'Charlie’s Angels': Has it really been 50 years?
Tyrades! by Danny Tyree
Linda Lavin’s “Alice” and Jack Klugman’s “Quincy, M.E.” were among the handful of TV shows introduced in the autumn of 1976 that had “legs” (i.e. lasted more than a single season).
But one series REALLY had legs, if you know what I mean.
I mean “Charlie’s Angels,” of course.
The glamorous detective series (originally starring Farrah Fawcett, Kate Jackson and Jaclyn Smith) was Number 5 in the Nielsen ratings its first season and Number 4 its second season. It managed to limp (and jiggle, limp and jiggle) for three more seasons, even after one too many cast changes halted the momentum.
The show enjoyed wide appeal because men came for the “eye candy,” while women felt empowered by the positive example of stylish, capable women who solved crimes and worked as a team. Granted, a good example goes only so far. (“Stupid Susan and stuck-up Penelope can work late and finish the big project themselves. I’m watching ‘Charlie’s Angels’ tonight!”)
Of course, some people are retroactively embarrassed about the casting on “Charlie’s Angels,” a series from the era when “diversity” meant an equitable distribution of blondes and brunettes (along with a sensitivity to “looks good in stilettos” versus “looks good in pumps”).
But would “Charlie’s Angels” be so fondly remembered if today’s standards had been applied back then? (“Remember, if the counterfeiter gets too threatening, don’t trip him or throw hot coffee in his face. Yell for the new girl. Her culture EATS counterfeiters. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”)
Individual viewers had their favorites among characters Jill, Sabrina and Kelly (and later Kris, Tiffany and Julie); but surely the most iconic spin-off merchandise was Farrah Fawcett’s red swimsuit poster. It decorated the walls of millions of red-blooded young men.
(Blueblooded young men, on the other hand, were more likely to plead, “Mumsy, daddy…I want you to buy me a harem, to take care of the polo ponies.”)
Although Fawcett died of cancer in 2009, the years have been kind to most of the Angels. Certainly, kinder that the critics were.
The critics found the show to be lightweight, weakly written and exploitative, which is critic-speak for “Who ever said an international jewel thief can’t pause to discuss strategic arms limitations with Henry Kissinger while eluding parka-clad detectives on the beach?”
Most Americans (after a hard day of schoolwork, operating a cash register or working an assembly line) were satisfied to kick back on Wednesday night and embrace the escapism of “Charlie’s Angels,” airbrushed warts and all. After the Vietnam War, Watergate and a slew of “socially conscious” sitcoms and dramas, folks wanted to escape from rising gas prices, escape from Cold War anxieties, escape from…well, the @%^&* critics.
Sure, late Seventies shows such as “Charlie’s Angels,” “Three’s Company,” “The Love Boat” and “Buck Rogers” could be formulaic, silly, cheesy and unchallenging.
But there’s more to life than being gritty and gory. Sometimes episodic stories are more satisfying than interminable “story arcs.” (“Is there a reason John Bosley put two sugars instead of one in Jill’s coffee? Stay tuned until the end of the season.”)
Don’t get me started on the Shocking Plot Twist of the Week. (“Sure, Amber lived in a nudist colony with her heroin dealer for five years – but we swear no one knew she had a prehensile tail!”)
Happy 50th, TV Class of ‘76!
-
-
Copyright 2026 Danny Tyree, distributed by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Danny Tyree welcomes email responses at tyreetyrades@aol.com and visits to his Facebook fan page “Tyree’s Tyrades.”
Copyright 2026 Danny Tyree, All Rights Reserved. Credit: Cagle.com
Comments