As an American man in his thirties, I can, if necessary, communicate entirely in Simpsons references. But however voluminous and close at hand my knowledge of the Simpson family and their hometown of Springfield, it doesn’t extend past the 1990s. Most of my demographic can surely say the same, as can quite a few outside it: take the Irishman behind the Youtube channel Super Eyepatch Wolf, author of the video essay “The Fall of The Simpsons: How It Happened.” We both remember tuning in to the show’s debut on December 14, 1989, and how it subsequently “transformed television as we knew it” — and we’ve both lamented how, in the nearly three decades since, “one of the best and most influential TV shows of all time became just another sitcom.”
So how did it happen? To understand what made The Simpsons fall, we have to understand what put it at the top of the zeitgeist in the first place. Not only did the counterculture still exist back in the 1990s, The Simpsons quickly came to constitute its most popular expression. And as with any powerful countercultural product, it was just as quickly labeled dangerous, as anyone who grew up describing each week’s episode of the show to friends not allowed to watch it remember. Yet its “rebellious satire” and all the consequent violations both subtle and blatant of the staid conventions of mainstream American culture (especially in its purest manifestation, the sitcom) came unfailingly accompanied by “comedy grounded in character and heart.”
The fact that The Simpsons‘ first generation of writers might well revise a joke twenty or thirty times — creating the countless moments of intricately structured, multilayered verbal and visual comedy we still remember today — didn’t hurt. But even if current writers put in the same hours, they do it on a show that has long since lost touch with what made it great. While each of its characters once had “a very specific set of conflicting beliefs and motivations,” they now seem to do or say anything, no matter how implausible or absurd, that serves the gag of the moment. Celebrity guest stars stopped playing characters specially crafted for them but caricatures of themselves. Plots became bizarre. “The only thing that The Simpsons was a parody of now,” says Super Eyepatch Wolf bringing us to the present day, “was The Simpsons.”
While the show has been self-referentially acknowledging its own decline since about the turn of the millennium, that doesn’t make comparisons with its 1990s “golden age” any less dispiriting. One thinks of the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes, another generational touchstone, whose creator Bill Watterson ended it after just ten years: it still finds an audience today in part, he says, “because I chose not to run the wheels off it.” The Simpsons, by contrast, now draws its lowest ratings ever, and it would pain those of us who grew up with it as much to see it end as it does to see it keep going. But then, “entertainment isn’t meant to last forever. Rather, it’s an extension of the people and places that made it at a particular moment in time.” The Simpsons at its countercultural best will always define that moment, no matter how long it insists on running beyond it.
Related Content:
27 Movies References in The Simpsons Put Side-by-Side with the Movie Scenes They Paid Tribute To
The Simpsons Take on Ayn Rand: See the Show’s Satire of The Fountainhead and Objectivist Philosophy
The Simpsons Pay Wonderful Tribute to the Anime of Hayao Miyazaki
Based in Seoul, Colin Marshall writes and broadcasts on cities and culture. His projects include the book The Stateless City: a Walk through 21st-Century Los Angeles and the video series The City in Cinema. Follow him on Twitter at @colinmarshall or on Facebook.
I stopped regularly watching The Simpsons in the early 2000s. The video does a great job explaining why. In the 1990s The Simpsons were the analogous to the Beatles in the 60s, each episode seemed to push the boundaries of the TV format. Imagine if the Beatles had carried on for more decades, imagine the bummer of listening to a mediocre Beatles album?
However, I think there have been the occasional flashes of the genius on the newer shows, so it would be wise to not paint with a broad stroke, but in general its true of the Simpsons.
The cultural landscape has changed so much, TV is has fragmented into a state of incoherence. There needs to be a new approach to satire – one that could look to early Simpsons as a model, complex jokes that are satirical, but never airless.
I stopped regularly watching The Simpsons in the early 2000s. The video does a great job explaining why. In the 1990s The Simpsons were the analogous to the Beatles in the 60s, each episode seemed to push the boundaries of the TV format. Imagine if the Beatles had carried on for more decades, how awful to hear a mediocre Beatles album?
However, I think there’s the occasional flashes of the old genius on the newer shows, so it would be wise to not paint with such a broad stroke, but in general it is true of the Simpsons.
The cultural landscape has changed so much, TV is has fragmented into a state of incoherence. There needs to be a new approach to satire – one that could use the early Simpsons as a model, complex jokes that are satirical, but never airless.
Reply
3o years ….Wow ! And it had been a cartoon short on The Tracy Ulman Show before that . I’ve not watched the show on a regular basis – but I’m amazed and impressed its lasted – and I think the original cast ?