The Itchy and Scratchy Show: fights, fights fights.
[This is an older piece. It was first written in July 2007, and was published on my old blog. I still basically like it, so I'm moving it over here too (with a sprinkling of explanatory GIS results for that full multi-media sheen). I've tried only to edit for aesthetics and clarity, rather than argument. But I've added a footnote to take back (or modify) one particularly egregious statement.]
We all like the Simpsons, don’t we? I like the Simpsons. You like the Simpsons. Phil Jupitus loves the Simpsons, and he gets to prat about with Bill Bailey and Simon Amstell on TV every week.
Yet alongside the “Simpsons: absolute fackin’ class” cliché, there’s an almost equally prominent idea that, somewhere along the road, the show lost its way. Depending on your own personal views, the beginning of the downward spiral can be traced back to anywhere from season seven to season ten. Or even before. Or after. This post is not an attempt to mark the precise moment at which our favourite family went from being the virtually undisputed royalty of animated sitcom to also-rans in a crowded field, surviving on past glories. It is my intention only to suggest that some of the show’s negative and potentially destructive trends and attitudes can be anticipated by analysing a particular twenty-minute episode from the franchise’s history. That episode is season nine’s “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show” (original tx date, 9/2/97). The episode was notable at the time, as it represented the first time that a hugely popular television show had spent almost an entire episode acerbically addressing criticisms made by its fanbase. Written and produced at a time when internet newsgroups were beginning to take off, the episode provides some fascinating insights into the relationship between creators and viewers. It is an episode laden with meta-humour, self-reference and inside jokes. In terms of the quality of its plot and gags, the episode is basically mediocre. Some decent jokes flesh out a poor narrative, as was so frequently the case with the franchise at this point. For me, the illuminating thing about the show is what it suggests about the way in which the minds behind the Simpsons view the world of television, and more specifically how they regard their fanbase. And the fact that it is the first episode really to suggest strongly that these people (whisper it softly) just might be a bunch of cunts. Essentially, the episode’s storyline deals with the flagging ratings of the Itchy and Scratchy Show and the efforts of its producer, Roger Meyers Jr., to revive his franchise’s fortunes. After using his young fans as a sounding board, Meyers decides that the answer is to introduce a new character. Here, the network inserts itself, demanding that the new addition be a “cool” canine who will provide a much-needed “in your face” quotient of proactivity to the show. The character is an instant failure, causing outrage amongst the series’ fanbase, and is quietly and awkwardly dropped after one episode.
“Focus Group Leader: Relax…no-one from the show is here spying on you. [From behind a two-way mirror, a sneeze is heard.]” — “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show.”
David X./S. Cohen: dickfraction. Quite slim though.
“The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show” begins properly with this: the Simpsons staff announcing their arrival onto the battlefield that was the show’s newsgroup circa. 1997. A nice gag; but things soon turn nasty. The job of the focus group leader is to establish why the young fans of the Itchy and Scratchy Show no longer tune in.
“Focus Group Leader: How many of you kids would like to see Itchy and Scratchy face real-life problems like the ones you face every day?
Kids: ["Yay!", "Me!", "I would!" etc.]
Focus Group Leader: And who would like to see them do just the opposite, getting into far-out situations involving robots and magic powers?
Kids: ["Yay!", "Me!", "I would!" etc.]
Focus Group Leader: So…you want a realistic, down-to-earth show, which is completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?
Kids: ["Yay!", "Me!", "That's right!" etc.] — “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show”.
O, woe, for the comedy writer. How can he possibly be expected to deal with such conflicting, contrary demands? Except that this presents a dishonest view of reality. Yes, some Simpsons fans long for a more realistic, emotional version of our favourite family, harkening back to episodes like “Lisa’s Substitute” and “Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire”. And some other fans say “no, just give me jokes”, with little regard for either characterisation or plot. But never, really, are the two demands heard from the same mouth. Certainly, it must be difficult for a Simpsons writer to cater to such a large fanbase, containing individuals with extremely disparate views on what the animated sitcom should be all about. Though, to be glib, that’s the nature of the beast. We all know that it’s impossible to please all of the people all of the time. That’s a problem faced by all comedy writers and, indeed, by all writers. My advice to the writers at this point would have been to choose a style and stick with it. No one can take Homer seriously as a hard-working family man trying to deal with the difficulties of modern life (as in “Simpsons Roasting…”) when he is also a boorish, obnoxious twat (as in, to name just one, “Homer’s Enemy”). There’s little point in offering a sop to the fans desirous of a “realistic” sitcom in the form of a few misplaced “emotive” episodes per season. Cutting loose that style altogether would turn off a number of this subset of fans, but if the creative team genuinely felt this mode had run its course, then what else was to be done?
Primarily, so-called “hardcore” fans come in for the shellackings here. The episode seemingly revels in provoking them, making extensive use of the inconsistent characterisation and poor continuity which are chief amongst many newsgroup posters’ bugbears. The one-off character of Roy seems to exist entirely to send a message that the writers don’t care if it makes sense or not, they will use an idea regardless. Roy is apparently a reoccurring “cut to” gag that survives for twenty minutes, first anticipated by Lisa’s comment that “adding a character is often a desperate attempt to boost low ratings.” Either that, or the device serves as a vehicle for self-parody. But a little humility can hardly be said to go a long way in an episode that otherwise displays such an unprecedented degree of self-absorption. Elsewhere in the episode, Marge suddenly performs a volte-face regarding the content of the Itchy and Scratchy Show (cf. “The Day the Violence Died”), whilst Krusty appears to have contracted a severe case of bipolar disorder, or else is hepped up on goofballs. Bart suddenly has a very serious interest in the issue of a viewer’s relationship to the product he consumes, coupled with an uncharacteristically pro-authoritarian standpoint. Homer drifts about, a man without motivation, barely providing a line worth remembering in a episode which casts him as a lynchpin. Minor criticisms? I don’t think so. The point is that, when seeing together all of these niggling inconsistencies that show up in the spaceof one episode, one struggles to disagree with long-time snpp.org contributor Matthew Kurth’s view that much of the episode consisted of ‘trolling’ directed towards a certain section of the fanbase.
Gene E. Asatwork: do not become this girlfriendless loserman!!!
And to continue the message board analogy, if poor characterisation and limp narrative provided the trolling, then flaming was not in short supply. Most obviously, the scene featuring a fans’ question and answer session with Homer and the lead voice actor for …Itchy and Scratchy… served as a tabula rasa for the writers to hurl (misguided) muck against. To the left is a screen grab of that scene. Haha! Nerds! Wearing glasses! What a bunch of nerds! I wonder why the one in the middle is so portly? Probably spends all day on the computer, eh? The nerd! Once the questions start, the ‘Simpsons’ writing team seemingly lose all interest in writing comedy, in favour of just sticking the boot in.
Genius at Work: “In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy’s skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe? That this is some sort of a [scoffs, laughs] magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that one.” — “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show”.
Using production codes to identify episodes, are you? Nerd! Anyway, the real problem here is that the line is satirising an attitude which just doesn’t exist in the real world. For a long time, the nerdy, geeky, probably fat recluses at snpp.org have catalogued (many fairly minor) animation, continuity and production goofs for episodes of the show. But do any writers really think that the purpose of this is to say ‘haha, what a load of idiots the ‘Simpsons’ team are’? Because it isn’t. Snpp.org is an archive of ‘Simpsons’ information. That’s what it’s there for. As Matthew Kurth said, “I can’t speak for everyone, but I know that most of the people I know don’t take most goofs too seriously – particularly ones that aren’t integral to some failed gag.” Now, I understand the concept of hyperbole for comic effect. But I also understand the concept of missing the point entirely, and I think that that is what has occurred here. Perhaps there were some small number of fans in 1997 demanding that heads roll every time someone made a typo in the closed captioning, but I very much doubt that anyone else (even their fellow gerds and neeks) took them seriously. Certainly not seriously enough to warrant a sneering rebuttal on a nationally popular television show. Anyway, must press on.
Homer: “I’ll field this one. Let me ask you a question: why would a man whose shirt says ‘genius at work’ spend all of his time watching a children’s cartoon show.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
All ad hominem attacks aside, this quotation serves to highlight another problem with this episode. The writers appear to be slavering at the prospect of knocking down so many targets that they barely seem able to focus on one in isolation at any particular time. In the above quote, Homer is acting as the voice of scornful “sanity” (“bit of a loser aren’t you, eh?”) but also as the mouthpiece for a misconception that the writers presumably would like to demolish (i.e. that the Simpsons is a “children’s cartoon show”). It’s a hodgepodge, and it’s not especially effective. Well, apparently it is effective in the self-created dream world of the writers, where the fans know their place.
Genius at Work: [Looks sheepish]. “I withdraw my question.” [Opens up a chocolate bar and starts eating.] — “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show.”
"The internet": discourse nugatorizer.
Ha, yeah, if only it were that easy, eh? Seriously, being accused of being a bit of a nerd was all it took for Gene to drop his question? I suppose he doesn’t “get out” enough to be the butt of any tedious jokes normally. Eh, lads? More wit than is contained in the second adjacency pair, though:
Second Nerd: “Ah, excuse me, Mr. Simpson…on the Itchy & Scratchy CD-Rom, is there a way to get out of the dungeon without using the wizard key?”
Homer: “What the hell are you talkin’ about?”
I&S Voice Actor: “You’re a lifesaver, Homer, I can’t deal with these hardcore fans.” –“The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show”.
Nerds like video games. Good observation. Other than that, I fail to see the relevance. Is this some sort of supremely allegorical comment on voice actors, as the public faces of the show, being criticised or questioned about things beyond their control and field of expertise? Well, here’s a tip, alternate universe Nancy Cartwright: in this case, the best way to deal with this “hardcore fan” would have been to politely remind him that you, as a voice actor, have no real knowledge of the show’s associated merchandise. I’m sure he would’ve understood, as long as he wasn’t too busy…I dunno…operating his ham radio to listen. That scene really just acts as a teaser, though, and is positively subtle in its satirical intent compared to the scene in which Bart unleashes some egregious polemics at the Comic Book Guy.
Comic Book Guy: “Last night’s Itchy & Scratchy was without a doubt the worst episode ever. Rest assured that I was on the internet within minutes registering my disgust throughout the world”. — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
The internet! Haha! Just as an aside, all the “cor! isn’t the internet rubbish and for nerds” humour as seen in this episode has lost its safety-in-numbers sneer factor nowadays, hasn’t it? Now that the internet is just a thing that people use to do stuff.
Bart: “Hey, I know it wasn’t great, but what right do you have to complain?” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
Okay, this is where things get really dodgy. Are the ‘Simpsons’ writers seriously asking their fans how they could possibly dare to criticise the show? Looks that way. Does this point really need to even be rebutted? Well, I may as well. I have the right to ‘complain’ about the quality of a Simpsons episode for the same reasons that I have the right to praise ‘Homo Faber’ or to write meandering essays on the function of monogamy (tune in tomorrow!).[1] Americans normally can’t go five minutes without shouting ‘freedom of speech!’, so I do wonder what happened here. Of course, no fan can expect that their criticisms of the show will be taken on board or acted upon in any way. But that’s completely beside the point. Everyone has a right to say anything. Isn’t that obvious?[2]
Comic Book Guy: “As a loyal viewer, I feel they owe me.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
Ah. It’s easy to make ‘the other side’ look like a bunch of pricks with a misplaced sense of entitlement when you’re the one putting words into their mouths. Conveniently, Mr. Book Guy chooses probably the weakest, most grating defence of his criticisms possible.
Bart: “What? They’re giving you thousands of hours of entertainment for free, what could they possibly owe you? I mean, if anything, you owe them.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
What really bothers me about this exchange is its frame of reference. Suddenly, this conversation is about who owes who, about the financial side of producing and consuming entertainment. Reducing the production of culture to the provision of a service always depresses me, and always seems like the last refuge of a panicking writer attempting to deflect criticism. At this point, a line from much earlier in the show takes on a new significance.
Roger Meyers Jr: “Hey, this ain’t art, it’s business.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
I laughed at that. I thought it was a good joke. But I wonder if I misunderstood its intentions. Are we supposed to be heckling Meyers? Or laughing at his obnoxiousness whilst, on a deeper level, agreeing broadly with his opinion? And it’s hardly an original point, but the racks and racks of ‘Simpsons’ merchandise produced at every turn by the franchise (a uniquely American term, that…almost grim) beg another question: at what point does art become a product? Comic Book Guy, a man made of considerably more straw than you and I, is content to leave these questions alone, though.
Comic Book Guy: “Worst episode ever.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
Yeah, it must be frustrating for writers to read blunt and unsubstantiated criticisms of their work. But it’s hardly as if all critiques of their work from newsgroups posters were blunt and unsubstantiated. So why bother engaging with the Comic Book Guys at all? Surely it’s just an exercise in self-defence to attack the least defensible portion of a fanbase whilst ignoring those with legitimate grievances. A slimy tactic; a cunt’s trick. And an appropriate set-up for the grand finale:
Lisa: “We should thank our lucky stars that they’re still putting out a program of this calibre after so many years.” — ‘The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show’.
This analysis, delivered through the mouth of the show’s one ‘intelligent’ main character, is surely the best way of gauging the writers’ attitudes to their fanbase. And it ain’t pretty. The message is clear: turn off your minds (and your computers), dispense with your critical faculties, get down on your knees and grovel. The minds behind the ‘Simpsons’ are deities, and you…well…you’re just lucky they let you suck their product. You know, I think most fans of the show are ‘thankful’, if you want to put it like that. They appreciate the fact that people work hard on a show that, even when it has its flaws, is at least decent and worth persevering with. Although I almost shirk at the idea of feeling gratitude towards people for doing a job that they’re handsomely paid for, and that is likely far preferable to the jobs held by ninety percent of the audience. But anyway, being ‘thankful’ doesn’t preclude criticism. In fact, criticism is a sign that viewers still care. If they had given up entirely, they just wouldn’t tune in. The argument isn’t about who owes who. There are enough unthinking dolts who will laugh at Homer saying ‘d’oh’ through some kind of Pavlovian response to keep Matthew in giant Crayolas for a while yet. The Simpsons has no financial need for its ‘hardcore’ fan base…they’re too much trouble anyway, I suppose, in that they aren’t willing to shut up and swallow whatever they’re given. But this isn’t a business, it is art. And if your idea of creativity is different spray patterns of vomit onto the same canvas week in and week out, don’t be too surprised if people start to take issue.
Let them Eat Shit: Contemporary Reactions.
The first time I watched “The Itchy and Scratchy and Poochie Show” critically was about a year ago.[3] At the time, I really didn’t bother looking around for contemporary reactions to the episode. I just thought ‘oh, fuck off’ and left it at that. As I’m writing for an audience now (hello, Jack) I suppose I’ll put my fedora on and do some investigating. (And by ‘investigating’, I mean going to snpp.org and having at look at the comments from some of the regular contributors.) For me, the most stunning thing was how many of the comments run like this: “An unrelenting attack on the internet fanbase! Long overdue! Maybe I should be outside with a crate of laqers and a roll of chill pills instead! Five gold stars!” First in the dock is Jonathan S. Haas.
An snpp.org contributor: the "after" shot.
“I fear that the portrayal of the fans in this episode was a little too on-target. Maybe we’re a bit too much like the guys at the autographing session. And, well, here I am on the Internet within minutes, registering my opinion throughout the world.” — Jonathan S. Haas, snpp.org.
Yeah, you really should be ashamed of having logged onto the internet within minutes to register your opinion throughout the world. Not because to do so is inherently shameful. But because your ‘oh, you rotters…really got us good!’ opinion is fucking ridiculous. The snpp.org contributors are not like the guys at the autograph session. They don’t get insanely worked up about minor technical glitches; they merely report them, largely in a disinterested fashion. Neither do they obnoxiously hassle the show’s creators with irrelevant queries.
“They don’t owe us a darnded [sic] thing. They’ve given us hundreds of hours of entertainment for free, and if anything, we owe them.” — Jonathan S. Haas, snpp.org.
“Must…unquestioningly…toe…party…line…” Josh Hancock wastes less energy in being wrong:
“…a long-overdue slam at people who criticize the show.” — Josh Hancock, snpp.org
I won’t bother…couldn’t make it sound any dodgier. Meanwhile, Matt Rose skips straight to the fellatio:
“WELL DONE WRITERS! That was a big time slap in the face to all the show’s “fans” who keep ripping it to shreds. I no have no doubt in my mind that they really do read what we are all saying. So let me say this: That was brilliant.” — Matt Rose, snpp.org.
Steady on, Matt, you’ll still have to fill in an application for the position of ‘David S. Cohen’s personal rent boy’ just like everyone else. Nice use of the inverted commas to encapsulate “fans” as well…of course, we all know that real fans would never entertain the idea of thinking anything in the least bit critical about the show. He also ends on this rather marvellous piece of foreshadowing:
“The best trend I have seen in recent episodes is all of the show’s references to itself.” — Matt Rose, snpp.org.
Is that what yer want? ‘Cos that’s what’ll ‘appen. Ten years on, I imagine Matt’s cup absolutely runneth over.
“This episode talks directly to those people that write into this page with stupid and irrelevant comments and observations like the comments made by the nerds in the picture signing that [H]omer had.” — Blaine Moller, snpp.org
Let me rephrase that for you. “This episode talks directly to a minor subset of an online fanbase who barely deserve to be taken seriously, whilst also espousing some extremely cuntish rhetoric about the more reasonable portions of said fanbase’s right to criticise the show freely.”
“Lay off the negativity and enjoy the humor. Classic Simpsons humor, Great episode as usual!” — Blaine Moller, snpp.org
I hear that Mr. Moller’s show reviews after this week simply consisted of this comment repeated several times and punctuated at the end by a row of three smiley faces. Let’s just summarise the course of events, shall we? 1) Fans criticise some elements of a popular TV show. 2) Said TV show produces an episode with the sole purpose of sneering at said fans. 3) Large number of said fans, spurred on by the revulsion of supposed self-recognition, retract all critcisms and fall in line again. Easy process really. After all, if you criticise the episode, then you’re just like the Comic Book Guy. And he’s a loser.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
[1] Both of these posts materialised at “Shouting at People in Pubs”. Neither was much good.
[2] The last couple of sentences here make me cringe now, and I certainly laid down my claim to “a right to say anything” a long time ago (I’m surprised I would even have used a formulation like this in 2007, really). But the point as relates to this thing that I said is sound, so I’ll leave it in. Archaeology project & all that.
[3] So about four years ago now; in 2006, apparently. I don’t remember this previous watching any more.
.ONE WRITERS! That was a big time slap in the face to all the show’s “fans” who keep ripping it to shreds. I no have no doubt in my mind that they really do read what we are all saying. So let me say this: That was brilliant.” — Matt Rose, snpp.org.
