing, one way or another, and their efforts are no less real, appealing or representative.  If parents Ward and June seem affected next to the irritating parental antics of Ozzie and Harriet and Father Knows Best, it is because the show's childhood perception wisely isolates them from the real playing field, eloquent that their roles are merely to either deliver punishment or offer solace, and or else to be taken for granted (6).

According to Shaffer (1999), Ward and June may probably be the most unfairly criticized TV parents of all time, as they are much wittier and more encrusted than they are given credit for. Considering my view on Most modern families, I tend to conquer that still they deliver for all intents and purposes the same message: whatsoever their problems, they stick and show love for each other. As always, the appearance of new descriptions in essence reaffirms the old outlook, even though with a more comprehensive set of images (p.15).