The Unresolved Legacy of Benson: When Sitcoms Dare to Leave Us Hanging
Forty years ago, a sitcom dared to do something unusual: it ended on a cliffhanger. Not just any cliffhanger, mind you, but one that left its audience—and perhaps even its creators—in a state of perpetual wonder. Benson, a spin-off of the series Soap, concluded its seventh season with a question that remains unanswered to this day: Who won the gubernatorial election between Benson DuBois and his former boss, Governor Gatling?
What makes this particularly fascinating is how rare it is for a sitcom to end this way. Sitcoms are typically the comfort food of television—predictable, self-contained, and designed to wrap up neatly. Shows like Seinfeld, Cheers, and The Big Bang Theory ended on their own terms, with finales that felt like warm goodbyes. But Benson? It left us with a cold, open-ended question. Personally, I think this bold move speaks to the show’s willingness to break the mold, even if it backfired spectacularly.
Why Sitcoms Rarely Take Risks
Sitcoms are, by nature, formulaic. They’re cheap to produce, easy to follow, and designed to appeal to a broad audience. So, why would a show like Benson risk alienating its viewers with a cliffhanger? One thing that immediately stands out is the show’s evolution over its seven seasons. It wasn’t just a sitcom; it was a political comedy that occasionally dipped into the absurd (remember the UFO episode?). By the final season, Benson had become Lieutenant Governor, and the stakes felt higher than ever.
From my perspective, this was a show that wanted to prove it could do more than just deliver laughs. It wanted to engage its audience in something bigger—a political rivalry, a test of friendship, and a glimpse into the absurdity of power. But here’s the irony: by ending on a cliffhanger, it inadvertently highlighted the limitations of its genre. Sitcoms aren’t built for ambiguity; they’re built for resolution. And yet, Benson tried to have it both ways.
The Cliffhanger That Never Was
The decision to end the season with an unresolved election wasn’t even the show’s idea. According to showrunner Bob Fraser, it was the network’s call. What many people don’t realize is that Benson had a plan for what came next—a plan that was both ambitious and, frankly, a bit ridiculous. Fraser claimed that Gatling would have won re-election by a slim margin, only to set off a chain of events that would eventually lead to Benson becoming President of the United States.
If you take a step back and think about it, this plotline is both absurd and brilliant. It’s the kind of over-the-top storytelling that sitcoms rarely attempt, and it raises a deeper question: What if Benson had been allowed to continue? Could it have pulled off such a wild narrative arc? Or would it have crashed and burned under the weight of its own ambition?
The Alternate Endings We’ll Never See
Here’s a detail that I find especially interesting: director Gary Brown revealed that three endings were filmed for the finale. One where Benson won, one where Gatling won, and a third, “whimsical” ending where they tied. Brown believed that no matter the outcome, Benson would eventually become governor, fulfilling Robert Guillaume’s wish for the character.
This raises another fascinating point: the role of actor intent in shaping a character’s journey. Guillaume wanted Benson to rise to the top, and the show seemed poised to deliver. But what this really suggests is that Benson was a show that cared deeply about its characters—perhaps too much. By leaving the finale open-ended, it denied them (and us) the closure they deserved.
The Broader Trend of Unresolved TV
Benson isn’t alone in its unresolved fate. The age of streaming has given us countless shows that end abruptly, their stories left hanging. Archive 81, Glow, I Am Not Okay With This—the list goes on. What makes Benson unique, though, is its status as a sitcom. Dramas and sci-fi shows can get away with cliffhangers; sitcoms can’t. Or at least, they shouldn’t.
In my opinion, this trend reflects a larger shift in television. Audiences today are more tolerant of ambiguity, but that doesn’t mean it’s always satisfying. Benson’s cliffhanger feels like a relic of a different era—a time when networks had more control, and shows had less say in their own endings. It’s a reminder that even the most well-intentioned creative decisions can be derailed by external forces.
What Could Have Been
Brown argued that resolving the cliffhanger would have given Benson new life, putting “gas in the tank for seasons to come.” Personally, I’m skeptical. While the show’s cancellation was due to rising production costs, I wonder if its ambitious storytelling would have sustained it. Sitcoms thrive on familiarity, and Benson was pushing the boundaries of what a sitcom could be.
If you ask me, that’s both its greatest strength and its fatal flaw. It wanted to be more than just a sitcom, but in doing so, it lost sight of what made it work in the first place: its characters, its humor, and its heart. The unresolved election feels like a metaphor for the show itself—a story that never quite reached its potential.
Final Thoughts
Forty years later, Benson’s cliffhanger remains a curious footnote in TV history. It’s a reminder that sometimes, the most interesting stories are the ones we never get to see. What if Benson had become President? What if the show had continued? These are questions we’ll never answer, and maybe that’s the point.
In a world where every story seems to demand closure, Benson dares us to embrace the unknown. It’s a risky move, and one that didn’t pay off. But if you ask me, that’s what makes it worth remembering. After all, not every story needs an ending—sometimes, the journey is enough.
