7G12 "Krusty Gets Busted" [Review]

Here comes a new and very very long review by me (indeed very long).

I know that the second half of my season 4 short reviews is still missing, but for today I liked to translate my brand-new German review, which I consider as pretty good but also pretty complicated. I�m not good in translation work and the lines were often a little difficult, so my English is maybe again rather bad. Feel free to tell me if there are weird mistakes or lines that make no sense (in a grammatical way ;-)).

Let�s have a look on a season 1 masterpiece, 7G12 "Krusty Gets Busted".

There are many references in the episode, like the one about the Black Sox scandal ("Say it ain�t so, Krusty") or one about "The Prisoner" and a whole lot more, but in this review I don�t want to talk about such obvious story elements and well-done humor (which is quite useful to make the episode interesting for younger viewers as well) but about the deeper satirical and criticial concepts and the hidden complexity behind the "surface story" (7G12 is very complex, especially for S1 relations.)

The episode contains Lisa�s famous line "If cartoons were meant for adults, they'd put them on in prime time" so let�s have a closer look to determine whether the episode and its deeper content was meant for adults or not.

[Warning - almost 2 1/2 pages of rather complicated stuff]

The episode has IMO two deeper concepts behind its story:

I - the social commentary (mob mentality, wrong behaviour of the media) II - the mediacritical commentary (quality of program, viewers behaviour)

the latter being the more complex (but also more hidden) content of the episode.

I. The social commentary

The social commentary refers to the topics of mob mentality and wrong behaviour of the media. The entire town is immediately (media-controlled) against Krusty, the reverend - symbolical for church as institution - even demands a "public burning" of toys on the stake (all the children�s toys burn quickly and produce toxic fumes <= satire within satire.)

It�s a portrayal of the townspeople as faceless and conformized mob (the line is important, we should remember it, I�ll come back to it later) where opinion is controlled by media or church and where the individual being is too lazy to have an own opinion, but just follows the flow. We can clearly see the concept in Homer�s line when Bart begs him not to join the mob and Homer innocently replies ""No I'm not, I'm hopping on the bandwagon! Now come on, son, get with the winning team!". Homer is following the group, but he�s unable to notice it. That�s great satire, especially because 7G12 doesn�t only show the behaviour but also the roots of such behaviour.

In addition, the concept of social commentary also refers to the wrong behaviour of the media (the borders to concept II are somewhat unclear here) which didn�t only condemn Krusty as guilty from the very beginning on, but also use the "tragedy" as a hook for (self-)advertising, for example Scott Christian bad-mouthing Krusty�s TV station or the gun ad "357 Magnum: The Clown Stopper".

Krusty�s illiteracy finally is a last comment about people on the borders of society and about a big problem which society often tries to ignore (there are a lot illiterate people in industrial nations) but it�s also an important aspect of concept II to which I�ll come very detailled now.

II. The mediacritical commentary

Different to the social commentary, I consider concept II as a concept about issues like quality and grade of intelligence in TV program (for kids) and viewers behaviour especially of a young audience, the latter leading us to a well-done and thought-provoking explanation for the reasons of adult mob-mentality in concept I. Both concepts, both satires of the episode, float easily together if you see the episode as one message. That�s classic writers work, that�s what OFF used to be in the old days.

The important question (and something many people don�t realize) is: "Was Sideshow Bob bad for the audience of Krusty�s show or was Sideshow Bob good for the audience of Krustys show?" Did Bob - as classic bad guy - ruin the show, disappoint the viewers and destroy Krusty�s idea of good entertainment (aka education) for kids? Did he?

Let�s have a look at the beginning of the episode, when Krusty appears on the TV screen and leads his famous dialogue with the (synchronized responding) mass of kids. The dialogue ends with Krusty asking "What would you do if I went off the air?" und the mass replies "We'd kill ourselves." Then the young audience (again synchronized) demands "the cannon, the cannon" (aka senseless violence against Bob) as one group. In a rather mean flashback to Krusty�s heart attack - Kent calls it one of television�s best-loved bloopers and is amused - Krusty�s "I�m dying" is answered with loud laughter by the mass and with no other reaction.

There is a very important and symbolical scene when Kent says that Krusty had become a changed clown after his heart attack: "this `new' Krusty devoted a small portion of every show to stamping out illiteracy in today's anything-for-a-thrill youth.'' We see Sideshow Bob who holds a bucket full of books in the background and Krusty who holds "Catcher in the Rye" upside-down in the foreground. Nothing had changed in the show, the "small portion" was meaningless, as Krusty didn�t know what to do with books (he�s illiterate and holds the book upside-down) and the true intellect (Bob) was still in the background, forced to remain in the background.

When Bob takes over the show, a lot of changing takes place - Bob starts to read from classic novels and sings songs from Cole Porter, he talks about stoicism and philosophy, we hear music by Mozart as new title theme ("Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"). Finally, there�s intellect and culture in the show, even more individualism. The young viewers of a former clown show accepting such a radical change of style is certainly surreal and an element of exaggerated reality, but it�s IMO important for the ep as social satire.

To Krusty, his audience was a faceless, conform mass of kids (<= here we have the line again) that reacted to his lines and actions always in the same way, that even cheered and laughed when Krusty almost died on stage. Even after Bobs takeover, the "sync behaviour" is still active and the kids react to Bob�s lines the same way they reacted to Krusty (though Bob corrects Krusty�s wrong grammar) and even Lisa asks Bart a little out-of-character "Come on, Bart, go with the flow" and thus joins the mass. The "flow" in Krusty�s/Bob�s audience of kids is the same "flow" that made all the adults burn toys on the stake. And exactly here with this kids, the episode shows us the roots of conformity and mob mentality, which we had seen in the first half of the story (<= brilliant.)

The episode has now a very important scene: Bob notices Bart in the crowd of kids and says, that he sees a sad child and he comes to Bart, he talks to the individual in the mass (he�ll regret that ;-)). It�s not clear whether Bob comes to Bart because Bart doesn�t fit into the conformized "cheering crowd" or whether Bob has other reasons, his line "I�m reaching out to you" seems to indicate that he takes individualism much more serious than Krusty did. The notorius bad guy of the show does something very positive (what a twist, excellent work of the writers.)

To come to an end: the episode is very ambivalent about the question of who�s the culprit and who�s the victim and it�s far away from a simple good/bad message. Bob primarily had good intentions, but his criminal ways were wrong. Krusty finally won, but won his audience? I think Krusty as well as Bob were both victims and culprits and the episode tries to show that. Bob says an imporant line at the end to sum up his basically good intentions that went totally wrong.

"Treat kids like equals! They're people too! They're smarter than you think!" <= plea for knowledge and individualism

There are some 49 seconds cut in syndication, including an I&S episode and Lisa�s great line about "cartoons being meant for adults". Well, I guess every fan of season 1 has the DVD.

I�d say 7G12 is a brilliant episode and very complex satire, excellent work of the writers with a lot of hidden references and concepts. Kids watch the episode because of good fun, adults tend to watch it for its social commentary. Those were the days, before the show became flat and empty. We have a thought-provoking uncertainty whether Bob taking over the show was good or bad and we have the commentary to mob mentality, mass conformity and its roots. In a season like S1 (which was often a little too much in-your-face) an outstanding masterpiece. Grade A+.

Comments are welcome (though I don�t expect many).

Chris, who congratulates everyone who was brave enough to read all that stuff ;-)

P.S. Final criticism: how could Bob disguise himself as Krusty? It�s impossible. Where was his hair? How can he speak with Krusty�s voice? Wizard did it. The rest is good enough to ignore that.

I think you're reading a weee bit to deep into the episode. Other then that, I agree with most of your points.

"Chris Pfeiler" wrote in message news:[email]...

but

consider as

and

rather

no

whole lot

elements

for

concepts

complex,

adults,

behaviour

Krusty,

"public

produce

line

opinion

lazy to

concept

innocently

with

notice it.

behaviour

here)

also

Christian

Stopper".

of

are

about

a

float

writers

good for

show,

(aka

the

mass

off

audience

violence

attack

no

had

a

of

upside-down

was

and

to

even

such a

have

way,

Bobs

wrong

go

audience

stake. And

and

brilliant.)

of

the

crowd" or

The

who�s

wrong.

were

think!"

every

work of

commentary.

bad

roots. In

stuff

Wizard

I posted this elsewhere, but gave you proper credit!

"kaanchtoofan" wrote in message news:uLgz8.141242$[email]...

that,

missing,

work

Sox

interesting

determine

behaviour)

get

but

borders

(there

important

and

to

"Was

on

responding)

went

Krusty

devoted

full

illiterate

the

about

("Eine

exaggerated

after

Bob�s

Bart,

conformity

crowd

to

Bob

to

good/bad

an

went

and

or

On 29 Apr 2002, Chris Pfeiler wrote:

I've seen worse. ;-)

Let's.

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you (My, did we come off to a bad start? :-) a little here. I'd say that many of the season 1 eps are indeed *very* complex. The episodes in season 1 were not adapted to standard Simpsons format, and therefore avoided to a great extent the classic "plot-subplot" division, wherein we have a main story, and a (mostly, if not completely) unrelated side story. Instead, the whole story revolved around a single plot, with many elements combining to make out the entire story in an often delightful way. In fact, I'd say the whole "plot-subplot" form didn't kick in until some seasons had passed.

Now, this format makes for more complex storylines, since the writers are more or less forced to write all the jokes and all the satire around one theme, which is so much harder to get right, and which, if executed properly, makes for a complex (and better!) episode.

I'd also like to add to this list III - moral commentary, which deals with many of the issues you adress in your review (f.e. Was Bob entirelywrong?), including viewers behaviour (what are the fans obligation to Krusty? Bart is the only one who is not persuaded by the media; also a nice hint at the enormous power that the media has over the general population).

There is an abundance of such moral commentary in the ep.

I agree with you wholly and fully. It was one of the first episodes I ever saw, and one of the reasons I began watching the show as fanatically as I have. Even on a shallow level, the ep is literally packed with tidbits of excellent humour. But when you think about the deeper aspects of "Krusty Gets Busted" it becomes even greater. It took me a couple of viewings, for example, to even realise that perhaps the kids would be better off (objectively) with Bob than with Krusty, WHOM the kids seemed to love just as much. :-)

I can do nothing but agree with your grade, A+. It's not the best ep ever, but it's right up there with the best of them.

I'm brave like prawn!

yes one single story and the subplot is related that's what was so much better about the early shows for me ty "Kristian Ronge" wrote in message news:[email]...

complex,

behaviour)

who�s

good/bad

work of

Kristian Ronge wrote:

Of course, many (all?) of season 1 eps were complex (especially if you compare them to the modern nonsense) but I think 7G12 is even more complex than the usual high level of S1, it�s not so in-your-face with its moral, but more of a season 2 style (and season 2 rules :-))

I don�t think that the writers needed some seasons to develop better plot design, I�d say season 2 had some of the very best examples of fine story design, 7F18 "Brush with Greatness" is IMO an episode with an excellent structure of sub/mainplot, an episode that shows how a plotline should develop and merge and exchange elements.

Yep, die moral commentary is always present, but I wouldn�t call it concept III. The moral is the final result, it�s what concept I and II try to say when they finally float together. Every satire, every criticism of (wrong) social behaviour is a kind of moral.

BTW, Bob sings a song by Cole Porter in the ep and I just read in a book that Cole Porter was once called "the man who kept civilized entertainment alive". How suitable for Bob (in that episode.)

One final thought: what if Krusty�s show of mainstream and empty conformity and silly humor reflects the "new Simpsons" while Bob�s show of intelligence and wit reflects the "old Simpsons"?

Thanks for your comment.

Chris

Chris Pfeiler schrieb:

Oops. I meant "the moral" (like in "The, Bart, The" ;-)) Silly mistake.

Chris

On Wed, 1 May 2002, Chris Pfeiler wrote:

It's been a while since I saw that particular episode, so I dare not disagree with you. :-)

I'm speaking of a deeper moral. Sure it's moral when you point out the silliness of mob behaviour.. but that's not the point of my post. The point was, there is a much more subtle moral to the story, the kind that makes you think in large about the events, and whether or not the ending, though seemingly "perfect", was in fact the best one. If you don't want to make the distinction of the moral aspects of concepts I and II and the moral aspect of the whole story (and instead call it the "floating together" of concept I and II), as I do, that's okay with me... as long as you illustrate it sufficently, which you just did.

Wow, how creepy is that!? Perhaps Cole Porter was chosen deliberately to further mystify what the moral "message" of the story is? Now that's deep.

A bold parallell, which I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into. The thought, however, is amusing, I'll agree.

Chris Pfeiler schrieb:

[short review;-)]

Hey, where's the P.P.S.?

Some people still miss it;-)

Jo