03-05-2015, 07:43 PM
I'm doing an essay on a "cultural text" for a project - which basically means a... thing that exists apparently, and I chose to do it on The Simpsons. Have a look guize... drop some ideas if you can. Be as bitchy as you like as long as it's within reason and constructive but I know y'all will. 
I'm focusing on family and the poignancy that sometimes comes with dark humour. It's really vague and frankly a bit shite at the moment, so I'd appreciate some suggestions of key episodes or moments that might argue my point. It's due in less than a week.
Tabitha Walby, Essay Draft 3, The Simpsons
A narrative medium in television that I feel has its wisdom overlooked is the American sitcom. Staple sitcoms like the now churned-out The Big Bang Theory - particularly in the ubiquitous later seasons - are all most people regularly view, so many are conditioned to believe that comedy isn't difficult, and can't be an art form. Partly, I think, this has to do with the viewer mass-dismissal that the American sitcom must be placed into two categories; According to (will find his name), Type 1 and Type 2. The Type 1 sitcom is very basic and gag-driven. Example, Two Broke Girls, a light-hearted comedy solely reliant on toilet humour, cultural stereotypes, double entendre and physical humour. Filming in front of a studio audience or adding audience laughter in the edit is particularly common in this category. There is nothing wrong with this. The intentions are clear. Type 1 sitcoms are for light, forgettable entertainment. Then there is the Type 2 sitcom, which is remarkably less accessible. These shows often run for less than four seasons due to mainstream ratings trouble despite critical acclaim or an avid fan-following. They can inspire just as much laughter as a Type 1 sitcom, but deliberately lack the blunt transparency required in Type 1, used to ensure the audience didn't miss the joke. Example, Arrested Development, which subverts the inaccurately bandied about “dysfunctional family” trope by having a bizarre host of characters which actually are dysfunctional, managing to be a bit unpleasant and strangely adorable at the same time, with offbeat interweaving background gags and sharp wordplay which give the show longevity, as it withstands multiple re-watches, but also may alienate an audience accustomed to broad comedy and characters with black-and-white morals. The creator of the Type 2 sitcom is an auteur and has a very specific universe to bring to the audience. Largely the lack of commercial ubiquity of a Type 2 sitcom is down to the creator's refusal to be slave to a wide audience, but this can result in a more personal connection with a niche-audience who relate to the characters and get the thought process of the writers, directors and creator. Cult American comedies don't age because their identity does not slot in perfectly with the time they were created.
However. I feel that there is space for another type of American sitcom, Type 3, the iconic sitcom. The cultural text I will use to argue this is The Simpsons. There was a divide between those who “got” it and those who didn't. The Simpsons, in its early days, knew how to balance crudity and intelligence in a way that did not pander to either “type” of viewer. But what I think has given the show a longevity that many divisive shows never quite gain is its portrayal of the modern working class family. Many shows before it focused on a unit of family or friends, like The Waltons or The Partridge Family, but they were, by default, unquestionably well-meaning and deeply preachy. There was always a happy ending, and lessons were learned at the end of every episode. What set The Simpsons apart, and what I believe gave it an edge of more specific and relatable poignancy, was its dark and crude tendencies that teetered on the edge of controversial. Homer strangles Bart, yet they obviously love each other, and we as an audience never doubt that. Possibly the cartoon genre helps with this, but unusually the show had an emotional gravitas that worked surprisingly well within a slightly unhinged cartoon universe. The nice cartoon coating allows flexible and off-kilter narrative techniques to be palatable to a wide audience that may see the same genre-twisting in a live-action show like Community and be put off. My point is that anything is possible in any genre, particularly cartoons, but The Simpsons was arguably the first cartoon to extend this point to mean multi-layered characters narratives.The turning point, where The Simpsons surpassed Type 1 and headed nearer to Type 2 territory, can be pinpointed in the episode “Bart Gets An F”. Yet again it was Bart underachieving at school, which had been the sole aspect of Bart's character, but the key difference in this episode was that the character was fleshing out. In this episode Bart has had enough with all these F-grades and genuinely tries to study and get better. He doesn't have the attention span and briefly hates himself for it before going out to play with Milhouse, but, through a previously one-dimensional character taking a step forward and altering the previous narrative default, the show grows a heart and starts to become self aware and emotionally intelligent.
The Simpsons occupies a rare grey area where broad physical comedy and toilet humour adds to the layered writing, rather than being the only way into the “situation”. In the first nine seasons, the show had an inarguable appeal to practically everyone with a television. It is not clear whether this was deliberate, but The Simpsons appeared to have a “something for everyone” approach to writing. Satire, sight-gags, subversion of cultural stereotypes, self-awareness and surreal absurdist humour were all interweaved with a variety of offbeat characters who were familiar, relatable and gradually became multidimensional as the series went on. The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening who started out drawing a cartoon called Life In Hell in regional newspapers. They featured a rabbit called Binky, and most of the humour was derived from the dark side of life. James L Brooks, now co-producer of The Simpsons, saw Groening's cartoons and proposed he do some “buffers” – approximately 20 second skits before and after ad-breaks – for The Tracey Ullman Show. Groening created a yellow-skinned family named after his own, apart from Bart, the anagram of “brat”. Ironically the family was created because Groening didn't want to spoil his “good” characters. They became very popular and in 1989 Fox commissioned a season of 13 full-length episodes. Initially, Bart was geared to be the favourite and the main character, as many early episodes were centred around him; “Bart The General”, “Bart the Daredevil”, and his face dominated the merchandise, but well-meaning dad Homer was more popular. To be honest I did not enjoy the early Simpsons episodes because it hadn't “arrived” yet; there was heavy character bias (Bart), barely any of the supporting characters that bounce off the family no matter how distant they were from them, and very little human depth. The show was shuddering into life.
I'm focusing on family and the poignancy that sometimes comes with dark humour. It's really vague and frankly a bit shite at the moment, so I'd appreciate some suggestions of key episodes or moments that might argue my point. It's due in less than a week.Tabitha Walby, Essay Draft 3, The Simpsons
A narrative medium in television that I feel has its wisdom overlooked is the American sitcom. Staple sitcoms like the now churned-out The Big Bang Theory - particularly in the ubiquitous later seasons - are all most people regularly view, so many are conditioned to believe that comedy isn't difficult, and can't be an art form. Partly, I think, this has to do with the viewer mass-dismissal that the American sitcom must be placed into two categories; According to (will find his name), Type 1 and Type 2. The Type 1 sitcom is very basic and gag-driven. Example, Two Broke Girls, a light-hearted comedy solely reliant on toilet humour, cultural stereotypes, double entendre and physical humour. Filming in front of a studio audience or adding audience laughter in the edit is particularly common in this category. There is nothing wrong with this. The intentions are clear. Type 1 sitcoms are for light, forgettable entertainment. Then there is the Type 2 sitcom, which is remarkably less accessible. These shows often run for less than four seasons due to mainstream ratings trouble despite critical acclaim or an avid fan-following. They can inspire just as much laughter as a Type 1 sitcom, but deliberately lack the blunt transparency required in Type 1, used to ensure the audience didn't miss the joke. Example, Arrested Development, which subverts the inaccurately bandied about “dysfunctional family” trope by having a bizarre host of characters which actually are dysfunctional, managing to be a bit unpleasant and strangely adorable at the same time, with offbeat interweaving background gags and sharp wordplay which give the show longevity, as it withstands multiple re-watches, but also may alienate an audience accustomed to broad comedy and characters with black-and-white morals. The creator of the Type 2 sitcom is an auteur and has a very specific universe to bring to the audience. Largely the lack of commercial ubiquity of a Type 2 sitcom is down to the creator's refusal to be slave to a wide audience, but this can result in a more personal connection with a niche-audience who relate to the characters and get the thought process of the writers, directors and creator. Cult American comedies don't age because their identity does not slot in perfectly with the time they were created.
However. I feel that there is space for another type of American sitcom, Type 3, the iconic sitcom. The cultural text I will use to argue this is The Simpsons. There was a divide between those who “got” it and those who didn't. The Simpsons, in its early days, knew how to balance crudity and intelligence in a way that did not pander to either “type” of viewer. But what I think has given the show a longevity that many divisive shows never quite gain is its portrayal of the modern working class family. Many shows before it focused on a unit of family or friends, like The Waltons or The Partridge Family, but they were, by default, unquestionably well-meaning and deeply preachy. There was always a happy ending, and lessons were learned at the end of every episode. What set The Simpsons apart, and what I believe gave it an edge of more specific and relatable poignancy, was its dark and crude tendencies that teetered on the edge of controversial. Homer strangles Bart, yet they obviously love each other, and we as an audience never doubt that. Possibly the cartoon genre helps with this, but unusually the show had an emotional gravitas that worked surprisingly well within a slightly unhinged cartoon universe. The nice cartoon coating allows flexible and off-kilter narrative techniques to be palatable to a wide audience that may see the same genre-twisting in a live-action show like Community and be put off. My point is that anything is possible in any genre, particularly cartoons, but The Simpsons was arguably the first cartoon to extend this point to mean multi-layered characters narratives.The turning point, where The Simpsons surpassed Type 1 and headed nearer to Type 2 territory, can be pinpointed in the episode “Bart Gets An F”. Yet again it was Bart underachieving at school, which had been the sole aspect of Bart's character, but the key difference in this episode was that the character was fleshing out. In this episode Bart has had enough with all these F-grades and genuinely tries to study and get better. He doesn't have the attention span and briefly hates himself for it before going out to play with Milhouse, but, through a previously one-dimensional character taking a step forward and altering the previous narrative default, the show grows a heart and starts to become self aware and emotionally intelligent.
The Simpsons occupies a rare grey area where broad physical comedy and toilet humour adds to the layered writing, rather than being the only way into the “situation”. In the first nine seasons, the show had an inarguable appeal to practically everyone with a television. It is not clear whether this was deliberate, but The Simpsons appeared to have a “something for everyone” approach to writing. Satire, sight-gags, subversion of cultural stereotypes, self-awareness and surreal absurdist humour were all interweaved with a variety of offbeat characters who were familiar, relatable and gradually became multidimensional as the series went on. The Simpsons was created by Matt Groening who started out drawing a cartoon called Life In Hell in regional newspapers. They featured a rabbit called Binky, and most of the humour was derived from the dark side of life. James L Brooks, now co-producer of The Simpsons, saw Groening's cartoons and proposed he do some “buffers” – approximately 20 second skits before and after ad-breaks – for The Tracey Ullman Show. Groening created a yellow-skinned family named after his own, apart from Bart, the anagram of “brat”. Ironically the family was created because Groening didn't want to spoil his “good” characters. They became very popular and in 1989 Fox commissioned a season of 13 full-length episodes. Initially, Bart was geared to be the favourite and the main character, as many early episodes were centred around him; “Bart The General”, “Bart the Daredevil”, and his face dominated the merchandise, but well-meaning dad Homer was more popular. To be honest I did not enjoy the early Simpsons episodes because it hadn't “arrived” yet; there was heavy character bias (Bart), barely any of the supporting characters that bounce off the family no matter how distant they were from them, and very little human depth. The show was shuddering into life.
HARRISON FORD IS IRRADIATING OUR TESTICLES WITH MICROWAVE SATELLITE TRANSMISSIONS
AND WHO THE FUCK STOLE MY BOILED EGGS?
AND WHO THE FUCK STOLE MY BOILED EGGS?