My Review: Mom and Pop Art
Eric Sansoni
the one. That's not a huge compliment; It seems more appropriate for the
better half of Season 9, or the lesser half of Season 4. What sets it apart is
not huge laughs, but the time it takes to try to make its crazy ideas make
sense, and to have the characters make plausible decisions based on meaningful
characterization.
My favorite scene in the episode was perhaps the least zany, the scene in
the bedroom where Marge discusses with Homer her negative feelings about
Homer's instant success in the artistic community. Some of my favorite scenes
in past episodes are the bedroom conversations between Homer and Marge.
Sometimes I like the characters as a straight vs. zany comedic duo. Sometimes
it's the way realistic human emotions are brought forward in the more intimate
setting. In tonight's episode those emotions included the familiar sense of how
Marge is frustrated and stifled in a relationship with someone who can be as
selfish and insensitive as Homer. This is what always set The Simpsons apart as
a superior entertainment. It doesn't just parade forth the antics of a bumbling
buffoon and a misbehaving youngster. It shows us realistic emotional
consequences of these actions on the characters around them. This bedroom scene
had a sense of emotional depth that has been sorely lacking in this, the show's
most superficial season. The moment with Marge's eyes, expressing themselves in
the dark, was the kind of poignant and understated use of animation, achieved
so often in the best years of the show, that makes The Simpsons the best
animated program of all time.
Good writing was evident throughout the episode. Finally we have the return of
a first act that really works to set up the plot. Too many episodes of late
have dropped the characters into ridiculous setups too quickly, such that we're
scratching our heads too much as to how this could have happened to ever really
get involved in the rest of the story. Tonight's episode slowed down enough
for key moments of rational explanation, like the dialogue with Isabella
Rossellini's character outside of the Simpson house. Tonight Homer's escapade
actually made enough sense that I was convinced enough to care how it turned
out. The jokes benefit from the extra attention as well. I would expect a
typical Season 10 episode to have left the brief "pencil-erasing" scene as is,
just as the FOX commercial did, both assuming the scene is funny by itself.
Tonight's show adds a follow-up scene that shows why what we saw could actually
make realistic sense, and that logic makes all the difference to the comedic
value. Even the past episode references had more justification behind them than
we've had to put up with lately.
Using a satire on the pretensions of the artistic community as the mechanism
for launching the plot was an inspired choice. After some recent missteps,
finally the show finds another ripe satirical target. Their attacks on the
business and corporate community have been painfully thin and misdirected in
the past two years. This one aimed at a perhaps more accessible target richly
developed several witty and biting points-of-view. For starters, just the fact
that these "artistes" could be foolish enough to find value in Homer's garbage
heap says something. Usually when Homer gets his new jobs in these type of
plots, the question is never answered why the employers are dumb enough to hire
him. This time the poor thought on the part of the artists was itself a key
part of the joke. I also loved the reason why Homer lost favor with the
community. This time it wasn't the predictable instance of him making some
huge mistake. He did exactly what any rational person would have in the
situation. It was the intrinsic shallowness of the fickle "artistes" that
turned his newfound career upside-down. Homer was not the comedic center of
this episode like it might have seemed at first. He was just a device to aim
some well-pointed satire on would-be artistic types who care more about image
than about images.
With this episode, written by Al Jean, once again the new work of past writers
outclasses the work of the freshmen on The Simpsons' writing staff. I even
found this episode much classier than Al Jean's first solo effort without
partner Mike Reiss, "Lisa's Sax." Here he doesn't constantly distract us from
his story with unfunny cutaway jokes. He provides a few real laughs, including
the utterly great visual gag involving the cover of the barbecue manual, then
settles in to his more cerebral satire. He sticks with his idea from beginning
to end, taking it to an ultimate length that is really the least convincing
part of the episode, but made more palatable with the addition of lots of
fast-paced extra details. He may not conclude with the real weight of his
inspiration, but he finds pleasure in the visuals, and a sweetness between Homer
and Marge that kept a smile on my face.
Grade: B+ or 7 snorkeled zoo animals out of 10
-Eric S. (sn...@geocities.com or eas...@psu.edu)
"The fact that it is the first article posted early in the
morning on April Fools Day makes me seriously suspect a prank."
-Bill Duncan on rec.arts.sf.movies
Lindoro
> With this episode, written by Al Jean, once again the new work of past writers
> outclasses the work of the freshmen on The Simpsons' writing staff. I even
> found this episode much classier than Al Jean's first solo effort without
> partner Mike Reiss, "Lisa's Sax." Here he doesn't constantly distract us from
> his story with unfunny cutaway jokes. He provides a few real laughs, including
> the utterly great visual gag involving the cover of the barbecue manual, then
> settles in to his more cerebral satire.
Again, could you folks stop talking about individual gags in an episode
as though one writer was responsible for all of them? Every SIMPSONS
script is heavily rewritten by the entire staff. There is no way of
knowing who wrote which lines or gags in a given episode.
On a side note, this is one reason why all the criticism aimed at John
Swartzwelder is somewhat pointless. As a "consultant," Swartzwelder is
no longer a member of the regular writing staff--he just "consults"
every week or so and, more, importantly, contributes scripts. If the
current staff adds stupid gags and lame-o endings to his scripts, it's
not his fault, necessarily. Or maybe it is. We have no way of knowing.
So just stop pretending that you can identify individual writing styles
or assign praise or blame to individual writers. Hell, there have been
SIMPSONS episodes where the credited writer actually wound up having
written very little of the finished product.
Eric Sansoni
>
> Again, could you folks stop talking about individual gags in an episode
>as though one writer was responsible for all of them? Every SIMPSONS
>script is heavily rewritten by the entire staff. There is no way of
>knowing who wrote which lines or gags in a given episode.
That may be true, but we can only discuss the shows based on the information
we're given. I think the credited writer has more to do with the show than you,
well, give credit for. You're completely wrong if you think they turn in
just a bare bones "jokeless" plot summary. They turn in a full script, which
then may or may not be edited by the producers and rest of the writing staff.
For instance the Gremlin segment in Halloween Special 4 originally had a joke
about Milhouse's worry over wedgies, wet willies, and the "rear admiral." The
concept and placement of the joke was wholly in the original script. In the
editing process it just got a better punchline added. Also, if you look at a
lot of John Swartwelder episodes, you'll see lots of similarities. Much of his
humor, particularly in the earlier years, goes much further with exaggeration
than other episodes, e.g. Krusty lighting his cigarette with a string of pearls
in Homie the Clown, or Homer's boss pulling sugar out of his pockets in You Only
Move Twice.
Roger Smith
>we're given. I think the credited writer has more to do with the show than you,
>well, give credit for. You're completely wrong if you think they turn in
>just a bare bones "jokeless" plot summary. They turn in a full script, which
>then may or may not be edited by the producers and rest of the writing staff.
They usually turn in a story which is made into a script by a number
of the writers. I suspect the number of fully-realized jokes in the
submitted story varies by writer and story. But, unless things have
changed since Bill and Josh left, the script is really written by
committee.
-- Roger
* Give Kids the World: http://www.gktw.org/