Why "The Simpsons" no longer matters
TMC
An expert discusses the cartoon's cultural demise -- and far-reaching
impact
By Thomas Rogers
©Fox Broadcasting Company
Homer Simpson of "The Simpsons"What a difference 20 years makes! On
Dec. 17, 1989, the still-infant Fox Broadcasting Co. aired the first
episode of "The Simpsons," the animated show about a dysfunctional
family from Springfield that has since become the longest-running
prime-time series in American history. It's hard to overstate the
show's impact. It has spawned a merchandising empire ("Simpsons" air
freshener, anyone?), been at the center of a culture war (Barbara Bush
called it “the dumbest thing I’d ever seen”) and inspired a hit movie
(not to mention comedy writers' rooms everywhere). Plus, "d'oh!" is
now in the dictionary.
Thursday marks the show’s two-decade anniversary – an event that
serves as a reminder not only of the show’s extraordinary staying
power, but also the extent to which it’s disappeared from the cultural
conversation. While "The Family Guy" and "South Park" have kicked up
controversy – tackling subjects like Scientology and abortion – "The
Simpsons" seems to have aged from envelope-pushing misfit to
grandfatherly institution. But as John Ortved argues in "The Simpsons:
An Uncensored, Unauthorized History," an oral history of the show's
tumultuous rise and creative demise, the "Simpsons’" legacy continues
to be felt everywhere from "Wall-E" to Barack Obama’s speechwriting.
Salon spoke to Ortved over the phone about the show’s effect on
television comedy, Marge’s recent Playboy cover, and whether it's
finally time to pull the plug.
I guess the obvious first question is: Why has the show lasted so
long?
I think "The Simpsons" has lasted so long because its initial seasons
– the first five – laid strong and solid groundwork. It was an amazing
combination of creative forces and timing. Fox was a brand-new
network. There was relatively nothing else on TV. Then you had the
creative force of Matt Groening's original drawing style, the
brilliant humor of Sam Simon and the writing room he put together, and
James L. Brooks’ ability to create fine dramedy.
But clearly you think it’s gone downhill.
I think that the show's drop in quality has been both a gradual one
and a relative one. I think to be fair to the writers and to be fair
to Matt Groening, there's only so much you can do with a set of
characters in a situation. I mean, no one has written a show for 20
years. It's amazing that they're still funny at all. As the show sort
of moved away from its roots, starting around the sixth season, and
the show kind of got a little zanier, the show became sort of unmoored
from those emotional character-driven plots that initiated the series.
You really start to get 21 minutes of throwaway jokes and then one
minute of emotional reconciliation thrown in at the end.
After it hit that 10-year mark, the show had a serious drop-off in
quality, and it's just never, ever come back. They started relying on
guest stars and more topical humor, which they can't really do because
the lead time is so long. So I think this actually speaks to how
outdated their writing room is. They'll do an "American Idol" episode,
but they'll do it four years after "American Idol" became this big
thing. Or they'll do an iPod episode, but they do an iPod episode in
like 2006.
When I recently spoke with Mike Judge, he said the reason why "King of
the Hill" had lasted so long was because they withstood the pressure
to change the characters as they went. Otherwise, you keep making
small deviations, and as you put people in increasingly outrageous
situations, you lose what the show is even about.
I think that's absolutely apt, and I think that is one of the things
that happened with "The Simpsons." Once that unmooring took place,
there was no going back. When they tried to, they couldn't, because
they didn't have the same chemistry in the room, and once you throw a
bag of feathers off a roof, you can never collect them.
I used to watch the show all the time when I was a teenager, but now,
as a man in his 20s in New York, I don't think I know a single person
who watches. Who do you think is still tuning in?
That's a really good question. I still watch it. Not religiously, even
though I don't think it's funny anymore. I think we're creatures of
comfort – people like you and me who grew up watching it every day
when we came home from school. We really speak "Simpsons." I think
it's actually interesting and important to note that President Obama's
chief speech writer is a 28-year-old guy. I mean there's no way that
"The Simpsons" hasn't influenced the way that guy tells stories.
In what sense?
I think that audiences' sense of irony, and audiences' willingness to
accept a certain level of irreverence, have been really influenced by
"The Simpsons." For example, I love that when the New York Post
covered the Iraq Study Group’s report, the title was "Surrender
Monkeys!" which is a "Simpsons" line.
That’s funny. I use that term all the time too, actually, and I
totally forgot where I knew it from.
I would add that "The Simpsons" made audiences a lot smarter. They
really raised the bar for what you could put out there and what
audiences were ready for. I can't say with any authority that we
wouldn't have "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart" without "The
Simpsons." But I doubt it.
Given how extreme television has become, it seems so strange to me
that the show was actually considered offensive when it first
appeared.
It’s completely ridiculous if you look at TV now. Almost nothing is
controversial now. I think part of the Simpsons’ early controversy was
a bad publicity thing drummed up by the Bush White House when he was
campaigning for his second term. With the Bushes going out and the
Clintons coming in, there was this move from the right to make culture
the focus. I don’t think there’s this switch overnight of "Full House"
and Bush, then "The Simpsons" and Clinton, but I think that the
controversy was part of a program to get people up in arms about
family values.
What do you make of Marge’s recent Playboy cover? To me it seemed like
a bizarre collaboration between two outdated brands.
I think it actually speaks to the Simpsons’ continued influence and
their power that you could put a cartoon character on a magazine cover
like Playboy and still sell it. The relevance of what "The Simpsons"
had to say ended a long time ago, but it’s still relevant as a brand.
They’ve opened a "Simpsons" ride in Universal Studios, and I would
look for more of that stuff in the future, like a Simpsons Land.
Would you choose to pull the plug on the show if you could?
I think "The Simpsons" has always been a product of News Corp., and
the decision to pull the plug will be when the show becomes
unprofitable. They could do things to revamp it. There’s really two
rooms working on the show: One room is [executive producer] Al Jean
and his yes men, and the other room has the younger, hipper comedians.
[The second room] sends jokes to the first room, and all their good
stuff gets written out of it. I think if they were to save the show,
they would need to get rid of the show runner and really shake up the
writing room. I don't know if they'll ever get it back to the level
they had, but they could start making great episodes again.
Who do you think is the direct heir to "The Simpsons"?
Without sounding too cheesy, I think contemporary television is itself
the heir. I think "The Simpsons" in one way or another gave us most of
what's smart and progressive in television. But I consider the most
direct heir to be Zach Galifianakis’ "Between Two Ferns." For
something that awkward and meta-theatrical to be accepted by a wide
audience, we have to thank "The Simpsons."
To me, the most direct descendants are the Pixar films – with their
mix of child-friendly comedy and adult satire.
I think that’s astute not just because Brad Bird left "The Simpsons"
to make "Iron Giant," then Pixar movies. When I talk about redefining
our humor, the way that "The Simpsons" constructs stories, in which
they go from having an A and a B story in a classic sitcom to having
four to five storylines, you can see that in the Pixar movies.
Given the proliferation of cable channels and the Internet, do you
think there will ever be another TV show that has as big an impact on
our culture as "The Simpsons"?
There will never be another show or entertainment program as wide-
reaching as "The Simpsons." It’s largely a question of timing. Fox was
the fourth network. They hit all these timing buttons right on the
head. It was the last time that a network TV show could be that
omnipresent – because of the choices, because of the cable networks,
because of satellite, because of Zach Galifianakis.
But, if there’s ever a Zach Galifianakis ride at Universal Studios,
I’ll definitely be paying money for it.
aaronhi...@yahoo.com
> called it “the dumbest thing I’d ever seen”) and inspired a hit movie
I guess she's never seen her son, GW, the illiterate drunk.
> I guess the obvious first question is: Why has the show lasted so
> long?
A government plot to make me feel important! ;-)
> I think that the show's drop in quality has been both a gradual one
> and a relative one. I think to be fair to the writers and to be fair
> to Matt Groening, there's only so much you can do with a set of
> characters in a situation. I mean, no one has written a show for 20
> years. It's amazing that they're still funny at all. As the show sort
Twenty years? Gunsmoke lasted about that long. Instead of "Maggie
shot Mr. Burns, ... again.", it should be "Marshall Dillon shot, ...
that particular bad guy again." It does get stale. How many times
can Ken Curtis limp around and say funny things? How many times can
Apu overcharge someone for a hotdog that fell on the floor?
> After it hit that 10-year mark, the show had a serious drop-off in
> quality, and it's just never, ever come back. They started relying on
> guest stars and more topical humor, which they can't really do because
> the lead time is so long. So I think this actually speaks to how
> outdated their writing room is. They'll do an "American Idol" episode,
> but they'll do it four years after "American Idol" became this big
> thing. Or they'll do an iPod episode, but they do an iPod episode in
> like 2006.
Yeah, they made fun of Elvis Presley 15 years after he died! C'mon!
> I used to watch the show all the time when I was a teenager, but now,
> as a man in his 20s in New York, I don't think I know a single person
> who watches. Who do you think is still tuning in?
Me and two or three other guys. And sometimes I watch it on hulu.com
the day after.
> That's a really good question. I still watch it. Not religiously, even
> though I don't think it's funny anymore. I think we're creatures of
> comfort – people like you and me who grew up watching it every day
> when we came home from school. We really speak "Simpsons." I think
> it's actually interesting and important to note that President Obama's
> chief speech writer is a 28-year-old guy. I mean there's no way that
> "The Simpsons" hasn't influenced the way that guy tells stories.
>
> In what sense?
Well, the other day Obama gave a speech about the Wright Brothers role
in the Civil War. Don't tell me that didn't come from the Simpsons!
> What do you make of Marge’s recent Playboy cover? To me it seemed like
> a bizarre collaboration between two outdated brands.
It was a bizarre collaboration between two outdated brands when Patty
Davis (then President Ronald Reagan's daughter) posed for Playboy 25
years ago.
Stop the arguing. When Conan left the show, it was over. Too bad.
He went on to make action movies, and now he is the Governor of
California!
Mr. Museum
OM
> How many times can Ken Curtis limp around and say funny things?
...Actually, Festus sort of stumbled. It was Chester who walked with a
limp.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
>Yeah, they made fun of Elvis Presley 15 years after he died! C'mon!
...When you're the King of Rock'n'Roll, and you die on the Throne,
you're going to have jokes told about you for the next 11 generations
at the very least.
Xino Kiner
<aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1fd70f0f-f8ec-4425...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>> freshener, anyone?), been at the center of a culture war (Barbara Bush
>> called it �the dumbest thing I�d ever seen�) and inspired a hit movie
>I guess she's never seen her son, GW, the illiterate drunk.
Illiterate drunk?
Mr. Hirshberg, you're gay. [3F16]
Wiseguy
news:4poni51c884suv9dc...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:05:41 -0800 (PST), "aaronhi...@yahoo.com"
> <aaronhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Yeah, they made fun of Elvis Presley 15 years after he died! C'mon!
>
> ...When you're the King of Rock'n'Roll, and you die on the Throne,
> you're going to have jokes told about you for the next 11 generations
> at the very least.
>
>
> OM
He died on the throne? Must have been a hell of a case of diarrhea.
Carl
> OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote innews:4poni51c884suv9dc...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:05:41 -0800 (PST), "aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com"
> > <aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>Yeah, they made fun of Elvis Presley 15 years after he died! C'mon!
>
> > ...When you're the King of Rock'n'Roll, and you die on the Throne,
> > you're going to have jokes told about you for the next 11 generations
> > at the very least.
>
> > OM
>
> He died on the throne? Must have been a hell of a case of diarrhea.
Nope, wrong way ... "straining at stool" (constipation).
--- CH
Bice Eichler
>It was a bizarre collaboration between two outdated brands when Patty
>Davis (then President Ronald Reagan's daughter) posed for Playboy 25
>years ago.
Whose daughter is she now?
Michael Black
I think she was disowned after that.
She didn't just pose in Playboy, she did Playboy movies. I saw one on
network tv (one of the French channels here is quite open about such
things) and it sort of included her and another woman.
But seriously, the sentence isn't that she was his daughter then but not
now, but "then-President" as in, "when Reagan was the president".
Michael
Armillaria caligata
> > <aaronhirshb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> It was a bizarre collaboration between two outdated brands when Patty
> >> Davis (then President Ronald Reagan's daughter) posed for Playboy 25
> >> years ago.
>
> > Whose daughter is she now?
>
> I think she was disowned after that.
>
> She didn't just pose in Playboy, she did Playboy movies. I saw one on
> network tv (one of the French channels here is quite open about such
> things) and it sort of included her and another woman.
--
Armillaria caligata
Nec dextrorsum, nec sinistrorsum.
R Flowers
wrote:
Two girls? Who'd want that!?
-- R Flowers
Michael Black
My friend Miriam?
Michael