Post by fonebone on Mar 23, 2023 2:17:30 GMT -8
The Simpsons "The Many Saints Of Springfield"
Great couch gag. They didn't actually NEED to get Paul Fusco for Alf but it's funny that they did.
Rod and Todd's idea of mischief is blinking.
Ned discusses his teaching career using the actual episode number because we totally forgot about it.
I like Johnny Tight-Lips pointing out the mob had a lot of judgmental names. That's great.
Is Fat Tony in prison the new status quo a la Sideshow Bob or will it be easily forgotten and dropped when necessary? We'll see. Also waiting to see more of Moe and Maya and Bart's new teacher while we're talking about concepts the show has slacked off about.
Nice! ***1/2.
The Simpsons "Carl Carlson Rides Again"
The Simpsons has been on the air for so long that I believe its long-term health is in danger as long as they only try to come up with new Homer and Marge, Lisa and Bart, or Lisa and Homer stories. There is only so much you do with those characters, and since the show refuses actual character growth, having those character learn the same things over and over again is tiring.
So recently The Simpsons decided to see if centering episodes around minor or joke characters could possibly be interesting. This experiment has been a truly mixed bag. I want to slap Al Jean over the head for ever consenting to giving Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel his own episode. But the question remained: Could Carl Carlson, as a character famously devoid of a single personality trait outside of some vague homoeroticism with Lenny, carry an entire episode on his own? Frankly the idea probably wouldn't have worked before Alex Desert took over the character from Hank Azaria due to racial sensitivities (which is ironic because Carl was one of the few characters of color, along with Lou, that Azaria voiced with no offensive racial stereotyping whatsoever). But when Desert took over the role, maybe the fact that Carl is missing his own racial identity would be a good hook for an episode.
I am impressed and appreciate the show remembers that Carl was adopted and raised by white Icelandic parents. Not only had I forgotten that, nobody would have begrudged them for ignoring it. I don't just mean retconning. I mean totally pretending it never happened. But despite the show's continuity usually being shady, I like that they actually remembered one of the few unusual facts they already established about Carl's history. And regardless of whether you think the recasting of Carl was necessary or not, you have to understand they can't have a story about Carl exploring his black identity while he's voiced by a white guy. (The Cleveland Show did it with Mike Henry and it was just as appalling as you could imagine). Do I think the recasting was unnecessary myself? I think Carl is one of the few people of color Azaria voices without malice in his heart. But the fact that that malice exists for near everybody else means it best to move on from that specific actor. The good news is I think this episode is a turning point in that Desert is starting to sound a LOT more like Azaria than he did. And I was always annoyed that Family Guy went for a total unknown who sounded exactly like Mike Henry, and The Simpsons just opened the trusty voice actor rolodex and got "sort of, maybe, if he has a cold". In fairness I'll get used to Desert as Carl. I probably won't ever get used to Kevin Michael Richardson as Dr. Hibbert.
I like that Dr. Hibbert goes to the barbershop on Their Side Of Town, because it's been established in the past he's a Republican. Maybe Hibbert is due his own focus episode because just based on the contradictory things he does, and places we've seen him in, I still can't figure the guy out after 30 years.
I like that none of Carl's friends want to talk about his racial identity crisis. The entire selling point of Carl for them is that he never talks about his blackness and makes them uncomfortable and guilty. As such he is afforded the same privilege as the white guys in the group. For once, this not an exaggeration. He's not merely treated as an equal among the Moe's Patrons or Power Plant workers. He's considered an extremely respected member of that specific clique, probably second in deference to only Homer himself. Moe and Lenny might think they're Number Two material, but nobody really listens to or respects what they have to say. As far Carl goes, his opinions have gravitas. And the fact that his friends don't see his color makes them especially uncomfortable when he asks them to.
I like his new girlfriend for sure. She one of those characters like Superintendent Chalmers who actually talks like a real person. But there is still a cartoony archness behind Chalmers, particularly when dealing with Skinner. Carl's new girlfriend seem Earthy, real, and grounded. Totally refreshing. She yells at the TV for him to mention the name of the restaurant, and when he does, the place erupts in cheers. That felt authentic to me in a way Carl being surprised people in barbershops talk trash to each other did not.
Speaking of the barbershop, I not only like that Bart gets his hair cut on Their Side Of Town, but that he's on a first named basis with Clarence who likes the boy even though he's white. Why does Bart get his hair cut here? If you ever saw the cartoon in the Tracy Ullmann Show of him using Homer's elderly white barber, you might have an inkling. That was damn near 35 years ago, but having seen it makes me totally unsurprised Bart has searched elsewhere for his look. I don't like too much current Bart stuff but I liked this scene.
I think the thing I didn't like about the episode is that it never gave a good or plausible reason why Carl's parents abandoned him. On the tape they clearly loved him. So the doorstep thing makes even LESS sense. If I were Carl that would raise MORE questions and recriminations from me, not less. But The Simpsons is a 22 minute show, and they gotta wrap things up in the allotted time. I'm just pointing out they didn't wrap up this specific thing WELL. Because they didn't.
If the show wants to do an episode for Eddie and Lou next, that's a great idea. How about the Old Sea Captain? Or damn it, Dr. Hibbert? The show may have been on the air for 30 years, but it still has a TON of characters it still hasn't fully explored.
Just no more Otto, episodes, okay, Matt Selman? Those just plain suck, so don't bother trying.
But I liked this week and thought it was a worthy attempt of the show branching out. ****1/2.
The Simpsons "Bartless"
That hit the correct emotional beats and explored a genuine problem about the series that the audience sort of took for granted. But I still didn't like it. I guess because although I love it whenever Bart is taken down a few pegs and his behavior is treated as harmful instead of mischievous, I feel like this episode couldn't make up its mind about that, and the messages it did have weren't all that credible.
I understand it was a dream sequence. But while part of me understands and believes the idea that the Simpsons would be rich, successful, and happy if Bart didn't exist, it doesn't wash. Bart is responsible for a LOT of the family's hardships (and I'd argue most of its unhappiness), but Homer is problematic person on his own with or without Bart's help. Bart's nonexistence cannot change the fact that Homer is both stupid and harmful. I can lay down much of the family's unhappiness on Bart. I can. But the fact that the parents are unsuccessful? That's mostly down to Homer. The show is kidding itself if it thought I'd ever believe otherwise.
And the idea it was a dream sequence bothered me so much because it was had by the both of them. I could have accepted it if it were Marge's, and I could have accepted it (admittedly less) if it was Homer's. But making it BOTH of theirs makes no sense, especially since neither of them are spooked by that fact, and believe they just experienced a psychic experience for the first time ever. And that's not what the episode is about, and I get that, but it makes it feel unrealistic and poorly written.
I am of mixed feelings about the idea of Bart ruining 25 library books turning out to be a net positive. First of all, it's nice to see his new teacher again. Second of all, even if Homer and Marge were too hard on him, and saw the worst in him because they dislike him, the truth is whether or not that was an actual mistake or bad action on his end, I felt like everything they said about how damaging and frustrating he is was true, needed to be said at some point, and them being wrong undercut the necessity of them actually telling Bart how impossible he is to live with. I understand on some level the show cannot let Homer and Marge speaking to their son so harshly and cruelly simply stand. But I've watched this show for over 30 years, and have been more and more disgusted as the decades have worn on that Bart's sociopathic cruelty has been treated by the writers as supposedly cute. Hearing his parent lay into him was cathartic to me as a person who hates him, and to have them have to rethink the rant and their opinion about the little creep makes me unhappy. Whether Bart's actions were a net positive for the kids and the library or not, I agree with every foul thing Homer and Marge tag-teamed him with.
I'll tell you something I liked. And it's not something the show ever bothered to do before. But I betting I'm not the first fan to notice. Didn't the Itchy & Scratchy cartoon look great? They actually animated it in a more fluid and flailing style than the show itself is animated in. The characters in the cartoons previously have always had simpler designs and backgrounds. But the animation level to the show used to be truly identical, which frankly makes it feel less like an entirely different cartoon inside the world than it should. The show put up the money to make it look and feel different here, and like an actual big-budget cartoon. And Itchy & Scratchy cartoons on the show are a rarity now, so I doubt the show saw upping their game and potentially having to do that for every potential future Itchy & Scratchy appearance is as daunting as it would have been while the characters were still appearing several times per season.
I've rambled on in this review. I feel like the episode was well-made and properly explored a long-standing problem. But I disagreed with the conclusions it reached so strongly that I couldn't actually bring myself to, you know, actually ENJOY it. **.
The Simpsons "Hostile Kirk Place"
I detested that. On every level.
Family Guy has improved its political episodes over the years. They used to be pure suck, but I find them tolerable now. This episode was The Simpsons at its absolute worst. 34 seasons and they still can't tell a good political episode. Mostly because they use allegory rather than debating the controversies that actually exist.
But the worst part of the allegories of these types of episodes is that they don't actually show the audience the moral they want to get across, which makes them absolutely worthless. The lesson here is basically listening to people wanting to ban critical race theory in school will lead to a fascist dictatorship. I don't exactly disagree with that notion. The problem is the show and the episode absolutely refuse to show cause and effect and expect the audience to simply accept that idea and take it for granted. And I suspect the show declined to show Kirk's actual rise to power and lawlessness because it knew there was no actual rational excuse for it in the set-up they showed. Which makes it the worst allegory ever.
Would it KILL the show to allow "Weird Al" Yankovic to guest star in an episode that isn't totally crappy? "Three Gays Of The Condo" may have won an Emmy, but it didn't deserve it, and was atrocious. But the Emmys has a long history of awarding atrocious television statues. I'm pointing out they did wrong by Weird Al in his first appearance too.
I might have been able to forgive the heavy-handedness of the moral. Am I really as a Democrat going to fault the show for attempting a liberal message? Well, first of all, YES. As a Democrat I have higher standards for that kind of messaging in fiction. But the truth is, even if I didn't, even if I was the kind of mindless Democrat who brayed in cheap laughter at the cringeiest Murphy Brown episodes, the episode is unforgivable by suggesting Rainer Wolfcastle, the show's stand-in for Arnold Schwarzeneggar, was sympathetic to the Nazis. Arnold last week released a video decrying fascism and explaining how moved he was by his recent trip to the Holocaust Museum, and trying to get people addicted to hatred to find another path. That doesn't just make this episode feel even more dated than the bartender who "looks like" John Travolta. It makes it outright disgusting.
I would very much like it if Simpsons fans let Al Jean and Matt Selman feel their rage on Arnie's behalf. He also did a couple of videos back after January 6 opening up about his abusive father and why he was drawn to those authoritarian movements to begin with. I sitting here shaking in rage and saying "How freaking DARE you!" It's is obscene on every level. I am currently furious.
Simpsons fans have had to weather critics hate-watching the show, and bashing it unmercifully, even when it doesn't deserve it. This episode was every bad thing the show's modern detractors say it is every week, but that it usually isn't. I am beyond pissed. 0.
The Simpsons "Pin Gal"
Jacques?! Are you kidding me? Holy cow!
Normally, this is the kind of thing I'd chide the show for taking 35 years to get back to, but the truth is Jacques was one of the best and most memorable things about the first season, and one of the reasons A. Brooks became the show's best guest voice. So I'm glad they waited because I don't think either Mike Scully or Al Jean could have handled the character this well during their tenures as showrunners. I also love the fact that animation techniques have progressed so that they can take warped Klasky Csupo designs like Jacques from 1990, and do the kind of flailing animation it demands in 2023. The design is unusually expressive for that reason, even for a Season One design, and this episode took full advantage of that fact.
I was 14 when I saw Jacques on television for the first time. He was unlike any other TV character I had ever seen before, and The Simpsons was unlike every other show at the time. People don't remember that about the first season, but before The Simpsons was mainstream, it was underground as hell. And Jacques was one its weirdest and most amazing characters.
And can I just say how refreshing that the lesson isn't that Marge did wrong by being tempted by Jacques back in the day? It's that she did right by sticking with Homer after all of the crap he's pulled. Homer isn't angry at Marge at the end. He's grateful. That's another reason I'm glad they waited. I'm not sure another era of the show would have played that properly. I think Al Jean would have made it a genuine marriage crisis with hurt feelings between them both. Instead this episode shows how strong the marriage actually is and how much they love each other. And I freaking love that.
Brooks riffing on cheese and stuff in France is just amazing. You could argue Jacques is as offensive to French people as Apu is to Indians, but I think Jacques is genuinely funny. You heard Hank Azaria's recounting of how the writers were afraid Apu could be offensive, but the voice got a big laugh at the table read, and then the show's most offensive character was greenlit. The subtleties of the things Jacques says go beyond an accent, and I think my standards for something potentially offensive getting a laugh are much less cheap than the writers were back in the day for Apu. I might be wrong, and patting myself a little too hard on the back, but The Problem With Apu landed so badly with me because it boggled the mind that the writers actually thought Apu was funny. Apu was a character I barely tolerated for a couple of decades. I never liked him and he was rarely funny. I wonder how much of my opinion would be different if A Brooks had voiced him instead of Hank Azaria, and he wasn't made a series regular because of that fact. I'm pretty sure the reaction would be entirely different not just from me, but probably from Indian groups too. He wouldn't have had a bunch of catch-phrases that turned into schoolyard taunts against Indian kids from white bullies growing up for sure. Brooks does many things in his Simpsons roles. Repetition and catchphrases are not one of them.
I was disappointed in the week before last, and frankly furious at last week. I'm glad the show made a great episode this week. I was starting to worry a little. Silly me. Just hire A. Brooks and all the show's problems go away. That's how it works. *****.
Great couch gag. They didn't actually NEED to get Paul Fusco for Alf but it's funny that they did.
Rod and Todd's idea of mischief is blinking.
Ned discusses his teaching career using the actual episode number because we totally forgot about it.
I like Johnny Tight-Lips pointing out the mob had a lot of judgmental names. That's great.
Is Fat Tony in prison the new status quo a la Sideshow Bob or will it be easily forgotten and dropped when necessary? We'll see. Also waiting to see more of Moe and Maya and Bart's new teacher while we're talking about concepts the show has slacked off about.
Nice! ***1/2.
The Simpsons "Carl Carlson Rides Again"
The Simpsons has been on the air for so long that I believe its long-term health is in danger as long as they only try to come up with new Homer and Marge, Lisa and Bart, or Lisa and Homer stories. There is only so much you do with those characters, and since the show refuses actual character growth, having those character learn the same things over and over again is tiring.
So recently The Simpsons decided to see if centering episodes around minor or joke characters could possibly be interesting. This experiment has been a truly mixed bag. I want to slap Al Jean over the head for ever consenting to giving Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel his own episode. But the question remained: Could Carl Carlson, as a character famously devoid of a single personality trait outside of some vague homoeroticism with Lenny, carry an entire episode on his own? Frankly the idea probably wouldn't have worked before Alex Desert took over the character from Hank Azaria due to racial sensitivities (which is ironic because Carl was one of the few characters of color, along with Lou, that Azaria voiced with no offensive racial stereotyping whatsoever). But when Desert took over the role, maybe the fact that Carl is missing his own racial identity would be a good hook for an episode.
I am impressed and appreciate the show remembers that Carl was adopted and raised by white Icelandic parents. Not only had I forgotten that, nobody would have begrudged them for ignoring it. I don't just mean retconning. I mean totally pretending it never happened. But despite the show's continuity usually being shady, I like that they actually remembered one of the few unusual facts they already established about Carl's history. And regardless of whether you think the recasting of Carl was necessary or not, you have to understand they can't have a story about Carl exploring his black identity while he's voiced by a white guy. (The Cleveland Show did it with Mike Henry and it was just as appalling as you could imagine). Do I think the recasting was unnecessary myself? I think Carl is one of the few people of color Azaria voices without malice in his heart. But the fact that that malice exists for near everybody else means it best to move on from that specific actor. The good news is I think this episode is a turning point in that Desert is starting to sound a LOT more like Azaria than he did. And I was always annoyed that Family Guy went for a total unknown who sounded exactly like Mike Henry, and The Simpsons just opened the trusty voice actor rolodex and got "sort of, maybe, if he has a cold". In fairness I'll get used to Desert as Carl. I probably won't ever get used to Kevin Michael Richardson as Dr. Hibbert.
I like that Dr. Hibbert goes to the barbershop on Their Side Of Town, because it's been established in the past he's a Republican. Maybe Hibbert is due his own focus episode because just based on the contradictory things he does, and places we've seen him in, I still can't figure the guy out after 30 years.
I like that none of Carl's friends want to talk about his racial identity crisis. The entire selling point of Carl for them is that he never talks about his blackness and makes them uncomfortable and guilty. As such he is afforded the same privilege as the white guys in the group. For once, this not an exaggeration. He's not merely treated as an equal among the Moe's Patrons or Power Plant workers. He's considered an extremely respected member of that specific clique, probably second in deference to only Homer himself. Moe and Lenny might think they're Number Two material, but nobody really listens to or respects what they have to say. As far Carl goes, his opinions have gravitas. And the fact that his friends don't see his color makes them especially uncomfortable when he asks them to.
I like his new girlfriend for sure. She one of those characters like Superintendent Chalmers who actually talks like a real person. But there is still a cartoony archness behind Chalmers, particularly when dealing with Skinner. Carl's new girlfriend seem Earthy, real, and grounded. Totally refreshing. She yells at the TV for him to mention the name of the restaurant, and when he does, the place erupts in cheers. That felt authentic to me in a way Carl being surprised people in barbershops talk trash to each other did not.
Speaking of the barbershop, I not only like that Bart gets his hair cut on Their Side Of Town, but that he's on a first named basis with Clarence who likes the boy even though he's white. Why does Bart get his hair cut here? If you ever saw the cartoon in the Tracy Ullmann Show of him using Homer's elderly white barber, you might have an inkling. That was damn near 35 years ago, but having seen it makes me totally unsurprised Bart has searched elsewhere for his look. I don't like too much current Bart stuff but I liked this scene.
I think the thing I didn't like about the episode is that it never gave a good or plausible reason why Carl's parents abandoned him. On the tape they clearly loved him. So the doorstep thing makes even LESS sense. If I were Carl that would raise MORE questions and recriminations from me, not less. But The Simpsons is a 22 minute show, and they gotta wrap things up in the allotted time. I'm just pointing out they didn't wrap up this specific thing WELL. Because they didn't.
If the show wants to do an episode for Eddie and Lou next, that's a great idea. How about the Old Sea Captain? Or damn it, Dr. Hibbert? The show may have been on the air for 30 years, but it still has a TON of characters it still hasn't fully explored.
Just no more Otto, episodes, okay, Matt Selman? Those just plain suck, so don't bother trying.
But I liked this week and thought it was a worthy attempt of the show branching out. ****1/2.
The Simpsons "Bartless"
That hit the correct emotional beats and explored a genuine problem about the series that the audience sort of took for granted. But I still didn't like it. I guess because although I love it whenever Bart is taken down a few pegs and his behavior is treated as harmful instead of mischievous, I feel like this episode couldn't make up its mind about that, and the messages it did have weren't all that credible.
I understand it was a dream sequence. But while part of me understands and believes the idea that the Simpsons would be rich, successful, and happy if Bart didn't exist, it doesn't wash. Bart is responsible for a LOT of the family's hardships (and I'd argue most of its unhappiness), but Homer is problematic person on his own with or without Bart's help. Bart's nonexistence cannot change the fact that Homer is both stupid and harmful. I can lay down much of the family's unhappiness on Bart. I can. But the fact that the parents are unsuccessful? That's mostly down to Homer. The show is kidding itself if it thought I'd ever believe otherwise.
And the idea it was a dream sequence bothered me so much because it was had by the both of them. I could have accepted it if it were Marge's, and I could have accepted it (admittedly less) if it was Homer's. But making it BOTH of theirs makes no sense, especially since neither of them are spooked by that fact, and believe they just experienced a psychic experience for the first time ever. And that's not what the episode is about, and I get that, but it makes it feel unrealistic and poorly written.
I am of mixed feelings about the idea of Bart ruining 25 library books turning out to be a net positive. First of all, it's nice to see his new teacher again. Second of all, even if Homer and Marge were too hard on him, and saw the worst in him because they dislike him, the truth is whether or not that was an actual mistake or bad action on his end, I felt like everything they said about how damaging and frustrating he is was true, needed to be said at some point, and them being wrong undercut the necessity of them actually telling Bart how impossible he is to live with. I understand on some level the show cannot let Homer and Marge speaking to their son so harshly and cruelly simply stand. But I've watched this show for over 30 years, and have been more and more disgusted as the decades have worn on that Bart's sociopathic cruelty has been treated by the writers as supposedly cute. Hearing his parent lay into him was cathartic to me as a person who hates him, and to have them have to rethink the rant and their opinion about the little creep makes me unhappy. Whether Bart's actions were a net positive for the kids and the library or not, I agree with every foul thing Homer and Marge tag-teamed him with.
I'll tell you something I liked. And it's not something the show ever bothered to do before. But I betting I'm not the first fan to notice. Didn't the Itchy & Scratchy cartoon look great? They actually animated it in a more fluid and flailing style than the show itself is animated in. The characters in the cartoons previously have always had simpler designs and backgrounds. But the animation level to the show used to be truly identical, which frankly makes it feel less like an entirely different cartoon inside the world than it should. The show put up the money to make it look and feel different here, and like an actual big-budget cartoon. And Itchy & Scratchy cartoons on the show are a rarity now, so I doubt the show saw upping their game and potentially having to do that for every potential future Itchy & Scratchy appearance is as daunting as it would have been while the characters were still appearing several times per season.
I've rambled on in this review. I feel like the episode was well-made and properly explored a long-standing problem. But I disagreed with the conclusions it reached so strongly that I couldn't actually bring myself to, you know, actually ENJOY it. **.
The Simpsons "Hostile Kirk Place"
I detested that. On every level.
Family Guy has improved its political episodes over the years. They used to be pure suck, but I find them tolerable now. This episode was The Simpsons at its absolute worst. 34 seasons and they still can't tell a good political episode. Mostly because they use allegory rather than debating the controversies that actually exist.
But the worst part of the allegories of these types of episodes is that they don't actually show the audience the moral they want to get across, which makes them absolutely worthless. The lesson here is basically listening to people wanting to ban critical race theory in school will lead to a fascist dictatorship. I don't exactly disagree with that notion. The problem is the show and the episode absolutely refuse to show cause and effect and expect the audience to simply accept that idea and take it for granted. And I suspect the show declined to show Kirk's actual rise to power and lawlessness because it knew there was no actual rational excuse for it in the set-up they showed. Which makes it the worst allegory ever.
Would it KILL the show to allow "Weird Al" Yankovic to guest star in an episode that isn't totally crappy? "Three Gays Of The Condo" may have won an Emmy, but it didn't deserve it, and was atrocious. But the Emmys has a long history of awarding atrocious television statues. I'm pointing out they did wrong by Weird Al in his first appearance too.
I might have been able to forgive the heavy-handedness of the moral. Am I really as a Democrat going to fault the show for attempting a liberal message? Well, first of all, YES. As a Democrat I have higher standards for that kind of messaging in fiction. But the truth is, even if I didn't, even if I was the kind of mindless Democrat who brayed in cheap laughter at the cringeiest Murphy Brown episodes, the episode is unforgivable by suggesting Rainer Wolfcastle, the show's stand-in for Arnold Schwarzeneggar, was sympathetic to the Nazis. Arnold last week released a video decrying fascism and explaining how moved he was by his recent trip to the Holocaust Museum, and trying to get people addicted to hatred to find another path. That doesn't just make this episode feel even more dated than the bartender who "looks like" John Travolta. It makes it outright disgusting.
I would very much like it if Simpsons fans let Al Jean and Matt Selman feel their rage on Arnie's behalf. He also did a couple of videos back after January 6 opening up about his abusive father and why he was drawn to those authoritarian movements to begin with. I sitting here shaking in rage and saying "How freaking DARE you!" It's is obscene on every level. I am currently furious.
Simpsons fans have had to weather critics hate-watching the show, and bashing it unmercifully, even when it doesn't deserve it. This episode was every bad thing the show's modern detractors say it is every week, but that it usually isn't. I am beyond pissed. 0.
The Simpsons "Pin Gal"
Jacques?! Are you kidding me? Holy cow!
Normally, this is the kind of thing I'd chide the show for taking 35 years to get back to, but the truth is Jacques was one of the best and most memorable things about the first season, and one of the reasons A. Brooks became the show's best guest voice. So I'm glad they waited because I don't think either Mike Scully or Al Jean could have handled the character this well during their tenures as showrunners. I also love the fact that animation techniques have progressed so that they can take warped Klasky Csupo designs like Jacques from 1990, and do the kind of flailing animation it demands in 2023. The design is unusually expressive for that reason, even for a Season One design, and this episode took full advantage of that fact.
I was 14 when I saw Jacques on television for the first time. He was unlike any other TV character I had ever seen before, and The Simpsons was unlike every other show at the time. People don't remember that about the first season, but before The Simpsons was mainstream, it was underground as hell. And Jacques was one its weirdest and most amazing characters.
And can I just say how refreshing that the lesson isn't that Marge did wrong by being tempted by Jacques back in the day? It's that she did right by sticking with Homer after all of the crap he's pulled. Homer isn't angry at Marge at the end. He's grateful. That's another reason I'm glad they waited. I'm not sure another era of the show would have played that properly. I think Al Jean would have made it a genuine marriage crisis with hurt feelings between them both. Instead this episode shows how strong the marriage actually is and how much they love each other. And I freaking love that.
Brooks riffing on cheese and stuff in France is just amazing. You could argue Jacques is as offensive to French people as Apu is to Indians, but I think Jacques is genuinely funny. You heard Hank Azaria's recounting of how the writers were afraid Apu could be offensive, but the voice got a big laugh at the table read, and then the show's most offensive character was greenlit. The subtleties of the things Jacques says go beyond an accent, and I think my standards for something potentially offensive getting a laugh are much less cheap than the writers were back in the day for Apu. I might be wrong, and patting myself a little too hard on the back, but The Problem With Apu landed so badly with me because it boggled the mind that the writers actually thought Apu was funny. Apu was a character I barely tolerated for a couple of decades. I never liked him and he was rarely funny. I wonder how much of my opinion would be different if A Brooks had voiced him instead of Hank Azaria, and he wasn't made a series regular because of that fact. I'm pretty sure the reaction would be entirely different not just from me, but probably from Indian groups too. He wouldn't have had a bunch of catch-phrases that turned into schoolyard taunts against Indian kids from white bullies growing up for sure. Brooks does many things in his Simpsons roles. Repetition and catchphrases are not one of them.
I was disappointed in the week before last, and frankly furious at last week. I'm glad the show made a great episode this week. I was starting to worry a little. Silly me. Just hire A. Brooks and all the show's problems go away. That's how it works. *****.