Both of the episodes of The Simpsons and Twin Peaks we viewed could be considered postmodern. What facets of these shows speak to the concepts of postmodernism as explored by Storey, Baudrillard, and Jameson? How does postmodern theory help understand these examples of popular culture or our society at large? What are the limitations of this approach?
Theories of Popular Culture
Class blog for AMST0355, Spring 09, Middlebury College
I have to say that I was pretty confused by the Buadrillard reading – but I guess I’ll take a crack at it anyway…
In the section “The Divine Irreference of Immages” Baudrillard is talking about the simulation and representation of imaages and comes up with the following list about the successive phases of an image:
– it is the reflection of a basic reality;
– it masks and perverts a basic reality;
– it masks the absence of a basic reality;
– it bears no relation to any reality whatsoever: it is its own pure simulacrum
in the artilce Baudrillard is talking about religious imagery but after reviewing the list it seems that it can also be applied to The Simpson’s as well – for example –
The Simpson’s is a reflection of a basic reality – the show is about the lives of a family that lives in a town in America
the show also perverts a basic reality – it is an animated show and many times things that could not actually happen in real life do happen on the show.
The Simpson’s masks the absence of a basic reality – for 18 minutes or so that the show is playing – the viewer also in a way lives in the reality of the show with the characters
finally – The Simpson’s bears no relation to any reality whatever – examples of this are the opening couch scene before every episode and the fact that most of the time whatever happens in one episode usually has no bearing on the next – for exemple if one episode ends with Homer fired – at the start of the next episode he will have his job back.
As I said above I was a bit confused by the reading but I think that this might make sense…thoughts?
I agree with Charlie on the inherent incomprehensible nature of postmodernism, but I don’t think that’s because the theories are particularly dense—I think it’s because no one actually knows what it means It’s a word that is thrown around, as Storey point out, in all medium and all levels of “high culture,” especially in the academic realm. I suppose that’s my major issue with postmodernism as a theory in general: according to theorists EVERYTHING is postmodern and no one can definitely lay a finger on the essential element to postmodernism. I don’t know, maybe that’s the point.
Ok, end rant.
I’m not going to address “Twin Peaks” because I feel that it was covered pretty thoroughly in the introduction, but in terms of “The Simpsons” episode, I saw its “postmodernism” in terms of its economic and pastiche commentary. According to Baudrillard, “it is no longer possible to separate the economic or productive realms of ideology or culture, since cultural artifacts, images, representations, even feelings and psychic structures have become part of the world of the economic.” In the spin-off episode, all the vignettes followed strict formulas (police drama, romantic sitcom, variety show) proven to make money. Troy McClure even admitted that the spin-off genre is explicitly designed to cash in on an already profitable product. It is this mimicry and and imitation that also harkens to the pastiche; however, I do believe that the creators of “The Simpsons” were aware of the parody aspect of the episode.
Baudrillard’s description of the nostalgic as a realm of simulacrum helps to understand characterization in Twin Peaks. Throughout the show, the audience is introduced to characters who are new to the story world, but nonetheless feel familiar. The example that immediately comes to mind is Hawk. I don’t know any Native American officers, but having seen enough westerns I can attest to the “authenticity” of his portrayal. To me, he is simultaneously a caricature and a real person – in other words, hyper-real. Ben Horne is another good example: he is how we would like to imagine the capitalist crooks in our society; his character rings true even though we may not identify him with any empirical contact in our lives.
I see the Simpson’s spin-off showcase episode as postmodern in the sense that it eschews any pretension to depict reality. It implicitly undermines its own medium – that being an animated television program – by explicitly addressing the audience and admitting the blatant commercial incentives as the true reason behind the show’s production. Its parody is palpable, especially during the moment of the ‘variety show’ spin-off when the announcer laconically explains Lisa’s absence. They employ the most crafted, superficial member of the Simpson’s cast – Troy McClure – as a vehicle for explicating this concept. Further, the Simpson family periodically makes cameos thereby alluding to the show’s more conventional origins (i.e. Springfield). These cameos functioned to relocate all previous Simpsons episodes within this realm of blatant commercial incentive.
Jameson’s discussion of pastiche and Baudrillar’s notion of hyperrealism are the two facets of postmodernism that stuck with me after watching this week’s screening. In both episodes, there is a cheesy style that constantly references other cultural works and builds the episode around these references. Nothing looks original and everything feels unreal and corny. In both episodes, characters do not seem genuine as their appearance and/or stories resemble those of previous works (as the narrator at the beginning of the Simpsons episode clearly explains). Everything is a copy of another thing that lacks the soul.
I forgot to delete the “of another thing” part of the last sentence of this post. I was going to say:
Everything is a ‘copy that lacks the soul’ as Baudrillar suggests in his discussion of simulacrum. Sorry for the confusion.
What a fantastic chapter!!!!
As people have hinted, “The Simpsons Spinoff Showcase” seems like a good example of Jameson’s idea of pastiche, and a pretty good example of his general idea of the vileness of postmodern cultural products, at least on a superficial level. In true postmodern fashion, though, the episode seems both to parody the blatantly commercial practices of a postmodern medium like television and act as an example of these practices. Yeah. I think.
On the other hand, the nature of truth in Twin Peaks seems like it’s taken right out of Baudrillard’s writing on simulacra. The layers of truth and falsity are infinite and indistinguishable, telling us that “the distinction between the two has become less and less important”. Again, in postmodern fashion, the show partakes in this practice of blurring the line between real and imaginary AND, in doing it so self-consciously, simultaneously comments on this same practice.
All this crazy stuff brings to the surface some of those important questions that I haven’t really been able to articulate…..such as, without rambling on too much about this stuff (which I still can articulate that well) the question of “What’s next?” What will be postmodernism’s counter-movement, and when will it arrive?? Is it possible to react to this, to turn back to something a little less chaotic and terrifying, or is the postmodern condition, like, IT? Is this “IT”? Sorry. These are better things for me to be saying out loud, in class. All I can say is that this chapter was really something.
Also:
Ecclesiastes: “The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth–it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.”
Holy shit! Since when does the Bible say such kick-ass things?!? And how come they were onto this 2000 years ago and it’s just coming back around now??
In his discussion of so-called “nostalgia films,” Jameson points out that don’t even strive for realism. Instead, they “always make do with certain myths and stereotypes about the past.”
But I think this point can be applied to the Simpsons episode equally as well. Take the “Wiggum P.I” spin-off for example. The fake show makes a big deal of the fact that it is set in New Orleans. But the “New Orleans” we are shown is incredibly stereotypical. Mardi-Gras on Bourbon street. A fan boat chase on the bayou. The fat creole chef serving crawfish. Alligators. These are all the first thing that come to mind when people think of New Orleans, but they bare little resemblance to the “real” New Orleans. The stolen governor’s mansion floating in the middle of swamp also perpetuates the myth of the bayou as a mysterious place where things disappear.
Jameson then goes on to say that representations of other representations (simulations) replace real history with the history of “aesthetic” styles. Troy McClure is not in a museum of history (or even art for that matter), but a museum of film and television.
Take the “Simpsons Smile Time Variety Hour” for example. It is a spin-off of the 70s sketch comedy variety show. We know it’s the 70s because of the bell-bottom jeans embroidered with stars, the colorful broad striped set with flashing lights, and of course the funky bass heavy music. But there is more to the 70s than just fashion and music – this is a perfect example of how real history can be reduced to styles and the pop culture of that time (which Jameson no doubt sees as vast oversimplification of what that time in history was really like).
The question now is how do we read this episode – is it pastiche or poignant parody? In his discussion of Twin Peaks (via the intro), Jim Collins talks about the shows oscillation between different tones. But I think we can look at the Simpsons as oscillating between pastiche and parody as well.
Twin Peaks, as Storey suggests, may be the ultimate in postmodernism. Lynch’s background as an avant-garde filmmaker with Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, and Blue Velvet already under his belt do not make him an ideal candidate for a network TV show. His early work is intentionally off-putting and rejects even the modernist conventions of the art film.
Twin Peaks takes this a step further by hiding Lynch’s signature disturbing style behind the pastiche of television. An entirely avant-garde show would never find enough viewers, but a boring soap opera would never pass muster with Lynch. Therefore he found a middle ground: a compelling mystery story with enough conventional elements to satisfy network standards. However, the hyperrealism of using genre conventions is strongly juxtaposed with the casual weirdness of many characters. I plan on watching more of Twin Peaks and hope to follow just how weird the show can get, as well as following the central question of who killed Laura Palmer.
I found Jameson’s discussion of culture as pastiche to be applicable on two levels to the episode of The Simpsons. On the one hand, as noted by other commenters, the spin-offs are just blank copies of the several other cop shows and romantic sitcoms and variety shows. The unoriginality of the spin-offs is exaggerated, though, so the show comes of as parody rather than pastiche.
At the same time, The Simpsons as a series can be seen as pastiche. I don’t really agree with this, but I think the Homer character can be seen as just a recycled Archie Bunker (and I’m sure several other similar characters), although the similarities here are far less overt than they are between the spin-offs and their respective genres.
The main idea that I take away from the readings on postmodernism is that, as a philosophical outlook, it denies certainty. Everything is questioned, nothing is taken for granted. This creates a heightened sense of self-awareness and self-consciousness. I think that, in general, people tend to be uncomfortable with uncertainty and doubt.
This questioning self-awareness manifests itself in the intertexuality of shows like the Simpsons and Twin Peaks. They present “representations of representations”. I believe Jameson and Baudrillard’s pessimistic view of postmodernism is related to the unease they feel with the movement’s inherent uncertainty. Uncertainty, for them, means that everything is arbitrary and meaningless; there are no standards or rules. This trend of intertextuality, for Jameson, signals a lack of creativity.
I think that Storey sees the value of shows like the Simpsons and Twin Peaks which call attention to conventions thereby empowering the viewer while simultaneously providing pleasure. Rather than seeing the Simpsons as a commodity that reinforces capitalist domination, one can see the show as an agent for an egalitarian agenda, erasing the arbitrary distinctions between high and low art. In this sense, postmodernism can serve to expose the meaninglessness on which hierarchies of race, class, gender, etc., are built upon.
Something I noticed while watching Twin Peaks was the melodramatic elements of the reception of the death of Laura Palmer, especially since it was thrown in our face in the first 10 minutes of the show. I also noticed the kooky aspects of just about many of the characters, including Agent Cooper and fact that everyone appears to have a “serious” affair and relationship with each other. I feel tat Lynch is playing with previous themes and melodrama and combining them with a quirky style that works on what “pastiche” and innovation at the same time, being campy and serious at the same time.
The Simpsons Spin-off Showcase appears to walk a line as well. It reproduces similar TV show themes, in order to prove that there are many stereotypes and copies out there, and it does so through the use of parody, in describing the typical features of a cop show, and even a variety show. The Simpsons becomes a copy, that is never their real form, and this can be seen with the fact that their own Lisa Simpson is replaced.
I also wonder if postmodernism theorists are trying to say that nothing is real new and that everything is a mesh of the past, like the constant focus on nostalgia and parody. But then again, I figure that meshing pieces of art together and providing a take on it with a bit of personal innovation/style created something new altogether.