Social Commentary in The Simpsons

Classic style:

[When Bart quits, because he didn't get good at the guitar right away] Homer: Son! If something's hard, it's not worth doing. You just put that guitar back in the closet with your karate outfit and your unicycle, and let's go watch TV.

{After any particularly violent (early) Itchy & Scratchy cartoon] Bart, Lisa, and Homer laugh really hard

New style:

[After practicing the first line of their hip-hop style song] Nelson: Isn't this song a little boastful?

[After seeing a gratuitously cast Bumblebee Man in "Dawson's Creek"] Lisa: I'm all for ethnic diversity, but this is just pandering.

~~~

Classic social commentary on the Simpsons was hidden, and sarcastic. It's satire when the family laughs at an extremely violent cartoon. "Tom & Jerry" and other cartoons from the past seemed to perpetuate this idea, and "Itchy & Scratchy" exaggerated it greatly. The family laughing at such violence is the satire, because it sarcastically suggests that extreme violence is funny. This also mocks all similar shows, however relatively mild, that came before it. In the world of the Simpsons, just an exaggeration of our own, extreme violence is funny -- and it's normal.

Social commentary in the newest episodes, it seems, comes pre-packaged, without the wrappings of delicious sarcasm to decipher. Something from our lives is demonstrated, then one of the characters makes a comment. There is no sarcasm, and any mockery of the subject is dulled. We aren't the observers, anymore; we're not seeing the commentary. It's being given to us, as if we wouldn't get the joke otherwise.

Now, Itchy & Scratchy have made their point a number of times on The Simpsons. Perhaps that's why we rarely see them anymore; the "extreme violence is funny" joke has been done many times already. But, as long as there is life on planet Earth, there will be things to mock about us. There will be observations to make, and exaggerate.

In Simpsons satire, the characters shouldn't "make" the commentary; they should "be" the commentary. When the characters themselves "are" the commentary, we see their exaggerated situations as social commentary. When characters "make" the commentary themselves, they pull back into our world and the irony and sarcasm are lost.

Bringing back characters "being, not making" commentary would add the level of irony and humor back to the current show that is largely missing.

"The Rack" wrote in message news:[email]...

Your examples of "classic" versus "new" don't really seem any different to me. I can't see how there's anything at all subtle or "hidden" about Itchy & Scratchy. Rather the opposite, in fact...

Proving theories by example isn't too persuasive, but there is plenty of "subtle" social commentary in the new writing too. To take an example from one of the episodes you used yourself, New Kids on the Blecch... "There's something strange about this video...." "None of those women has had 3 kids, I can tell you that"

Six years ago when I started reading this newsgroup, it was full of woe and handwringing about how everything was terrible, not like the good old days of season three. Come back after all this time and find nothing has changed. The show certainly IS different, but I still don't think there's any massive qualitative difference between "the new stuff" and "the good old days." Still clever writing and animation, just different kinds of humor....imo of course =p

I dunno, the writing is "similar" to what it once was. I mean, the basic plot lines now are pretty ridiculous, but than again, 7-9 years ago they were pretty ridiculous as well. But somehow, they just don't make them work like they used to ... They still try to have social commentary and pop culture references, but somehow, it's just not getting delivered the same ...

Drunk and full of pie, �� Jason_Hoehn ԥ wrote:

Well, I thought my original post gave a good reason as to "why". :)

"??Jason_Hoehn ?" wrote in message news:...

I know I've stopped watching. I watch repeats from series 1-4.

Drunk and full of pie, Nim wrote:

[pasted]

New style:

[After practicing the first line of their hip-hop style song] Nelson: Isn't this song a little boastful?

[After seeing a gratuitously cast Bumblebee Man in "Dawson's Creek"] Lisa: I'm all for ethnic diversity, but this is just pandering.

It's not Itchy & Scratchy. It's the idea that Americans find extreme violence funny. We're shown this by Bart, Lisa & Homer's reactions. It's a mockery of that idea. Why are these violent cartoons made? Why do we find them so funny? It's an observation about something that's possibly "wrong" in America. It's satire.

If this were done in the new style, one of the characters would say (after a typically bloody cartoon)

Lisa: What's so funny about a severed head? Why do people think extreme violence is so funny?

The *difference* is in how the social commentary is made. It used to be made by what the characters *did*. Now, more often than not, a character points something out to the audience directly.

People do it all the time :)

What's the commentary? It's just a joke about Marge's self-conciousness. Lisa suspected there was something wrong with the video. Nothing is being mocked; there is no social commentary. Not in that dialogue exchange, anyway.

Tying my observation about the show to people who are trying to bring it down with empty complaints is stupid, Nim. It's a form of generalization that I resent. I'll just assume you're shifting gears, not trying to berate me.

Well, IMO, it is different -- and not because I was convinced of it by some hoarde of ATS posters. All I have to do is remember how I felt after episodes in the first five or so seasons, versus how I feel now. I used to laugh so hard, my lungs would hurt. I felt like I was watching a masterpiece every week. I get some laughs and chuckles now, but (as I stated earlier) the irony and satire are really hard to come by now. More often than not (as at least I've seen), the commentary we get is handed to us.

"The Rack" wrote in message news:[email]...

Yeah, of course that's the point...and I still don't think there's anything the slightest bit subtle or hidden about it. The joke is very upfront and straightforward.

I don't think what's changed is the subtlety, it's the kind of humor that's being used. "Social commentary" by itself is no more or less intelligent/creative/witty than aburdism, sarcasm, or parody. To be totally honest, I think it's easier and less interesting for the most part, because source material is easy, and it doesn't usually challenge any artistic or creative norms. Usually.

...and it's still weak. Granted, what you're arguing isn't scientifically provable with statistics and data...

Sure there is. It's a reality check on the idealized nonsense in the video. About objectification of women and all that. Done with a very "Marge" delivery.

Well I still don't think that "social commentary" occupies some sacred place in comedy. Frankly, I think that absurdist and meta-humor writing is harder to do subtly and creatively. It's not inherently "less funny" or less intelligent than satire. If you're laughing less, it sounds more to me like you just don't enjoy the kind of stuff they're experimenting with. Because from where I'm sitting, there hasn't been a decline in the quality of the writing - including the satire - they just don't use the same formulae they used to.

This....umm...."friend" of mine has a large collection of episodes on tape, and the more I watch them, the more the writing in the older episodes strikes me as being generally safe, cautious, and not as creative as the later stuff. And lacking the replay value of more recent seasons. However, I don't think this is because the writing is "better" after the first few seasons, nor because they finally abandoned some dumber, less sophisticated types of humor.

Disliking the show in its current state is one thing, but I just don't agree that it's a decline in quality...just a change.

Drunk and full of pie, Nim wrote:

Hidden to the masses, anyways. We understand it. We get the joke. Characters "laughing" at something (in most fictional stories) generally indicate that something is good. In this case, it's sarcastic. The message isn't literal; it's the reverse of the literal.

I was just drawing comparisons between the two types of social commentary. There were no cross comparisons.

I provide examples so that a pattern I've noticed may become obvious to another person. (Maybe I'm not so good at that, or maybe I need more/easier examples)

An unsupported opinion is useless. (Here comes the irony!) IMO! ;)

In those two lines, there is not. The video itself is commentary on the video music industry. Lisa's comment merely indicates that she's noticed something. If anything, she's helping the audience discover "what's wrong with this picture".

Objectification of women? That's done all the time in many shows. No "objectificating" thing done by the models was any different than things done by models in other videos. Marge is comparing the models to herself in a self-concious way. Is Marge feeling threatened by the shapely models? Mmmmmaybe.

But, that's a hair-split. The episode makes some light commentary about manufactured pop-bands; but in those two lines you gave, I saw no hidden commentary.

The Simpsons does self-humor all the time. It's feeding on it's own history of jokes and characters. IMO that's quite a bit easier to do. Making those jokes more subtle just gives them the same qualities I'm applauding in hidden satire.

Absurdist humor... illustrating that life is meaningless? IMO that's a close cousin to satire. Isn't that what Matt Groening's comic strip is based on? I have an idea why this may be "harder to do", and it's probably because the basic premise is flawed. (IOW, you can't make wine from water. You can't make a lie into the truth)

Again, I was comparing the two styles of social commentary used in The Simpsons. I gave my preference. Subtle, hidden satire is something to be appreciated IMO, and I'm not ashamed of that.

And since you don't believe in using examples, I expect none (supporting this view) are forthcoming... hmmm... so, we're already at the point of "your opinion is yours, mine is mine". It's just hard to appreciate opinions like this, which are as unsupported as "that last episode rocked!" I'll just say that I respect your right to withhold examples.

Just another opinion in the box. There's nothing wrong with an opinion.

I don't dislike the current show, and haven't said that I did. My words indicate that I much preferred the original style of social commentary on The Simpsons. The show used to be a masterpiece; the show now sits at the pinnacle of TV. A bird standing on Everest's peak, compared to an eagle flying overhead. The current Simpsons is the best thing on TV. IMO it used to be even greater.

"The Rack" wrote in message news:[email]...

See, this is kind of skirting near elitism. I honestly don't think the Itchy & Scratchy "satire" could be any more obvious, in the point it's getting across.

Maybe you didn't see it, but I did. Like I said, Marge's line is a reality check on the idealized and objectified women in the videos. And the way she does it is relatively subtle and in character, you have to fill in your own blanks about what having 3 kids does to a woman's body, and why Marge is noticing that. The joke is not just the content of her protest, it's how she expresses it, too. It's not -just- a social commentary, but that's definitely in the mix.

It's not that I don't believe in using examples, it's just that examples are weak proof of trends. You gave several examples of how you thought social commentary was getting weaker and less subtle. I didn't think they showed any such thing. I gave a counterexample. You didn't think it proved my point. That's fine. That's how humor works.

I didn't withhold one. I gave one and defended it. You just didn't happen to agree, just like I didn't think that -your- examples supported -your- point. Besides, my argument isn't that the writing is the same as it used to be, quite the opposite. It's that it's different now. You don't seem to be disputing that at all - just asserting that it's, basically, worse. To the extent you're saying the quality has declined, I think you're wrong. I could list examples of intelligent, creative jokes until I'm blue in the face but it wouldn't matter, since that is all in the eye of the beholder. All you'd need to do to discount them is say "I didn't find those funny or intelligent." You -cannot- prove "quality" of humor, because it is an individual experience.

There -is- a difference between saying "I don't like the show as much anymore" and saying "The show is not as good as it used to be." To the extent you and anyone else are arguing the latter, I don't agree. But of course you realize this point already, since i'm beating it to death =p

Well you're obviously in the majority opinion, at least on this newsgroup. I don't see any problem with just leaving it as a difference of opinion without judging the "quality" of the humor....yeah, I suppose I think it's improved from the safe, less creative scripts of the past, but I realize that's got more to do with my own tastes than some quantifiable standard of humor "goodness." But I also don't see any point in trying to prove this point or tear the jokes apart looking for the proof. The humor is like an onion, you just peel layers away, there is no magical core where the proof is hidden.

And besides, it's more fun just to watch them and keep quoting them, than pick them apart and analyze them under microscopes =p I mean....that's just soooo Comic Book Guy.

Anyway, happy Thnaxgiving, you weirdos!

Drunk and full of pie, Nim wrote:

I didn't realize everyone got the joke. What is it saying, then, when a man and his two kids laugh their heads off at the violent cartoon?

If everyone gets the joke, then it makes fun of people who don't exist. Then... it's not a joke. See what I mean? It's not elitist. The only way it works as a joke is if there are people who won't get it... the very people being mocked (Homer, Bart, and Lisa... charactatures of real Americans).

If everyone were meant to get the joke, then the characters being mocked would get the joke, too... and they would ask "why is a severed head so funny? Why is extreme violence funny?" instead of laughing. Then, it's no longer a joke (recursive logic; it works).

Just because I got the joke doesn't mean I'm elitist. I'm sure many other people get it.

It's a joke about Marge's insecurity. She's comparing her body (which has had three kids) with the women's bodies. It's a comment from her point of view. My point was the objectification of women is brought up as an issue in many shows, and it's nothing new. It's not satire, because there's no irony. If it's social commentary, then it's straightforward.

The thing that makes I & S "satire" is the ironic reaction the family has to it. Maybe I should have titled the thread "satire" instead of "social commentary".

If there's a way of supporting an opinion better than using examples, I'd like to try it. Mathematical proof-type stuff would really suck the fun out of discussing a something like "The Simpsons".

Well, then why discuss anything? Unless someone brings something up (like I did), there's not even an opportunity to exercise logic (like you're doing). All we end up with is simple opinions (that was great/that sucked). There must be a reason behind my feelings about the show, and I'm attempting to explain them.

(IMO) ATS is a disproportionate cross-section of "The Simpsons" audience. The majority of those posting are the ones who've become somewhat dissatisfied with the show, while there are many others who've got no concerns at all. This concentration of people may make all internet fans look like nitpicking boobs, but it's an unfair conclusion to make. Some people haven't been enjoying the show as much in recent years, and IMO they've got a right to find the reasons why. They are the people you see here.

If it's your opinion that there is no reason for the way people feel about the show (positive/negative), then I can see why you'd come to the conclusion that discussing The Simpsons (like many of us do) is a waste of time. I think there are reasons, and there's nothing wrong with trying to figure them out.

Never made that statement (at least in the original post). Everything I posted was an attempt to show a pattern; I gave my preference. It was still an opinion.

So then what's the point of arguing... for the hell of it? :)

There is no proof. I'm trying to find solid reasons why I feel like I do about the show. If it's because a certain type of joke is missing, or because some type of story isn't being done... then I want to find it out. I think I've found many of the reasons. Posting them here allows others (who may feel like I do) to agree, or to disagree.

It's semantics. If I say "it's not as good as it used to be", it's an implied opinion. Opinions shouldn't have to be qualified.

Chadderack wrote :

I'm all for subtlety, sarcasm and social commentary in humor and I agree that the show has lost some of its satirical edge, but I think your example is poorly chosen. I can't talk for the Simpsons and tell what they find funny in Itchy & Scratchy but, if you ask me, it's not the violence or even the � extremeness � of the violence that I find funny in I&S. It's rather the unexpected, unpredictable, clever means used to achieve that violence, within a quick tempo (humor is not only exaggeration, it's also surprise) and the contrast between all that violence and the gentle, happy, kiddy music in the background. Also the contrast between the violence Scratchy has to endure and the fact that he never � dies �. I don't find extreme violence funny at all. I hate action movies, not to mention violent ones and gory films. On the other hand, I usually find I&S very funny. Therefore the main funny ingredient in I&S must not be the extremeness of the violence, but its ingenuity, its cleverness. For me, at least. And maybe for the Simpsons too. On the contrary, in the last seasons, we've seen a lot of some-character-gets-hurt-and-there's-blood-spilling-everywhere type of jokes. It seems like each episode nowadays must have its mandatory physical-anatomical joke of that kind. I hate those jokes, I don't find them funny. Not because of their � bad taste �, but because they're not cleverly done.

Jean Fontaine wrote:

I think it is the violence. What the Simpsons find funny in I&S is violence and violence only. There is nothing unexpected in the way that in every episode Itchy exacts in on Scratchy a violent and brutal death. It is more predictable than shocking. I agree with you that violence is not funny. When we encounter violence in our own lives we tend to be scared and run away, as the Simpson kids did in the "The Terror of Tiny Toon," where a plutonium enhanced remote zaps them into the I&S universe. They laugh uncontrollably as Itchy massacres Scratchy but their laughter soon turns into terror as I&S comes after them to teach them a lesson.

The Simpsons were prescient in reminding us that reality is much more fragile than it is in the movies, and that coming face to face with violence still shakes us to the bone. On September 11 my first reaction when i saw the planes hit was "It's just like a movie!". I could never imagine that one day i would be face to face with the kind of violence that i had seen millions of times on screen and never thought about for a second time. But now I can't think of violence, even silly cartoonish violence, in an isolated context without relevance or significance to my own life.

Drunk and full of pie, Volkan Unsal wrote:

That's irony; the contrast between the violent stuff, and the kiddy stuff. It's satire because it's ironic, and thus it's saying something about these types of shows. Sure, I&S is an exaggerated version of that... but, it makes you think.

Agreed. The characters laugh because in the satiric version of our world that they live in, that stuff is funny. It's a criticism of _us_. There may, indeed, be people who find violence funny. Itchy & Scratchy--more precisely, the laughing appreciation of I & S we see in the Simpsons characters, is a heavy criticism of these types of people.

Good point. "Violence is funny" is an ironic concept, and it's satire about American TV audiences when we see the characters laugh so hard at I&S. Violence _isn't_ funny; that's what the irony in Bart & Lisa's laughter should bring out.

Drunk and full of pie, Jean Fontaine wrote:

[Disclaimer for Nim's benefit: The following lines are just opinions, not statements of truth]

That's an element of it; the satire is in the ironic reaction everyone has to I & S--they love the extreme "mindless" violence. As you said, you find that not funny at all.

Those are certainly different jokes. The irony of how "accepted" and loved I & S is in The Simpsons universe is the satirical backdrop that makes them funnier (for me, anyway). They show it to the kids, and it's considered normal! Irony just makes commentary funnier.

Satire = Irony + Commentary (roughly)

Another part is the exaggerated parody of "Tom & Jerry", "Sylvester & Tweety", etc... Jerry always wins vs. Tom, but Itchy most always *kills* Scratchy. Love the exaggeration. It kind of "mocks" the old cartoons (in a friendly way), which is great too.