Four new points of criticism [rambling]
Chris Pfeiler
problems of modern episodes (about things I consider as problems) like bad plot
structure, poor writing, empty characters, humor on a very low level, overdone
sarcasm, conformity, loss of animation quality etc etc. Some people agreed and
some people disagreed. No problem, I respect every opinion.
I have here four complain points I haven愒 mentioned yet (at least not in
detail) and I悲 like to explain them to you. I think I惴 right, but feel free
to disagree. It愀 mostly a comparison of classic qualities the show had in the
old days and things it had lost when it became conformized and mainstream. It愀
not easy, especially point IV is rather complicated (even more when I write in
English.)
BTW, that惻l be my last ATS post for 2 or 3 weeks. Let愀 start with point I,
everything is as usual just my own personal opinion.
I. Satire about pop culture and youth culture
3F21 "Homerpalooza" is a brilliant example for true satire about pop culture
and youth culture. The episode was made at a time when the show still stood
"above" pop culture and was no conformized and simplified part of it, thus the
entire story is a subtle message (and parable) about society and about
commercialization of values in pop/youth culture. Just take the brilliant
ending, when the band (Sonic Youth or Smashing Pumpkins, I always forget)
happily discovers the joy of simple materialism. Do you see the satire? They
deny the message of their own music, it愀 an absurd persiflage of pop culture
(like the entire episode, which is full of social commentary and theoretically
deserves a long review.)
BTW, one of the best scenes of 3F21 is missing in syndication, Otto愀 talking
shoes (which is a kind of surrealism, as it illustrates the state of Otto愀
mind. See below, point IV.)
Let愀 go to season 12 to have a look on a modern and flat version of pop
culture parody, of a version when the show was already empty and conformized.
I惴 talking about CABF12 "New Kids on the Blechh."
Now a lot of people (especially younger people) will tell you, that CABF12 was
a cool episode with N巽ync as cool guest stars and with a lot of funny jokes,
(forced) crazyness and cool satire about music business. Was it really? I悲 say
the satire of CABF12 is very very cheap, obvious, and thin. In the old days,
guest stars mocked themselves in a brilliant way and were used for example as
true elements of social criticism (like the materialistic youth festival and
grunge band in 3F21) but in S12 that unique spirit of sharp satire is
completely missing.
It愀 just an empty gag row that shows N巽ync as supercool stars who appear on
the Simpsons (the kids love it) and who fly around as boygroup heroes in a
flying motorboat. Of course, there are some pseudo-satirical elements like the
voice enhancer, but that愀 cheap. That愀 no satire like it used to be, that愀
simple "hey kids, in your face" pseudo-satire and that愀 nothing. N巽ync are so
cool, they are even cool enough to be on the Simpsons and to make some simple
jokes about themselves. Wow! What a show. Writers, fall on your knees and thank
N巽ync for being so cool. Sorry guys, that愀 no show that parodies pop culture
(like 3F21), that愀 a conformized mainstream cartoon with cool guest stars and
thus it IMO betrays everything the show once meant.
II. Radical story elements and political commentary
Many people see radical elements in modern episodes, even if there are none or
just cheap excuses for classic radical elements. Take Homer愀 US shirt "Try To
Stop Us" in recent DABF10 as suitable example. A lot of people considered that
single joke (from a row) as radical element, that shows that the Simpsons is
still as radical as ever, even in these days of patriotism. Well, I don愒 think
so. When the show became conform, it also became tame and more and more
harmless in a political sense and political jokes became simple visual gags and
out-of-context oneliners.
The social and political commentary (also the more radical) was often subtle
and not easy to notice in classic episodes - quite different to the loud stuff
of today - but it was often way more radical than today when you started to
think independently about episode messages. To give you an example of what I
call classic radical spirit - take brilliant 3F16 and the "Amendmend 2B"
cartoon with its song about "liberal freaks" and "flagburners" and then Bart愀
line about generation X "We need another Vietnam to thin out their ranks a
little." Now that愀 radical, while most (all?) of the jokes they did past
season 9 are tame. No radical stuff allowed in mainstream cartoons. Recent
DABF15 made a little difference, it had some political jokes in almost classic
style. I liked that.
III. There愀 no cane in Citizen Kane
Matt Groening himself said in his foreword to the OFF guide that the show
"rewards you for paying attention" which means paying attention to hidden
messages, freeze frame jokes, deeper references etc - it means everything that
is not quite obvious and in-your-face. In the old days, kids watched the show
because of the fun and adults watched the show because of the serious
commentary, but that commentary was not (or rarely) obvious and explained, you
had to find it behind the story, you had to understand what subtle and unclear
messages meant (read my 7G12 and 7F09 reviews to see good examples) and you had
to think independently.
It wasn愒 necessary to see for example certain literature/art references or to
notice that a line by Lisa about zen buddhism in season 2 also implies
questions of quantum physics or to notice references to old movies from the
1930s or 1940s - but all the stuff was there. It was no problem to enjoy fun
and simpler jokes without noticing deeper stuff, but people could do it if they
wanted, there were plenty of hidden elements, nothing was explained, everything
was left to the intelligence of the viewer, thus we often had unclear and
thought-provoking endings, like 7F09.
What do we have today? Something I usually call the "There愀 no Cane in Citizen
Kane" syndrome (in honor of one of the worst examples) which means
overexplanation of too many scenes and jokes and thus most of the hidden
concepts have vanished, in co-operation with empty and too simplified
plotlines. Recent example - the IMO awful "I am Furios (Yellow)", one of the
worst episodes I have ever seen. We have the already cheap Hulk parody with
Homer which becomes even cheaper when someone has to say (to over-explain)
"Look. It愀 the Hulk." Well, duh. It愀 quite obvious, there愀 no need for
explanation. The writers stopped to rely on the viewer愀 intelligence, so it愀
also a betrayal on the former unique concept of the classic years.
IV. Surrealism vs Cartoonishness
Many people don愒 see the difference between intelligent surrealism and simple
cartoonishness on the show. Surrealism means a concept of stretched reality
that is aimed at something, that tries to have a message of some deeper kind
by use of "strange" visual elements and symbolism.
Warning - difficult stuff.
If you consider animation as a form of art, then surrealism is a useful part of
that art form. Surrealism tries to show and illustrate inner feelings and
thoughts in a visual way, it often has to do with a visual illustration of
already abstract concepts or with abstraction of complex aspects of reality.
Visual gags in the background and forced crazyness have IMO nothing to do with
serious surrealism, they are on the contrary often an antithesis to intelligent
abstraction and satirical reality. Makes that sense?
Maybe some examples will help. Bart愀 soul as sheet of paper with Christian
symbol is an example of abstract visual illustration of a already abstract
concept (soul) that is aimed at a deeper message, thus 3F02 is true surrealism.
When Lisa愀 fear in 7F13 is shown as a vision that transforms the Simpson愀
living room into hell, it愀 an illustration of Lisa愀 emotions (fear) as a
visual concept, thus surrealism. When Homer愀 chili trip and inner confusion in
3F24 are shown in a surrealistic "Altered States"-like journey, then it愀
surrealism and illustration of thoughts. When Bart and Lisa meet Lester and
Eliza at the end of superb plagiarism satire 3F16 and have to face their own
"existence" as evolved characters from the Ullman show, then it愀 surrealism.
And so on and so on.
Jockey Elves and Teletubbies, nonsense, forced action and crazyness for kids,
tons of visual stuff in the background that makes no sense, vegetables eating
themselves etc etc. are IMO no surrealism, they愉e just empty and useless
cartoonish gags, which do nothing good for the show but just destroy the base
for somehow serious satire by transforming the OFF universe into a self-ironic
bizarroworld.
It愀 not easy to explain this in short (and English) and to draw a line between
intelligent surrealism and cartoonishness, the borders are often somewhat
unclear. To give it a try: Surrealism supports satire and deeper meaning, it愀
a tool for abstraction and also for illustration of abstract concepts, such as
thoughts and emotions. Surrealism is a form of art. Cartoonishness doesn愒
support satire
and deeper concepts. Working satire needs an exaggerated but nevertheless
working reality and an overdone use of unaimed and simple visual gags isn愒
good for true satire.
So far from me. Comments are as usual welcome.
Chris
Jesse Quinton
news:20020518131823...@mb-ck.aol.com...
>
> I have here four complain points I haven愒 mentioned yet (at least not in
> detail) and I悲 like to explain them to you. I think I惴 right, but feel
free
> to disagree. It愀 mostly a comparison of classic qualities the show had in
the
> old days and things it had lost when it became conformized and mainstream.
It愀
> not easy, especially point IV is rather complicated (even more when I
write in
> English.)
>
> So far from me. Comments are as usual welcome.
>
> Chris
I agree with you on most of your points, Chris, especially about surrealism
vs. cartoonism. But I'll point out that we long-time viewers have honed our
watching habits to the point of readily noticing deep or hidden elements, as
well as inferring them even if they're not clearly supported. I know I'm not
alone in watching the show with both eyes open for hidden messages or
obscure references and sometimes, if an episode's not particularly brilliant
or entertaining, I may create my own allusions or gags through anagrams or
puns and esoteric knowledge that I'll piece together on the spot with aid
from the show's cue. Whether the writers have stopped challenging us
intellectually is beyond my knowledge, but I know that I appreciate them for
helping me to get to a place where I can do it without them now.
donut
news:20020518131823...@mb-ck.aol.com:
You said it very well, and the easiest way to say it is:
The Simpsons have jumped the shark, quite some time ago.
That doesn't mean it's not still a good cartoon, but that's all it is any
more. Just a good cartoon.
Brace yourself for the waves of "you suck" posts from the kiddies.
Martin Schlömer
The Simpsons have gone Poochie.
And you're right.
So let's all root for Futurama.
Martin.
Chris Jones
It does take the piss that they've cancelled Futurama, which is still funny,
and kept on the Simpsons, which has lost its flare and is just kept going by
being fed caffiene 24/7.
Mike Kling
that better than the current Simpsons. I like it but I think it has the same
exact problems The Simspson do now. Wackiness being one of the greater
concerns. However, I still like both shows. Saying The Simpsons have jumped
the shark is way too harsh. It's lost some of it's quality for sure, but it
is still consistantly funny, and occasionally as good as ever.
"Chris Jones" <dos...@REMOVETHISbigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:ac6ase$9d9$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
Jason Saslow
>
> They didn't cancel Futurama first of all, and I don't think Futurama is all
> that better than the current Simpsons.
Not this most recent season of Futurama...
--
Please note: You can contact me directly by sending e-mail to
dev-...@saslow.com, but you must put "[alt-tv-simpsons]" in
the subject line or it will automatically be deleted.
Reader
are long since "in the can" and could have been shown in 2000 or 2001 if it
weren't for constant pre-emption. No new Futurama episodes are in
production, per public commentary from the writers and animators themselves.
B. The average Futurama ep these days is better than the above-average
Simpsons ep these days. Sad but true. There's just more heretofore-untapped
material to tap in it.
From season 4 alone, outstanding episodes: Xmas story, Anthology of
Interest 2, Love & Rocket, Leela's Homeworld, Godfellas, Futurestocks, Where
No Fan Has Gone Before. In particular, AOI2 and Godfellas were absolute
"10"s, while Leela's Homeworld was a solid character-centric ep. Check 'em
out if you can, and lament for seeing where the Simpsons could have been
headed...
-Mike
"Mike Kling" <res0...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:eOzF8.20822$8M5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Joshua P. Fredman, esquire
never seen before, that being "Two Cars in Every Garage and Three Eyes on
Every Fish," a season two episode. Being old as it is, it is a hard one to
dig up, but I finally found it and held out high expectations.
To be sure, I was not disappointed. The Simpsons was an utterly different
show in season two, even from its season four counterpart, to say nothing of
the many and merry years thereafter.
I recalled Quimby's campaign for mayor, and Homer's campaign for sanitation
commissioner, and compared them with Burns' run for governor.and my, how
stark the differences are. 7F01 is a satire of a real political campaign;
2F02 is a parody of everything that's wrong and silly about political
campaigns and lobbying. 5F09 is so abstract that it is best described as
just as sick, twisted and corruptible as our political system could hope to
be. At the end of 2F02, Homer's dreams are assured by his loving wife, who
reminds him that seconds on desserts and sleeping in on Saturday's are
beyond the reach of any man, leaving the political process itself as an open
question mark, with evil having been allayed for now, but hardly defeated
forever. It is a very "everyman" ending. At the end of 7F01 we are treated
to a climactic court scene where the plot points are all resolved and
political order, in the rather questionable form of Diamond Joe Quimby, is
restored. Nothing is really changed, unlike 2F02; the episode may as well
never have happened, but we certainly had fun along the way. 5F09,
meanwhile, is barely about politics at all, in stark contrast to the deeply
political themes and undertones of those two predecessory (sic) episodes.
And, at the end, not only is order not restored, but to return everything to
point zero for next week, they stilt up the town and move it five miles down
the road. Excuse me?
Seasons two, six, and nine are three different television shows, whose
periods ran roughly one - three, four - nine, and nine - twelve, with
opinion reserved on the as-yet incomplete thirteenth season. Note that
season nine was a transition year, containing episodes cast both in the
earlier style and as heralds of things to come. By taking a good look at
similarly-themed episodes from each of these periods, we are privy to a
front-row seat to the evolution of an astounding television series.
My first thought is that, insofar as satire is concerned, "Sideshow Bob
Roberts" is the best of the three episodes. Season six remains my favorite
of all the seasons, simply for the reason that it was able to interject our
well-known and beloved cast into situations which, while sometimes extreme,
were goldmine sources for all levels of comedy, from subtle to gross. The
high point is that a season like six was true to the maximum potential of
the show-it could maintain (should it choose), but never exceed this high
water mark of excellence. The downside to season six is that, by continuing
to place the cast in increasingly unrealistic situations, burnout was bound
to occur unless the more abstract plots were interspersed by episodes of
conspicuous normalcy in their realism.
As we all know, that never happened and The Simpsons began to lose integrity
two seasons later, with "Burns, Baby Burns." Two more seasons down the road,
and the show had evolved into a Exdeathean monument to nonexistence.
When Chris mentions his concern that The Simpsons used to "make" cool as a
product by exploiting the natural resources of our silly world, but now is
just another cool product of no especial importance, I am reminded of the
economic analogy of capital resources versus consumer resources. I may have
used this analogy before; The Simpsons used to be a factory that would
produce a product, and this product was a capsule-sized dose (episode) of
social satire, character drama, and humor. It packaged the foibles of our
society and fed them to the very people who engaged in these inanities
everyday. But in later seasons, the show ceased production and instead
became a product in its own rite: a souvenir of the popular culture periods
ranging from 1997 to the present day. Viewers ten years down the road will
find that these newer episodes have aged poorly, as they depend greatly on
popular culture. Do you remember Starland Vocal Band? Neither did Homer,
until he realized he had their tattoo. From the future perspective, the best
these episodes could hope to do is imbue nostalgia.
When it closed its forges, The Simpsons lost its ability to stand above the
world and look down in contempt. Ages ago, I used to tell my friends that
The Simpsons had the right to make fun of anyone and anything they pleased,
because they were just that good at it-an "it's funny because it's true"
sort of phenomenon. But when a bad show makes fun of other things, it just
looks pathetic. Perhaps this is why The Simpsons now only makes fun mostly
of itself. The Simpsons has lost its license to cool.
I seldom listen to music made after 1990. I think it is mostly noise, and
thus I am just not "with it." Similarly, I am not too fond of much of the
pop-culture. I'm one of those damned intellectuals who prefers to distance
himself from the banalities of the mob. (You may stampede me now.) And so,
as you may imagine, I cringe when Homer parasails into a celebrity household
or "just happens" to meet yet another popular band. Gee.perhaps this week
Homer and his celebrity buddies will hijack an aircraft carrier. Wouldn't
that just be the most hilarious thing ever?
Yeah, sure.if you did it right. But it would look (and did look) ridiculous
if it was done executed correctly, and would violate the show's premise as a
testament to the clichés of your average, everyday American. I acknowledge
that The Simpsons has the same right to evolve that any entity does, but
that hardly means I respect what the series has become.
I never much cared for "Homerpalooza." Chris makes a fine point about the
value of satirizing pop culture through pop culture itself, but for this to
work one first has to buy into pop culture, and I do not. When compared with
the outstanding episode that aired right afterwards, 3F21 is easily
forgettable. I am much more interested in seeing Homer throw a firecracker
into the dishwasher than I am watching him get shot in the stomach with a
cannon.to me the latter just isn't funny. To those of you who would suggest
there is a lesson to be taken from watching Homer go to such drastic
extremes to regain his familiarity with popular culture, I say piffle.
Anyone who joins a freak show to remain normal is a caricature of all the
most base qualities we harbor within us. This resides in that dangerous
no-man's-land between "it's funny because it's true" and "it's funny because
it's absolutely crazy." In between, we have the unfunny, too plausible to
ignore but too wild to accept. In a similar vein, I do not need to see Ralph
pee in his pants. It takes them six months to produce an episode of The
Simpsons. Who the hell had the staff sit down for half a week to produce
this little gem?
I need not reiterate the basic truth these days. The Simpsons has
degenerated into a minion of the lowest common denominator. Has it jumped
the shark? Almost certainly, but I suppose that depends on the number of
seasons remaining. Ten more seasons assures us further evolution in the
show, and we may end up with something extraordinary-be that for good or
ill, I cannot say. Three more seasons, comparatively, will be hard-pressed
to accomplish any resounding evolution in the show's formula.
In season thirteen, I have noticed two important things. First, the writers
and producers seem to realize that they have gone too far in their excesses
of non-realism. In this season we have seen many more believable plotlines.
The "loudness" from the show is being gradually quieted, and that is
excellent. Filling airtime with the screams of characters is something I am
dead-set against-textbook example, "The Terror of Tiny Toon," AABF01.
Second, the cutting humor I once enjoyed is not returning. Even though the
producers seem to be tackling the virus-the zaniness and loudness that
crippled the show's ability to spout mid- and high-brow humor-they have thus
far failed to restore the comedy that originally gave The Simpsons its
purpose. So, we are left with a lot of empty airtime; the loudness is gone,
but so are the jokes. That, in my opinion, is the summary of season
thirteen. Better than ten through twelve, but conspicuously empty in
content.
~~
So, what about the radical factor of the show? The Simpsons used to push the
envelop in what could and could not be aired. Critics everywhere decried the
series' ignobility and decadence. No one was safe from their humor ray, and
everyone loved it that way.
I find it ironic that only now, when the show has become an empty shell
surviving only on its lasting power, do the critics proclaim this as one of
the best television shows of all time. When you read articles in this vein,
pay attention and note that just about all of the examples these critics use
come from the first eight or nine seasons of the show. And yet, rather than
stick their reputations out on a limb, the critics waited until it was a
sure bet to praise the show. The Simpsons is not and has not been for five
years what the critics are only now willing to admit that it is: satire most
excellent.
I look at the legions of adoring fans and scoff; their episode reviews
consist an inordinate overuse of the word 'hilarious.' To illustrate,
consider these excerpts from the episode review of "Little Girl in the Big
Ten," posted at "The Springfield Shopper,"
http://www.thespringfieldshopper.com/reviewdabf15.htm
>>>First of all, Coach Lugash was hilarious, and it was excellent how they
brought him back from his last small part in "Children of a Lesser Clod". He
is a truely funny character.<<<
No argument is offered to substantiate why this is hilarious. Remember,
proper art critique demands that one show and not tell why something is the
way it is.
>>> The Bart plot soon started, with Bart and Grampa bonding at Krusty
Burger, which was hilarious.<<<
A minimalist explanation is then given as to why this is so, but what passes
for an explanation is roughly "It's funny because Grampa is in it and there'
s a nostalgia meal." That does nothing to explain anything!
>>> The look at how the mosquito ended up in Bart's toy was also
hilarious.<<<
For the sake of argument, no it was not. (And now watch as I dazzlingly dare
to defend my didactic diatribe.)
I do not have access to a transcript of that episode, nor the episode
itself, so I shall begin with those things that stood out in my memory. How
does that mosquito get into the Laffy Meal box? Is corporate America up to
no good by offering a toy with zing, zorch, and whatnot? Are the toys
produced in malaria-infested Central American sweatshops? Is the Public
Broadcasting Station trying to educate lay American children about the
wonders of entomology?
Well, one of our guesses is not far off. We are taken to an establishing
shot of a Chinese sweatshop, filling the viewer with hope that there looms
ahead some delightful humor is imminent. This shot is well-done to that end.
Once inside the factory, we are treated to absolutely no visual humor. It's
a humdrum sweatshop full of workers. Nothing visually humorous is happening.
A letdown.
"Chairman" Krusty is motivating the workers. "Laziness is
counterrevolutionary," he decrees. Well, that got me to laugh, and it was
certainly one of the best jokes in the episode. Why? We begin with the
satire of catch-phrases. In America, you will notice that certain political
groups use certain buzz words time and time again to exemplify their causes,
words such as "diversity," "children," "freedom," and so on. In Communist
China, "revolutionary" was such a word, and still is to an extent. If
something is good or beneficial to the blokes in power, they call it
"revolutionary," in honor of the revolutionary advances made by communism in
the early and mid-twentieth centuries, and epitomized by the Bolshevik
Revolution itself.
You've got a sweatshop factory in Communist China.excellent opportunity to
poke fun at their political model, no? And that is actually done here! But
of course, the relish comes when we remember that this is not some political
rally, but rather a sweatshop. I'll bet on Flanders' life that the workers
are going to give one whit about the glorious and revolutionary Mother
China. I'm sure they all buy into Krusty's insinuations that they share some
great destiny in bringing China to new heights. After all, Krusty is a great
businessman of honor and integrity, no?
Well, sadly enough, that was the only humorous bit in the scene. Krusty's
other comments fell painfully flat-so flat that I do not even remember them,
and so cannot critique-and the actual explanation of how the mosquito got
into the toy-remember why we're here?-is painfully bland. Literally, the
mosquito is pestering one of the workers, who swats it such that it flies,
unseen by the worker, into the toy as he puts it together. That is
iniquitously unfunny. It is also the main reason for the existence of the
scene, which doubles its sinfulness.
To get back to my original point, it is en vogue to praise the show these
days. Everyone does it. But close analyses reveal time and again that The
Simpsons has rotted on the inside. Whether or not viewers recognize that
will depend largely on the quality of the veneer.
And that brings me to DAB15, "Little Girl in the Big Ten." Chris asked me
for my thoughts on the episode, and I am happy to present them here.
Lisa Simpson is my favorite character on the show. I care what happens to
her. So, you might well expect that I keep an eye out well in advance for
any upcoming episodes which focus on her. Early in 2001 I was outraged that
she was supposedly going to become a Buddhist in season thirteen. I knew the
show stank, and I worried that they would permanently damage her character,
which I had always seen as a commentary on the power of intellectual
secularism over any religious subscription. That statement of course
deserves its own thread, as evidenced by numerous episodes across all
seasons, but for these purposes let us just assume it is hypothetically
true.
I was deeply troubled, and feared that "Lisa the Buddhist" would be the
straw to break my back and drive me away from the show permanently. For me,
it was to be a decisive moment in the show's evolution. The writers and
producers were going to screw around.could they do it right?
Airtime finally came, and I watched the episode with baited breath. But, to
my combined relief and dismay, after it was all over, the only thing I could
say was, fittingly, "Meh."
"Lisa the Buddhist" had nothing to do with Lisa. Her entire spiritual
dilemma was a side story in an episode with no main plot. Her exploration of
Buddhism was forgettable; her conversation with Richard Gere was
self-righteous; her confrontation with her Christian mother was
anticlimactic, and her final resolution was nonexistent.
The end.
I thought that the second Lisa episode in season thirteen was going to be
"Blame it On Lisa." As the previews called for a trip to Brazil, I was not
impressed before showtime. Then, once the episode aired, I realized that it
was not an episode about Lisa at all, but rather about Homer. Those
producers can go to the field and sit on it.
So, season thirteen's third and final chance to write an episode about Lisa
was DABF15. To my surprise, this episode is completely focused on her.
Seeing as she is a main character and all, it is nice that she got the
spotlight in at least one of the season's twenty-two episodes.
Let me begin reviewing DABF15 with the bottom line. The bottom line is that
this episode was an olive branch extended to people like me by the
producers.
My problem is that this olive branch is made of table scraps. They are at
last willing to acknowledge that a considerable portion of their viewers
enjoy high-brow humor and character drama, even in the unlikely medium of an
animated cartoon show. Most of the people who appreciate this level of
maturity are also fans of Lisa. So, the producers reason, let us give them
what they want. Let's put Lisa into a dramatic plot.
Never mind that the entire remainder of the season is a monument to the mob;
I was thrilled that they took the trouble at all to acknowledge the
existence of chums like me. However, the way in which they executed this
peace offering leaves so much to be desired that I cannot say I enjoyed the
episode.
Mainly, I am disenchanted by the basic premise. Matt Groening once described
Lisa as his favorite character because she was the only one who would ever
escape Springfield. As a shooting range for piercing our cultural foibles,
Springfield is a hell of a town. But as a town where real people might live,
it is a curse. In a moment of lucid parenthood, Homer once said to her, "You
'll have lots of special people in your life. There's probably some place
where they all get together and the food is real good, and guys like me are
serving drinks."
In DABF15, she actually got to experience that. Had time flowed, she would
be nineteen years old now, and likely in college. For a few minutes, she got
to enjoy her version of paradise.
My problem with this is that it is a rather severe short-circuit. Our lives
are defined by the struggles we confront every day. To put a little girl
into college is blasphemy to the ten years left to her adolescence. I myself
looked forward to college since I was eleven, for many of the same reasons
she does. However, had I simply been placed in college when I was eleven, I
would have been spared the very struggles which now make my college
experience so rewarding. To give Lisa a ten-year shortcut and put her in
college now is blasphemy to the idea that she needs to earn her place in a
society where her intellect can be appreciated, blasphemy to the idea that
people need to work for their victories, since a victory dealt freely is not
a victory at all. To quote an overused aphorism, you cannot have your cake
and eat it too. We relate to Lisa because we sympathize with the challenges
that fill her life. Should she be given the easy out that no one in real
life ever enjoys, there would be an estrangement of kinship.
The episode contains many other deficiencies. For one thing, it is a good
example of how the writers tend to recycle jokes from previous episodes.
When it came to publicly humiliating Principal Skinner, I yawned, because it
has been done so many times. However, when Lisa rolled off Bart's bubble in
the elaborately illustrated climax, I suddenly wondered if Lisa would miss,
land flat on her face, and suffer yet another one of Life's crippling
defeats. I could see many rich paths leading from such a scenario, but
instead, and very predictably, she landed perfectly on the cake and Skinner
got splattered. Boring, boring, boring. Lame, dull, trite.
Milton once said that it is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. At
episode's end Lisa chooses just that, by striving for the respect of people
who mean nothing to her and who in fact will be lambasting her braininess in
class later that day. For the sake of returning the show to point zero for
next week's episode, Lisa is forced to abandon her college affiliations.
After leaving the campus she never makes an effort to return. This is all
bad form on her part, and I fault the writers.
Homer's drinking song and Ralph's on-screen urination, along with the flat
scene at Krusty's sweatshop and the rather uninspired and repetitive jokes
thrown into Bart's plot, make for an episode the fails on many levels. Bart
did nothing original in his bubble. It was a waste of airtime, and yet who
of you noticed that the promotions for the episode mentioned nothing of the
main plot, but instead Bart's bubble story? The writers may have been
willing to give its harshest critics a bone, but they sure as hell did not
want the average viewer to know about that until it was too late to plan to
watch something else.
DABF15 has two strong points. For one, the animation and artwork is simply
outstanding. During the Pinsky sequence I remember thinking that a Simpsons
movie would look just about like this in artistic quality. It was very, very
well-done. The background illustrations offer a benign interjection into the
main subject matter, helping to establish the principles of theme and tone.
At Kafka's-(I should note that the name of this café is one of the episode's
best satirical moments, as it offers commentary both on Lisa's character and
college lifestyle, separately and independently)-the heavy use of shadow and
color lend themselves to an emphasis on the moment, truly one of the few
times in Lisa's life when she gets to enjoy herself in her own element.
Later on, the epic stylings Lisa's dive from the school roof onto Skinner's
cake help establish the decisiveness of the moment, and in a most intriguing
style.
The episode's other strong point is its unified plotline. This is a good
thing, because the plot is the most important element. In a television
series, where plots come and go every week but the characters remain,
characters must be placed centrally, with the plot to serve only as a medium
of character interaction, but nonetheless the plot is more important than
the characters even in this format. There has been some criticism of plot as
the culprit for the decay of the show in recent seasons, but this is
undeserved. The bad plots were the result of forcing the characters into
zany situations. This is a character-dependent, not plot-dependent
technique. For a good look at the pinnacle of television series plot
dominance, look no further than season two of The Simpsons. Season one's
plots were too formulaic and the episodes felt too long. Season two took the
same high plot values but applied them in a far more mature fashion, to
great success.
~~
Let me touch briefly on Chris' observation that the jokes now tend to be
explained right after the fact. I agree with the observation and I also
agree that it is lamentable. Television has badly degraded in quality in the
past fifteen years, probably because there is just so much more of it that
many of the good ideas are being spread too thin. If you watch an old show
like "Duck Tales" you will find a wealth of subtle references and
mentally-provocative material, despite the very obvious fact that the
program is geared toward little kids. The same is true of the first three
seasons of the "Rugrats," starkly unlike its counterpart seasons after a
long hiatus during the mid 1990s.
You'll never go broke pandering to the lowest common denominator, but Mary
Bailey puts her stock in the intelligence of the common man. It's no wonder
that she would have lost the election, had Burns not screwed up. As a
writer, I know just how tempting it is to explain every little detail of
what I write, simply because I fear most people are too lazy and dumb to
look for the significance of all the little minutiae in my work. I suspect
that many writers, Simpsons staff included, feel the same temptation.
However, I have learned that many people really are smart, no matter what
they say or how they act, and so it is thus often worthwhile to leave a joke
unexplained, or a reference implied. Nonetheless, the occasion explanation
is sometimes beneficial. I earlier mentioned Milton; I wanted to write that
without providing the actual reference to ruling in hell versus serving in
heaven. I reasoned that anyone who had read my post that far would not be
looking for subtlety, and so I worried that this important point would go
unnoticed.so I highlighted it with an attached explanation. It is a safety
catch that is best used only sparingly, especially in humor such as a
program called The Simpsons.
~~
I think that will do it. Let me conclude by disagreeing with an above
poster, who summarized Chris' original post into a single line, "The
Simpsons has gone Poochie." The purpose of all that which I have written
above is not meant to be summarized. I know well enough that The Simpsons
has indeed gone Poochie. I am not trying to state as much in as long-winded
a fashion as possible. I am, rather, trying to point out why.
~Josh
Sydney Assbasket
better. For example, "Sideshow Bob Roberts" had a scene parodying the scene
from "Citizen Kane" in which Kane runs for governor (was it governor or
mayor?). Brilliant. In that same episode, there is a parody of the "revolving
door prison" ad on TV in the late 80s or early 90s. What do we get now?
N'Sync guest stars, and the writers kind of kiss their asses. What once was a
subversive yet warm-hearted show is now trying way too hard to be hip and cool.
I don't really think that "Homerpalooza" is very satirical of the popular music
scene. The way the musicians were paraded onto the screen was more celebratory
of the scene than anything. The "I didn't do it" episode was a better parody
of show business, IMO. It exaggerated the speed with which audiences often
embrace some idiotic gimmick (in music, movies, humor, etc.) and how quickly
they get tired of it. One minute, Bart's all the rage and the next minute he's
a "schmo working in a box factory."
The writers are so concerned with packing in gags, no matter how incongruent
with the show's reality, that the heart and soul of the show is gone now. "Two
knives," hilarious. I feel so much like the "wuzzle-wazzle" guy right now,
wondering "this is what passes for humor?" How's that for irony?
"The Simpsons" is still better than most shows on TV right now, but considering
the heights the show reached in the past, the viewers shouldn't have to settle
for merely "better than most shows on TV right now."
I'd compare the show to the title character of "Citizen Kane." Kane, at the
beginning, published a declaration of principles and he exposed trust frauds
and things like that in his paper. But after he got rich, he turned into
another decadent rich guy who used to attack what he turned into.
________________________________________________________________
If love of money is the root of all evil, why do churches want it so badly?
Remove "bination" to reply.