Saturday, February 20, 2010

Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

In "Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence", Douglas Rushkoff takes a look at how a show like The Simpsons is more than what it seems. It would appear that Rushkoff has followed along the same lines with his title. Rushkoff does not believe that Bart Simpson is simply irreverent, rather, "Bart embodies youth culture's ironic distance from media its willingness to disassemble and resplice even the most sacred cultural and ideological constructs" (Rushkoff 245). In other words, Bart is disrespectful, but it isn't without reason-he's the voice of a very prominent culture. Rushkoff explains this by saying that Bart can easily be written to take a current event in society and change it or point out its flaws (Rushkoff 245), which often engages the audience and satisfies a growing societal trend towards being skeptical. Furthermore, the writers of The Simpsons often use the show to demonstrate the various biases we are bombarded with on a daily basis. This approach is especially evident in the episode in which Bart creates Timmy O'Toole. In short the episode is about the age-old warning tale of "crying wolf"; however the spin in the story is that the media is criticized for not taking interest when the story is actually true (Rushkoff 251). The arena of advertising is also another common target for the show. In an episode mimicking the Super bowl it becomes clear that companies, especially the beer companies capitalize on the event (Rushkoff 249). Rushkoff believes that as The Simpsons sends out messages showing how people can be manipulated that they will become more aware that; they will be able to watch something or see an advertisement and really look at it critically- questioning its intentions and the quality of the information. The Simpsons is a great example of how some Television shows are diverting from the typical path of hypnotizing their viewers and are instead embracing dialogue that helps society become more cynical of television today.

If Rushkoff read Antonio Peacocke's article, "Family Guy and Freud", he would agree with her that Family Guy does try to show the flaws in the media and society but he would disagree that they go about it in the same way. He would say that The Simpsons is more sophisticated and subtle in pointing out taboos in society. Family Guy may attempt to convey the same ideas, but it does so in a more blatant and, often times, more vulgar way. Family Guy is a much more aggressive show that can sometimes send the wrong message. Often, the show has run into problems crossing the line. Rushkoff would also argue that The Simpsons is a far more layered format that enables it to be viewed and enjoyed by people of all ages on many different levels.

If Rushkoff were to read Dana Stevens' article "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box", he would agree that watching television shows probably doesn't make you smarter; however they may make you more aware. Such shows may not make you more intelligent in the sense of common knowledge but they give you some tools to think beyond what you are watching to see the message that the writers are trying to send. He would also agree that there are many shows out there that do nothing to benefit the viewer except entertain them in a hypnotic fashion. He would say that shows like The Simpsons are still created for pleasure but they can also yield more than just time to relax.

Works Cited

Peacocke, Antonio. “Family Guy and Freud” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box” Comp. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say I Say with Readings. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 182. Print.

13 comments:

  1. I really like how you explained how Rushkoff would respond to Antonio Peacocke's article. Family Guy and The Simpsons are both similar in the messages they convey, but Family Guy crosses the "comfortable" line a lot with the jokes the show uses. It seems like a lot of shows, especially kid targeted shows are throwing in political and media related jokes now. Have you seen Spongebob Square Pants lately?!

    You did a good job explaining what the article means/is about in the first paragraph, but I am a little lost to as what the actual thesis is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really like how you explained how Rushkoff would respond to Antonio Peacocke's article. Family Guy and The Simpsons are both similar in the messages they convey, but Family Guy crosses the "comfortable" line a lot with the jokes the show uses. It seems like a lot of shows, especially kid targeted shows are throwing in political and media related jokes now. Have you seen Spongebob Square Pants lately?!

    You did a good job explaining what the article means/is about in the first paragraph, but I am a little lost to as what the actual thesis is.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry for the double post! It told me to try again...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think your group did a nice job writing this post! While reading this, I started thinking about how cartoons like the Simpons (and Family Guy) have their own way sending messages to the viewers about our culture. Cartoons sure have changed a lot over the years. I don't think many cartoon shows in the past were so engaged in the "real world", but they were more cute, innocent and funny! Today, as your post suggests, we get a lot more than just entertainment from these shows. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I like your post. It was very similar to ours (which was family guy)! You used quotes well. You stated the argument well. I like how you incorporated the other authors work into it, also. It's funny how we all just watch these shows and don't think outside the box for the most part - we just kind of like them and don't know why. These articles helped us look into it a bit more! Nice work!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really liked this post, it was written very well. It was easy to read, and I could see the author’s points and your points. You backed up your facts, and explain everything in excellent detail. I liked how you compared Family Guy and the Simpsons, because they are very similar when they make references to things going on in the world and I agree with you that the Simpsons do it in a more tasteful way than Family Guy does.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I liked your post; I found it to be very informative on what Rushkoff thought about the Simpsons. “They will be able to watch something or see an advertisement and really look at it critically- questioning its intentions and the quality of the information.” I used a quote from your blog because the whole time I was reading it I kept thinking that since the beginning of time people have used stories, fairy tales, and cartoons to send messages to children, and I think the Simpsons can have a moral to the story sometimes, and it is a good way to grab your attention. Jody

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Your synopsis of the article was very good. I really liked the explanation of what the author was saying about what was good, or interesting, about Bart's irreverence on the show. You also made great points as to how the show Family Guy’s intentions are enacted differently from The Simpsons intentions with humor. However, one thing I don’t agree with is how you say some TV shows are diverting from the typical path of hypnotizing viewers to help society become more cynical. It may be true that shows have more of an agenda to how they want the viewers to react, but it does not follow that they are trying to make us more cynical of TV today.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lynnae, I think you bring up a great point. Perhaps we should have said cynical of the world around us rather than just T.V. because I think I don't believe that it is directed solely at T.V.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting point of view on how you would think the author would respond to the article, "Thinking outside the idiot box." In reading you intro I thought it was a bit lengthy but interesting to say the least. As one of the non-watchers of the "Simpsons", I would have to say that in reading this article I might now give it a more open minded shot. Great job on keeping my interest throughout, I have had a small change of heart after reading this essay as well as others about television not being so negative.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I enjoyed reading this post! I think you guys did a great job and thought it was very informative. You did a great job stating the argument and you backed up what you said. You did a great job explaining what the article is about and what it means. I would also like to add that Rachel's comment is an interesting one. It seems that more and more jokes are making their way into children's television shows and movies. When I go to a movie with my young cousins, most of the time it is the adults laughing because the kids are too young to pick up on the subtle jokes. You guys did a great job!

    ReplyDelete