Review: The Problem With 'Mulaney' Isn't A Live Audience, It's A Lack Of Jokes

If you talk TV comedies for more than two minutes with any TV critic, the topic of multi-camera vs one-camera comedies will certainly come up. For the millions of people who don't care about the topic, three-camera comedies are the old-school way of shooting a sitcom. Multiple cameras, a live studio audience and performances that feel more like live theater than anything else. Think "The Cosby Show" or "Big Bang Theory." Single camera comedies are somewhat of the industry favorite right now. One camera (usually), no audience and a comic sensibility that tends to be drier and less punch-line driven. Think "Modern Family."

While there are real differences between the two forms, it's easy to get caught up in the stylistic differences and lose sight of the most important factor for any television comedy. It is funny?

It's easy to look at a show like Fox's new comedy "Mulaney" and blame its problems on the fact that it's a multi-camera sitcom with a live audience. It's desperately anxiously waiting for punchlines that never come and a number of critics have arugued this week that it's the format that is the main problem.

But if you look at the difference between "Mulaney" and the classic stand-up driven comedies of the 1980s and 1990s, the big difference is the star. "Seinfeld," "The Cosby Show," Grace Under Fire," "Roseanne," "Home Improvement" are all very different shows. But what they had in common was a strong editorial voice and a main character that was rock solid. You can argue about the impact Larry David had on "Seinfeld" or how much impact Matt Williams had on the first season of "Roseanne." But whatever the level of collaboration, all of these shows had a rock solid comedic core. Because the shows were formed around the comedians and their strengths, writers had the ability to create episodes that made sense in the context of that world. Viewers tuned in knowing what to expect and that's something that nearly every comedy needs to succeed.

Contrast that with "Mulaney," a show about up-and-coming comedian John Mulaney. I've seen the first three episodes of the show and I'm no closer to having a sense of where this show is going or what the core values of the premise might be. It is a show comprised mostly of scenes that vary between exposition or a placeholder to put a couple of jokes. The cast has little chemistry and none of the characters have the slightest bit of authenticity. Even worse, Mulaney's delivery often seems affected and uncomfortable. He only seems at home when he's dleivering a punchline. Which wouldn't be so bad if he didn't telegraph each joke before he delivers it.

Not that there aren't some reasons to watch the show. Nasim Pedrad plays Jane, a woman who spends much of the premiere episode trying to prove she's not crazy. But despite her awkward story arc, Pedrad is the funniest thing in the show. She knows how to deliver a line and that's a skill that seems to elude several other cast members. I want to see her in another show right now and I have a feeling she'll be free of this one soon enough.

In the premiere, Mulaney gets a job working for game show host Lou Cannon (Martin Short) and how you react to his character probably depends a lot on how you see Martin Short. Short does the same character here he seems to do in most sitcoms, so if you liked him in those, you'll probably like him here. But in a way Short's over-the-top histeronics match the tone of a show in which every character seems to be assembled Frankenstein-like from a box of random sitcom cliches.

"Mulaney" is a painfully clunky comedy, but it's not the fault of the multi-camera format. You could broadcast this show on IMAX or a rapidly-shuffled deck of flashcards and the result would be the same. A show that fails on nearly every level.