Hello, I’m Michael Lawrence, and I’ll be discussing my personal thoughts on last Sunday’s gay marriage episode of The Simpsons, plus we’ll have the perspectives of three of the sites best writers Michaelangelo McCullar, Will Cooling, and Steve Coogan. I want to personally thank each of these guys for generously contributing their time and words to this subject. I’d also like to thank each and every person who replied to last Sundays review of the show, even if it was just to gripe about me not seeing Mrs. Bouvier.
Pre- Show questions
1. Do you think doing a gay marriage episode of the show is a cheap
ratings ploy? Is this the right time for the show to handle this topic?
Mike Lawrence: I don’t see it as a ploy at all. The people who watch this show will continue to, and I doubt there will be many people who regularly don’t watch, tuning in. This is exactly the type of issue that the show, more than others, excels in dealing with. They’ve taken on weighty issues like immigration, unions, and right-wing evildoers before with aplomb, and I don’t see this being any different. Whenever there’s a new issue in the media, I automatically think W.W.T.S.D.: What Would The Simpsons do? One of the pluses of the show is that it allows people to accept situations that they might be offended seeing in live-action since it’s harmless cartoons. Terrel Owens being seduced by Nicollette Sheridan? Scandalous! Carl’s special bond with Lenny? Hilarious. You could show Dr. Hibbert making out with Helen Lovejoy in bed, and it wouldn’t be a big deal. Cartoons are automatically taken more lightly, especially ones of a comedic nature.
Will Cooling: I think it’s less a ratings ploy than an attempt to regain some of the
relevancy and edge that the Simpsons use to have. The Simpsons used to be
a fantastic “outside the beltway” satire and gradually that’s been lost as
the writers have taken the cast further and further away from a realistic
environment in search of cheap laughs and zany adventures. The idea of a
Springfield being rocked by a controversy over Gay Marriage brings them
back to this ground-level humour that made the show such a joy to begin
with.
Now is the perfect time!!! The issue is relevant and people are interested
in it. The idea that we should all wait for the issue to cool down before
we let TV talk about it is crazy and reactionary. One of the things I
wished the Simpsons had been a position to discuss/satirise is the ongoing
debate within gay circles about “marriage”. There was a hilarious article
in Gay Times last month with the writer attacking American “neo-gays” for
their obsession with marriage and trying to turn gay people into merely
homosexual versions of heterosexuals. I think there’s no end of potential
in that issue for comedy and some genuinely raw and cutting edge satire.
In fact that’s a flaw with much of this episode; the writers cannot fulfil
the subject’s potential in one episode. After all we’re getting the outing
of Patty, her first public girlfriend and her marriage in one episode,
when there’s enough material for a whole series of episodes on the
subject. The rushing of the story line does suggest that they wanted to
cash in either with ratings or relevancy.
Michaelangelo: I don’t think it’s a cheap ratings ploy. I think animated shows like this and South Park are easier venues in which to tackle controversial subjects like these. And I don’t necessarily think there’s a “right” time to handle the topic. But The Simpsons has certainly developed enough carte blanche to cover the topic.
Coogan: What usually isn’t considered when “The Simpsons” does something topical like this is that it takes somewhere between 6 and 12 months to fully produce one episode form beginning to end. This episode has been in “the can” for God knows how long.
The reason why I bring this fact up is that unlike “South Park” which can whip episodes up in a couple of weeks and appropriately piss people off with topical stuff, “The Simpsons” can’t do that. So, no, I don’t think this a cheap ratings ploy.
Also, is this the right time? It’s an issue in American culture that is always going to piss some people off one way or another. If Fox really wanted a cheap ratings ploy and some cheap attention, this would have aired months and months ago, not now.
2.Do you consider the portrayal of homosexuals on the show leading up to
this point to be tasteful or tasteless? Does the show spread homophobia or
a message of acceptance and tolerance?
Mike Lawrence: I think it’s eased people through the stereotypes. The people in Springfield don’t dislike Smithers because he’s supposedly gay (even though he’s not). It’s because he’s a spineless lackey who will destroy you if it benefits his boss. It’s an equal oppurtunity offender.
Will Cooling: The problem The Simpsons has is that one of its stars is a 10-year old
boy and the other is a middle age, working man in small town America. To be true to the characters and their environment then there would have to
be homophobic content because that’s what both sections of society are like. However, The Simpsons has in my mind done a good job with the
Homer-phobic episode being perhaps the wittiest gay-themed episode of any TV show. Even better The Simpsons has managed to include gay characters
that are “bad” (such as Smithers) without making the characters appear homophobic stereotypes. The only fault I can find with The Simpsons is the
lack of gay characters but again we’ve got to be careful we don’t creep into tokenism and create an idealised happy clappy, liberal, political
correct Springfield that wouldn’t exist in really life.
On a slight tangent, I’m really disappointed at the choice of Patty. Now I
haven’t seen the episode in question (yet) but until now she’s soooo the
stereotype of the ugly, frigid, man hating lesbian that the sisters have
being fighting for years to get read of*. Also it was quite refreshing to
see the question of asexuality explored on mainstream TV in a fairly
intelligent and sensitive way. Personally I’d have gone with Carl and
Lenny; they’ve always been hinted at being in love with each other and it
would’ve made a more entertaining show with the predicament it placed
Homer in as their best friend. After all Patty coming out to Homer is no
risk anyway, they hated each other when they thought she was straight but
his best friends would but him in an entirely different (and more
realistic) situation.
Michaelangelo: I think the portrayal of gays on the show has been mostly positive. One of the hallmarks of the show has been a message of tolerance, and I don’t see this being any different.
Eh…It’s not really tasteful or tasteless really. I think it’s very similar to the way “Will & Grace” handles homosexuality. Everyone accepts it, everyone laughs at it and we all move on.
The obivous difference is that “Will & Grace” shoves it down the throats of the audience where as “The Simpsons” throws in the occasional barb in, usualy when Smithers around.
Does the show spread homophobia or a message of acceptance and tolerance? It doesn’t do either really. If I had to choose, I’d choose the latter simply because if the show did breed a sense of homophobia than Smithers would have been Lynched by now. Instead, jokes are written for him (and other gay characters that come up). If anything, all it does is reinforce stereotypes about gay people, especially gay men.
But then you have to ask the deeply philosophical question: Are the media representations stereotypes or accurate portrayals? Do we have time to publish a book?
3. Has this episode been over-hyped or not given enough attention by the
media?
Mike Lawrence:I don’t think there’s been enough exposure. This isn’t Elizabeth Rohm saying “I’m gay”. This is one of the topics that has polarized the entire nation, and is likely responsible for saying many votes last November. Media in it’s finest moment can artfully take a dangerous subject and make it universally appealing or abominable. Our very values are molded by the media. As one of the longest running programs in television history, The Simpsons has been around so long that’s it freshness and relevancy have been lost on many an outside spectator. But when the show takes a risk like this, and boldly goes where no one else is willing to, it deserves all the attention it can get.
Will Cooling:It’s got a little bit of coverage over here although even the gay mags
have taken a low-key approach with it at the moment. That’s partly because
it won’t be shown here until later this year but also because The Simpsons
are nowhere near as essential or relevant as they used to be.
*In my experience the stereotypes around lesbians are totally unfair with
most lesbians being perfectly well adjusted, non-man hating and
fashionable people. The stereotypes about gay men on the other hand…
**So I’ve heard, I never watch the Soaps.
Michaelangelo: I hadn’t heard about it until the Roundtable came up, so I’d say underreported.
Steve Coogan: I know TV critics and historians need to talk about this and address it because it’s not every day when scripted prime time TV handles such politically charged issues so openly.
But at the same time, I think the public will determine how much coverage this particular episode deserves. If they’re up in arms about what’s being broadcast at 8:00 p.m. on Sunday and it isn’t covered, it’s under covered. If no one cares and the media is over it like a fly on….you know… then it’s over covered.
I have a feeling that because the issue has been put on the backburner a bit over the last few months (primarily because there have been so few significant developments in the movement), the issue won’t raise too many eyebrows.
Seeing as that’s the case, if the media jumps on it, it may not be for good reason.
My bottom line: Because of the timing, I think TV critics, historians and related media people care more about this than the general public because of the timing, but if the outrage is there, let’s talk about it….
Post Show Questions
1. Did you enjoy the episode? Did the issue take precedence over the comedy, or was it still funny? Did it fit in with the shows basic principles and continuity?
Mike Lawrence: I laughed. I gave it an 8 out of 10, so that’s a good sign, isn’t it? The issue did not take precedence over the comedy. I thought the show did an outstanding job of keeping in the continuity. The right characters were in the right roles; Lisa suggesting the idea in the first place, Lovejoy being opposed to it, Quimby wanting more tourism, Disco Stu making a random appearance. In short, it still felt like an episode of the show, and that’s very important.
Michaelangelo: I didn’t find the episode very humorous. It was overshadowed by the topic, but only because the humor was so lacking.
Steve Coogan: I did enjoy the episode. I laughed out loud several times and thought many of the jokes were well thought up.
I thought the issue and the comedy went hand-in-hand. The issue was the forefront of the episode and the comedy provided laughs and a little bit of important satire to consider.
I felt the show’s script was brilliant. As usual, one random event triggers something else completely random to propel the actions of the rest of the episode. That’s exactly what en episode of “The Simpsons” is like and it didn’t deviate from that simply because it was an important social issue.
2. What did you think of the way the subject of gay marriage was handled?
Mike Lawrence: One thing that really had me peeved was the “viewer discretion advised” warning given at the beginning. Give me a f*cking break, that was so uncalled for. “This episode contains discussion about gay marriage”. Do people really need that?
On to the question at hand- I thought it was treated as a flavor of the month thing, especially since it was implemented in the town to boost tourism. Not that that’s a poor stance, but in fact, it does appear like gay marriage has been treated as a fad in the country.
Michaelangelo: It was handled fine. Nothing groundbreaking, but nothing embarassing either.
Steve Coogan: It was handled with some grace and dignity. But at the same time, many stereotypical jokes were inserted into the script and that was a bit disappointing.
The one thing I noticed is that the script definitely took a very “left” view of the issue not only suggesting that it was OK, but that anyone who doesn’t support it is just an unloving, disrespectful goon. Now that may be my personal belef, but it may not be others. The writers and Fox have the right to express an opinion in their entertainment programming, but do you run the risk of turning people off if you are clearly one side or another?
3. Will this episode have a positive or negative effect on the issue of gay marriage?
Mike Lawrence: I don’t think it’ll really change minds, but it does have the potential to open up intellectual discussion, which is always a good thing. Look what we’ve done here. The watermark of any form of art is if it invokes something in you, if it opens you’re mind. This episode had the power to do that, and I think that if after 16 years of being on the air, if a show can still do that,it’s mighty impressive.
Michaelangelo: Neither. I don’t see anyone seeing this and going “Gay marriage is OK” or “Gay marriage sucks”.
Steve Coogan: If I can’t say “neutral,” then I’ll say positive simply because as the issue works its way into various aspects of popular culture and people are exposed, it normalizes it to a large degree. With normalcy, I think a large degree of acceptance comes with it.
I think that example is true with gay people now. Even as recently as the last 15 years or so, being gay was “taboo” and “freaks” were gay. Everyone should “keep that part of their life quiet.” Now gay people are all over the media and even though so many straight people disagree with the lifestyle and the way those people live their lives, at least they don’t have to hide anymore (unless it’s a family, local society issue).
So, the more it comes up in shows like “The Simpsons,” then who knows what could happen?
