sign in sign up
<<
Home , Behind the Laughter, The Simpsons, Treehouse of Horror, Wes Archer

Metafiction in

Hayley Carr

School of Design, Visual Communications

2017 National College of Art and Design

Visual Communications, School of Design

Metafiction in the Simpsons

Hayley Carr

Submitted to the School of Visual Culture in Candidacy of the Degree of BA(Hons)

Visual Communications, 2017 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Table of Contents

List of illustrations…………………………………………………………………………………i

List of Simpsons Episodes…………………………………………………………………………ii

List of TV Shows and ……..………………………………………………………………..iii

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Preface: Metafiction and the Simpsons……………………………………………………………3

Chapter One: Stupid TV! Be More Funny!……………………………………………………….5

Chapter Two: Cartoons Don’t Have any Deep Meaning………………………………………….11

Chapter Three: Success, Fame, Beer, Candy…………………………………………….………..17

Conclusion: So Everything’s Been Wrapped in a Neat Little Package!………………………22

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………24 ! List of Illustrations

• Fig.1 Still from Felix in Hollywood, Dir: Otto Messmer, Pat Sullivan Studios, 1923

• Fig. 2 Still from The Day the Violence Died (S07E18) (Manhattan Madness), Dir: ,

Fox Studios, 1996

• Fig. 3 Still from Gertie the Dinosaur, Dir: Windsor McCay, 1914

• Fig. 4 Still from I’m Just a Bill, Schoolhouse Rock, 1975

• Fig. 5 Still from The Day the Violence Died (S07E18) (Amendment to Be), Dir: Wes Archer, Fox

Studios, 1996

• Fig. 6 Still from Pinocchio, Dir(s): Hamilton Luske, Ben Sharpsteen, Jack Kinney, Norm

Ferguson, Wilfred Jackson, T. Hee, Bill , Disney Studios, 1940

• Fig. 7 Still from Itchy and Scratchy Land (S06E04) (Pinitchyo), Dir: Wes Archer, Fox Studios,

1994 !

i List of Simpsons Episodes

• Bart vs , S06E16

• , S11E22

• The Day the Violence Died, S07E18

• , S05E13

• , S04E19

• Homer Loves Flanders, S05E16

• Itchy & Scratchy Land, S06E04

• The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, S08E14

• Milhouse Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, S15E12

• The Principal and the Pauper, S09E02

• ’s Last Gleaming, S07E09

• The Simpsons 138th Episode Spectacular, S07E10

• II, S03E07

• Treehouse of Horror IX, S10E04 !

ii ! ! List of TV Shows and Films

• Behind the , VH1, 1997–present

• Beverly Hillbillies, P. Henning, CBS, 1962–1971

• The Brady Bunch, S. Schwartz, ABC, 1969–1974

• , J. Burrows; G. Charles; L. Charles, NBC, 1982–1993

• , C. Reiner, CBS, 1961–1966

• Duck Amuck, (Dir) C. M. Jones, Warner Bros., 1953

• , S. MacFarlane, Fox, 1999–present

• Fantasia, Productions, 1940

• Felix the Cat, P. Sullivan; O. Messmer, 1919–

• , W. Hanna; J. Barbera, ABC, 1960–1966

• Fritz the Cat, R. Bakshi, Cinemation Industries, 1972

• Gertie the Dinosaur, W. McCay, 1914

• , (Dir) F. Satenstein, CBS, 1955–1956

• The Jeffersons, D. Nicholl; M. Ross; B. West, CBS, 1975–1985

• Pinnochio, (Dir) B. Sharpsteen; H. Luske, Walt Disney Productions, 1940

• Rabbit Rampage, (Dir) C. M. Jones, Warner Bros., 1955

• , T. Parker; M. Stone, Central, 1997–present

• , (Dir) W. Disney; U. Iwerks, Celebrity Productions/Cinephone, 1928

• Tom & Jerry, W. Hanna; J. Barbera, MGM, 1940–1958

iii Introduction

The following analysis of metafiction in the Simpsons is true. And by true I mean, false. It’s all lies.

But they’re entertaining lies, and in isn’t that the real truth? The answer is: no.

If you got that reference then you’re part of an elite group of people who don’t just watch the Simpsons, but internalise it, and file it away in a mental cabinet under the letter ‘S,’ perhaps forgetting important information such as ‘socialising’ and ‘swimming’ in order to store it all, so at the very least if you ever find yourself drowning in the middle of the ocean, you’ll be able to pray to the Roman god of the sea, ‘Aqua Man!’ to save you. If you’re not part of this elite group, then please allow me to explain why you should convert. In 1989 the world received a breath of fresh air when the Simpsons appeared on their television sets. Often hailed as the most successful primetime cartoon series ever made, the Simpsons boasts almost 30 years of success, and spans four decades. It has revolutionised the genre and has paved the way for adult cartoons that followed, such as Family Guy and South Park, which both still enjoy success today. The Simpsons captivated their audience by refuting previously accepted family archetypes and presenting viewers with a set of dysfunctional, outrageous characters, whose very absurdity made them normal, and relatable. The

Simpsons dropped the pretence found in its contemporary sitcoms and inverted it and played on it, acknowledging itself for what it was and allowing the audience to see the constructed of television that was reflected in their own fracturing society.

This self-reflexive outlook is not unique to the Simpsons, and is steeped in the animation and cartoon tradition, tracing back to early comic strips such as Little Sammy Sneeze who, in one strip, sneezes so hard that his panel breaks. Early Warner Bros cartoons, such as Duck-Amuck and

Rabbit Rampage, took this self-reflexivity even further, with the characters of Daffy Duck and Bugs

Bunny speaking directly to the animator, whose presence was conveyed through a giant paintbrush and pencil that painted and erased the scenery and the characters. Bugs Bunny even pleads with the animator, saying that if they work together they could “do something revolutionary,” which is 1 exactly what they’re doing in the episode. In both cases, the animator is revealed to be another

Warner Bros character. In all these examples, the creators are acknowledging the constructed nature of their genre, and are playing with them to create humour. The Simpsons, and its successors, carry on with this tradition, and arguably perfects it. Carl Matheson states that “the density of allusion is perhaps what sets [it] apart from any show that proceeded it,” and this is true (2001, pg. 67). The

Simpsons is relentless with its use of allusions, to itself and to other television shows, films, and literature. They question and obliterate their pretences and simultaneously commemorate them. A

Simpsons allusion can either be a sign of respect or contempt, and in both instances they are a mighty display of the Simpsons’ satiric wit which has been unmatched by any show that proceeded it, and any show that follows certainly has a high standard to reach. If you’re still unmoved by what

I’ve said, then I suggest you stop reading now. However, if you’re intrigued, then read on, and let the conversion begin. !

2 Preface: Metafiction and the Simpsons

In the wave of a postmodern cynicism that overwhelmed society in the late 80s and 90s, the world began to present itself as a fragmented thing, subject to change, that held no permanent truths or virtues (Waugh, 1984, pg. 7). In particular, pop culture had been watered down into a purely consumerist transaction, devoid of any thought or meaning. Is it any surprise, then, that in the face of this bleak, cultural decline, that a family as whacky and dysfunctional as the Simpsons rose out of the ashes of a burning apathy, and invigorated the minds of a disillusioned society?

The key to the popularity of the Simpsons lies in its honesty. Unlike its contemporaries, such as , the Simpsons did not claim to reflect reality. It was open about its fictionality and mocked the idealistic representations of family life that had lost its credibility amongst viewers

(Ott, 2001, pg. 59/60). Academically, this self-awareness that the Simpsons displays, is known as metafiction. Metafiction is marked by instances of self-consciousness, introspection, introversion, narcissism, and auto-representation (Currie, 1995, pg. 14). These instances are used to explore and interrogate the constructed nature of fiction by: upsetting fictional conventions, parodying specific works or fictional modes, and encouraging the reader/viewer to draw on their knowledge of fictional conventions to make sense of what they’re processing (Waugh, 1984, pg. 4). The Simpsons employs all of these techniques to create a thoughtful programme that, not only investigates its own medium, but exposes and ridicules the hackneyed, lazy construction of television narratives. Many critics of metafiction claim that it signifies the death of fiction, and an exhaustion of the mediums through which fiction functions. However, in an age where people are becoming more aware of how society’s values and practices are constructed and authorised, metafiction empathises with the modern consumer, breaking down the structure of the novel or the television programme in a way that reflects reality more profoundly than the ‘realistic’ modes of fiction that existed before (Waugh,

1984, pg. 19). In the following three chapters, I will discuss the Simpsons’ use of metafiction in relation to: 3 - Television: acknowledging the roots of sitcoms, exploring genre tropes, and mocking narrative

conventions

- Animation: exploring the through the Itchy & Scratchy Show, exploring the

genre of cartoons, and discussing verisimilitude, and

- On being the Simpsons: reflecting on their own success, creating parallels using the Itchy &

Scratchy Show, and addressing the audience. !

4 Chapter One: Stupid TV! Be More Funny!

Lisa: Don’t worry, Bart. It seems like every week something odd happens to the Simpsons. My advice is to ride it out, make the occasional smart-Alec quip, and by next week we’ll all be back to where we started from, ready for another whacky adventure. !Bart: Ay caramba! Lisa: That’s the spirit!

(Homer Loves Flanders, S05E16)

This exchange aptly displays the Simpsons’ self-awareness, breaking down the walls of narrative convention, yet maintaining the suspension of disbelief required by viewers to immerse themselves in the show. Though the writers are aware that they are constructing a television show, the characters are unaware of their fictionality. Lisa may notice that her world conforms to sitcom formulas, but the hyperawareness displayed in this exchange belongs solely to the writers. This mode of metafiction allows the Simpsons to interrogate the medium of television, without irritating its viewers (Turner, 2004, pg. 445). , James L. Brooks, spoke of the show’s unwavering commitment to realism (Turner, 2004, pg. 440), and it is the Simpsons’ employment of verisimilitude which allows its breeches of realism to stand out and comment on itself, and the mediums through which it functions (von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 195). This balance between realism and farce permits the show to function as a satirical agent, and “allows it to be more serious in ways that other television shows are not,” (Cantor, 2001, pg. 95).

The opening credits of each episode of the Simpsons follows each family member’s journey home, where they all converge in the living room (in a comedic fashion), and position themselves on the couch, in front of the television. The ‘camera’ then turns to face their TV, where the credits appear, and then the episode begins. Without too much scrutiny, the Couch Gag is simply just a brief, dissociated slapstick routine that eases us into each episode. However, when the Simpsons sit down to watch television, they are in fact watching themselves. Moreover, we are watching each 5 episode of the Simpsons from the Simpsons’ living room. The Couch Gag, while entertaining us, primarily serves as a reminder that the show is formally concerned with television, and its own status as a television programme (Arnold, 2001, pg. 158). himself stated that, “the

Simpsons is about…the process of watching TV,” (cited in von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 182). The

Simpsons persistently comments on the nature of television, be it through positive homages or

(more often) scathing witticisms. It disrupts the natural flow of television, and calls into question the conventions of its medium (Arnold, 2001, pg. 151).

This disruption is most effectively achieved through Springfield’s own mediascape. The

Simpsons mimics every facet of the media that exists in our society, from mindless action movies, to melodramatic soap operas, to sensationalised news broadcasts. Through these, and numerous other examples, the show can comment on the standard tropes and formulas used by television, how the news and entertainment industries function, the schemes employed by the mass media, television as a medium itself, and the society it has bred (Turner, 2004, pg. 419). These instances reflect the

Simpsons’ stringent policy of realism, which has not only made the show so relatable amongst its viewers, but given it its satiric power. In the words of , “the line between parody and documentary is so thin it might as well be invisible,” (2004, pg. 421).

Specifically, here, he was referring to Troy McClure, ’s omnipresent, dependable celebrity, who appears everywhere and anywhere on the Simpsons’ TV set, presenting biased educational videos for schools, appearing in cheesy B-movies and bible films, and promoting his new situational comedy, Handle with Care, in which he plays Jack Handle, a retired cop who shares an apartment with a retired criminal. He goes on to excitedly exclaim that they’re the original odd couple. TVTropes has ‘odd couple’ listed as a trope in their archive, so one must ask themselves how original McClure’s sitcom actually is. Perhaps an even more obvious dig at the situational tropes used in comedy in the Simpsons is Ethnic Mismatch Comedy #644, which blatantly alerts the audience to the inordinate amount of sitcoms predicated on the foundation of two conflicting people 6 living together (644 according to the Simpsons, and that’s just based on ethnicity!). The humour here lies not in how painfully bad McClure’s show sounds, or the over-simplification of a whole genre of sitcoms, but in how recognisable both of these shows are. If Handle with Care appeared on my television screen this evening, I would not bat and eyelid. I would not think it was some parody of ‘the Odd Couple.’ I would simply roll my eyes in weariness and keep on flicking through the channels. The only thing that separates McClure’s promotion from parody and documentary is his comment about his recent trouble with the IRS (Turner, 2004, pg. 422). Similarly, while Ethnic

Mismatch Comedy #644 is clearly a parody of the odd couple trope, the name is the only thing that gives it away. A crude, hairy Italian American and a skinny, uptight British woman living together is as likely to appear on television as a neat freak and a slob, or a retired cop and a retired criminal.

The Simpsons is steeped in the sitcom tradition. While it routinely mocks its conventions

(such as having a sound when Homer trips over a footstool, à la Dick Van Dyke ), it also pays homage to its predecessors, adhering to its traditions, occasionally in an ironic way, but only really to poke fun at itself for adhering to those traditions in the first place. Though often considered a successor to the Flintstones (routinely cited by the writers themselves, in Couch Gags, dialogue, and background information), its cultural impact, range of topics, and entertainment intelligence far exceeds what the Flintstones achieved (von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 201). The Simpsons, in fact, shares more in with its live action counterparts. The Simpsons returns to the traditional portrayal of the nuclear family on television, and its self-awareness lies in the paradoxical notion of an unconventional show so deeply rooted in the heritage of the traditional American sitcom (Cantor,

2001, pg. 98). The writers particularly call attention to the show’s retrospection in a season 20

Couch Gag, which shows the travelling through a variety of different seminal

American sitcoms, such as The Honeymooners, The Dick Van Dyke Show, the Brady Bunch, Cheers, and then, finally, the ‘set’ of their own show. The choice of sitcoms represented is interesting, as they each portray the quintessential sitcom example of their time, beginning with the 1950s (the 7 Honeymooners) through to the 1980s (Cheers), and then ending with the Simpsons (which began at the cusp of the nineties, and maintained extraordinary popularity throughout that decade). While the

Couch Gag seems to be citing the history of the sitcom, and the Simpsons’ relation to the genre, the writers also seem to be placing the Simpsons in this history, as the quintessential sitcom of our time.

This is not an isolated instance. In the episode, Milhouse Doesn’t Live Here Anymore

(S15E12), the Fourth Grade class go on a field trip to the Museum of Television and TV. Bart and

Milhouse watch an informational video, presented by (the loveable ‘Weezy’ from the

Jeffersons), before separating from the group. As the title suggests, Milhouse moves away and, as a result, Bart and Lisa become best . However, when Milhouse returns, Lisa is wounded when she is replaced. The episode ends with Bart giving her special Monopoly Chance cards that contain favours that he will do for her in reconciliation. Lisa chooses to use one of the cards immediately, which results in the pair embracing, and the card fluttering to the ground to reveal the words “Good for one Hug.” The ‘camera’ then pans out to reveal a TV screen in a museum and Isabel Sanford explaining that this sitcom trope is known as a “Schmaltzy ending: A sentimental capper meant to leave the audience feeling good.” This is the same scene in which she appeared earlier, when Bart was watching the informational video. It seems that the writers, similarly to the aforementioned

Couch Gag, are acknowledging the Simpsons’ status in television history as a highly influential show that is likely to be commemorated in such a museum.

However, there is more to the scene than simply referencing the Simpsons’ status as a television show. The setup of this scene is actually extraordinarily convoluted. At the beginning of the episode Bart’s class visit the Museum of Television and TV, in which he watches this informational video, and then the episode ends by revealing that we have been watching it through an informational video, similar to the one that Bart was watching at the beginning of the episode.

Also, as discussed earlier, we are already watching the episode through the Simpsons’ living room set, which means that we are watching the Simpson family watching an informational video, in 8 which an episode of the Simpsons appears and is being analysed as an example of a seminal sitcom.

Chris Turner put it best when he wrote, “This is self-awareness so acute it’s like watching your favourite cartoon through an MRI machine in a hall of mirrors,” (2004, pg. 449). Unquestionably, the Simpsons is a show about “the process of watching TV,” and the intricate series of screens within screens seems to be commenting on the omnipresence of television in our society. My attempts to analyse this episode are slightly pointless, however, as the episode aptly analyses itself, marking how it conforms to television tropes, yet, conflictingly, its presence in such a museum would be due to its groundbreaking use of intertextuality and self-referentiality (which it is displaying at this very moment) during the same moment that it is highlighting its use of narrative convention.

The construction of the scene reveals the show to be watching itself and emphasising that it is a TV show, one filled with clichés and tropes as well as its lacerating social commentary that has endeared it to its fans. However, the scene continues with Sanford saying, “…usually followed by a little coda to cut the treacle.” She then gestures back at the television which now displays a young soldier and an old woman standing in the hall of a mansion. The soldier, in a thick southern twang while rocking his hands back and forth, says, “Granny, I’m gonna shoot me some Vietcong!” The granny replies crankily, “Yeah, well, I ain’t cookin’ ‘em!” The studio audience promptly burst out in laughter, while the soldier smiles smugly, his eyes darting around, waiting for the laughter to die down so he may deliver his next line. Why the Simpsons would place themselves on par with such a dimwitted, vacuous sitcom such as Beverly Hillbillies (which seems to be a recurring fallback when the sitcom genre needs satirising) is an interesting question. Perhaps the writers feel that their use of tropes, such as “The Schmaltzy Ending” puts them on the same level as other trope filled sitcoms, and how despite their efforts to undermine television (such as that succinct parody), they are nevertheless part of the endless stream of trashy, unoriginal genre television that floods our televisions (Turner, 2004, pg. 438). Perhaps they are even mocking the idea of having a museum, 9 sanctuaries of knowledge, dedicated to such lazy, hackneyed forms of “art” that encourage the dulling of wits and deter intellectual thought. Perhaps the Simpsons is lost in this stream. For every

Simpsons-esque show on TV, there are a hundred run-of-the-mill, blue collar (Handle with Care?), or formulaic, clichéd cop shows (McGarnagle?) to drown it out, essentially making all resistance futile. This episode predicts a future in which poorly written, brain dead jokes may appear in a museum, not only as an exhibit, but as a quintessential staple of the television genre.

It is a bit drastic and bleak to say that the Simpsons’ use of is futile. In the words of

Homer Simpson himself, “I’m bringing the Plant down from the inside” (S07E10), and in a sense the Simpsons functions is a similar way. It comments on television by working within the medium, and “occupies the signifiers of the culture it wishes to lampoon,” (Arnold, 2001, pg. 157). For example in the episode Sideshow Bob’s Last Gleaming (S07E09), Sideshow Bob attempts to destroy the “chattering cyclops” in Springfield, but his “crusade against television [comes] to an end so formulaic, it could’ve spewed from the power book of the laziest Hollywood hack.” The episode serves as a comment on the formulaic nature of television, and the following scene in which

Grandpa Simpson rides in on a motorcycle and declares that he’s going to “haul ass to lollapalooza,” mimics an earlier scene in the episode, in which a sitcom character delivers the same line. Of course the Simpsons themselves would never employ such a ridiculous coda, unless it was ironic, and so it serves as a prime example of TV formula (Turner, 2004, pg. 419).

So, if the Simpsons were to appear in the Museum of Television and TV years from now, alongside the products of what Sideshow Bob terms “TV’s bottomless chum bucket”, it would not be as an equal, but as an example of excellence. As a ‘media virus,’ as Douglas Rushkoff put it, that infects viewers with subversive ideas (cited in Arnold, 2001, pg. 151/7). Beverly Hillbillies may represent an archetypal sitcom, but the Simpsons represents a revolutionary show, that places itself in the history of the sitcom and television, and uses these tropes and genres as canon fodder for its satire. 10 Chapter Two: Cartoons Don’t Have any Deep Meaning

Bart: Hey, Lis, we’re characters in a cartoon!

Lisa: How humiliating…

(Treehouse of Horror IX, S10E04)

Cartoons don’t have any deep meaning. They’re just stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh.

No wonder Lisa finds it humiliating to be one. But, are they? Maybe some of them are, but when it comes to the Simpsons nothing about it is cheap, meaningless, or humiliating. As discussed in the previous chapter, the Simpsons has more in common with the live action sitcom than it does with the cartoon, and even its relation to the Flintstones is nothing more than character structure and medium. The Simpsons play with the cartoon genre by playing with verisimilitude. By adhering to a strict policy of realism, the show can highlight moments of surreality, such as having the characters hats fly off in surprise, only to reveal that Guy needs to do something about that air conditioner suction, or when steam blows out of Bart’s ears, only to have Marge pick up two kettles behind him that have just boiled. For a brief moment the viewer is shocked by the Simpsons’ adherence to cartoon conventions, but is relieved and amused to see the farce revealed (von der

Goltz, 2008, pg. 195/6).

Take another example. In the episode, The Front (S04E19) Bart and Lisa visit Grandpa to ask him for his name so they can use it as a nom de plume for their Itchy & Scratchy script.

Grandpa, consulting his underwear, whips them off without removing his pants. In amazement, Lisa enquires how he did this and he feebly replies, “I don’t know.” The narrative here insists we remember that we are watching a cartoon (Arnold, 2001, pg. 156). Conversely, in the episode Bart vs. Australia (S06E16) Bart and Homer are making a getaway from the Australian government, and they attempt to ride off in the pouches of two kangaroos. However, when they step inside the pouches they are repulsed to find them filled with mucus. Bart comments, “Ewwww. It’s not like in cartoons.” There’s two layers of irony at work here. The first, much like Grandpa miraculously 11 removing his underwear, calls attention to the fact that the Simpsons is a cartoon, and plays with the genre’s preoccupation with anthropomorphised animals. The second, however, highlights the realism employed by the show, which is attested to by the presence of mucus in the kangaroo’s pouches. Much like the quote at the start of the previous chapter, this scene also showcases the writer’s self-awareness and the characters’ immersion in their world. As far as Bart and Homer are concerned, their world is real, and thus real life kangaroo pouches are full of mucus (Turner, 2004, pg. 447). By imposing and refuting verisimilitude, the Simpsons creates an unpredictable environment in which realism and absurdity play off each other to create a perceptive satire of

(American) society. The characters themselves are quite stylised, and behaviours that they display that would seem repulsive or obscene for a human are easier to accept from our four-fingered, jaundiced counterparts (Arnold, 2001, pg. 156).

The cartoon genre allows more room for self-referentiality. Without the constraints of budgets and physics, the Simpsons can represent any scenario it wants. A scene from the episode

Deep Space Homer (S05E15) utilises a rotating ‘camera’ shot of Homer floating in the cockpit of a space craft, in pursuit of a tantalising potato chip (careful! They’re ruffled!). This scene highlights the restrictions of photographic realism, and reminds us that the show we are watching is a cartoon

(Knox, 2008, pg. 74). However, as a whole, these lapses in realism are rare and, as discussed, aim to tease the viewer by playing with their perceptions of the Simpsons, and the animation genre as a whole.

The Simpsons, and its status as a cartoon, are frequently explored through the cartoon- within-a-cartoon, Itchy & Scratchy. Parallels are often drawn between the two shows, so that the writers can speak directly to their audience about the making of the Simpsons (this will be discussed in the next chapter), but it can also be observed as an antithesis to the Simpsons, validating its realism by displaying the cartoon tropes (such as anthropomorphised animals) that its parent show does not (von der Goltz, 2011, pg. 87). Episodes of Itchy & Scratchy are routinely used to 12 compliment the primary plot lines of the Simpsons episode in which they appear, such as “Scar

Trek,” (which appears in the episode Deep Space Homer), which takes place in space, and ends with Scratchy being dismembered by Saturn’s ring and then having his head explode when Itchy removes his helmet and pops it with a toothpick (von der Goltz, 2011, pg.183). The overlapping themes aren’t subtle, but they serve to evoke an emotional response from the characters, such as trepidation in Homer upon his imminent trip to space. Its primary function, however, is to document the history of animation.

Much like when the Simpsons make references to the sitcom, these references to the developments of animation aim to place the Simpsons within the genre’s history, commenting on the aspects the show has inherited from the genre, and ways the Simpsons has diverged from its traditions. At first glance, Itchy & Scratchy seems like an obvious parody of Tom & Jerry, but particular episodes broaden the scope of Itchy & Scratchy’s historical homage, and, hence, opens up the Simpsons to a wider discussion of the cartoon’s evolution. In the episode, The Day the Violence

Died (S07E18) Itchy & Scratchy’s original creator, Roger Meyers Snr., is accused of plagiarism, and

Bart (through Homer) funds the court case of the original creator, Chester Lampwick, after viewing the first ever Itchy cartoon, dated 1919. The episode in question is entitled ‘Manhattan Madness,’ which follows Itchy’s adventures in a black and white, line drawn Manhattan, similar in style to

Gertie the Dinosaur and Felix the Cat (in particular, ‘Felix in Hollywood,’ which it is evidently parodying).

Fig. 1 Felix in Hollywood, P. Sullivan/O. Messmer,1923; Fig. 2 Manhattan Madness, M. Groening, 1996; Fig. 3 Gertie the Dinosaur, W. McCay, 1914 13 The cartoon is even dated the same year as the first Felix cartoon.

Before they attend the Itchy & Scratchy parade at the beginning of the episode, Bart and

Lisa visit the Android’s Dungeon, which is showcasing bootleg episodes of the show. The episode is untitled, but the style in which it is drawn mimics that of the Fritz the Cat movies of the 1970s, which were incredibly violent and pornographic, starkly contrasting with the “camp, 70s” cartoons rampant in America, such as I’m Just a Bill, by Schoolhouse Rock, which is also parodied in this episode (An Amendment to Be) (von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 183). That the Simpsons would use such an antagonistic, radical cartoon, that departed from the sweet, educational narratives of its contemporaries, as an analogue to itself perhaps references its own divergence from the traditional cartoon, that Homer describes as stupid drawings that give you a cheap laugh.

Fig. 4. I’m Just a Bill, Schoolhouse Rock, 1975; Fig. 5Amendment to Be, from S07E18, 1996 !

The episode, The Itchy & Scratchy Movie (S04E06), further explores the history of animation and its production. In a promotional news report on the upcoming Itchy & Scratchy movie, visits a Korean factory to show the audience how “American cartoons are made,” snidely commenting on how the Simpsons itself (and most other popular cartoons) are animated in Korea, as it is cheaper. He then goes on to document Itchy & Scratchy’s history, showing clips from seminal episodes in the show’s production. He begins with the first Scratchy cartoon, entitled ‘That Happy Cat.’ The episode comprises of a bouncy, smiling Scratchy, sauntering 14 down a street, stopping when he reaches the road to whistle nonchalantly, and then tipping his hat to the audience, before walking on. The episode is reminiscent of the first Disney cartoons, Winsor

McCay , and other pioneers in the genre, which still drew their appeal from the actual act of animation, rather than plot or narrative. Moving drawings and anthropomorphised animals was enough entertainment in itself. The next historic cartoon in the cavalcade is ‘Steamboat Itchy,’ a quite blatant parody of ‘Steamboat Willie,’ Disney’s first synchronised sound cartoon. This is then followed by a coloured cartoon, similar in style to Hanna-Barbera’s realistic, painted backgrounds and feathered, air-brushed shapes. This episode involves Itchy & Scratchy “teaming up against a common enemy,” Adolf Hitler. The episode reminds viewers that cartoons are frequently used for political reasons, particularly as propaganda during World War II (von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 183).

Steamboat Itchy is the first definitive depiction of the evolution of Disney animations in the

Simpsons, which is routinely referenced within the history of Itchy & Scratchy. The episode Itchy &

Scratchy Land (S06E04) contains a parodic homage to the life and work of Walt Disney in a documentary entitled ‘The Roger Myers Story.’ The voiceover comments that he was beloved by the world “except in 1938 when he was criticised for his controversial cartoon, ‘Nazi Supermen Are

Our Superiors,’” a jab at Disney’s apparent anti-Semitism. The writers also alluded to the rumours that Disney was cryogenically frozen in the episode The Day the Violence Died, when Roger

Meyers Jr. informs Bart and Lisa that he can no longer afford to “keep my dad's head in the freakin' cryogenic centre anymore,” gesturing towards a cooler on the table next to him. The documentary then features the “full length musical, Scratchtasia,” a parody of Disney’s Fantasia, which mimics the score and aesthetic of the original. This is then followed by the wildly successful, Pinitchyo, in which Itchy and Scratchy take on the roles of Pinocchio and Geppetto respectively, ending with

Scratchy’s eye being impaled by Pinitchyo’s extended nose, after he promises to never hurt him

(Turner, 2004, pg. 436).

15

Fig. 6 Pinocchio, Disney, 1940; Fig. 7 Pinitchyo, M. Groening, 1994

The Simpsons uses the animation genre as a tool in its self-awareness, as a means of

“disrupting audience expectations” through its interaction between realism and the unreal afforded by the cartoon format (Knox, 2008, pg. 80). By referring to itself as a cartoon we are, in fact, reminded that we are watching a cartoon, and that the verisimilitude employed by the Simpsons is flexible in the production of its humour and satire. Itchy & Scratchy serve as a microcosm of the history of animation, and the Simpsons uses this to place itself within this history, and comment on its similarities and differences in form. In particular, its pairing of itself with pioneering and revolutionary animations acknowledges its own status as a groundbreaking cartoon, exploiting the misrepresentation that cartoons are for children, so it can spread its subversive satire to its viewers

(Arnold, 2001, pg. 157). !

16 Chapter Three: Success, Fame, Beer, Candy !Woman #1: If I hear one more thing about the Simpsons I swear I am going to scream Woman #2: At first they were cute and funny, but now they’re just annoying

(Treehouse of Horror II, S03E07)

Unfortunately, you will have to read about 2,000 words more about the Simpsons, so if you need to scream, please get it out of the way now before reading on. Having not been alive for most of the

1990s (and certainly not culturally aware when I was), it’s difficult for me to really grasp the kind of explosive impact the Simpsons had when it first arrived on the scene (and perhaps how annoying its pervasiveness was). In his book, , Chris Turner speaks of “Simpsons parties,” a phenomenon in which fans of the show would gather in bars and basements to watch the new episode each week. He describes the experience as thus:

We gathered by our millions to watch a TV broadcast that was delivering…a landmark event akin to the Beatles taking the stage on the Ed Sullivan Show. Or, in another, more accurate way, something !like the band’s whole career: each week was a new hit single… (2004, pg.4) The Simpsons made a similar observation about itself four years earlier in an episode entitled

Behind the Laughter (S11E22), in which a group of girls scream uncontrollably as they watch a clip of skateboarding (while the Beatles’ Twist and Shout plays in the background), only to reveal that they’re actually patients on the Hysteria Ward, who are then hosed down by a group of nurses. The entire episode, which is an extended parody of the VH1 documentary series, ‘,’ is highly ironic, playing on the fact that the Simpsons are perhaps some of the most recognisable icons of our time, and yet their lives, beyond the show, are a mystery to us. The staff members of the show are reclusive to the public, and in their absence the audience’s attention is entirely focused on the show and its characters. The characters, hence, become the actor’s in their own show, and this becomes the premise for the satiric, behind-the-scenes style documentary

(Turner, 2004, pg. 387/8).

17 The episode is filled with contrived metaphors and analogies, delivered sombrely by Jim

Forbes, Behind the Music’s original narrator, and documents the Simpsons personal lives through candid interviews that explore their successes and the scandals that ‘tore’ the family apart. The episode actually calls attention to complaints from fans, such as episodes like The Principal and the

Pauper, which was slated by viewers (von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 114) and the show’s over-dependent use of celebrity guests, explaining that, “with the family in disarray episodes increasingly resorted to gimmicky premises and non-sensical plots,” and that “trendy guest stars were shamelessly trotted out to grab ratings.” The episode completely mocks the status of celebrity and the sensationalising of their lives, and humorously uses it as a tool to explain away past grievances with the show’s fans.

Behind the Laughter provides the “gossip column white noise” that’s missing from the Simpsons, and deals with the show’s success very directly and creatively (Turner, 2004, pg. 388)

Behind the Laughter is not the only instance of the show acknowledging its own success. By

Season three the writers of the show were already aware of their immense popularity amongst viewers, and made it the subject of one of their specials, in which Homer acquires a monkey paw that will grant wishes. Bart wishes “for the Simpsons to be rich and famous.” While recently watching the episode, I actually found the concept a bit odd: the writer’s commenting on the success of the Simpsons as a TV show by transferring that fame onto the actual characters within the world of Springfield. Suddenly people’s exasperation with show’s success (such as the women’s comments at the beginning of this chapter) were directed at the characters themselves, and I actually pined for them a bit. I mean, it’s not the characters’ fault that they’re a commodity! The episode briefly details the Simpsons merchandising empire, from its Bart Simpson t-shirts, to its genre themed CDs (one of which sits in my CD rack right now, staring back at me judgingly), and ultimately ends with the family being blamed for the enslavement of humanity, with one man commenting, “Before I was just bored with their antics and their merchandise, but now I wish they were dead.” Perhaps the aim of the episode is to make the viewer sympathise with the characters (or 18 maybe I’m just a soft touch). The episode certainly makes a point of dramatising people’s criticisms who unload it onto the show itself. Although, I wonder how dramatised these comments actually are, because I’ve seen some nasty remarks floating around in the comments section of YouTube videos, slating the show’s current narrative and comedic standards, but the episode’s ultimate comment (blaming the Simpsons for the subjugation of the world by alien overlords) certainly exposes the ridiculous lengths to which people’s criticism of the show reached. This kind of self- defence of the show’s integrity peaked in The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show (S08E14).

As mentioned in the previous chapter, Itchy & Scratchy is often used as a tool for creating parallels with its parent show. In The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show ratings for Itchy & Scratchy are down. ruthlessly informs the show’s producer, Roger Meyers Jr, that if the show’s ratings don’t pick up he’ll replace it with a “Chinese cartoon where the robots turn into blingwads!” Meyers then holds a focus group, in which Bart and Lisa participate, in order to find out how the show can be improved. Frustrated by the children’s opinions, he loses his temper. Lisa tries to dispel his worries by saying, “there’s not really anything wrong with the Itchy & Scratchy

Show. It’s as good as ever. But after so many years, the characters just can’t have the same impact they had once.” This is a rare moment of vulnerability for the show, in which the writers directly plea with their audience (Sloan, cited in Knox, 2008, pg. 76). The entire episode deals with the conflict between the creative writing staff and the ruthless network executives, and the difficulties of maintaining popularity, while retaining the show’s integrity, portraying neither in a positive light

((von der Goltz, 2008, pg. 191).

Roger Meyers misconstrues Lisa’s advice, and creates a new character for the show,

Poochie, whom Homer voices. The executives want a character who’s “proactive” and has

“attitude.” Though the writers, modelled on the actual Simpsons writers, disapprove of the executives use of meaningless buzzwords, their apathy allows this “by-product of committee thinking,” to make it to screen, where he is poorly received (Turner, 2004, pg. 437). 19 The show’s vendetta then shifts from the network executives to the actual fans of the show.

In a meet-and-greet prior to the The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show’s first episode, the fans

(depicted as a group of compulsive nerds) ask nit-picking questions about animation mistakes in the show. Homer responds to one of their criticisms, saying, “Why would a man whose shirt says,

‘genius at work’ spend all of his time watching a children's cartoon show?” What this comment begins to do is to undermine the indulgence of obsessively watching the show, and displays a lapse in the writers’ amicable relationship with their viewers (Knox, 2008, pg. 76/7). However, it is also self-directed. The show points a finger at itself, recognising that their highly qualified staff members’ intelligence is being wasted on writing a cartoon. The episode raises the problematic contradiction of contributing to the growth of a consumer culture that the show is simultaneously trying to subvert (Turner, 2004, pg. 438 and Knox, 2008, pg. 76).

The show’s admonishment of its fans reaches its peak when dubs The

Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show as the ‘,’ and as a loyal viewer he has the right to complain as he feels they owe him. Coming to the show’s defence, Bart refutes Comic Book

Guy’s comments by saying, “They've given you thousands of hours of entertainment for free.What could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.” The show steps out of itself here, directly addressing the tension between the production and reception of itself, with Comic Book

Guy’s criticisms embodying the fans’ general critique, and Bart’s defence functioning as a direct reply to such critiques (Knox, 2008, pg. 77).

The episode ends with Poochie being killed off, despite Homer’s sincere pleas with the executives. Lisa’s final comments that, “we should thank our lucky stars they’re still putting out a programme of this calibre after so many years,” serves as a reminder to the audience that they should be grateful that the writer’s still put effort into creating quality programming for its fans, instead of falling into the traps that the Itchy & Scratchy Show did in its attempts to prolong its . The entire episode is marked by a bitter tension between ruthless executives, arrogant 20 writers, and unappreciative fans, that strips away the usual ironic language through which the show normally communicates and speaks frankly to its audience, in a committed self-defence (Knox,

2008, pg. 77). Simone Knox’s essay, Reading the Ungraspable Double-Codedness of the Simpsons, discusses the dualism that exists within the Simpsons, and has contributed to its massive success.

This dualism, the conflict between subverting television and consumer society, while also participating in its proliferation, was touched on by Chris Turner and Carl Matheson in their respective works, with Matheson resolving that the Simpsons’ adherence to “Schmaltzy Endings” is what has allowed the show to sustain itself for twenty-seven seasons (2001, pg. 74). What these writers all understood about the Simpsons is that it has two purposes, and criticism of the show comes from an ignorance of this dualism. In The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show, the creators seek sympathy from its viewers by trying to expose the dualism in which the Simpsons function, and current criticisms of the show display that their pleas have fallen on deaf ears. !

21 Conclusion: So Everything’s Been Wrapped Up in a Neat Little Package!

Metafiction is a key component in the production of the Simpsons. In fact, it is such a key component that as I look through my research for one last time, I find myself uttering quite a lot,

“oh, I never mentioned that.” With ten thousand words, I may have been able to offer an exhaustive account of the various ways in which the Simpsons employs metafiction to analyse and watch itself.

Instead, what I have written has been a microcosm of what I have felt has been its most pertinent uses. Its primary use is to speak honestly about itself, reconstructing the wall between fiction and reality that was becoming ever less stable during its most successful years. The Simpsons knows that it is a sitcom, knows it is a cartoon, and knows that it is highly successful in both respects. But above all, it knows we know, and it doesn’t attempt to hide itself behind tropes and clichés that mimic reality. Instead it embraces its fictionality, flaunts it, and ridicules those who don’t. Its most successful instances of self-awareness are when the characters remain oblivious to the writer’s hyperaware remarks.

The show is primarily concerned with television, in a highly complex way. The Couch Gag at the beginning of each episode sets up a scenario in which we join the Simpson family as they watch themselves. This convolution of watching a screen through a screen already comments on the pervasive nature of television (and even more relevantly now, computer screens) in contemporary society. Springfield parallels the real world media scape, and through this is able to satirise television conventions by employing them in their own show. This is especially true for their mimesis of the sitcom genre. The Simpsons pays homage to the tradition of the sitcom, in which it places itself willingly. Through this homage the writers are able to compliment and criticise the genre, while displaying ways in which the show itself adheres to and refutes these conventions. At the heart of the show’s acknowledgement of itself as a sitcom and, more broadly, as a television show, is an acknowledgement of its contribution to both, and how it has revolutionised both genres.

The Simpsons often employs the conventions it is attempting to satirise by acknowledging its use. 22 Similarly, the Simpsons acknowledges itself as a cartoon. It remains in a constant flux of verisimilitude, employing cartoon conventions to tease the viewer and call attention to its own medium. Through these binaries, the show can establish its distance from its medium, and still place itself within the genre. It uses Itchy & Scratchy, the cartoon-within-a-cartoon, to establish verisimilitude within its own conventions, and also to document the history of animation, in which it can place itself.

Finally, the Simpsons acknowledges its own success and existence. Episodes such as Behind the Laughter document the show’s success in a highly ironic way that satirises the sensationalised nature of celebrity life. In unusual instances of earnestness and sincerity, the Simpsons defends its success, calling attention to the dualism that constitutes the shows mass appeal. It speaks directly to its fans by creating parallels with the Itchy & Scratchy Show, using this platform to speak frankly about the conflict and tension that arises from creating a successful TV show. In a rare moment of vulnerability, the show pleads with its fans for understanding, and scorns them for the harsh criticisms they impart. The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochie Show is an extraordinarily volatile, bitter episode, which is difficult to discuss. Each party is (rightly) chastised, and the episode ends quite obstinately, with the creator’s unapologetically defending the calibre of their work. If I did not believe in the calibre of this work, then I wouldn’t be writing this essay. And, if the calibre of this work was not universally recognised, then this would’ve been an unsuitable subject of discussion.

But here it is, on paper, a sort of proof in itself. I will not raise my glass to ten more years of success, but I will certainly look back fondly on twenty-seven years of groundbreaking, rib-tickling entertainment, and thank the network, and thank the writers, and thank you for reading.

! ! !

23 Bibliography

• Arnold, D. (2001) ‘“And the Rest Writes Itself”: Roland Barthes Watches the Simpsons,’ in Irwin,

W., Conrad, M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago:

Open Court Publishing Company, pp 150-160

• Barthes, R. (1984) ‘From Work to text” in Barthes, R. Image, Music, Text. London: Flamingo, pp.

155-164

• Cantor, P. (2001) ‘The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family,’ in Irwin, W.,

Conrad, M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago:

Open Court Publishing Company, pp 95-106.

• Conrad, M. (2001) ‘Thus Spake Bart: On Nietzsche and the Virtues of Being Bad,’ in Irwin, W.,

Conrad, M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago:

Open Court Publishing Company, pp 37-48.

• Currie, Mark (1995) Metafiction. New York: Longman

• Darley, A. (1997) ‘Second-Order Realsim and Post-Modernist Aesthetics in Computer Animation’

in Pilling, J (ed), A Reader In Animation Studies. United Kingdom: John Libbey Publishing, pp.

16-24

• Erlingur Flóki Björnsson, B. (2006) Postmodernism and The Simpsons: Intertextuality,

Hyperreality and Critique of Metanarratives. BA Thesis. University of Iceland

• Frow, J. (1990) ‘lntertextuality and Ontology,’ in Worton, M. (ed), Intertexuality: Theories and

Practices. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 45 - 55

• Hartung, L. (1999) The Bardic Function of The Simpsons, BA Thesis. National College of Art

and Design

• Hutcheon, L (1988) ‘Historiographic Metafiction: The Pastime of Past time,’ in Hutcheon, L., A

Poetics of Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction. London: Routledge

24 • Hutcheon, L (2000) (ed) A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms.

New York: Methuen

• Irwin, W. and Lombardo, J.R (2001) ‘The Simpsons and Allusion: Worst Essay Ever,’ in Irwin,

W., Conrad, M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago:

Open Court Publishing Company, pp 48-54.

• Knight, D. (2001) ‘Popular Parody: The Simpsons Meets the Crime ,’ in Irwin, W., Conrad,

M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago: Open Court

Publishing Company, pp 56-64.

• Knox, S. (2006) ‘Reading the Ungraspable Double-Codedness of The Simpsons,’ Journal of

Popular Film & Television. 34(2), pp 72-81

• Luca Erbibou (2015) The Simpsons 20th Anniversary Special – In 3-D! On Ice! Available at:

https://vimeo.com/115810811 (Accessed 25 September 2016).

• Matheson, C. (2001) ‘The Simpsons, Hyper Irony, and the Meaning of Life’ in Irwin, W., Conrad,

M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago: Open Court

Publishing Company, pp 65-75.

• McDonald, R. (2001) Intergenerational Success: Dissecting The Simpsons. B.Des Thesis.

National College of Art and Design

• McMahon, J. (2001) ‘The Function of Fiction: the Heuristic Value of Homer ,’ in Irwin, W.,

Conrad, M., and Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago:

Open Court Publishing Company, pp 129-140

• Ommundsen, W. (1993) Metafictions? Reflexivity in Contemporary Texts. Australia: Melbourne

University Press

• Ott, B. (2001) “I’m Bart Simpson, Who the Hell are You?” A Study in Postmodern Identity

(re)construction. Colorado State University. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/187655/

25 • _I_m_Bart_Simpson_Who_the_Hell_are_You_A_Study_in_Postmodern_Identity_Re_constructi

on (Accessed: 6 March 2016)

• Turner, C. (2004) ‘Introduction: Birth of the Simpsonian Institute,’ in Turner, C., Planet Simpson.

United Kingdom: Ebury Press, pp. 1-14.

• Turner, C. (2004) ‘The Simpsons Go Hollywood,’ in Turner, C., Planet Simpson. United

Kingdom: Ebury Press, pp. 381-416.

• Turner, C. (2004) ‘The Simpsons Through the Looking Glass,’ in Turner, C., Planet Simpson.

United Kingdom: Ebury Press, pp. 417-458.

• Turner, C. (2004) ‘Planet Simpson,’ in Turner, C., Planet Simpson. United Kingdom: Ebury Press,

pp. 459-471.

• http://tvtropes.org/ (Accessed 21 September 2016)

• von der Goltz, W. M. F. (2011) Functions of Intertextuality and Intermediality in The Simpsons.

PhD Thesis. University of Duisburg-Essen

• Wallace, J. (2001) ‘A (Karl, not Groucho) Marxist in Springfield,’ in Irwin, W., Conrad, M., and

Skoble, A. (ed) The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh of Homer. Chicago: Open Court

Publishing Company, pp 140-150.

• Waugh, P. (1984) Metafiction: The Theory and Practice of Self-conscious Fiction. London:

Methuen

26