IO: Fat Tony

[cobl04]

I agree with that - but it’s a really shitty way for the show to respond.

Why not say, “this is an issue. Apu will be voiced by an Indian voice actor going forward”. Simple.

 

[iron yuppie]

I agree with that - but it’s a really shitty way for the show to respond.

Why not say, “this is an issue. Apu will be voiced by an Indian voice actor going forward”. Simple.

I finally watched the doc. Very thought-provoking stuff. Especially

Spoiler

the contention that Apu is essentially a minstrel and the reveal that the original notes for the character specified he not be Indian, but that Shearer did a stereotypical Indian accent in the initial reading anyway.

 

[iron yuppie]

If you could make any Troy McClure film into an actual movie, what would it be?

For me: "The Verdict Was Mail Fraud."

 

[DaveC]

i'm curious about "lepers in the backfield" and "the president's neck is missing".

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I would probably go with Hydro, the man with the Hydraulic Arms...

 

[iron yuppie]

Seymour, do you want me to tell you when it's 7:30?

 

[iron yuppie]

 

[bono_212]

I feel like there was more they could've done with this, but also it's perfect?

 

[iron yuppie]

I signed up for Disney Plus a while back, and it led me to re-watch a lot of The Simpsons. By a lot, I mean every episode from seasons 1-10.

A debate that comes up a lot is when the show began its steep decline. The consensus answer to this is the Skinner-as-imposter episode from season 9.

For my money, though, it is the very last episode of season 10: the one where they vacation in Japan. It is the first abjectly bad episode of the series: mean-spirited, insensitive, hellishly over-reliant on stereotypes, and completely unfunny. S10 E23 is the precipice.

 

[cobl04]

I've been meaning to get back into and rewatch The Simpsons for a very long time.

 

[iron yuppie]

Some of those "classic" episodes have aged very poorly. Homer Badman in particular. That one's attitude is downright regressive.

 

[cobl04]

I think it's fine! I think you'd have to be much more careful in how you'd write that today, given the climate, and I just straight up wouldn't air it, or write it... but I think taken on its own merits, it's quite well done.

 

[bono_212]

I love that episode.

 

[cobl04]

See you in hell, candy boys!!

 

[LemonMelon]

I see nothing wrong with Homer Badman and I've watched it enough times to have it memorized at this point. In this day and age, nobody would write an episode about a false sexual assault accusation because it would do more harm than good (even then, it wasn't purposeful so much as a misunderstanding), but that was never the point of the episode. It was about herd mentality, hack journalism and the profound psychological impact of media sensationalism, which is still relevant today.

 

[iron yuppie]

The thing feels to me like someone in that writer's room got rejected or was overly aggressive with a woman, then wrote an episode about how victimized they felt about it. IMO it is very mean-spirited, which is uncharacteristic of the show's early seasons.

 

[cobl04]

That could be true.

 

[LemonMelon]

Nah, it demonizes the tabloids spreading junk content, not the victim herself or the people protesting on the lawn. The moral is that the controversy would have died out if anyone had bothered to investigate it properly. Homer trusted media outlets to have his back and got burned in the process.

The fact that the victim was a female graduate student is relevant to the media narrative but beyond that doesn't really matter. I don't feel there is any specific invective pointed her way and she's not depicted any differently after the incident takes place.

The episode wouldn't get made today but it's balanced well for its time and still has plenty of good commentary in it.

 

[iron yuppie]

The fact that the victim was a female graduate student is relevant to the media narrative but beyond that doesn't really matter. I don't feel there is any specific invective pointed her way and she's not depicted any differently after the incident takes place.

I don't think I agree with that. There are a million ways they could have gone with the media sensationalism angle but landed on a stereotypical "feminist." With her introduction, Bart immediately mocks her feminism in a way that barely gets counteracted. The choice to me seems deliberate. But again that's just my read on it.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't think I agree with that. There are a million ways they could have gone with the media sensationalism angle but landed on a stereotypical "feminist." With her introduction, Bart immediately mocks her feminism in a way that barely gets counteracted. The choice to me seems deliberate. But again that's just my read on it.

Right, but the Simpsons' reactions to Grant are in character. She falls on Lisa's side of the cultural/sociopolitical line that separates her from Bart and Homer, so it makes sense that Bart would poke at her feminism because it was the primary trait that Lisa introduced her with.

One could argue that the writers could have made her a more balanced character, but with 22 minutes to work with you risk her having no defining characteristics at all. That show has always used caricature to its advantage and while Grant isn't especially likable, my reading is more that she exists in a space the Simpsons do not reside in, which makes her interaction with Homer so much more uncomfortable and the larger media narrative easier to create.

I just don't get anti-feminist vibes from the episode. I get "the media has been poking at my show for 5 years and I'm tired of it" vibes.

 

[bono_212]

It makes absolutely no sense to look at this episode through a 2020s lens, when it's from 1995. You're looking at the episode like it's speaking to an issue that's in the headlines today, and it's not. The mid-90s were rife with tabloid drama like this, not that that's gone away. It's speaking to what was in the headlines in 1995.

I like that there's an article from Vanity Fair in 1999 calling the 90s the Tabloid decade. Like, we could see that's what was happening then, and it's only become more obvious now.

https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/1999/02/david-kamp-tabloid-decade

And of course I realize you were there in the 90s and cognizant, but again, I just think this is the danger of people going back and watching this stuff and saying, "Wow, look how problematic this was." As though it WAS released today.

 

[cobl04]

And of course I realize you were there in the 90s and cognizant, but again, I just think this is the danger of people going back and watching this stuff and saying, "Wow, look how problematic this was." As though it WAS released today.

I think we’re all right here. iYup definitely has a point, so I don’t think we need to get too defensive. I think it’s possible to enjoy an episode for what it is (I think it’s a great episode) as well as be open to criticising it.

I adore Monty Python, but one of my favourite Python sketches is jaw-droppingly racist.

 

[DaveC]

I adore Monty Python, but one of my favourite Python sketches is jaw-droppingly racist.

about 3 years ago i briefly chatted with john cleese in a bookstore here in toronto, and was absolutely star struck and felt like i had met one of my heroes. then like 2 weeks later he posted a series of racist dogwhistly tweets about "not recognizing london anymore" or someshit (and has doubled down again and again ever since) and i have never had my opinion of a celebrity whip from one extreme to another so hard in my whole life.

 

[iron yuppie]

And of course I realize you were there in the 90s and cognizant, but again, I just think this is the danger of people going back and watching this stuff and saying, "Wow, look how problematic this was." As though it WAS released today.

I think the only thing I would say to this is concern over sexual misconduct/assault is not unique to the last decade. It certainly has a much larger place in public discussion now, but I don't think the questionable tone of this episode is only a product of hindsight. And I know I kicked off this discussion by saying the episode aged badly. But that doesn't preclude it from having been questionable in the first place, especially within the context of a show that prided itself on being observant and worldly.

 

[cobl04]

I'd be interested to see if there were contemporaneous (is that the word I'm looking for?) reviews of the episode that were negative.

 

[U2inUtah]

I'd be interested to see if there were contemporaneous (is that the word I'm looking for?) reviews of the episode that were negative.

I checked The Simpson Archive on that episode because I know it includes contemporary reviews from each episode, but none of the reviews they included were revelatory.

[2F06] Homer Bad Man

But the bigger tidbit I found, who knew Gentle Ben was an actual TV show in the 1960's starring Ron Howard's brother and an actual bear!

 

[Hewson]

But the bigger tidbit I found, who knew Gentle Ben was an actual TV show in the 1960's starring Ron Howard's brother and an actual bear!

I remember Gentle Ben reruns from my childhood, did not remember that it was Clint Howard though (as a kid the bear was the only reason to watch anyway).

 

[iron yuppie]

I've been watching the Simpsons straight through for around 18 months now, and since probably season 13 have been looking for a place where you can definitively say it lost its soul. In my opinion, that place is season 18 episode 12, in which Lisa fabricates indigenous heritage for a school project. That is such a thorough and absurd betrayal of her character that I still can't quite believe it was a story line.

 

[cobl04]

That's a good exercise. You should pitch an article about it, would make for a great read.

 

[iron yuppie]

I'm resurrecting this thread to ask an important question.

In the episode Homer the Heretic, there's a scene where Marge is struggling to start the car after church. As the engine turns over, she vocally mimics the sound. Why does she do that? I've never been able to understand.