now that that's out of the way, WELCOME to my recap/review/in-depth analysis of The Simpsons from seasons 9 to 12. i will be covering what some may kindly refer to as the "bastard" years of the darling pop culture institution. now, in case you aren't a fan of the series (in which case, there is something terribly wrong with you), let me introduce you to what the entire premise and reason behind this blog and hopefully it will shed some insight into my acute madness.
the simpsons (1989-present [per Wikipedia]) is an animated sitcom created by matt groening. the show initially started out as 30 second interstitials between skits on the Tracey Ullman Show, a show that was created and on the air before i was born. apparently the FOX people got dollar signs in their eyes at the sight of those crudely drawn freakish aliens and decided to flesh out the interstitials and create a 30 minute sitcom. this proved to be wildly successful...yada yada yada...the show started going downhill sometime during its ninth season.
or did it? this topic has been wildly and widely debated by wild and wide simpsons fans alike. in any given simpsons forum at this very second there are fans risking carpal tunnel syndrome just to pontificate as to how the show's decade-plus long decline started during the ninth season of the show. there is nothing more popular to your average simpsons fan than this very topic (besides DENTAL PLAN and its partner in crime LISA NEEDS BRACES). but as i've witnessed (and been involved in) these arguments over the years and years i've had access to the internet, i've always wondered if that's a particularly fair view to have. there is obviously no doubt that the show is in a creative decline (a feeling that gets more pronounced as the series goes on), but, to be fair, isn't that typical of pretty much anything that goes on for too long?
a lot of the older fans of the show (i.e. those that have been alive and sentient since the show's inception) are harsher on the show than someone like me, who grew up when the show was in syndication. I grew up with seasons 10, 11 and 12, which composed most of what is delightfully known as Mike Scully's Reign of Terror. it was always interesting to see where the show had come from and where it was currently. the show's first season's animation looks as rough as sandpaper, but the show's humor was as smooth as butter. but anyway, what i'm trying to say is...
i love this show with all of my heart. i've been watching it since i was 4 years old (roughly 18 years or 82% of my life). i'd stare up at the television every weekday at 6:00 and gawk at these strange yellow figures with weird voices and bizarre hair. i truly do believe that this is the greatest tv show of all time. i wouldn't call myself "the" biggest fan but i am "one of the." i own the first 15 years of the show on DVD and i've probably watched all of these episodes at least three times. i could pretty much recite "last exit to springfield" while trying to hawk a faulty monorail to a nearby town. i could, if i so pleased, rattle off every scene of "lisa on ice" while drawing a diagram of the gummy venus de milo. in other words, this show has driven me insane. it has built up an unending obsession in me in which every duty of every day is immediately connotated to a simpsons quote/scene/reference. i have never tried to fight this obsession. if you ever met me, within five minutes i'll guarantee you'll know i'm a simpsons fan (or a lady gaga fan, whichever comes up first).
i recently started reading AV Club's coverage of The Simpsons' classic years. the major consensus among fans and critics is that these years fall between seasons 1 and 8 (with season 4 considered the best in the show's history). despite the fact that season 5 is actually better, it seemed to me that there was always this arbitrary line drawn down the show's "good" and "shit" years right at the end of season 8. as any fan could tell you, this is primarily because of the now infamous "the principal and the pauper." in said episode, we, as a viewing audience, are led to believe that our lovely, rigid and square principal skinner is actually armin tamzarian, a former street kid from capital city. this episode is baffling for a number of reasons (ones i will discuss when i cover that episode) and everyone who had help in creating it should be ashamed, but does that make it fair to curse the rest of the season (and Scully's tenure)?
what i really wanted to understand was why most of the older fans felt this way. in order to do this, i knew that i would have to watch the show in a completely different context. from a kid up until about a couple of years ago, i have always viewed "the simpsons" as a cartoon and nothing else; not in a derogatory sense, but in a literal sense: it is a series of pictures magically coming to life. sure, over the years i started to "get" more of the jokes and suffer the subsequent fate of having a million simpsons quotes stuck in my head, but the show was never that "deep" to me. i had never viewed it as a show in which there are characters in a world and these characters have desires and personalities and goals. that was far too outside of my realm of critical thinking. but thanks to my recent and simultaneous obsessions of mad men and breaking bad, i have, i guess, matured(?) and become more sensitive to story, plot and character development/consistency. am i being unfair by placing a ton of emphasis on story, plot, character development/consistency all while watching a li'l ol' cartoon show about yellow people in a fictional town? absolutely the fuck not. not when your name is "the simpsons" and you're considered the greatest thing since the fucking wheel (and its more popular counterpart the non-fucking wheel). if anything, i'll be even more critical and discerning since i'm a fan.
viewing films and television in a critical light is pretty beneficial if ever should one decide to write or speak about them. i felt that i wasn't allowed to write about anything until i was able to view it in three-dimensions. so in order for me to view the show with clear eyes, i had to divorce myself from the show a little bit (it's virtually impossible, but i've tried my damnedest to view the show in an objective light). starting from season one on up to season 8, i've noticed the shifts in tone under each showrunner. for instance, homer simpson in season 4 is a different entity from the homer in season 8 (which was possibly him at his most intelligent). so with this fresh understanding, i felt that i had finally absorbed enough of the show into me to finally answer my own question: are the Mike Scully years as bad as everyone thinks they are? i have decided that i am going to rewatch and critique/recap every episode under his tenure sequentially. this includes every episode from the 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th seasons* in order to truly understand them better. i'm not sure if you're into astrology, but my ascendant is in gemini, which essentially means that i live for gathering and sharing knowledge and information. and i feel the best way to truly understand anything is to analyze it until your brain bleeds. so that is what i plan to do. i plan to cover this era until it makes my brain bleed. and tell you what, if my brain is spared from hemorrhaging, i owe you a coke.
*(this excludes episodes like "Lisa's Sax" and the season 9 premiere "The City of New York v. Homer Simpson" in which Al Jean and Bill Oakley & Josh Weinstein were showrunners respectively, but i will include these episodes, and episodes like them, in my overall analysis of their respective season)
No comments:
Post a Comment