Sunday 31 March 2019

To The Most Beautiful Moment In Life (Jacques' Demented Mirror Monologue)

 
It's been a productive March, so let's round it off with something short and sweet. If you know just two nuggets of behind-the-scenes information about "Life on The Fast Lane", then odds are that they consist of the following -  a) in earlier versions of the script, Jacques was written as Swedish and his name was Bjorn (his sport of preference was also tennis, not bowling), but was made French at the suggestion of his voice actor Albert Brooks, who pointed out that the seductive Frenchman archetype offered a lot more comedic potential (the episode's alternate title, "Jacques To Be Wild", is a nod to his original identity, which would have entailed the title "Bjorn To Be Wild"), and b) most of Jacques' dialogue was improvised by Brooks, including his infamous, accent-less "Four onion rings!" bit. According to this episode's DVD commentary there was about three hours' worth of ad-libbing from Brooks that never made into the episode, although a selection of this did eventually see the light of day as a special feature on the Season 1 DVD box set. There, we get roughly three minutes and forty-five seconds' worth of unused material, which is considerably less than the fabled three hours, but still extremely precious. A sizeable chunk of that is devoted to an entire monologue improvised by Brooks for the sequence in which we see Jacques talking to his own reflection at the Fiesta Terrace (which also happens to be the last we see of him in the episode in question - more's the pity).


In the episode proper, this is a relatively brief sequence, with Jacques' sizzling titillation whittled down to the fine, highly quotable remark: "To the most beautiful moment in life...better than the deed, better than the memory - the moment of anticipation!" I love what Brooks came up with here, however, as it suggests a side to Jacques that seems frankly slightly demented. Thus, I've taken the liberty of transcribing it here for your reading pleasure:

"This is the most beautiful moment in life – a man who has just showered, who is staring at himself, being honest about his prowess...A man who has applied the proper amount of toilet water to his chin....A man who has sprayed his mouth, so his teeth smell like chocolate mints...
Here we go, Jacques, the stage is set…the audience is in…they have finished their orange drink…the orchestra has started to play…a homosexual-looking man has come out on the stage*…let the play begin! The stage is set…the curtain rises…the overture swells…wha - SIT DOWN, FAT WOMAN! I hate late people in my fantasy! Now, as the lights are out…I shall win…A TONY!
I bought too much cologne…I can’t return it…isn’t there a law you can’t return this stuff if you open it? I’ll put on a lot and maybe I will never have to put it on again. That would be wonderful, wouldn’t it, Jacques? Something where you could put it under your skin and it would deliver just the right amount of cologne all day long. You would always smell like you owned a lot of little poodles!**
To the most beautiful moment in life…better than the deed, better than the memory – the application of lipstick to a man! Hmm…too red. Perfect! The stage is set! The curtain rises! The overture swells…THE APARTMENT’S ON FIRE!!!"

* Err...pun intended?
** Incidentally, Jacques does own a poodle - we see it in the Season 2 episode "Bart's Dog Gets An F".

Tuesday 26 March 2019

Simpson and Delilah (aka You Are So Beautiful To Me)


So, when I spoke about "Life on The Fast Lane" earlier this month, I noted that there is a clever continuity nod in a later episode in which we see that Jacques has joined forces with Princess Kashmir, Lurleen Lumpkin and Mindy Simmons to form a bowling team called The Home-Wreckers. Their team name is a snide allusion to the one thing that all of these characters have in common - namely that by being their good-looking, charismatic selves, they each created a marital crisis for Marge and Homer, potentially triggering the breakdown of the Simpson household and the demolition of the series' status quo. In other words, each of these ostensibly harmless-looking characters is a walking apocalypse. Jacques, though, is the only one who approached things from Marge's end. The three women all had their sights set on Homer.* Which does call attention to just how unbalanced the tables are in this equation. Whereas Jacques represented a rare opportunity for Marge to have an extramarital relationship, we've seen the boot on the other foot with surprising frequency. Actually, it's probably only proper that we rule out Kashmir, given that she was technically just doing her job and there was never any hint of genuine attraction between herself and Homer, but Lurleen and Mindy were blatantly infatuated with him. Despite his never being played up as much of a prize catch, it seems there are multiple girls in Springfield who think that Homer is teh sexy. Heck, Edna Krabappel even hit on him in "Flaming Moe's", but then I'm guessing that she was very, very drunk at the time (given that she didn't appear to recognise Homer at all).

Marge being tempted to have an affair vs Homer being tempted to have an affair is, of course, an apples to oranges situation. I don't believe that anyone could reasonably have judged Marge if she had decided to go the full mile with Jacques, considering all she has to put up with from her oaf of a husband. With Homer it's an entirely different ball game, as he is lucky to have Marge and deep down inside he's painfully aware of that. There's not really anything Marge could conceivably do that could drive Homer to seek fulfillment elsewhere. So any episode in which Homer's loyalties to Marge are tested does have to play it very, very carefully, depicting Homer as either largely oblivious to his predicament (as with Lurleen, where Homer's attraction to the struggling country singer seemed to be happening on a subconscious level) or completely eaten up inside by it (as with Mindy). Still, long before Lurleen and Mindy entered the picture, I would argue that there was an episode in which we saw vague hints of Homer's affections extending beyond Marge and onto an altogether different target, and the situation was as innocent and endearing as could be. That episode is "Simpson and Delilah" (7F02), the second episode of Season 2, which received its first airing on October 18th 1990. This episode sees Homer resort to a tiny bit of under-the-table creativity with the nuclear power plant's medical insurance policy in order to reap the benefits of Dimoxinil, a baldness cure which really gets results. Equipped with a freshly-replenished head of hair, Homer discovers a newfound confidence and zest for living, but nevertheless feels intimidated when his handsome, energetic exterior earns him a promotion to the position of junior executive, a role his fragile interior feels ill-prepared for. That is until a fiery personal assistant, Karl, enters into the picture and attempts to teach Homer that he is entirely deserving of his new station in life.

A certain chemistry develops between Homer and Karl, although it happens at such a low level that Homer himself probably never even registers it as such. And Marge certainly never cottons on. We do see traces of spousal jealousy rearing its head during a scene where Homer telephones Marge to report that his search for a personal assistant isn't going so well, openly admitting that all of the applicants thus far have been flirtatious young temptresses. It dawns on Marge that Homer having his own secretary could well prove detrimental to their marriage later on down the line, so when she hears the next applicant enter and notes a male voice, she insists that Homer hire him, thinking him a safe bet. The joke being, of course, that Karl speaks with the fervid, gravelly vocals of Harvey Fierstein, which acts as a pretty clear shorthand as to his sexual orientation. Marge assumes she's dodged a bullet and in a way, she's right. This was 1990, baby, and the prospects of any explicit two-way homosexual interaction in a primetime sitcom were basically zero. But as Gladys Knight and The Pips assure us, love finds its own way, and Homer and Karl enjoy an emotional tightness that goes right above Marge's towering beehive.

Like Jacques, there is an air of unreality about Karl, in that he seems just a little too perfectly tailored to suit the needs of the individual Simpson for whom he develops an affinity. Just as Marge needs someone who's exciting, romantic and willing to shower her with devotion, Homer needs someone who'll talk him up at every turning and is altruistic enough to cover for his numerous indiscretions. But unlike Jacques (or Kashmir, Lurleen or Mindy for that matter), Karl is not an aspiring Home-Wrecker; to the contrary, he takes it as his personal duty to help prop up Homer and Marge's marriage by sending a singing telegram with a bouquet of roses to Evergreen Terrace to account for the wedding anniversary he (accurately) foresees Homer forgetting. Although Karl clearly has enormous affection for Homer, he's so selfless and wonderful that he'd far sooner channel that affection into maintaining Homer's current picture of domestic bliss instead of attempting to win Homer over to himself. In fact, Karl is selfless and wonderful to the point where he doesn't quite seem human - there are numerous points throughout the episode where he could have revealed that he was really Homer's guardian angel all along and I honestly could have bought it.

This depiction of a LGBT character as an almost super-human force of good in an otherwise cold and judgemental world is, on the one hand, extremely touching, and remarkably bold and progressive for its time, but it does provide ample grounds for criticism, as we can see from Nathan Rabin's review of the episode on The AV Club. Rabin notes that Karl is a tremendously positive representation of a queer character in many regards - "the smartest, most capable and efficient character in this episode, if not in the series as a whole" - but he also accuses the episode of falling into the trap of making Karl "the gay equivalent of the Magical Negro archetype: the sexless gay martyr/sidekick", in that he "has no agenda of his own. He exists solely to help a hapless heterosexual character learn life lessons." In some respects, this is entirely typical of the decade we were then entering, for the 1990s was a time when whatever visibility homosexuality was gaining in the mainstream media tended to be skewed through a distinctively heterosexual lens. Gays were usually there, at worst, to inspire panic in straight characters or, at best, to be colourful sidekicks cheering on their heterosexual friends (Rupert Everett's character in the 1997 film My Best Friend's Wedding is a good example of the latter). The needs and interests of the gay community were seldom at the forefront of mainstream entertainment, as these were not thought to concern heterosexual audiences. Thus, the implicit tragedy of Karl's predicament, his "unrequited, frankly unfathomable crush on Homer" in the words of Rabin, is downplayed entirely, and his unflinching altruism could just as readily be viewed as emblematic of his having no needs and interests beyond assisting Homer (the closest we get to learning about Karl's wider, non-Homer interests is in the fleeting reference to his friendship with the girls in the typing pool).

I think that Rabin is half-right, in that Karl seems entirely resigned to the fact that his own sexual preferences preclude him from any genuine first-hand gratification. He seems content in living out his own affections for Homer vicariously through Homer's marriage to Marge, as if a gay man's only taste of a traditional lifestyle comes in experiencing it second-hand by observing a heterosexual relationship from afar. I think that Rabin's at least somewhat wrong, however, in describing Karl's crush on Homer as unrequited. I mean, there's a pretty obvious Freudian slip when Homer goes to hug Marge, after accepting Karl's gesture of the singing telegram, and declares, "I love you, Karl!", before hastily correcting himself. Clearly, Homer does reciprocate Karl's affections. Am I seriously suggesting that Homer is secretly gay and that his marriage to Marge is all a big charade? Nothing so radical, although as I see it Homer does develop a strong attachment to Karl, one that almost seems to supersede his affections for Marge, and yet one that's equally as chaste and asexual as can possibly be. And one that can only really be lived out vicariously, within the safe confines of his relationship to Marge (poor Marge effectively ends up being an unwitting proxy throughout the entire episode). And let's not forget that Homer and Karl actually do kiss at the end, and that it's a tremendously glorious moment. There's a sort of double-edgedness to the characters' interactions that seems aware and entirely accepting of the limitations of this set-up while being equally determined to push it just slightly beyond the expected boundaries, with that gutsy (albeit entirely asexual) man-on-man kiss being the culmination. In the end, the real implicit sadness of Karl's relationship with Homer comes in the tantalising glimpse it gives as to what might have been. For what might have been is all that it can be, something the episode both takes as a given and, as that triumphant kiss would imply, seems a smidgen wistful over.


Of course, it is the jealous machinations of a jilted romantic that provides our main source of antagonism and ultimately spells an end to Homer and Karl's professional relationship, although that romantic has stakes in a different relationship altogether, one that happens to intersect with our hero's. The grand irony of "Simpson and Delilah" is that as we have one LGBT character who's great and amazing and holding Homer together throughout the episode, it's another LGBT character who all the while insists upon throwing a spanner into Homer's gears. Although Homer's downfall is ultimately caused by Bart accidentally depleting his entire supply of Dimoxinil, causing his hair growth to recede, Waylon Smithers makes a number of attempts to cut Homer down throughout the episode, culminating in an underhanded bid to have Homer fired once he's able to dig up sufficient dirt on him. This is because he recognises that Burns' increasing enthusiasm for Homer represents a threat to his own personal status as Burns' right-hand man, and that status is all that Smithers has going for him in life.

One of the really startling things about "Simpson and Delilah", in retrospect, is that it does show an uncharacteristically mean and vindictive side to Smithers, who not only actively conspires against Homer but revels in any opportunity he gets to make Homer feel small. This is one of the very few episodes (if not the only episode) in which Smithers is portrayed as a straight-up villain, as opposed to the sober yin to Burns' raging yang, as Burns himself so aptly put it in "Blood Feud", the Season 2 finale. Later episodes would cement Smithers as an extremely mild-mannered guy whose docile, non-threatening demeanor provided the perfect foil to Burns' unbridled tyranny. In fact, "Blood Feud" sees Smithers putting his career and personal standing with Burns on the line in order to help Homer, so you could say that by the end of the season we'd seen his characterisation come full cycle. For now though, he's not above resorting to some seriously ugly tactics in order to drive a potential rival for Burns' affections from his territory. When I think about it, it's a shame that he and Karl end up on conflicting sides in this equation, as the two characters actually have a lot in common and would probably be great friends under the right circumstances. They're both miraculously dedicated personal assistants who would unquestionably give their lives to protect the bosses they love so dearly. When Karl claims responsibility for Homer's insurance fraud there's a moment where Smithers indirectly asks him why he has chosen to protect Homer, to which Karl responds, "My reasons are own" - touching, if not a little ironic given that Smithers is the one character who would certainly understand. Although Smithers technically "wins" at the end of the episode, what he ends up with is the reinstatement of a relationship that's paradoxically his entire world but also sad and stifling, for his infatuation with Burns is entirely unrequited and he's long resigned himself to the fact that getting to assist Burns must be the reward in its own right. Smithers is Rabin's gay martyr/sidekick to a truly tragic degree (although the one thing Smithers is not is sexless - he's allowed to have a kinky fantasy life about Burns).

Overall, "Simpson and Delilah" is ambiguous as to just how much authentic talent Homer exhibits during his short-lived tenure as junior executive. Yes, he is exceedingly dependent on Karl (but then Burns can't even function without Smithers, so it seems unfair to penalise him for that much) and Smithers probably does make a valid point when he argues that the decreased number of accidents and increased productivity around the plant since Homer's promotion could just as likely have to do with Homer's removal from the plant floor. And yes, he does pronounce résumé as "resume". Then there's Homer's tartar sauce initiative, which sounds like the kind of moronic suggestion he would make in lieu of an actual constructive one (see his candy machine talk in "Burns Verkaufen der Kraftwerk"), but it's a sincere observation which stems from his being in touch with the needs of his fellow workers in a way that the other higher-ups are clearly not. Homer knows how to make the lower employees feel happy and valued because in his heart he is still one of them, so maybe Smithers should cut him some slack. Is Homer the classically clueless simpleton who, much like Chance the gardener, is able to bumble his way through good fortune for a while because the rest of the world sees exactly what it wants to see, or does Karl see something in Homer which Homer himself has underestimated? In his final scene, Karl assumes the role of Glinda the Good Witch, his ultimate goal being to convince Homer that it wasn't his hair, but his self-belief which enabled him to get as far as he has. It's such a powerful, moving moment that every time I see it I genuinely want to believe it, and there's an extent to which, as much as I love this episode, I have to begrudge it for proceeding to shatter my illusions so harshly. Actually, I think that Karl is entirely correct when he tells Homer that he has the kind of potential that could go far in life if he's willing to follow it through. The part that Karl gets wrong is that the rest of the world, basically, is petty, shallow and nowhere near as open and wonderful as he. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how thoroughly Homer believes in himself, or how much he genuinely has to offer as an executive. The world will not take him seriously because he doesn't have hair, and that's that, apparently.

"Simpson and Delilah" ends on a thoroughly bleak note, which Burns' rare show of empathy (he demotes Homer from the role of junior executive but stops short of firing him because he's been through this whole hair loss thing himself) and Marge's final consoling words only partially relieve the sting of. Comfort is sought yet again in the reaffirmation of the status quo, which is as stifling as it is reassuring. Homer laments that he's once again stuck in his dead-end job and can't give his kids everything he's promised them, but Marge reassures him that they will get by and that the kids won't hold it against him forever. Above all, she loves him whether he has hair or not. We fade out with a reprise of the singing telegram's ditty from earlier, this time performed by Marge to Homer. Marge gets to reaffirm their relationship as the bedrock upon which he can always depend, but in a way this is also serves as Karl's parting message of alleviation to Homer. After all, Marge is, unbeknownst to herself, reiterating the same words that Karl had previously delivered indirectly to Homer, via the telegram and ostensibly to Marge, as a gesture of his own love and affections. Now Marge, forever the unwitting proxy in the middle, gets to recite these very words back to Homer on Karl's behalf. The sense of doting adoration between two males ultimately endures, albeit through the safe trappings of a heterosexual marriage. Ah well, baby steps, people. This was 1990 after all.

As an epilogue, I'd note that The Simpsons has frequently been ahead of the pack when it comes to queer representation in a mainstream sitcom, even if some of those efforts inevitably look a little timid and dated now. In addition to "Simpson and Delilah", the Season 8 episode "Homer's Phobia", featuring the legendary Pope of Trash John Waters, netted a ton of praise for its upfront exploration of the subject in 1997. In recent years, however, the show's long-running depiction of Smithers' sexuality has come under scrutiny, in that it's another characteristically 1990s gag that the series has succeeded in preserving in amber for well into the 2010s (albeit with less publicity than the Apu controversy). Back in the 90s, this kind of oblique, wink-wink nudge-nudge method of incorporating a LGBT character was seen as the way to go, but the world has moved on and nowadays it seems regressive for Smithers to be perpetually stuck in the closet. In fairness, this is something that the show has attempted to address, chiefly in the Season 27 episode, "The Burns Cage", in which Smithers finally gets to come out.

Before I sign off, I'd like to share another observation I have about "Life on The Fast Lane". There's a scene where Marge and Jacques caress one another's hands above the ball return system and their balls roll together like they're kissing. It's an obvious visual metaphor for where Marge and Jacques' throbbing biological urges are pulling them. Except that Marge's ball has Homer's name engraved on it, and earlier on in the episode, the ball was quite plainly used as a metaphor for Homer himself. So I just can't shake from my head the notion that that's actually a visual metaphor for Homer kissing Jacques. Well then, that's all the evidence I need. Homer confirmed gay after all!

* When you think about it, that must have been one heck of an awkward game for the female Home-Wreckers, which is possibly why they fared so badly against the Pin Pals. Although Kashmir's reaction would suggest that the loss was Jacques' fault.

Saturday 23 March 2019

The World's Most Horrifying Advertising Animals #12: Southern Comfort Gator (Wild Bill)


When I look back, I realise that quite a high proportion of my childhood nightmares would have been inspired by the huge advertising billboard which stood adjacent to my school and barraged my fragile young mind with no end of mind-bending imagery across the years, mostly promotions for drink and cigarettes, along with the occasional car ad featuring a scantily clad woman. This was back in the day where you were still allowed to advertise cigarettes using static images on billboards and in magazines but you weren't actually allowed to show anyone doing the dirty deed, resulting in a whole bunch of ads with some serious abstract shit going on. Beneath that slew of non-stop confusion was the message that cigarettes and alcohol were awesome and desirable, carefully positioned where flocks of children emerging fresh from the schoolyard couldn't possibly miss them. It's only with hindsight that I realise just how questionable the whole thing was.

One of the last ads I recall seeing on that billboard, before my tenure at that school came to a close, was an advert for Southern Comfort liqueur, featuring a burly-looking bloke sprawled across a porch with a gator in his arms, and the slogan, "Next door they used to have a poodle." Naive kid that I was, I assumed that the "they" from next door referred to man in the image, the implication being that he and his household had replaced their poodle with an alligator because drinking Southern Comfort had made them go a bit funny. Or maybe I knew all too well what had happened to that poodle next door and didn't like to acknowledge it. "What do you think became of the poodle?" I recall asking my mother, presumably in a desperate bid for reassurance. "Hmm, I think the alligator ate it," she said, dashing all of my illusions in one fell swoop. Oh jeez.

The gator ad was from the "Southerners Have Their Own Rules" campaign developed by Court Burkitt and Company in the mid-90s. I believe the idea was to take all of the negative stereotypes associated with people in the southern States and remodel them into something suggesting character, quirkiness and unapologetic individuality. So if you see a bedraggled-looking yokel wading through the wetlands and exclaiming, "When I'm not in the swamp, I'm in the lake! When, I'm not in the lake, I'm in the swamp!", it's to be taken as the mark of a free spirit, and not the kind of shadowy figure you want to keep paddling away from pronto the next time you and your friends are kayaking down the river. Still, the campaign had a decidedly warped flavour that ramped those eccentricities up to vaguely grotesque, even frightening degrees. After all, the clash of ideals in the implied showdown between alligator and poodle could hardly be starker - a poodle suggests daintiness, domestication and continental class, whereas a gator is the very epitome of formidable, untamed aggression. Thus, we have the championing of the demolition of niceties and social graces in favour letting your dark, brutish underbelly hang out without inhibition, which I suppose is an accurate enough summary of the effect that alcohol has upon the brain.

A TV ad followed in 1998, featuring more scenes of our eccentric southerner wrangling his unusual pet. The Hall of Advertising channel over on YouTube identifies this ad as "Wild Bill", and I'm going to assume that that's the name of the man, not the gator. The punchline of the TV ad is exactly the same as on the billboard, only the joke is expanded somewhat so that the gator's palate also encompasses such delicacies as hamsters, rabbits and fish (all pets commonly kept by children, I might note). The TV ad managed the impressive feat of being even more unsettling than its billboard counterpart, what with the eerie, isolated stillness that frames Bill's miniature monologue, and the semi-documentary style matched with the vaguely illusory qualities of the black and white visuals. Bill has the individuality aspect of the campaign down when he concedes that his reptilian chum is "not everybody's idea of a pet. But of course I'm not everybody." Thank Heaven for that, for Bill is clearly the neighbour from Hell, if he's willing to let his gator rampage all over the place and devour the other local pets. Anybody want to write a sequel about the day in which a disgruntled former poodle owner strolled into town dolled up in a pair of alligator-skin boots?

Wednesday 20 March 2019

Susan's House (Eels)


1997 in music may be predominantly remembered as the year in which the Britpop bubble finally burst (thanks to the less than stellar reception of Oasis's third album Be Here Now), and as the last year of the Spice Girls' streak of pop invincibility (before Geri Halliwell's departure from the band the following May) but I have to admit that I wasn't paying attention to any of that. I was still a snot-nosed kid at the time, largely indifferent to the music press, and my 1997 was defined overwhelmingly by two releases, both of which simultaneously fascinated and unsettled me without me ever quite being able to pinpoint why. The first was "Your Woman", a classic slice of gender-bending indie pop from British-Indian techno artist Jyoti Prakash Mishra (better known by his act name, White Town). The second was "Susan's House" by Californian alternative rock band Eels, aka that song melding a creepy spoken word monologue about social breakdown and despair with an incongruously elegant piano melody (sampled from Gladys Knight and The Pips' "Love Finds Its Own Way"). Whenever it started playing on the radio I would feel equal parts dread and excitement - dread because so much about the song frankly terrified me (the robotic monotone of the protagonist's running commentary, that bizarre interlude in which the song halts abruptly to allow a non-sequitur cheer and followed by an equally non-sequitur "wow!") and excitement because, good grief, was that piano melody pretty, and the singer's intermittent yearning for that mysterious Susan sounded so haunting and plaintive to my tender ears. I went out and bought the CD single, despite the cover art (black and white images of a young girl doing innocent young girl things like cradling plush toys and picking flowers, except she had a miniature house where her head should be) spooking the hell out of me. For a long time, it constituted the entirety of my experience with Eels, for it took me several years to delve any further into the band's discography, and in the interim, it just sat there, an oddity without context. With hindsight, I suspect the song touched such a nerve with me because it spoke subconsciously to my own pre-teen anxieties and uncertainties at the time. I didn't realise it, but Eels had given me a perfectly gift-wrapped anthem for traversing the rocky road from childhood into adolescence. The road ahead was about to get weird and frightening, and this song knew all about weird and frightening roads.

Despite the deceptive title, "Susan's House" is about the journey rather than the destination, and we fade out with the narrator still not having arrived at the titular location. Likewise, we never learn who Susan is, just that she appears to live in, or adjacent to, a bad neighbourhood, where arson, murder and drug dealing are a facet of everyday existence, and that the protagonist sees her as diametrically opposed to all of the hurt and sorrow he has to wade through in order to reach her. Susan did have a real-life muse - Eels frontman Mark Oliver Everett (better known as E) has confirmed that she was inspired by a girl he knew at the time, and that "Beautiful Freak", the title track from the song's album of origin, was likewise about this Susan. The road to Susan's house is simultaneously beleaguered by the ghosts of a troubled past and a terminated future, as reflected in the mentally ill homeless woman still haunted by the destruction of her house three years ago and the dead boy lying on the pavement outside a donut shop. There's also the kid who attempts to sell the protagonist crack and the old couple arguing inside The Queen Bee (hardly a vision of aging gracefully; the reference to the "sick fluorescent light shimmering on their skin" makes them sound almost diseased). I note that all of the people the protagonist encounters are either the young or the elderly, which begs the question as to where all of the adults who'd fall between are in all of this? In their living rooms watching Baywatch, I suppose.

It's in the final verse, where the protagonist encounters a teenage girl (apparently not older than seventeen) en route to the local 7-Eleven with a baby in tow, that the song takes a somewhat sour turn, shifting from haunting desolation into something mildly disdainful. The protagonist is clearly troubled by the thought of the girl being a parent at such a young age, and attempts to reassure himself, unsuccessfully, that the she and the baby are in fact siblings. In some respects, this portion of the song seems quite quaint from a contemporary perspective, in that seventeen hardly registers as the most shocking age at which to infer teen pregnancy (I'm sure you could go a lot lower), but more bothersome is that this is the only point in which the protagonist conveys anything resembling moral superiority to any of the people he passes. Whereas he does appear to have a genuine sympathy for the crazy homeless lady and fifteen-year-old murder victim from the earlier verses, here there's the vaguest inkling of contempt seeping into his commentary. The red popsicle brandished by the teenage mother is blatantly intended to convey immaturity, a reminder that she is still essentially a kid herself, but unlike the other characters encountered, there's not really a sense that these two are suffering in any way from their predicament. E simply gives us the image of a seventeen-year-old girl with a baby and proceeds to play upon our worst prejudices regarding teen parents. On that note, what are we to make of the monologue's closing line, "And I keep walking"? This line is repeated for emphasis, suggesting that we are intended to pay particular heed to it. There's a definite air of the protagonist turning a blind eye and purposely choosing not to get involved in any of the problems he happens across, either because he feels powerless to change them or he simply doesn't care to get his hands dirty (I've met at least one person who believes that the protagonist is the father of the girl's child, hence why he is so keen to keep moving, but I have to say that I doubt it, since he plainly doesn't know her from Adam). At any rate, he sees himself as a foreigner in this hotbed of coke, Baywatch and adolescent sex and is looking to remove himself from it as quickly as possible.

As a kid, I remember being strangely convinced that this guy never actually reaches Susan's house. Between you and me, I'm not convinced that there even is a Susan (the fact that she had a real-life muse notwithstanding). Rather, I suspect our protagonist is fated to keep wandering through this urban wasteland ad infinitum, desperately yearning for some kind of release or redemption to reveal itself - hence, the final line "And I keep walking". He could be trekking down this dark road for a while yet. The song struck me as being simply too eerie and pessimistic to warrant a happy ending, no matter how beautifully beguiling that piano hook was. But perhaps the piano hook itself acts as a clue as to the overall hopelessness of the situation; if we look to the lyrics of "Love Finds It's Own Way", we'll see a song that describes a couple whose relationship has lived through serious hardship, which is likened to a road "paved with tears and pain." The possibility of becoming lost or stranded on this road was entirely real ("If it hadn't been for your believin', we might still be stumblin' in the dark"), but we are assured that the redemptive power of love is strong enough to overcome all obstacles ("Love finds its own way, it needs no guiding light"). In some respects, "Susan's House" plays like an inversion on this very scenario - the protagonist is a lost soul still stumbling in the dark by the end of the song, and his faith in the titular Susan, while undeniably sweet, is hinted to be somewhat misplaced. After all, there's a troubling naivety in his presumption that making it to Susan's house will somehow make all of this hardship go away ("make it right", in his words). Strip back all of the elegance and we are left with the half-impassive laments of a restless nomad who sees himself as apart from this world and stays largely detached from the harrowing scenery he passes (the most emotion he expresses is in describing the indignities inflicted on the young man's corpse by paramedics). Does love find its own way? Perhaps, but "Susan's House" presents an unsettling vision of what gets left behind on the way in question.

Saturday 16 March 2019

The World's Most Horrifying Advertising Animals #11: Madness Maggots (Guinness)


If you found the whole idea of a man who dreams of being a squirrel (or a squirrel who dreams of being a man) to be a little out there, then try this one for size: a bunch of humans on vacation who dream about being maggots (or maggots who dream about being human). A few years prior to our induction into the surrealist delights of Dream Club, Guinness took us on an equally mind-bending excursion which incorporated many of the same themes (among them, humankind's obliviousness to the futility of its own existence), albeit with a darker twist. The matter of The Big Question, The Meaning of Life, is once again evoked amid a slew of confusing sights and bizarrely-placed animal imagery, leading us to a downright incongruous and unsettling conclusion. If the protagonist of "Dream Club" had peered through his peep hole and seen this scenario on the other side, I'm not convinced that laughter would have been his immediate reaction.

"Fishing" was one of the early installments in Ogilvy and Mather's "Not Everything in Black and White Makes Sense" campaign from 1996, a series of ads designed to boost the brand's standing among young adults by emphasising the odd and unexpected. The sixty-second spot consists of numerous images showing hyperactive humans engaged in a variety of leisure pursuits - sunbathing, ballroom dancing and golfing - which are intermittently contrasted with images of maggots squirming away in a gigantic writhing mass. In the final moments, the ad takes an unexpectedly peaceful turn, switching to the silhouette of a lone angler perched stoically beside a lake. We cut once again to the maggots, revealed to be the contents of the angler's bait box. The stinger being that all of humanity are just maggots in a bucket, waiting to be sacrificed in God's great fishing expedition? Have I got this one right?

In the absence of narration, our vital indicator in making sense of this baffling succession of images is in the closing quotation from the poet Spike Milligan: "Fishing is complete and utter madness." Obviously, there's tremendous irony in how the madcap frenzy of those earlier sequences compares to the Zen-like mindfulness of angler, the calming splendour of the natural world against the cartoon-like artificiality of the preceding environs. So what makes the angler the madman of the equation? Is it a simple matter of his non-conformity, a solitary figure far-removed from the masses who have flocked to those gruesomely overcrowded beaches and golf courses? The only conspicuous hint of "madness" in the final sequence occurs in the momentary shot of the maggots, a jarring callback to the franticness of the preceding images. As such, it seems reasonable to suppose that the answer should lie with the ad's animal element. Namely, it's not the angler who's mad but the maggots. And the maggot people.

On the whole, maggots are not a critter that tend to feature often in advertising, much less for any kind of edible product, given their association with death and decay (it's a gruesome job but somebody's got to do it). Viewers would generally agree that, as a species, they rather lack the majesty of horses and the appealing quirkiness of squirrels. Their continual presence throughout the ad is clearly intended to make us every bit as squirmy, a means of magnifying the grotesqueness of the human activity on display. The advert's method of repeatedly juxtaposing the frantic movements of the leisure-seeking humans with the grisliness of the maggots has the effect of making the angler, shown predominantly in silhouette form, seem all the more graceful and god-like by comparison, but it is also intended to create a disturbing connection between the humans in the earlier sequences and the the maggots glimpsed toward the end, suggesting that the real madness is lurking right beneath the surface of this apparent tranquility. After all, the maggots do not exactly have a positive fate ahead of them, and their constant squirming does little to avert this. I guess this is where God's great fishing expedition comes in. The hectic aimlessness of the humans' own pursuits is reflected in the queasy, congested writhing of the maggots, giving us the impression of two worlds that are equally oblivious and powerless in the greater scheme, and whose only recourse, in both cases, is to wriggle itself senseless. So eat, drink and be merry, because tomorrow you're on the hook.

Thursday 14 March 2019

The World's Most Horrifying Advertising Animals #10: Dream Club Squirrels (Guinness)


There came a time, around the mid to late 1990s, when Guinness, Ireland's favourite brand of draught stout, decided to get weirdly arty with their UK advertising, generating a slew of TV ads that ranged from the strangely beautiful to the flat-out nightmarish (often at the same time). What with all the human maggots squirming around your holiday camps, the tigers menacing your chicken coops and the fishes making off with your bicycles, it was a confusing time to be alive and to be tuning into Frasier. This assortment of surreal delights had its genesis in the desire to make the brand more appealing to younger adults, who were largely dismissing the stout as the drink of their parents' generation. (Guinness weren't the only brand to have such an epiphany at around this time and to traverse the WTF route in the hopes of perplexing the younger demographic into submission - Levi's jeans tried their hand at being purposely odd and confusing across the summer of 98, with some freakishly misguided results.)

The first phase of this new, mind-bending look for Guinness was the "Not Everything in Black and White Makes Sense" campaign, developed by Ogilvy & Mather in 1996, a series of ads filmed in black and white that used surreal and unnerving imagery in order to confront the viewer with the unexpected. The most famous ad of the "Black and White" campaign is, ironically, the one that never aired. Entitled "Men and Women Shouldn't Live Together" (based on a quote by actress Diana Dors), it offered a cunning play on gender archetypes, chronicling the morning routine of a slovenly young businessman, and his fastidious partner's never-ending endeavors to clean up around him, revealing only in the closing moments that the two are a gay couple. Although the ad seems ridiculously innocuous by contemporary standards, the 90s were a vastly different world, and LGBT issues were still regarded as taboo by a lot of the mainstream media. For an ad like this to have run in 1996 would have been radical as hell (one man even gives the other an affectionate peck on the cheek, making it plain that they are indeed lovers and not just housemates), and Guinness proved that they were simply not that cutting edge, losing their nerve and ultimately declining to air the ad (leaving the gate wide open for Impulse deodorant to claim the first depiction of a gay couple in a mainstream British advert two years later, with the ad "Chance Encounter").

Next up was the "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait" campaign by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, which many would argue peaked in 1999 with "Surfer", an ad likening the extended amount of time it takes to pour a pint of Guinness from the tap (119.5 seconds, according to "Swimblack", an earlier ad from the same campaign) to a surfer waiting on a beach in Hawaii in anticipation of that perfect wave. With its mix of dazzling visuals (inspired by the painting "Neptune's Horses" by Walter Crane, the waves manifested as a fleet of galloping white horses) and a poetic, strangely haunting narration from Louis Mellis, "Surfer" achieved enormous acclaim and was voted the greatest television ad of all time in a poll conducted by Channel 4 and The Sunday Times in 2002 (of course, Channel  did a lot of these "100 Greatest" polls throughout the decade and they tended to be much the same mixture of flavours of the month and 1970s nostalgia). By comparison, campaign's final installment, "Dream Club", which centred around a crowd of bar patrons waiting for an ambitiously visionary dreamer to wake up with his latest epiphany, was a relative flop, generating little interest and failing to significantly boost Guinness sales figures during its run in the spring of 2001. Both ads were directed by Jonathan Glazer (who went on to direct the 2013 feature film Under The Skin, starring Scarlett Johansson) and were concocted from relatively similar ingredients - "Dream Club" adhered to the brand's then-cemented fetish for black and white oddities, using the same combination of uncanny animal imagery and gravelly narration that made "Surfer" such a runaway smash. And yet the two ads arrive at what seem like polar opposite conclusions. One ad celebrates life's endeavours, championing the fortitude of those who are willing to pursue their dreams and rise to the challenge of the elements, while the other ends with its protagonist laughing derisively at the very futility of human existence. One is positively stirring, the other is almost deliberately alienating.

On that note, there's little mystery to me as to why "Dream Club" resonated with the public so poorly compared to "Surfer". "Surfer" is a perfectly paced adrenaline-builder that pours its all into promoting empathy with its protagonist, so that the viewer feels as if they too are being transported into those tumultuous waves along with him. Whereas the 1999 ad handles its central concept with a heady degree of gravitas, "Dream Club" is considerably lighter and wackier in tone. And while the visual centrepiece of "Surfer" - those prancing aqua ponies - provides a powerful metaphor for the hero's struggle in battling the forces of nature, the animal element in "Dream Club" - a tavern of stout-swigging sciurines - plays like a bizarre non-sequitur, a throwaway interlude that has no bearing on the ad's final pay-off. Vexing and irreverent, "Dream Club" is an easy ad to dismiss as a lot of madcap visual weirdness with no deeper substance behind the confusion and technical spice. And yet, it is an ad about a man who dreams of being a squirrel. Or a squirrel who dreams of being a man. One of the two. And ultimately, that's too wickedly, deliciously absurdist for me to ignore. Hence, I'm compelled to go the unpopular route and bat for "Dream Club" as being, if not the objectively better of the two, then certainly the more fascinating and inventive, and meriting leagues more admiration than it received at the dawn of the 00s. And perhaps there's a charm and a flair in its unapologetic zaniness. If "Surfer" ever struck you as being a tad too self-important, then "Dream Club" should be right up your alley.

The hero of "Dream Club", our narrator informs us, is in the business of seeking answers to the questions of fellow bar patrons by embarking on metaphysical adventures in his dreams. Tonight, he has been taxed with "The Big Question" - that most quintessential of all absurdities, The Meaning of Life. Actually, I'm not convinced that this aspect of the ad wasn't also a factor in why "Dream Club" failed to resonate with viewers - despite the all-out weirdness-baiting of the premise, there's an air of predictability in how it will ultimately play out. We're already savvy enough to know that whatever our hero glimpses through the hole in the wall will not be revealed to us. Meaning of Life gags where the answer is obscured or ridiculously mundane were already old hat by 2001 - obviously, Douglas Adams wrote the ultimate example of such a gag in The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, and everything since has been little more than an ersatz variation on that. The closing punchline of "Dream Club" is not, at first glance, a remarkably innovative one. In the end, I look to those eerily non-sequitur squirrels to provide clues as to the real takeaway for this ad.

The anthropomorphic squirrels of "Dream Club" are its single greatest puzzle. Their inclusion in the ad might strike one as being just a little too random, until you notice that they feature in the backdrop of the regular bar scenes as static taxidermy jobs. The moment in which the hero slips into unconsciousness beside a pint of Guinness, only for his squirrel counterpart to appear and to fly suddenly into consciousness, comes as a startling interruption that threatens to off-set our perception of the ad entirely. This most unexpected of turns could easily have provided the punchline in itself, only the protagonist's quest immediately resumes and leads to a climactic struggle as he is tasked with ascending a mountain made up of frantic human bodies, a set-piece that I assume was devised in order to replicate some of the cinematic qualities of "Surfer". The squirrel interlude introduces a curious paradox, whereby the central squirrel reels in horror at having experienced, by way of his own dreams, the absurdity that is being human, while also holding up a borderline grotesque mirror to the behaviour of the humans with his distinctly anthropomorphic stout-swigging. We see ourselves in a squirrel who is visibly shaken at having just seen himself at us, and who expresses his rejection using recognisably human traits. Despite these ludicrous contradictions, the squirrel represents a fleeting moment of clarity and awakening, before the human narrative starts up once again and we are lost amid the sheer chaos of the sea frantic souls clamouring for an answer to a question that most likely doesn't have one. If our tendency to fixate on such self-imposed absurdities as The Meaning of Life is what makes us human, then we are a ridiculous species indeed, as is suggested elsewhere in the ad with the image of a horse rolling on its back as if laughing uproariously at the futility of the humans' endeavours.

"Dream Club" concludes with our hero making it to the top of the pile, peering through the hole and erupting with fits of laughter. Because of course, life is a tremendous joke with a punchline that is perpetually hidden from its participants. Yet the final image is unsettling - we see legions of people gathered outside the bar in stony-faced silence, waiting passively for an answer to this eternal head-scratcher while the hero effectively laughs at their expense. They wind up the butt of a gag that they have no means of comprehending. Unlike "Surfer", which concluded with the viewer sharing in the hero's moment of triumph, "Dream Club" ends with the viewer being exiled out into the cold with the other unenlightened onlookers; despite the slogan's assurances that "Good Things Come To Those Who Wait", we exit the ad none the wiser. The ad's closing line, "Welcome To Dream Land", uttered just as we are expelled into the streets outside, would imply that this is where the actual dreaming takes place, only in place of madcap visual zaniness, we simply get a sea of expressionless inertia, the futility of holding out in vain for an answer that will most assuredly not be coming.

Saturday 9 March 2019

The Eight Stages of Domestic Upheaval (aka Welcome To Stage 3: Fear!)


Last time, I took an in-depth look at "Life on The Fast Lane", an episode from early on in The Simpsons' run that I seriously cannot say enough good things about. As noted, what I find particularly praiseworthy about this episode (other than Albert Brooks' performance as seductive French bowling instructor Jacques) is its tremendous trust in the power of understatement. It takes a devastating situation (Homer and Marge's marriage facing an uncertain future, Marge feeling alienated by her husband and falling in love with another man) and purposely avoids any overt vocalisation from either party about the state of affairs, preferring instead to let the visible, hushed hurt in the characters' actions speak for itself. The closest we get to any really explicit acknowledgement of the impending marital breakdown occurs during a conversation between Bart and Lisa, when the latter remarks that children witnessing domestic upheaval are fated to go through eight separate stages in coming to terms with their emotional disruption. She identifies herself as being at stage 3, Fear, and Bart at stage 2, Denial (which he immediately refutes). Later in the episode, Bart becomes distressed when he notices that his father has become a depressive, unresponsive wreck, at which point Lisa congratulates Bart for moving up a stage but admits that she is already too mired in stage 5, Self-Pity, to know what to do. Ironically, for the character who's the most upfront about the direness of the situation, Lisa's perspective on events is in many respects the most mysterious. Clearly, she has some deeper insight as to where she sees things as headed for Marge and Homer and what this will mean for herself, Bart and Maggie, which she only partially shares with her brother, and by extension the viewers. Specifically, Lisa tells us that there are eight stages to the process, yet she only identifies three. This begs the obvious question, what does the rest of her emotional chart look like?

Fortunately, we can take logical stabs at filling in the gaps, given that Lisa's eight-stage model comes across as a parody of the Kübler-Ross model, more commonly known as the Five Stages of Grief. Fear and Self-Pity do not feature in this model, but Denial does. Based on the writings of Swiss psychologist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, who actually posited the model as a framework for how terminally ill patients processed and coped with their diagnosis, it tells us that there are five stages to the grieving process: Denial, Anger, Depression, Searching/Bargaining and finally Acceptance. I've mentioned the Kübler-Ross model a few times previously whenever I've gone into my "Children's Lessons in Mortality" series. Something I have not acknowledged about the Kübler-Ross model, however, is that it's basically garbage. Scientifically, it holds about as much weight as Wilson Bryan Key and his demented ramblings about subliminal seduction. Kübler-Ross herself has acknowledged that her work has been misinterpreted and misapplied, and does not actually provide an apt reflection of how the bereavement process works. The model has certainly had a major influence on how the public perceives the grieving process, so that distinctive examples of the five different stages can be observed in representations of grief in everything from an episode of Alvin and The Chipmunks to the feature film The Land Before Time. The assimilation of the Kübler-Ross model into popular consciousness is an example of the public appropriating psychological concepts according to how they believe psychology should work, as opposed to how it does. In other words, it's pop psychology.

I can understand the appeal of the Kübler-Ross model. Bereavement is a painful, messy process, so many take comfort in the belief that there's a clear structure to it all and in the promise of light at the end of the tunnel. On the other hand, grief is such a difficult, intensely personal experience that I'm not convinced everybody appreciates having their pain whittled down into five easily comparmentalised stages, hence the mistrust and resentment of the model that's occasionally manifested in Groening's creations (for another, more straightforward example, see the Season 2 episode "One Fish, Two Fish, Blowfish, Blue Fish"). Going off the Kübler-Ross model, we can deduce that stage 4, which Lisa has apparently already worked her way through off of screen, is probably Anger. Stages 6 and 7 would likely be Depression and Searching/Bargaining, with Acceptance rounding things off at stage 8. The real puzzle, as far as I'm concerned, is what on earth stage 1 could be, if Denial is only stage 2. What could possibly precede Denial in the grieving process?

The answer to that question might actually lie in one of Groening's earlier projects, a Life in Hell comic first published in 1988, which was later reprinted in the Life in Hell compilation book Childhood Is Hell. Entitled "D-I-V-O-R-S-E", the strip took a sardonic look at the emotional traumas associated with watching one's parents' marriage disintegrate before one's eyes. Among the goodies included is "The 12 Stages of Divorce For Kids", a blatant and downright savage lampooning of the Kübler-Ross model. Perhaps this is an in-joke on the part of the Simpsons writers and this is indeed what Lisa is referring to when she says she's read about what happens to kids whose parents no longer love and cherish each other. It would be an interesting twist if Lisa was basing her assessment of the situation on a Life in Hell comic, of all things. Obviously, the two models aren't a brilliant match, as according the model proposed in Life in Hell there are no less than twelve stages to the process, but Denial and Fear are in there at stages 2 and 3, respectively, and Self-Pity does feature, albeit at stage 8 rather than stage 5. And at stage 1? Disbelief. At first, I wasn't entirely clear on how this would differ from Denial, although after some thought, I presume that Disbelief would be the sincere assumption that nothing is really wrong, whereas Denial refers to a state where, intellectually, you know exactly what you're up against but are still attempting to shield yourself emotionally.

Here's our full list of stages, according to Life in Hell:

1. Disbelief
2. Denial
3. Fear
4. Anger
5. Bargaining
6. Shame
7. Depression
8. Self-Pity
9. Out-Of-Body Experience
10. Empty Feeling
11. Looking Ahead
12. Secret Hope

The punchline to Groening's gag is of course that Acceptance, the aspect of the Kübler-Ross model that gives people hope that life does indeed go on, never actually comes. The closest we get is stage 11, Looking Ahead, which is accompanied by the image of a cartoon cat musing that, "Well, life goes on, I guess. Maybe. I think." The final stage, Secret Hope, would appear to belie the place of Acceptance altogether, for it shows a cartoon canine noting that his aged parents are standing side by side, and emitting the half-demented screech, "You got back together again!!!" In typical Life in Hell fashion, the strip assures us that emotional resilience is a sham, that our fragile young psyches absorb whatever emotional traumas touch us like a sponge and that the fall-out continues to haunt us long into adulthood. In that sense, it functions as a wonderful anecdote to the facileness of popular models such as the Kübler-Ross model (which, when you strip it right down, amounts to little more than a shrug and a "You'll get over it"). Whatever awaits at the final stage in Lisa's model, she seems to be deriving no comfort from it in the present, her dejected reaction suggesting that she has resigned herself to the role of a passive observer who can only sit back and let the whole unpleasant process take its course. I do not blame her for her moroseness. When you're in the midst of something as emotionally scarring as witnessing your every last shred of domestic stability fall apart, there are are few things more damning that anyone can tell you than "Life goes on." Isn't that precisely what you're afraid of?

Tuesday 5 March 2019

Life on The Fast Lane (aka Marge's Choice)


I recently came across a wonderful quote from Tippi Hedren: "I don’t ever deal with age or any particular age, I never have. I don’t think I ever will...I feel just as young as I did when I was, you know, doing the films and whatever. I refuse to acknowledge it, frankly.” I think that's a great outlook. You can't stop the passage of time, so be like Tippi and don't let it define you. I intend to follow Tippi's advice...a little later on down the line. Right now I really do need to make a thing about the fact that I just turned 34. Why does that strike me as such a milestone? Probably because it's the same age that Marge Simpson turned in the series' ninth episode, "Life on The Fast Lane" (7G11), which first aired on March 18th 1990. I'm officially as old as Marge Simpson. Which is doubly surreal given that The Simpsons has been around for almost as long as my lifetime. When I first saw this episode, 34 would have seemed too far into the future to even bear thinking about. To quote Edna Krabappel, where does the time go?

Viewers are often surprised, and a little freaked out, to learn that Homer and Marge are as young as they are. For a while, Homer's age was officially given as 36, although this was upped to 38 by the Season 8 episode "The Homer They Fall". For me, this never really came as much of a revelation; mid to late 30s is honestly where I would peg Homer and Marge (sure, Homer doesn't exactly look as if he's in the prime of his life, but then that's kind of the joke - he isn't exactly aging gracefully due to his extreme lack of self-care). No, the one that I really can't get my head around is Jay Sherman from The Critic (and The Simpsons episode "A Star Is Burns"), who is professedly 36. If Jay's 36 then I'm the King of Siam. Sorry, but I cannot accept that character as being any younger than his early-mid-40s. The first time he referred to himself as 36 I laughed out loud because I figured he couldn't possibly be serious. Then we had the episode where he suspects Doris of being his biological mother, and the figure 36 is apparently confirmed as genuine (if he's serious about finding his birth parents, then you'd think he'd at least have to be truthful about that much). Actually, I suspect that Jay was originally conceived as being a lot older, only they lowered his age in the hopes of making him more relatable to the young adult crowd they were primarily courting - which was all in vain because the series utterly bombed with that demographic (a fact the show's producers are entirely upfront about in the DVD commentaries).

Marge Simpson is a great character. That much I do not consider open to debate. I'd even go so far as to posit that she's the most underrated character in the entire series. To an extent, she's the kind of character that I think you have to grow into. When you're a kid, odds are that you'll respond to Homer's loud, goofy antics and, depending on what kind of a tyke you are, you might relate either to Bart's anarchic energy or to Lisa's quiet precociousness. Marge, though, works at perhaps too subtle and understated a level to hold your attention when you're of the sugar cereal set. Her humour is too muted, her characterisation too unassumingly pathos-driven. To put it bluntly, I think to have experienced some of life's crushing disappointments firsthand before you can truly identify with Marge. She's a character who's clearly suffered a ton of disillusionment, and is intermittently cracking from the strain of having to keep on smiling through it all. Of course, to the rest of the Simpsons clan, Marge is utterly indispensable. To use a tired metaphor, she is the emotional glue holding her family together; there's no doubt that she loves her husband and kids and would do anything for them. But at the same time, it's painfully obvious that Marge's life isn't very fulfilling and that her younger self had dreams, ambitions and aspirations that haven't been realised. She puts her heart and soul into her chaotic family's upkeep, often without thanks or acknowledgement. And she doesn't have much of an outlet outside of her family, having no regular employment and only the vaguest semblance of a social life. Her life as a wife, mother and homemaker effectively defines her, yet it's clear that Marge longs to be something more. In some respects, her plight echoes that of her older daughter Lisa - both are sad, misunderstood and frequently ignored by their peers. Only Lisa is eight years old and still has her life ahead of her, whereas Marge has been around the block and has picked up certain obligations (four of them). Now she's 34 and, as Patty and Selma keenly point out, still has time to turn her life around, if she's willing to ditch Homer.

Certainly, I had to grow older to fully appreciate the brilliance of "Life on The Fast Lane", the first episode to focus specifically on Marge's wishes and feelings. It's such a bitingly understated, adult-orientated drama that I'll confess that found it little more than a snooze as a kid. Now, I consider it to be the second strongest episode of Season 1 ("Krusty Gets Busted" will always be my top choice for obvious reasons) and one of the series' all-time classics. A lot of Simpsons viewers, particularly those raised on the later seasons, are inclined to dismiss the first two seasons or so as "boring". Well, I'm old enough to remember when the first Simpsons episodes were considered cutting edge, a rebellion that it was genuinely exciting to be a part of (even if I was a mite too young to understand what we were rebelling against exactly). Revisiting the first couple of seasons now, I think they hold up just fine, although the tone of the series was obviously quite different back then. Much as the first Ullman shorts suggest a slightly more twisted and surreal cartoon than quickly materialised, so too the earliest episodes in the series proper suggest a more grounded, realistic show based on honest observations about everyday suburban life. "Life on The Fast Lane" in particular lends itself more to drama than comedy; it's far from a humourless experience, but the humour is of a decidedly more subtle, bittersweet nature than would later become customary for the series. John Swartzwelder's script is clearly letting the emotion fuel the story above the gags. The result is an intelligent twenty-two minutes built on carefully crafted characterisation, and its success on the awards front (it netted the series the first of what would be many Emmy victories for Outstanding Animated Program) was very well-deserved. The episode's entrenchment into the modern cultural landscape was confirmed in March 2004, when a cheeky reader wrote into the Dear Abby advice column claiming to be a 34 year old mother of three whose "greedy, selfish, inconsiderate and rude" husband had given her a bowling ball, evidently purchased for his own use, as a birthday present (so flippant was her husband on this point that he'd drilled the holes to fit his own fingers and had even gone so far as to have his name inscribed on it), only she had decided to keep the ball and take up bowling just to spite him, and was now contemplating an affair with her sexy bowling instructor. The column was pulled by the Universal Press Syndicate when a perceptive editor noticed that the scenario bore a striking resemblance to the plot of "Life on The Fast Lane" (too striking to be a coincidence), although a few publications wound up printing it any way. (If you're curious, Abby's advice for Marge was to be entirely honest with her husband about the situation, on the chance it would motivate him to salvage their marriage. More specifically, she suggested that he "might be willing to change back into the man who bowled you over in the first place." I'm not familiar with this Dear Abby, but I'm not sure I'd be inclined to trust the advice of a woman who reduces my marital crisis to such an appalling pun.)

So, "Life in The Fast Lane" opens with Marge turning 34 and Homer presenting her with the most thoughtless gift imaginable, a bowling bowl that has been shamelessly picked out and modified for himself. Out of spite, Marge decides to call Homer's bluff and heads off with her new ball to Barney's Bowl-A-Rama (so called because it was originally intended to be the business of Homer's drinking companion, Barney Gumble, until the writers decided that for Barney to be a successful businessman went beyond all plausibility). Initially, Marge finds herself wildly out of her depth in the world of bowling, but things begin to look up when she encounters Jacques (voice of Albert Brooks, one of my favourite actors/directors), a suave French bowling instructor who offers to coach her at a discount price. Although Marge is nervous about the evident sensuality in Jacques' advances, she comes to terms with the fact that their attraction is mutual and grows ever closer to Jacques, while Homer grows increasingly aware that he and Marge are drifting apart. Jacques is clearly answering a need in Marge that isn't being fulfilled by her marriage to Homer, and not just in his willingness to give gifts that are unambiguously intended for her (in his case a bowling glove perfectly fitted for her own hand, and with her name inscribed on it). Jacques offers a new awakening for Marge, an opportunity to rebuild her life and escape the rut that life with Homer is fast pulling her into. But can Marge really turn her back on the man to whom she's been married for over a decade? The episode climaxes with Marge facing a literal crossroad; one road leads to Homer, to security, stability and the reaffirmation of familial obligations, while the other leads to Jacques, and to something altogether more adventurous, risky and uncertain.

When The Simpsons first debuted, it caused quite a bit of hand-wringing among certain right-leaning circles, who detected an anti-family values subtext to the series (one of the show's most prominent critics was of course the late George H. W. Bush). Much of this early backlash was born of concern that the rebellious, elder-defying Bart, then the show's most popular and heavily-merchandised character, offered a poor role model for impressionable children. Others were turned off by the fact that the Simpsons were such an eccentric unit and seemed entirely at ease with their eccentricities. Certainly, The Simpsons has never depicted family life as being all idyllic and the route to perfect happiness - three out of the original thirteen episodes deal with Homer and Marge's marriage being in a precarious position, the result of what is implied to be years of negligence on Homer's part. "Some Enchanted Evening", which was originally written to be the very first episode, has Marge threatening to leave Homer at the urging of a radio shrink, but there it's used merely as the set-up to the episode, not the central problem in itself. "Homer's Night Out" has Marge temporarily throwing Homer out when a snapshot showing him belly-dancing with a stripper becomes a cult item around Springfield, although that episode is largely sympathetic towards Homer and comes to it from the perspective that his interactions with said stripper, while out of character, were motivated more by euphoria than lust. In this episode, Homer is inexcusably a dick - I mean, I know plenty of people who buy their partners presents they fully intend to use themselves, but I've never encountered any quite so brazen as to have their name inscribed on the item in question. Of course, the inscription later makes the bowling ball the perfect metaphor for Homer himself, when Jacques observes that Marge's fingers are too "slender", "feminine" and "tapered" for the ball she's using and that, "people have senseless attachments to heavy, clumsy things, such as this Homer of yours." Jacques is right, of course. From an outside perspective, Marge's marriage to Homer doesn't make a whole lot of sense - Marge is gentle, intelligent, thoughtful and devoted, whereas Homer is, well, Homer. And yet on some level it does work for them. Like the central relationship from Paul Thomas Anderson's recent Phantom Thread, it's not everyone's cup of tea but it operates in a manner that appears to purposely defy all judgement. It's for this reason that The Simpsons was never quite as radical and subversive as its harshest critics made out - whatever the Simpsons' eccentricities, the family unit is shown to be basically unshakeable, and Homer and Marge always stay together in the end. Such is the paradox of their marriage - we recognise that it's not exactly good for Marge to be with Homer, and yet we can't envision them apart. The fact that Homer and Marge are still married thirty years on has become one of the central symbols of constancy in our increasingly unhinged universe. The world may be going to pieces, but Homer and Marge are still together, so the impending apocalypse can't be too near on the horizon.

Jacques, the desirable devil who could potentially have put an end to that at just the ninth episode, is a strange character. Right from the start, there's an air of unreality to him. In fact, that's pretty much the episode's central gag - with his luscious (albeit wandering) French accent and over-the-top lyricism he seems just a little too cut and pasted right out of an airport romance paperback to be true. Jacques is a perfectly honed stereotype, so that we know right off the bat what kind of trouble is rearing its head. He's every bored housewife's wildest fantasy. But he's also a threat. A threat to Marge and Homer's marriage, a threat to the children's sense of domestic stability, a threat to the show's now-established status quo. He's a complex character because the episode is obligated to tread such a careful middle ground with him. On the one hand, we need to be rooting against this guy. Obviously, we don't actually want Marge to ditch Homer and run off with Jacques, no matter how appealing and how French he is. There is that status quo to be maintained, after all. On the other hand, he has to be basically likeable. We need to understand exactly why Marge would enjoy spending time with this man and why he represents such a refreshing alternative to her inconsiderate oaf of a husband. On the surface, Jacques is everything that Homer isn't - he's handsome, romantic, exotic and articulate. And he and Marge do have a great rapport - take the scene where Jacques resourcefully deflects the prying attentions of resident gossip-vulture Helen Lovejoy (making her debut appearance), who spots Jacques and Marge out in public together and insists on making a scene of it, after which he wittily remarks to Marge, "You have a lovely friend there. Let's hope something runs her over." Jacques is seemingly a cool guy, and yet he remains an enigma throughout, in that the viewer is never really sure if they can trust him. He's blatantly astute enough to read the signs and recognises Marge as a sensitive soul trapped in a bland and unfulfilling marriage, but it's not clear just how pure his own intentions are on this matter. Does he come to Marge with a sincere desire to be her knight in shining armor, or is he just a predatory sleaze slowly and patiently moving in for the kill? The latter is teased, fleetingly, when Jacques barks out an order for onion rings (right after some heavily-charged arousal talk between himself and Marge upon the lanes) and momentarily loses his accent and gentility, suggesting that perhaps the whole French Casanova guise is but a ruse designed to increase his seduction prospects (the episode even opens by warning us to be wary of fake continental products - Bart has purchased his mother a four dollar bottle of "French perfume", which he naively believes to have been imported all the way from Paris). Perhaps he is too good to be true, and Marge is just waiting to have her fantasies ruptured by some disturbing, or at least disappointing reality. Perhaps. The biggest problem with Jacques is that, in the end, he constitutes too much of a risk. He's very much caught up in the heat of the present and never indicates where he sees their relationship heading after his proposed night of passion. Is this all just a fling to him, or could he actually offer Marge a viable future?


"Life on The Fast Lane" has not just one but two sequences which evoke both the stifling predictability but also the warm security of married life. The first occurs at The Signing Sirloin, the gimmicky steakhouse where Patty and Selma have taken Marge for her birthday dinner, at which we see waiters regaling the patrons at adjacent tables through various rites of passage - marriage, pregnancy, then death. The subtle implication is that Marge's life is now very much set in stone and that she has few surprises to look forward to as she sees in birthday after birthday and finally shuffles off this mortal coil. The second, considerably less subtle examples occurs at the climax, where Marge is driving to Jacques' apartment, only to be barraged by images of happy couples, reminding her of the gravity of marital commitment, and of what she could potentially be throwing away if she follows her girlish heart to Jacques. Again, we see couples at all stages in life, from the freshly wed to the gracefully aged, to a couple buried in adjacent tombs at a graveyard (the sequence even goes a step further with this gag and shows us a couple of decomposed skeletons - well, costumes in a fancy dress store - positioned side by side). To ensure that Marge gets the message, each tableau is accompanied by a road sign commanding her to STOP. A divine pinspotter may have placed Marge and Jacques together, but it's obvious which side the universe as a whole ultimately favours in this triangle.

What makes "Life on The Fast Lane" so effective on the drama front is the fact that everybody knows about Marge's pending infidelity. Homer knows, Lisa knows, Bart knows, although he does not care to face up to his knowing right away. The only family member who doesn't seem particularly fussed by the events of this episode is Maggie. When Marge starts spending all her evenings at  the alley and it falls on Homer to provide nightly dinner for the kids (invariably some kind of takeout), the knock-on effect on the overall domestic atmosphere is less disproportionate than in later episodes where Marge is removed from the equation (eg: "Marge in Chains", "$pringfield" and "Bart After Dark", all of which show the household descending into a flat-out wilderness under Homer's guidance). Rather, it happens entirely at the emotional level; there's an obvious disturbance in the status quo, and everyone fears this may be the beginning of the end. What makes it so withering, and so painful to watch, is that nobody can quite bring themselves to the point where they're able to talk about it, a problem best summarised in a line from Bart, who recalls his father once advising him that: "When something's bothering you and you're too stupid to know what to do, just keep your fool mouth shut; at least that way you won't make things worse." "Life on The Fast Lane" is an episode built on unspoken tension - the unspoken sexual tension between Marge and Jacques and the unspoken psychological tension as the family sense their unity subtly disintegrating but feel powerless to stem it. It's in this vast assortment of unsaids that the episode roars with incredible force; I am reminded of the playwright Harold Pinter's observations that there are two kinds of silences: "One where no word is spoken. The other when perhaps a torrent of language is being employed...The speech we hear is an indication of that which we don't hear. It is a necessary avoidance, a violent, sly, anguished or mocking smokescreen which keeps the other in its place." The most obvious example of this occurs in the third act, when Homer makes a sincere attempt to implore Marge to stay with him by complimenting her on her sandwich-making techniques; it's so a mundane a compliment as to seem utterly inept, but it's as articulate as Homer can possibly be under the circumstances. This is the closest that Homer and Marge get to confronting one another about their now unavoidable marital crisis - by now, not only does Homer know, but Marge knows that Homers knows. That this unbearable anguish is conveyed through something as banal as talk of peanut butter and jelly is a testament to just how sharp and intelligent the show's writing was straight from the go. In fact, I struggle to think of a scene in the succeeding seasons that even comes close rivaling this one in the gut-wrenching stakes.

Of the family, Lisa makes the most forward attempt to articulate her concerns, when she confides in Bart her suspicions that the ostensibly wonderful lunches Marge has prepared for them may just be the manifestations of a guilty conscience; Marge is overcompensating because she feels bad about her attraction to Jacques diverting her attention from the family. A running gag from early on in the series was Lisa's tendency to comment on family life from a child's perspective using the jargon of a psychotherapist ("Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" contains another classic example), as if she was consciously anticipating the many years of psychotherapy that awaited her further down the line (the Season 2 episode "Dead Putting Society" even closes on a punchline where Lisa makes this gag in unusually explicit terms). Lisa's sad admission that she's read about this and is well-versed in recognising the signs would imply that she's seen it coming for a while now. Meanwhile, Bart's abruptly aggressive response to his sister's suggestion that he too can read the signs but is in denial would appear to confirm just how deeply affected he is by his new diet of takeout pizza and hoageys; on the surface, he might think that he and Lisa are "making out like bandits", but on an intuitive level he understands that the something in their universe is being tipped dangerously out of whack. Watching the ordinarily too-cool-for-school Bart descend into an unbridled panic when he sees his father collapsing in a barely-responsive, clinically depressed heap is just as troubling, in its way, as Homer's aforementioned peanut butter plea.

If "Life on The Fast Lane" has one real weakness, it's in the inevitably pat conclusion. Obviously, Marge chooses Homer over Jacques, and the final sequence celebrates the reaffirmation of their marital bond with an affectionate tip of the hat to the ending of Taylor Hackford's 1982 film An Officer and a Gentleman (complete with Homer carrying Marge off into the sunset to the strains of Jack Nitzsche's theme, which also provided the basis for the song "Up Where We Belong" by Joe Cocker and Jennifer Warnes). It gives a superficially upbeat closing note to what has otherwise been a melancholic, emotionally trying experience. That's all sweet and lovely, but I'm not a fan of the fact that Jacques receives zero closure in all of this. Given all the time we've spent watching his interactions with Marge grow more and more intimate, I think at the very least he deserved a scene in which Marge formally breaks it off with him, instead of just leaving him hanging like that (I hope that she at least had the courtesy to do this off of screen). I think that this would have been preferable from a narrative perspective, but I suppose it also comes down to the fact that I like Jacques, and I do think that he and Marge would make a great couple in a parallel universe. In this one, it clearly wasn't meant to be. Marge goes the safe route, sticking with the man in whom she's invested more than a decade of her life, over leaping into the abyss with the handsome relative stranger whose devotions have yet to be proven. Jacques gave her a welcome taste of an alternative lifestyle, but ultimately Marge decides that it must stay at the flirtation level, and backs out before she does any irreversible harm to her marriage to Homer. She makes what is unquestionably the right decision for her family, who were going to pieces amid her divided loyalties. But does she make the right decision for herself? It's a question that the ostensibly triumphant ending seems determined not to answer, drowning out all of our lingering queries in so much Jack Nitzche. For now Marge decides that, whatever his failings, she loves her inept oaf of a husband too much to risk hurting him. It's an undeniably sweet conclusion, but maybe there's a degree of resignation in it too (after all, it's not as if things are going to be any better for Marge in subsequent seasons). But that's what makes the final sequence, for all its glibness, so authentically poignant - this is blatantly not a decision that Marge has made lightly, and there's an obvious element of sacrifice on her part. What "Life on The Fast Lane" examines in painstaking detail is the myriad of messy feelings and heartbreak that accompany the breakdown of any long-term relationship, even those that have reached a point where they probably should end. Even if it does take the easy way out, you can't accuse this episode of pulling its punches in that regard.

"Life on The Fast Lane" was revisited in Season 6, as part of a clip show in which the family reminisce on past romances (back then, the series was obligated by the network to produce the occasional clip show, and the churlishly unimaginative title, "Another Simpsons Clip Show", tells us just how delighted the show's staff were at the prospect). I like Marge's admission that the story isn't ideal as it requires you to mentally snip out the fact that she already has a husband (and of course I love her wry observation, when reflecting on the outcome of her borderline affair with Jacques, that "it was just as well I drove down that ironic street"), but Homer's reaction does annoy me, since it implies that he's learning about Jacques for the first time, when "Life on The Fast Lane" itself makes it painfully obvious that he knew what was going on. He saw the glove and put two and two together (that was the whole purpose of the peanut butter and jelly exchange, was it not?). But then of course Homer wasn't quite so dumb back then. Perhaps his reaction is meant to be an indication of just how severely his brain cells had deteriorated in a mere six seasons. As for Jacques, he's made the odd non-speaking cameo since "Life on The Fast Lane", notably in the Season 7 episode "Team Homer", where he competed in the local bowling championships as part of the team The Home-Wreckers (wittily, his teammates consisted of Mindy Simmons, Princess Kashmir and Lurleen Lumpkin, characters who had all threatened to come between Homer and Marge in previous episodes). He also made an appearance in the "Do The Bartman" music video, where he danced with several female Springfieldians, and Karl (Homer's one-time, Harvey Feirstein-voiced personal assistant). But we would never again experience the kind of in-depth intimacy with the character as we do here, and I regret that (although I suppose I should be grateful that my favourite character became a recurring regular; Bob too was originally envisioned as a one-off character, custom-created for the purposes of "Krusty Gets Busted").

Much as Jacques represents a road not taken for Marge, there's an extent to which "Life on The Fast Lane" represents a road not taken for the series as a whole. As The Simpsons developed, it would gradually move away from the kind of drama-driven narrative exemplified here and become a wilder, more gag-orientated show. Would the series have achieved mass popularity if every episode had been as emotionally downbeat as this one? Probably not. Sometimes these sacrifices have to be made. Like Marge, we ultimately can't follow Jacques, although he sure as heck did give us a passionate time while it lasted. And we'll always have brunch.

I ship it.