The Frasier Revival Parodies Dr. Phil And Oprah To Send Up Frasier's Newfound Fame
Oh dear. The "Frasier" revival was going so well. Or at least it hadn't yet completely tarnished the legacy of one of the great sitcoms. This week, the third episode arrived, however, and things got a little too silly.
Since Kelsey Grammer's lovably pretentious psychiatrist returned to our screens, critics have been divided. The "Frasier" revival seemed doomed to fail after it was revealed that no one besides Grammer would be returning, and when the first episode dropped on Paramount+ on October 12, 2023, the response was mixed. /Film's Josh Spiegel had the correct opinion that the revival was neither disappointing nor remarkable, but many critics were just wrong, and frankly outright hostile to the series. USA Today's review remains the worst, referring to the "Frasier" revival as "unfunny, stilted and downright insipid."
In our nostalgia-obsessed monoculture, this kind of reaction makes sense. Did we need to revisit "Frasier" in 2023? David Hyde Pierce, who played Frasier's brother Niles on the original series, certainly didn't think so. But the first episode was surprisingly decent, paying tribute to Martin Crane actor John Mahoney and managing to evoke that same balance of heart and comedy that made the original so good. It still felt very much like an anachronism simply due to the sitcom format itself being beyond outdated at this point. But, as Hugo Rifkind wrote in his review for The Times, it was "rather lovely. Not fresh or new, and certainly not essential viewing. Gentle, though, and rejuvenating, in the manner of a warm bath."
Which, based on that first episode, would have been the perfect description of "Frasier" 2023. Unfortunately, the farcical events of this latest episode forced the show to stray too far from the pleasantly inoffensive formula it established with the first couple of installments.
Dr. Crane
Frasier Crane is no stranger to looking silly. It's one of the original series' central comedic devices: taking a snooty but charming character and constantly putting him in situations that highlight the absurdity of his sense of self. But there's something about episode three of the revival series that doesn't quite match the tone of his classic episodes.
Between the original "Frasier" and the new series, we learn that the titular doctor has been living in Chicago where he fronted a hugely popular TV show, "Dr. Crane." Episode three expands on this backstory, after Frasier gives his first lecture as a Harvard professor and fails to wow his students who are mostly interested in his celebrity status and not in his attempts to, as Frasier puts it, lead them "on a challenging academic odyssey." Head of Harvard's psychology department, Olivia (Toks Olagundoye) then reveals that she hired Frasier for the media circus and not his (lack of) actual knowledge about psychology, and encourages him to play up his fame during lectures.
In an amusing montage, Frasier shows his colleague and former college buddy Alan (British comedy legend Nicholas Lyndhurst) a clip from the first season of his talk show, followed by a clip from the 13th season. Over the course of the show's run, it clearly transformed from a straightforward advice show into sensational, over-the-top entertainment, with Frasier throwing axes, delivering a segment called "Frasier's 'Fra-vorite' Things," and interviewing the world's smartest pig (Albert Sweinstein). All of which is actually pretty funny as a satire of "Dr. Phil"-style hucksterism and the general sensationalist daytime TV shenanigans that reigned as the original "Frasier" came to a close. But it also feels just a little off, and things only get worse from there.
It's not our fra-vorite episode
When Frasier returns to Harvard to deliver his second lecture, Olivia, in some bizarre attempt to capitalize on her latest hire's celebrity status, has erected a full "Dr. Crane" set in the classroom, complete with lighting and theme song. It's supposed to be a big comedic beat but it just comes off as a little too far-fetched and the kind of thing lesser sitcoms might try. But there's also something a little uncomfortable about the whole "Dr. Crane" in and of itself.
One of the funniest aspects of Frasier as a character is his posturing as a member of high society guided solely by his refined taste and effortless class, when in fact he's mostly led by his own ego. That results in the character often ending up in truly absurd and hilarious situations, which is basically the joke at the heart of the brief "Dr. Crane" retrospective. Over the course of 13 seasons, Frasier is shown to have given in to his ego and the adoration he receives as a TV host. But turning him into Dr. Phil for a full 13 years seems like it goes against the character established in the original show. Kelsey Grammer had a lot of input on this new "Frasier," and if you watch any interviews with the star, or the behind-the-scenes featurette on the show, it seems he has a genuine love for the character. I can't help but feel like he should have stepped in here...
Selling out
In the season one episode of the original "Frasier," "Selling Out," the doctor is convinced to start shilling for various products on his talk radio show. By the episode's end, Frasier has a crisis of conscience about appearing in a commercial for canned nuts because he feels it would compromise his integrity as a psychiatrist. Despite Niles telling him that he "sold out a long time ago," Frasier ultimately decides not to do the commercial and his father, Martin, reassures him that he did the right thing. Again, it's that combination of humor and heart that keeps the show in its sweet spot, with Frasier being led by his ego only to come back down to earth by the end of the episode.
But according to the "Frasier" revival, the character was happy to sell out for a full 13 seasons of his show. Sure, he has his crisis of conscience throughout episode three, but there wasn't a single moment in those 13 years he had a canned nuts commercial moment? He spends most of the episode fretting over not being taken seriously, but we're still left with this sell-out version of Frasier who apparently existed for years while he was living in Chicago. Regardless of what happens in the rest of the episode, then, it feels like the writers have already strayed from what makes Frasier Frasier.
Frasier is family
When the "Frasier" revival was announced without any of the original cast beyond Kelsey Grammer, fans were right to worry. After all, Grammer openly said that he believed his character to be the "key" to the success of "Frasier." But the supporting cast anchored the original series, grounding Frasier when he would let his pretentiousness get the better of him.
Unfortunately, episode three of the new "Frasier" makes all those worries about the cast not returning seem warranted. Things just get kind of silly, and without a Martin, Daphne, or Roz to bring things back down to earth, it never gets the resolution it needs. Olivia and Alan ultimately show Frasier that his notoriety is to be embraced as a way of getting his students involved in learning. But it feels like a pale imitation of Frasier's dad telling him his son would be proud of him for not doing the canned nuts commercial.
Does any of this matter? Of course not. But if you're a fan of the original series, it's probably not just because the show was kinda funny. It's not an exaggeration to say that, for a lot of us who grew up in the 90s, watching these sitcoms helped shape not only our sense of humor but maybe in some small way our sense of ethics. Sure, the "moral lesson" aspect of these shows seems hokey in 2023. And there's no doubt the new "Frasier" frequently feels like an anachronism. But there's just something sad about seeing how Dr. Crane, beloved figure of '90s culture, morphed into Dr. Phil in the years since we saw him. Let's hope the show gets things back on track as it continues, otherwise, all these sneering critics of the revival series might be proved right.