I haven�t written a classic episode review for a while, so here comes a new one. I guess my English is getting a little bit rusty, so don�t wonder if there are some mistakes in spelling and grammar. All my previous reviews and texts can be found as usual on http://members.aol.com/Chris84792/simp.htm
Feel free to send me your own reviews, I�ll use them for the website (at the moment, there are only texts and reviews by me and Abman, so I�m thankful for every good contribution.)
I decided to write a review about one of the IMO best episodes ever, namely about the brilliant and very complex media satire 7F09 "Itchy & Scratchy & Marge" from the best season ever, season 2.
Already the beginning (when Maggie hits Homer with the mallet) shows a brilliant and very detailled parody of the famous "Psycho" shower scene and is - clearly different from todays senseless Homer torture - also an important element of story. The mallet scene actually starts the flow of story and is necessary for the dynamics of the satire.
The episode has an excellent uncertainty about its real message and moral. There�s no simple and straight Good/Bad message about the issue of violence in the media but the problem is shown in a thought-provoking unclear way and at the end, there�s no solution but just more unclear material for further discussion - all the uncertainty and subtlety of the "message" is a clear improvement to the often too direct "in your face" morality of Season 1.
In season 1, the morality would probably have been "TV violence is bad" with IMO too little room for own thoughs and opinions, while the more subtle moral of season 2 goes more in the direction "Violence on TV is a problem with many facets. Think about it". A much better style, unfortunately very seldom reached in the later years in this quality.
While Maggie is clearly influenced by cartoon violence, Bart and Lisa seem to accept the I&S scenes with some kind of childlike innocence (or blunt feelings?) and thus, they are unable to understand Marge�s arguments against I&S, but have own arguments pro cartoons, like Lisa�s "But Mom, if you take our cartoons away, we'll grow up without a sense of humor and be robots." (says Bart: "Really? What kind of robots?") Who is right? We can notice the subtle uncertainty already here and its quite clear that Marge considers the complex problem in a too simple way (and thus she will fail.)
Marge�s TV appearance on "Smartline" is a classic and brilliant example for satirical dialogue humor, which is created by (deeper) absurd and satirical lines and not by simple visual gags for the masses.
Kent, who (as a member of the media) should have an objective opinion, is already prejudiced and considers Marge�s protest as "stupid question" and Roger Meyers Jr. can convince him with weird lines like the comparison between cartoons and the crusades and the "fact" that there was violence on earth long before cartoons existed. Dr. Monroe�s appearance and his meaningless talk is IMO a hint at the fact that even psychologists have no clear opinion about the influence of TV violence.
We have here the same deeply satirical concept we had for example with the "actor playing Charles Darwin" in 7F01 (who was able to convince the voters with an absurd line about Blinky) - we have a satirically exagerrated reality which creates humor through the social acceptance of absurdity. That - and not cheap visual nonsense - was the true greatness of the show in those days.
The lame and boring violence-free I&S version and the (again) exagerrated reality of "good children" who turn off the TV to the tunes of Beethoven�s Sixth Symphonie (brilliant scene) and who leave the house to "find back their childhood" free from TV violence in a better world - all this is satire and no serious moral. It was never meant to be serious. It�s a kind of Utopia, which can�t work and which will fail. It can�t work because it�s unreal and based on a simplification of a complex problem. As I said - Marge considered the problem of TV violence in a too simplificated way and thus her failure was expectable.
A typical season 1 episode would have probably ended with such a simple moral (that would have been a point of criticism) but season 2 is complex and in itself stable enough to continue the story and to show Marge and the viewer how very weak her arguments and her "crusade" really was. The episode confronts Marge with her own simplification. Is the nudity of Michelangelos David just filth or is it another form of free speech and freedom of art? Is violence on TV filth or just another form of freedom of art? What is art, what is freedom of art, what is freedom of media? What is wrong? What is right? The episode gives no clear answer.
Dr. Monroe asks Marge about the problems in her conviction, but she isn�t able to find a reply and just says "I guess one person can make a difference, but most of the time, they probably shouldn�t." Her own moralistic protest has failed, but it remains as thought-provoking concept over the end.
The end of the episode is actually pessimistic. The streets are empty again, the toys and remains of a satirically "peaceful childhood" lay in the cold wind of reality (a symbolical scene) and TV violence is sucessfully back, while the children "accept" it either with innocence or with blunt feelings. Maggies shot on a picture of Homer is the last element that gives a hint at a negative message, everything else is left to the viewer�s own opinion (those were the days.) The final emotional scene between Marge and Homer weakens the deeply dark side of the ending a little and shows the integrity of the family as a stable element in an absurd world (<= important, but lost today.)
Only 4 seconds were cut in syndication. That�s a very rare thing in season 2, where some episodes were heavily cut for over 70 or even 80 seconds (including important scenes.) The upcoming S2 DVD will solve that problem.
I�d say 7F09 is a brilliant and complex media satire and it deserves nothing but a grade A+. Season 2 rules. Comments are as usual welcome (to the review and to my bad English ;-))
Chris