Sam Simon: The Unsung Hero

Dec 6, 2001, 9:24 PM ET5 posts by 3 posters
5 posts
Captain Corcoran

One of the most interesting things about the recent NEW YORK TIMES article on "The Simpsons" was the way Matt Groening sniped about Sam Simon (admitting his talent, but somewhat downplaying his contribution to the show's success and calling him "unpleasant and mentally unbalanced"). It's then followed by quotes from some of the original writers (like Jon Vitti and Jay Kogen) pointing out something that isn't often talked about in articles on the show: Namely that the guiding vision behind the show was as much Sam Simon's as anybody's -- indeed, I'll go further and say that his contribution was the most important of the show's three executive producers. Yes, Groening created the Simpson family (though his original conceptions of the characters were often nothing like the characterizations that Simon helped develop; i.e. Lisa as the misunderstood, intelligent one). But Sam Simon seems to have been the guy most responsible for taking these characters and making them work in a half-hour format, for conceiving the universe in which the show takes place (look at the closing credits very carefully: Sam Simon, though a writer rather than an artist, even *designed* some of the supporting characters). Above all, Simon, not Groening, was the one running the show in those years. Simon hired the writers; Simon was the guy who had final word on the scripts; Simon was the head man in terms of what stories did and didn't get on the show. (For example, Al Jean recently mentioned that the basic idea for "Homer At the Bat" was Sam Simon's.)

I'm not saying that Groening doesn't deserve credit for making "The Simpsons"; he certainly created the family, co-created the half-hour show with Simon and Brooks, and made a big creative contribution in the early years. But because Groening is a shrewd self-promoter, and because "cartoonist breaks into TV" makes a good story, a lot of people seem to think that Groening did it all and that Sam Simon was just along for the ride. (Simon was a sitcom writer -- wrote for TAXI and CHEERS -- and I've met people who simply don't want to believe that the guy who made "The Simpsons" great was a conventional sitcom writer. Of course, these are the people who want to believe that "The Simpsons" isn't a sitcom, which it most certainly is.) Simon...well, he's not much of a self-promoter, and he's done almost nothing since leaving the show at the end of season 4 (except stop by occasionally to direct an episode of "Drew Carey"). Which brings up another point: Why did Simon sever all connection with the show? Brooks and Groening aren't "involved" day-to-day, but they still have consultant credits and still come by every once in a while to "consult" with the people who are running the show. But Simon -- after "Cape Feare," he becomes Sam "Sayonara" Simon, the guy who left and never came back. What happened? Did Groening force him out? Was he just tired of the show? Just speculating.

Anyway, the point is that let's stop talking about Groening this and Groening that and talk about the co-creator of "The Simpsons." The man who built it from a crude sketch on "Tracy Ullman" into an exceptional half-hour comedy that was touching and crazy and sophisitcated and silly all at once. The man who ran the show so well and made such shrewd choices of writers that when he left, after four great seasons, he'd built the show into a powerhouse. (Even if he may have taken some of the show's heart with him -- anyone notice that "jerkass Homer" really starts to take over in the very first show after Simon left, "Homer Goes To College?") Here's to the unsung hero of "The Simpsons," Sam Simon.

C.C.
The RackCaptain Corcoran

Drunk and full of pie, Captain Corcoran wrote:

Simply don't agree. IMO a "situation comedy" means a specific, common circumstance provides conflict (and thus, humor) between the characters. Sitcoms have studio audiences, or laugh tracks, or both.

"The Simpsons" played more as a miniature 22-minute feature each week, with humor coming from the context of the scenes. Humor was more on display than it was "heard". IOW, the show would be no good on the radio. The irony in the way characters acted and spoke provided humor, and a contrast to the often dramatic plots.

(Of course, I'm referring to the earlier years. The recent version of the show shares a lot with the sitcom format)

Chadderack |_________|Surprising Facts|__________| | ------------------ | | Penguin evolution is a fib. |
Tom HawleyThe Rack

if the shows creator's happy to call it a sitcom why the hell can't you be?

Captain CorcoranThe Rack

In article , The Rack says...

It doesn't have to be that specific. The term "situation comedy" was simply invented to distinguish comedy shows that focus on a continuing set of characters who have adventures from week to week, as opposed to a sketch comedy or an anthology comedy, which presents different characters.

This has nothing to do with what makes a sitcom a sitcom. There was one episode of "The Odd Couple" that was done without a laugh track or studio audience (as an experiment). Did it suddenly cease to be a sitcom for that one episode? Of course not.

Nothing that you've said proves that "The Simpsons" wasn't a sitcom. The same description could apply to any good sitcom that depends more on character comedy than gags. "Taxi," for example (and the early "Simpsons" has a lot in common with "Taxi," not surprising considering that's where Jim Brooks and Sam Simon came from -- both shows are about lovable losers, both shows contrast their likable-but-flawed leads with an outright evil boss [Louie De Palma, Mr. Burns], both shows combine often sad humor with often surreal and wacky humor [Taxi had Latka and Reverend Jim for the surreal stuff]). You're just using the word "sitcom" in the wrong way -- the word has taken on a negative connotation, but it shouldn't. There's nothing, nothing, nothing wrong with being a sitcom. The sitcom is a wonderful form. It's given us "The Honeymooners," "The Odd Couple," "M*A*S*H," "WKRP In Cincinnati," "The Mary Tyler Moore Show," "Barney Miller," "Newsradio," "All In the Family" -- and "The Simpsons."

This isn't really true. The earlier episodes were much closer to traditional sitcom structure than today's. The earlier episodes had strongly structured plots, endings that made sense, characters being faced with moral dilemmas and making the Right Decision in the end, comedy that came from character -- all the stuff you look for in a good sitcom. Today's episodes are more like sketch comedy than sitcom: They're disjointed, they never really begin or end, they don't develop the characters, etc. People who hate sitcoms often like the current "Simpsons" better than the earlier seasons, because they literally do not want to care about the characters. But making you care about the characters is what good sitcoms do, and a good sitcom writer like Sam Simon understood that. (Of course, Simon hired mainly writers with little sitcom exprience, because he wanted a fresh perspective, but he made sure they turned out well-structured sitcom episodes. And Simon's head writers, Al Jean and Mike Reiss, were experienced sitcom writers of "It's Garry Shandling's Show" and "ALF.")

P.S.: Here's a quote from Al Jean: "We'll pass 'Ozzie and Harriet' as the longest-running sitcom."

The RackCaptain Corcoran

Drunk and full of pie, Captain Corcoran wrote:

Okay.

We all know what the word "gay" means, right? With that in mind, which is correct: "gay" means "happy", or "gay" means "homosexual"? The point is-- since the invention of sitcoms, they have evolved. The vast majority of shows that are cheerfully called "sitcoms" today have live audiences or laugh tracks. These shows are very often the most vacant, and worthless wastes of time on television. What you've described in your post as a "sitcom" certainly isn't that. I was just adverse to accepting "The Simpsons" as a "sitcom" when today, "sitcom" has a different meaning.

Well, it's not just me... a large group of people have this negative connotation of the word imprinted in our brains. Someone asks, "How'd you like to sit down and watch a new sitcom?", and we run in horror! :)

Okay. But, the current show is a lot like the majority of shows (which are loosely called "sitcoms") today. There are differences like no audience and laugh track (still), but the jokes and situations are much more similar than they used to be.

An example of a live-action comedy with no laugh track was "The Bonnie Hunt Show". There were only a handful of episodes ever made (before stupid CBS pulled the plug), but it was some of the funniest live-action TV I've ever seen.

Using your classic definition of sitcom. But, most things called "sitcoms" that are on the air right now aren't "sitcoms" (by your definition) either. Budget constraints allow most shows to only use a few different sets, so all the comedy and interaction becomes verbal... there's relatively little opportunity for a "slice of life" comedy. After all, how many real families sit in the living room, and crack one liners for half-hours at a time?

What's distressing about "The Simpsons" is that they don't have any such constraint, yet the newer seasons have had many of those "stand around and joke" type scenes. Those are done to death over and over again on just about every "sitcom" on TV, and it seems to become a "quip writing contest" between shows. It's a really, really tired form which fact used to make "The Simpsons" stand out. Now, it blends in more than not.

P.S.: I am gay (happy).

:-)

Your points are well taken. Your point is that "The Simpsons" uses(d) a classic form that made great television; mine is that "The Simpsons" shouldn't be herded together with the tripe on TV that's commonly referred to as "sitcoms."

Chadderack : Today's guest is Mr. Roland. He's a painter. Can you say "painter"? : "Rhinoceros"